Market will definitely collapse sooner or later. But nobody knows when. Especially taking into account FED Plunge protection team activities. If is stupid and irresponsible to talk about June crash...
20210424 : Why Grantham Says the Next Crash Will Rival 1929, 2000 by further inflating money not by deflating it. So people who warn regular fold about risks are rare and they harm their own business, if they have any. Profit of doom and gloom are not popular and it is precarious occupation
He suggest that SPACs,Tesla, and bitcoin can serve are canary in the mine as for timing of bubble deflation.
This video is over two months old of course and the the market has continued to set new records. Ray Daleo also issued a warning as did Harry Dent. And market still is going up.
Because of the corona epidemic, investments in real production have dried up and the money has instead flooded the stockmarkets. I guess that if the crisis continues the stockmarket bubble can be kept inflated because the money has nowhere else to go!
electrification, especially in cars is a very long shot and here it is unlear if it make sense to invent int he currest companies involvedas they are in a bubble. Just look at Tesla. electrification, especially in cars is a very long shot and here it is unlear if it make sense to invent int he currest companies involvedas they are in a bubble. Just look at Tesla. ( Jan 22, 2021 , www.youtube.com )
Sometimes it is prudent to stop investing for a while.. And what the author calls savers and investors should properly be called speculators. Petty speculators that serve as the feed for Wall Street sharks.
A pipe bearing the Nord Stream 2 logo at a plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, Feb. 26, 2020. PHOTO: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS Listen to this article 5 minutes 00:00 / 05:07 1x Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. me title= NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP ( Apr 11, 2021 , www.wsj.com )
20210408 : Financial crises get triggered about every 10 years -- Archegos might be right on time by Paul Brandus Paul Brandus Financial crises are never quite the same. During the late 1980s, nearly a third of the nation's savings and loan associations failed, ending with a taxpayer bailout -- in 2021 terms -- of about $265 billion. In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- Financial crises are never quite the same. During the late 1980s, nearly a third of the nation's savings and loan associations failed, ending with a taxpayer bailout -- in 2021 terms -- of about $265 billion. In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). Its reach and operating practices were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that when LTCM failed, "he had never seen anything in his lifetime that compared to the terror" he felt. LTCM was deemed "too big to fail," and he engineered a bailout by 14 major U.S. financial institutions. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. ( www.advisorperspectives.com )
20210405 : Financial crises get triggered about every 10 years -- Archegos might be right on time by 14 major U.S. financial institutions. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. ( www.wsj.com )
Neoliberal oligarchy fight against income redistribution by pushing perverted social justice
smoke screen and in effect can turn the USA in South Africa. Money quote from comments: "If I
read NASDAQ's proposal for Board representation in the Onion, I would have thought that even
these jokesters have exceeded the creativity threshold of ridiculousness I thought was possible."
and "What about the Mentally Ill? Do they get a seat? How about the Homeless?"
Three words about famele CEO and board room members: Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos. BTW what is
unclear in NASDAQ bold critical race theory support is: Can we exchange one black member for two
female members? Or not.
Also why stop at the boardrooms. Why not require the same in professional sport teams?
Nasdaq has, in its own words, embraced "the social justice movement." The
actual job of a stock exchange, however, is to ensure that trading is orderly and its listed
companies follow standard governance rules. But doing that doesn't earn the applause of the
political left. Progressive approval apparently means a lot to Nasdaq, which has officially
proposed to its regulator -- the Securities and Exchange Commission, newly chaired by Gary
Gensler -- to increase boardroom diversity through a "regulatory approach."
This proposal would require that Nasdaq-listed companies not only disclose the diversity
characteristics of their existing boards, but also retain "at least one director who
self-identifies as female," and "at least one director who self-identifies as Black or African
American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, two or more races or
ethnicities, or as LGBTQ+."
Noncompliant firms must publicly "explain" -- in writing -- why they don't meet Nasdaq's
quotas. Nasdaq has, in its own words, embraced "the social justice movement."
The actual job of a stock exchange, however, is to ensure that trading is orderly and its
listed companies follow standard governance rules. But doing that doesn't earn the applause of
the political left. Progressive approval apparently means a lot to Nasdaq, which has officially
proposed to its regulator -- the Securities and Exchange Commission, newly chaired by Gary
Gensler -- to increase boardroom diversity through a "regulatory approach."
The Fed, in sync with the fiction writers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), reports
consumer inflation as honestly as Al Capone reported taxable income.
Vardaman 3 hours ago
"A basket of things no one actually buys, with prices we just pull out of our
asses..."
Glock 1 hour ago
Yep, the BLS uses the CPI-W to literally avoid raising SS payments. The real rate of
inflation for seniors is close to 10% as the things they spend most of their money on like
medical care, medicine, food and utilities have gone through the roof
While the government claims they are entitled to 1.5% or less COLA's out of which comes a
bigger deduction every year for Medicare. Scam artists.
Don't worry, US gov't...you can always sell your LNG to Poland...hahahah!
LA_Goldbug 11 hours ago
I wonder what the price is for this LNG from all the way across the Atlantic.
rosalinda 10 hours ago
I read it is triple the price of the Russian gas. The Russians have all the advantages
here. Putin probably would not weaponize the gas, but who is to say some Russian leader in
the future might not take the opportunity? Europe is more dependant on Russian gas then
Russia is dependant on European money
XJ033858JH 10 hours ago
It's more like 3.3 times...10% for the big guy
BannedCamp 8 hours ago
Likewise, Russia could nuke the whole world, but they never used a nuke on any country
before, but the US has. Saying that Russia might do something that the accusing party (The
U.S) is actually doing right now (to Germany) is blatant hypocrisy.
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies, the
United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord Stream 2
project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about American relations
with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as, ultimately, the historic
decline in U.S. global power.
In the end, sanity and natural justice seem to have prevailed. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline
under the Baltic Sea will double the existing flow of Russia's prodigious natural gas to
Germany and the rest of Europe. The fuel is economical and environmentally clean compared with
coal, oil and the shale gas that the Americans were vying with Russia to export.
Russia's vast energy resources will ensure Europe's economies and households are reliably
and efficiently fueled for the future. Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, has
a particular vital interest in securing the Nord Stream 2 project which augments an existing
Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Both follow the same Baltic Sea route of approximately 1,222 kilometers
– the longest pipeline in the world – taking Russian natural gas from its arctic
region to the northern shores of Germany. For Germany's export-led economy, Russian fuel is
essential for future growth, and hence benefiting the rest of Europe.
It was always a natural fit between Russia and the European Union. Geographically and
economically, the two parties are compatible traders and Nord Stream 2 is merely the
culmination of decades of efficient energy relations.
Enter the Americans. Washington has been seething over the strategic energy trade between
Russia and Europe. The opposition escalated under the Trump administration (so much for Trump
being an alleged Russian stooge!) when his ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, fired off
threatening letters to German and other European companies arrogantly warning that they would
be hit with sanctions if they dared proceed with Nord Stream 2. Pipe-laying work was indeed
interrupted last year by U.S. sanctions. (So much for European sovereignty and alleged meddling
in internal affairs by Russia!)
The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia would
exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from Europe. It
was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged aggression
towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. The rationale reflects the twisted
Machiavellian mentality of the Americans and their supporters in Europe – Poland and the
Baltic states, as well as the Kiev regime in Ukraine. Such mentality is shot-through with
irrational Russophobia.
The ridiculous paranoid claims against Russia are of course an inversion of reality. It is
the Americans and their European surrogates who are weaponizing a mundane matter of commercial
trade that in reality offers a win-win relationship. Part of the real objective is to distort
market economics by demonizing Russia in order for the United States to export their own vastly
more expensive and environmentally dirty liquefied natural gas to Europe. (So much for American
free-market capitalism!)
Another vital objective for Washington is to thwart any normal relations developing between
Russia and the rest of Europe. American hegemony and its hyper-militaristic economy depend on
dividing and ruling other nations as so-called "allies" and "adversaries". This has been a
long-time necessity ever since the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War decades,
the latter constantly revived by Washington against Russia. (So much for American claims that
Russia is a "revisionist power"!)
However, there is a fundamental objective problem for the Americans. The empirical decline
of U.S. global power means that Washington can no longer bully other nations in the way it has
been accustomed to doing for decades. The old Cold War caricatures of demonizing others have
lost their allure and potency because the objective world we live in today simply does not make
them plausible or credible. The Russian gas trade with the European Union is a consummate case
in point. In short, Germany and the EU are not going to shoot themselves in the foot,
economically speaking, simply on the orders of Uncle Sam.
President Joe Biden had enough common sense – unlike the egotistical Trump – to
realize that American opposition to Nord Stream 2 was futile. Biden is more in tune with the
Washington establishment than his maverick predecessor. Hence Biden began waiving sanctions
imposed under Trump. Finally this week, the White House announced that it had come to an
agreement with Germany to permit Nord Stream 2 to go ahead. The Financial Times called it a
"truce" while the Wall Street Journal referred to a "deal" between Washington and Berlin.
(Ironically, American non-interference is presented as a "deal"!)
The implication is that the United States was magnanimously giving a "concession" to Europe.
The reality is the Americans were tacitly admitting they can't stop the strategic convergence
between Russia and the rest of Europe on a vital matter of energy supply.
In spinning the eventuality, Washington has continued to accuse Russia of "weaponizing"
trade. It warns that if Russia is perceived to be abusing relations with Ukraine and Europe
then the United States will slap more sanctions on Moscow. This amounts to the defeated bully
hyperventilating.
Another geopolitical factor is China. The Biden administration has prioritized confrontation
with China as the main long-term concern for repairing U.S. decline. Again, Biden is more in
tune with the imperial planners in Washington than Trump was. They know that in order for the
United States to have a chance of undermining China as a geopolitical rival the Europeans must
be aligned with U.S. policy. Trump's boorish browbeating of Europeans and Germany in particular
over NATO budgets and other petty issues resulted in an unprecedented rift in the
"transatlantic alliance" – the euphemism for American dominance over Europe. By appearing
to concede to Germany over Nord Stream 2, Washington is really aiming to shore up its
anti-China policy. This too is an admission of defeat whereby American power is unable to
confront China alone. The bully needs European lackeys to align, and so is obliged to offer a
"deal" over Russia's energy trade.
All in all, Washington's virtue-signaling is one helluva gas!
21 play_arrow 2
Peter Pan 12 hours ago
What the USA accuses Russia of planning to do down the track is actually what the USA is
doing now. In other words it is the USA that is weaponusing the gas issue with threats and
sanctions.
_ConanTheLibertarian_ 12 hours ago remove link
The US had no business interfering. Bye.
buzzsaw99 12 hours ago
the usa should ask russia to teach them how to keep natural gas flowing when it gets
cold outside. lol
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago
How to keep a windmill spinning comes first.
two hoots 11 hours ago
Well we did interfere and the results exposed our decline in multifarious ways, mainly
power in all things that matter in the international arena: diplomacy, defense, economic,
trust. We yet have great influence with our scientific and industrial capabilities but even
there others are reaching parity. Internally our unsupportable debt will hinder even that.
Basically it is the US Government (domestic/foreign affairs) that has led the charge of our
decline. "Government is dead" .... (we need a new and improved one to worship)
Max21c 11 hours ago
The Washingtonians & Londoners are just upset because now their buddies and puppets
in the Ukraine aren't going to be able to use control over the transit of Russian gas
through the Ukraine to hold Europe hostage and get their way. So everything that they're
accusing the Russians of doing in the future is what Washingtonians, Londoners, and the
Ukraine were doing in the past. They're just upset since their Ukrainian vassals can no
longer do their bidding's against Moscow and Eastern Europe.
MR166 9 hours ago
I am a USA loving conservative but I really never understood the objections to the
pipeline. Since energy = standard of living the pipeline does nothing but help mankind. The
US has no problem becoming totally dependent on China for drugs, medical supplies, chips
and manufacturing but is afraid of Russia shipping gas to Europe. How does that make any
sense at all???!!!
ar8 9 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I will explain it for you:
US companies wanted to sell their gas to Europe.
The US companies attempted to use the US to bully European countries, companies,
projects and people through sanctions and threatening fines.
It worked, a bit: numerous companies ceased working on it.
But the US, as usual, with its bullyboy tactics had been less effective and created more
self-damage than it expected. It has created many enemies as a result, which will hasten
the demise of the US government.
Despite its age, the following is still relevant to Nord Stream II: "War Is a Racket" is
a speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps
Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient.
Rudolph 2 hours ago
One more reason. We control Ukraine, Ukraine control gas to Germany. = We control
Germany.
Vivekwhu 9 hours ago
What is the point of having a financial/military/market empire if you don't have a
finger in every pie enriching your elite?
Chief Joesph 11 hours ago
It was simply a war of hate about anything Russian. The U.S. really had nothing to offer
Germany anyway. From the German perspective, they had to protect their own interests, and
since Russia was offering to sell them natural gas and the U.S. wasn't, the choice was
rather simple. Perhaps it might make better relationships between eastern block countries
and the west too.
The U.S. spends a great amount of time and resources "hating" other countries for no
reason at all. It's bigotry by any other definition. The U.S. practices a systematic and
especially politically exploited expression of hatred and hostilities. Not only do they
practice this against other countries, but among their own kind too. The U.S. ranks as one
of the more hateful countries in the world, only surpassed by the Middle East. Add that to
the reasons why Germany doesn't want to go along with U.S. temper tantrums.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago
Not "hating" but "bombing" is the right description of the US foreign policy
practice.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
Mr Putin is way too clever for these yankster clowns and makes them look like the fools
they are time and time again. That is why they hate him so much.
Max21c 11 hours ago remove link
Putin didn't have to outsmart them. The Europeans need the gas. Water does not usually
flow uphill.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
True. But in Germany there are a lot of treacherous transatlantic elements that wanted
to sabotage the pipeline at any cost.
These elements are Germans but they dont give a **** about Germany. Treacherous
scumbags.
wootendw PREMIUM 11 hours ago (Edited)
" The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia
would exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from
Europe. It was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged
aggression towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. "
The absurdity lies with the existence of NATO or the US being in NATO. It no more makes
sense for US to commit ourselves to Europe's defense against Russia than it does for Europe
to buy American NG for three times the price it can get Russia's for.
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 10 hours ago (Edited)
Well apparently some tard thinks it makes perfect sense for other readily imagined
strategic reasons none of which have anything to do with accountable governance.
Someone thinks NATO is a dog leash. An expensive dog leash.
yerfej 11 hours ago
The washington idiot cabal needs something to focus on to justify their existence so
they wander the globe telling everyone how to live and who they can trade with when they're
not busy starting or expanding wars. The reality is the US federal government is a
completely useless parasite who's ONLY function is to domestically terrorize its own
citizens and the other nations of the world.
known unknown 10 hours ago remove link
Nordstream II was built to a stop Ukraine from blocking gas to Europe which they already
did once, stealing gas which they have always done. Germany asked Russia to build it. The
dummy Bulgarians stopped a similar pipeline yielding to the US. Then they cried about it
when they realized they lost billions. No matter what's promised Ukraine will be cut out in
5 years if they continue hostilities towards Russians.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Most people conveniently forget or don't know about Ukraine's siphoning of the gas while
in transit to European countries.
Germany is as bad as the US. Thanks to Germany Yugoslavia was decapitated with help from
US and UK.
Greed is King 11 hours ago
Nordstream 2 is a trade deal between the EU (primarily Germany) and Russia.
Russia sells gas to the EU; and the EU buys gas from Russia.
2. Who the feck does America think it is that it thinks it can interfere with and make
demands of free and sovereign nations ?.
When the bully is beaten, nobody ever feels sympathy for him; America would do well to
think about that.
Samual Vimes 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Surroguts /proxies, what ever.
Unelected policy makers in all their purple clad glory.
Max21c 12 hours ago (Edited)
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies,
the United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord
Stream 2 project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about
American relations with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as,
ultimately, the historic decline in U.S. global power.
It may show a decline in US global power or it may just show a rise in Washingtonian
amateurishness, arrogance, obnoxiousness, naivete and stupidity...
all it does is show out in the open that certain people are quacks, flakes, and
screwballs. Why would anyone in their right mind waste time & efforts or political
capital or diplomatic capital/bonnafides on trying to do something so silly as block Nord
Stream 2... It just makes Washingtonians look ridiculous, silly, and absurd...
It's almost as crazy as making a horse into a Roman Senator or declaring a war on the
Neptune or attacking the sea... It appears as if right after the Berlin Wall came down
American elites and Washingtonians all joined the Mad King Ludwig cult and became
worshipers of everything crazy...
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago remove link
Or even as crazy as making a Dementia patient a Roman Emperor. (Or is that a United
States President? I forget sometimes.)
hugin-o-munin 12 hours ago remove link
Whatever political games are being played there is no getting around the fact that
Europe and Russia will eventually start to get along and expand trade and industrial
cooperation. Most people know that both the US and UK want to prevent this because it will
diminish their current top dog positions wrt global trade and financial control. Few things
compare to trade and mutual beneficial cooperation when it comes to lowering the risk for
conflict.
Just like Europe should promote development and trade with northern Africa so should the
US with central and southern America. This would also put an end to the endless migrant
caravans that are putting a huge strain on both the EU and US today. It's actually a non
brainer and says more about these satanic globalists' true motive than anything else.
ReichstagFireDept. 9 hours ago remove link
Nord Stream 2 is your best indicator that Governments are realizing that Renewable
Energy is NOT the replacement for Conventional Energy.
Nat. Gas IS the clean Energy source that everyone was screaming for...now it's finally
worldwide and they don't want it?!
Sorry, your Green Marxist dream is ending.
geno-econ 9 hours ago remove link
U.S. should be grateful Russia is sharing its natural resources with West rather than
aligning with China. There is much more than natural gas---ferro manganese, ferro chrome,
uranium, enrichment, titanium, aluminum, fertilizer, wheat, timber products, etc. U.S.
trade with China essentially imports only two major resources---cheap labor and synthetic
opioids !
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Well, there's some plastic junk and red refugees in there as well.
geno-econ 9 hours ago
only wealthy red capitalists disguised as refugees from China
ar8 9 hours ago
You are assuming the US government thinks rationally.
The Kremlin said on Thursday it disagreed with some statements in an agreement between the
United States and Germany on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, insisting that Russia had never
used energy as a tool of political pressure.
The pact aims to mitigate what critics see as the strategic dangers of the $11 billion Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, now 98% complete, being built under the Baltic Sea to carry gas from
Russia's Arctic region to Germany.
"Russia has always been and remains a responsible guarantor of energy security on the
European continent, or I would even say on a wider, global scale," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters.
Arby's Just Quietly Discontinued These 6 Menu Items See Dolly Parton Recreate Her Iconic
"Playboy" Cover 43 Years Later
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Germany has committed to take action on its own and back
action at the European Union level should Russia seek to use energy as a weapon or take
aggressive action against Ukraine, U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland said on
Wednesday.
"Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive actions
against Ukraine, Germany will take actions at the national level and press for effective
measures at the European level, including sanctions, to limit Russian export capabilities in
the energy sector," Nuland told lawmakers, adding that Germany would support an extension of
the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement that expires in 2024. (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and
Jonathan Landay)
Neoliberalism is the key reason fro the drop in life expectancy
Notable quotes:
"... Declines or stagnation in longevity can signal catastrophic events or deep problems in a society, researchers say. ..."
"... More deaths from homicide, diabetes and chronic liver disease -- which is related to heavy alcohol use -- also contributed to last year's life expectancy drop, the CDC said ..."
"... The declines were largest for Hispanic and Black people, who as population groups were disproportionately affected by the pandemic . The largest drop for any cohort was 3.7 years, for Hispanic men, bringing their life expectancy to 75.3 years of age. ..."
Life expectancy in the U.S. fell by 1.5 years in 2020, the biggest decline since at least
World War II, as the Covid-19 pandemic killed hundreds of thousands and exacerbated crises in
drug overdoses , homicides and some chronic diseases.
... ... ...
The full toll of the pandemic has yet to be seen, doctors and public-health officials said.
Many people skipped or delayed treatment last year for conditions such as diabetes or high
blood pressure and endured isolation, stress and interruptions in normal diet and exercise
routines.
"That has led to intermediate and longer-term effects we will have to deal with for years to
come," said Donald Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern
University Feinberg School of Medicine and president of the American Heart Association.
Life expectancy is a measure of a nation's well-being and prosperity, based on mortality in
a given year. Declines or stagnation in longevity can signal catastrophic events or deep
problems in a society, researchers say. Life expectancy fell in the U.S. by 11.8 years in
1918, during a world-wide flu pandemic. Many victims were young.
... ... ...
More deaths from homicide, diabetes and chronic liver disease -- which is related to
heavy alcohol use -- also contributed to last year's life expectancy drop, the CDC said...
Life expectancy would have fallen even more, the CDC said, if not for decreases in mortality
due to cancer, chronic lower-respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma, and
other factors.
The declines were largest for Hispanic and Black people, who as population groups were
disproportionately affected by the pandemic . The largest drop for any cohort was 3.7
years, for Hispanic men, bringing their life expectancy to 75.3 years of age.
U.S. longevity had been largely stagnant since 2010, even declining in three of those years,
due in part to an increase in
deaths from drug overdoses , rising death rates
from heart disease for middle-aged Americans and other public health crises. "Getting back
to where we were before the pandemic is a very bad place," said Steven Woolf, director emeritus
of the Center on Society and Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
and author of a recent study comparing the effects of the pandemic on life expectancy in the
U.S. and other high-income countries. "We've got a larger problem here."
... ... ...
Drug-overdose deaths rose nearly 30% last year, driven by a proliferation of the deadly
synthetic opioid fentanyl as well as stress, isolation and reduced access to treatment during
the pandemic, public-health experts said. One study published this month found a 28.3%
decline in initiation of addiction treatment in California from March through October
2020..... ...
Life expectancy for white people dropped 1.2 years to 77.6 years in 2020, the lowest level
since 2002.
What is missing from this article is a comparison of the US with other advanced economies in
Europe and Asia. What is disturbing is how the US spends the most and achieves less than our
economic peers starting with expected average longevity. We had the lowest longevity averages
pre-pandemic and now we have dropped further. This is happening despite the fact that our
health care spending is twice the per capita of other advanced economies (Approx. $11K in the
US vs. $6K based on 2019 data). Contributing to our dismal longevity statistics, with respect
to other wealthy economies, are the highest rates of drug overdose deaths and suicides by
gun. This is just the tip of a long list of sad statistics where we are unfortunately number
1 or close to it. The usual (partisan) response is to claim its government's fault or the
fault of a greedy healthcare system or just say the data is wrong. So far, none of these
strategies is working very well.
Dave Berg SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Life expectancy is the wrong phrase. It's current average life duration. COVID will have no
impact on the life expectancy of babies being born right now. I have two new grandchildren,
their life expectancy will be impacted by things we don't even know about yet.
"... Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. ..."
"... IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but exactly because it benefits Germany too much. ..."
"... You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least shitter bottom). ..."
"... The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and hostility between Germany and Russia. ..."
"... There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington. ..."
"... Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point. These are instruments of absolute power. ..."
"... While Trump is certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire, and among the empire's vassals in particular. ..."
The sanctions war the U.S. waged against Germany and Russia over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
has ended with a total U.S. defeat.
The U.S. attempts to block the pipeline were part of the massive anti-Russia campaign waged
over the last five years. But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to
Russia's advantage but important for Germany. As I described Nord Stream 2 in a
previous piece :
It is not Russia which needs the pipeline. It can
sell its gas to China for just as much as it makes by selling gas to Europe.
...
It is Germany, the EU's economic powerhouse, that needs the pipeline and the gas flowing
through it. Thanks to Chancellor Merkel's misguided energy policy - she put an end to nuclear
power in German after a tsunami in Japan destroyed three badly placed reactors - Germany
urgently needs the gas to keep its already high electricity prices from rising further.
That the new pipeline will bypass old ones which run through the Ukraine is likewise to
the benefit of Germany, not Russia. The pipeline infrastructure in the Ukraine is old and
near to disrepair. The Ukraine has no money to renew it. Politically it is under U.S.
influence. It could use its control over the energy flow to the EU for blackmail. (It already
tried
once.) The new pipeline, laid at the bottom of the Baltic sea, requires no payment for
crossing Ukrainian land and is safe from potential malign influence.
Maybe Chancellor Merkel on her recent visit to Washington DC finally managed to explain that
to the Biden administration. More likely though she simply told the U.S. to f*** off. Whatever
- the result is in. As the Wall Street Journal
reports today:
The U.S. and Germany have reached an agreement allowing completion of the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline, officials from both countries say.
Under the four-point agreement, Germany and the U.S. would invest $50 million in Ukrainian
green-tech infrastructure, encompassing renewable energy and related industries. Germany also
would support energy talks in the Three Seas Initiative, a Central European diplomatic
forum.
Berlin and Washington as well would try to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive
roughly $3 billion in annual transit fees that Russia pays under its current agreement with
Kyiv, which runs through 2024. Officials didn't explain how to ensure that Russia continues
to make the payments.
The U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in the
case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said.
So Germany will spend some chump change to buy up, together with the U.S, a few Ukrainian
companies that are involved in solar or wind mill stuff. It will 'support' some irrelevant
talks by maybe paying for the coffee. It also promises to try something that it has no way to
succeed in.
That's all just a fig leave. The U.S. really gave up without receiving anything for itself
or for its client regime in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine lobby in Congress will be very unhappy with that deal. The Biden administration
hopes to avoid an uproar over it. Yesterday Politico reported that the Biden
administration preemptively had told the Ukraine
to stop talking about the issue :
In the midst of tense negotiations with Berlin over a controversial Russia-to-Germany
pipeline, the Biden administration is asking a friendly country to stay quiet about its
vociferous opposition. And Ukraine is not happy.
U.S. officials have signaled that they've given up on stopping the project, known as the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and are now scrambling to contain the damage by striking a grand
bargain with Germany.
At the same time, administration officials have quietly urged their Ukrainian counterparts
to withhold criticism of a forthcoming agreement with Germany involving the pipeline,
according to four people with knowledge of the conversations.
The U.S. officials have indicated that going public with opposition to the forthcoming
agreement could damage the Washington-Kyiv bilateral relationship , those sources said. The
officials have also urged the Ukrainians not to discuss the U.S. and Germany's potential
plans with Congress.
If Trump had done the above Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would have called for another
impeachment.
The Ukrainian President Zelensky is furious over the deal and about being told to shut up.
But there is little he can do but to accept the booby price the Biden administration offered
him:
U.S. officials' pressure on Ukrainian officials to withhold criticism of whatever final deal
the Americans and the Germans reach will face significant resistance.
A source close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kyiv's position is that
U.S. sanctions could still stop completion of the project, if only the Biden administration
had the will to use them at the construction and certification stages. That person said Kyiv
remains staunchly opposed to the project.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration gave Zelensky a date for a meeting at the White House
with the president later this summer , according to a senior administration official.
Nord Stream 2 is to 96% ready. Its testing will start in August or September and by the
years end it will hopefully deliver gas to western Europe.
Talks about building Nord Stream 3 are likely to start soon.
Posted by b on July 21, 2021 at 17:13 UTC | Permalink
Did Merkel also get Biden to promise that neither he nor any of his clients (AQ, ISIS, etc.
etc. etc.) would perpetrate any "unfortunate incidents" or "disruptions" on NS 2?
And would any such promises be worth the breath that uttered them?
But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to Russia's advantage
but important for Germany
I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand. Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the
Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down,
I beg to differ. IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but
exactly because it benefits Germany too much.
You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals
to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can
down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least
shitter bottom).
That is why there is also pressure for all western countries to adopt insane immigration,
LGBT, austerity policies and what not. What a better way to destroy all these countries, both
economically and culturally, or adleast make them far more worse than US, it is only way US
can again become "powerhouse", like after WW2.
Does this represent a fracturing of the EU? or maybe a change in direction?
What b is pointing out about how if it were Trump....only means that the bullying approach
by empire didn't work and now we are seeing face saving bullying and backpedaling like crazy
in some areas.
I roll my eyes at this ongoing belief that Trump represented humanity instead of all or
some faction of the elite....as a demigod it seems.
the "facts" as you state them are not quite right.
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran,
thus ensuring they are getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran
blind. The poor Iran didn't have a choice but to agree. Even today, Putin will NOT say how
much China is paying for gas on Siberia pipeline and a lot of people think China is robbing
Russia blind on the deal. A second Siberia line without a NS2 will put Russia is very bad
negotiation position and China in very good one, giving them the advantage to ask for any
price of Russia and get it.
2. Merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking over HATES
RUssia with passion. The NS2 is far from done deal, it needs to be insured. Plus it will fall
under the EU 3rd energy package making sure Germany doesn't use it 100% . The NS2 will never
be 100 usable, the Green party will see to that. AT best it will be only 50% usage.
And so on and so on.
Funny how in today's world, we all have different facts. My facts are different than YOUR
facts. My facts are just as relevant as your facts.
What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United
States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an
alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.
The article explains a lot, more than just Germany or Russia.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down...
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2. The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that. What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
The pipeline construction battle has been won, not the energy flow war.
The Financial Empire is most likely resorting to some CHARADE to find an excuse to later
stop the gas flow through Nord Stream 2. Empire's bullying was clearly exposed through
sanctions and it LOST the battle of stopping the pipeline construction. So it moves to the
next battle to find an excuse to stop the gas flow. Empire's evil intent is visible in these
words, "the U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in
the case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said."
The Financial Empire has worked hard over the last century to prevent Germany from allying
herself with Russia. It wants to control energy flowing in Eurasia and its pricing. The war
will be only won when the Financial Empire is defeated and its global pillars of power
DISMANTLED.
"The 'heartland' was an area centered in Eurasia, which would be so situated and catered
to by resources and manpower as to render it an unconquerable fortress and a fearsome power;
and the 'crescent' was a virtual semi-arc encompassing an array of islands – America,
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan – which, as 'Sea Powers,' watched over the
Eurasian landmass to detect and eventually thwart any tendency towards a consolidation of
power on the heartland."
Has the Financial Empire stopped interfering in other regions?
"US, Germany Threaten Retaliatory Action Against Russia in Draft Nord Stream 2 Accord -
Report...."
"As the US and Germany have reportedly reached a deal on the Nord Stream 2 project,
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing the obtained draft text of the agreement, that it
would threaten sanctions and other measures if Russia tried to use energy as a 'weapon'
against Ukraine , though it did not specify what actions could provoke the
countermeasures.
"According to the report, in such a case, Germany will take unspecified national
action , a decision that may represent a concession from Chancellor Angela Merkel, who
had previously refused to take independent action against Moscow over the gas pipeline that
will run from Russia to Germany." [My Emphasis]
The article continues:
"On Tuesday, Ned Price, a spokesman for the US State Department, told reporters that he
did not have final details of an agreement to announce, but that 'the Germans have put
forward useful proposals, and we have been able to make progress on steps to achieve that
shared goal, that shared goal being to ensure that Russia cannot weaponize energy
."
" The US was hoping for explicit language that would commit Germany to shut down gas
delivery through Nord Stream 2 if Russia attempted to exert undue influence on Ukraine .
Germany, on the other hand, has long rejected such a move, stating that such a threat would
only serve to politicize a project that Merkel stresses is solely commercial in nature." [My
Emphasis]
The overall motive appears to be this:
"The accord would also commit Germany to use its influence to prolong Ukraine's gas
transit arrangement with Russia beyond 2024, possibly for up to ten years . Those talks
would begin no later than September 1, according to the news outlet." [My Emphasis]
So, here we have the Outlaw US Empire meddling in the internal affairs of three
nations--Germany, Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot afford Russian gas as it has no rubles
to pay for it. Thus if Ukraine has no money to buy, then why should Gazprom be obliged to
give it away freely? What about other European customers who rely on gas piped through
Ukraine; are they going to see what they pay for get stolen by Ukraine? And what happens when
the pipelines breakdown from lack of maintenance since Ukraine's broke thanks to the Outlaw
Us Empire's coup that razed its economy? Shouldn't the Empire and its NATO vassals who
invaded Ukraine via their coup be forced to pay for such maintenance? And just who
"weaponized" this entire situation in the first place?
From my understanding, NS 2 was mutually beneficial for Germany and Russia.
As noted, Germany desperately needs energy and relying on the outrageously priced and
unreliable US LNG was not a viable option.
Russia benefits also.
1.No more high transit fees Russia pays Ukraine. I imagine some of that was finding its way
into US pockets after 2014.
2.Ukraine supposedly helped itself to plenty of stolen gas from the pipeline. That will
stop.
3.Ukraine was occasionally shutting down the pipeline for political reasons until Russia paid
the ransom. Not anymore.
So, Russia and Germany were both highly motivated to finish the pipeline ASAP.
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2.
The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that.
Putin not too long ago (can't find the article now) said he was prepared to help Europe
gain its independence should they wish to do so, Rammstein or no Rammstein.
What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
What they fear should this deal go ahead is a Germany/Russia/China Axis that would control
the world island and thus the world.
I was convinced that the US of Assholery had lost its infantile anti-NS2 'battle' in
September 2020, after watching an episode of DW Conflict Zone in which Sarah Kelly
interviewed Niels Annen, Germany's Deputy FM. Annen came to the interview armed to the teeth
with embarrassing facts about US hypocrisy including, but not limited to, the fact that USA,
itself, buys vast quantities of petroleum products from Russia each year.
The interview is Google-able and, apart from pure entertainment value, Sarah is much
easier on the eye than Tim Sebastian...
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran, thus ensuring they are
getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran blind.
Hmmm... I seem to remember Iran shafting China on the south Pars gas field when it looked like the JCPOA was looking
likely...
If this memory of mine was correct (it may not be) then you really can't blame China for a little commercial payback.
In any case it was shown as soon as JCPOA Mk.1 was passed Iran RAN, not walked, to smooch up to the west for business, not
China, not Russia. So if its just business for Iran then its just business for China.
In our eagerness to expose the empire's shortcomings in a quick 'gotcha!' moment we
shouldn't rush head first into false premises. To suggest Dear Uncle Sam is concerned with
anything other than his own navel is naive. He's the man with the plan. He knows that down
the road, Oceania's eastern border won't run along the Dnieper but right off the shore of
Airstrip One.
As has been mentioned before, the NN2 pipeline gives Germany leverage over Russia ,
not the other way around.
US => Germany => Russia.
Which is now plan b for the US. If then they can use their leverage over Germany to
steer it in any direction it wants to vs. Russia.
This will probably be followed by "targeted" sanctions on specific Politicians, Bankers
and Heads of industry. They only need to propose such sanctions individually for them
to have an effect. Using Pegasus for inside information to Blackmail those it wants to.
*****
Example of a sanctions racket :
Similar to the potential sanctions on any Lebanese Politian or Group Leaders if they get Oil
from Iran, Russia or China. The Lebanese population be damned.
"Apparently US Treasury has informed the government of Lebanon, that if any Oil
products from Iran make it into Lebanon, in any way; the government of Lebanon and all its
members will be sanctioned. This includes the Central Bankers"
Just in case you didn't understand how the crisis in the country is manufactured.
Pegasus again:
"leaks on the targets of Israeli spy program Pegasus, show hundreds in
Lebanon including the elected leadership of every party, every media outlet, & every
security agency, have been targeted by clients in 10 countries; all belonging to the
Imperialist camp.
But it is very easy to guess by looking at who are the external imperialist forces
active in Lebanon. USA/UK/France/Turkey/Germany/Canada/Israel/Qatar; that's eight. Plus Saudi
Arabia." *******
PS. Lebanon; This comes as a response to Sayyed Nasrallah stating in his last speech
that if the State in Lebanon is not able to provide fuel, he will bring it at the expense of
Hizbullah from Iran, dock it in the port of Beirut, and dared anyone to stop it from reaching
the people.
*****
Germany will only be the latest victim as the Mafia-US "protection" racket is ramped
up.
Both b and the many commenters raise excellent points. Yes, the US wants to hurt both Russia
and Germany. And yes the US *definitely* fears close cooperation between Moscow and Berlin.
But the main take home lesson is that the US failed despite enormous efforts to block NS2.
Russo-German cooperation is inevitable and the world will be better for it.
>>a lot of people think China is robbing Russia blind on the deal
Why would be Russia building Power of Siberia 2 and 3 to China then? Or selling LNG too?
You don't have much knowledge on the topic, the way it looks. A giant gas plant was built
near the border with China, the second biggest gas plant in the world, because the gas for
China is rich in rare elements, thus turning Russia in of the the biggest producers of
strategic helium, not to mention extracting many other rare elements. China gets gas that has
been cleaned of anything valuable from it, with the exception of the gas itself.
>>merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking
over
The latest polls show clear lead for CDU/CSU. And it looks like its too late.
>>the NS2 will never be 100 usable, tthe Green party will see to that. AT best it
will be only 50% usage.
Do you even follow what has been going on? Germany is free not to buy russian gas, that
is, to be left without gas if this is what it wants.
Do you see how nat gas prices exploded in Europe recently? Do you know why is that?
Because Russia refuses to sell additional volumes via Ukraine's network. It is a message to
finish the issues with NS 2 pipeline faster and then everything will be fine, there will be
plenty of space for new gas volumes, and the gas price will drop.
It is the UNSC resolutions of 2006, 2007 and 2010 which have laid the backbone for the
incremental diplomatic, economic and material warfare against Iran. Without them, there would
be no narrative framing Iran as an outlaw nor justification for crippling sanctions. That
Iran should even be subjected to the JCPOA is in itself an objective injustice.
Each of these resolutions could easily have been blocked by the two permanent members of
the UNSC we go to much lengths on this forum to depict as selfless adversaries of the Empire.
All they had to do was raise a finger and say niet. In other words, by their actions, these
two members placed Iran in a very disadvantageous trading position.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
"According to the draft deal, obtained by Bloomberg, Washington and Berlin would
threaten sanctions and other retaliation if Russia 'tries to use energy as a weapon against
Ukraine', with Germany being obligated to take unspecified actions in the event of Russian
'misbehaviour' . [My Emphasis]
The article then turns to the interview:
"Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway has explained what is
behind the US-Germany row is." [That last "is" appears to be a typo]
I suggest barflies pay close attention to Dr. Diesen who's the author of an outstanding
book on the geoeconomics of Russia and China, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater
Eurasia . I judge the following Q&A to be most relevant:
"Sputnik: The Biden administration waived sanctions on the firm behind the gas project,
Nord Stream 2 AG, and its chief executive, Matthias Warnig. At the same time, Secretary of
State Antony Blinken stated in June that the pipeline project was a Russian tool for the
coercion of Europe and signaled that the US has leverage against it. What's behind
Washington's mixed signals with regard to the project? How could they throw sand in Nord
Stream 2's gears, in your opinion - or are Blinken's threats empty?
"Glenn Diesen: The mixed signals demonstrate that the completion of Nord Stream 2 was a
defeat for the US. Biden confirmed that he waived sanctions because the project was near
complete. Sanctions could not stop the project [link at original], rather they would merely
continue to worsen relations with Berlin and Moscow. The best approach for Washington at this
point is to recognise that Nord Stream 2 is a done deal, and instead Washington will direct
its focus towards limiting the geo-economics consequences of the pipeline by obtaining
commitments from Berlin such as preserving Ukraine's role as a transit state [Link at
original].
"The US therefore waives sanctions against Nord Stream 2, yet threatens new sanctions if
Berlin fails to accept US conditions and limitations on Nord Stream 2. Blinken's threats
are loaded with 'strategic ambiguity', which could be aimed to conceal that they are merely
empty threats . However, strategic ambiguity is also conducive to prevent Berlin from
calculating the "costs" and possible remedies to US threats. Furthermore, ambiguity can be
ideal in terms of how to respond as it is not a good look to continuously threaten allies."
[Emphasis original]
The professor's closing remarks are also very important regarding Merkel's successor.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the Outlaw US Empire has geoeconomic leverage over
the EU--military yes, but the Empire is just as uncompetitive versus the EU as it is versus
China.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
Of course they did, let's be real. China and Russia are not going to be the all benevolent saviors of the world, they never
were, never will.
They will always serve their interests first and foremost. Sometimes, they do get suckered
into UNSC resolutions like those you spoke of. Sometimes, there're backroom horse trading
that we're not privy to and little countries are just chips on the table...
The best we can hope for is that they can behave with more integrity than currently shown
by the incumbent anglospheric bloc in their re-ascendancy.
Either we ditch the UNSC system or everybody get nukes, because i can't see the current
UNSC members willing ditch their own, ever.
Lysander is correct.
The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and
hostility between Germany and Russia.
Types of interdependence between Germany and Russia, eg. NRG security, are a direct threat
to US dominance over Europe as a whole.
There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those
limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German
strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington.
Way too much confusion over what Nord Stream 2 really means.
1) Russian gas transiting Ukraine had already fallen from 150 bcm to the high 90s/low 100s
before Nord Stream 2 goes online.
Even after NS2 goes online, a significant amount of Russian gas will still transit via
Ukraine.
2) Energy demand generally increases over time, not decreases. Russian gas exports aren't
increasing in a straight line, but keep in mind that there are significant new competitors
now and in the process coming online. These include Azerbaijan as well as the ongoing
pipeline struggle through the Black Sea/Turkey/Eastern Med.
I never believed there was any chance of NS2 not completing; the only question was
when.
Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every
door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point.
These are instruments of absolute power.
What we need now is a worldwide Me Too movement to denounce this leverage. Taking that
first step would require a lot of courage for any blackmailed individual, but the one little
breach could lead to a flood of world citizens just about fed up with the Empire's shit.
It pains me that I do not remember exactly who it was, but one of the more erudite posters
here mentioned some time ago that Trump seemed more like a Bonapartist figure than a fascist
or a typical and simple representative of a faction in the oligarchy. While Trump is
certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was
in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould
of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate
that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire,
and among the empire's vassals in particular.
It is unwise to downplay the significance of Trump coming to power in 2016, regardless of
what feelings one may have about the individual himself. The conditions that led to the rise
of Trump not only persist, but have intensified. Those conditions cannot be resolved by mass
media gaslighting and social media censorship, which actually seems to be having an effect
more like holding the emergency relief valve on a boiler closed; it quiets an annoying sound,
but causes the underlying issue to grow more severe.
Basically, further splits in the EU are inevitable. It is the timing of those splits that
is difficult to predict, but the accuracy of that prediction hinges upon the accuracy of our
assessment of events occurring now. Interestingly, Trump is still part of these unfolding
events.
Fracturing NATO and the West hmmm ... If Germany gains any independence from U.S.
coercion they are 'fracturing Europe'. Bad Germany.
Germany must forever remain a vassal state of the U.S. by allowing the U.S. to use another
vassal state to control their energy supply. And who says we don't believe in freedom. Neocons are such vile creatures. Always twisting words but remember, whenever they say
something, the exact opposite is true.
One issue underlying this fiasco is I believe that the neocons / Atlantic Council were 100%
certain that Russia did not have the expertise to lay pipelines at the required depths, and
once Allseas was facing sanctions, the project would never be completed.
I believe that the exact pricing formula for Power of Siberia is confidential, but this
much is known:
"The price of Russian gas supplies to China increased in the second quarter of 2021 for
the first time since deliveries started via the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, but daily
delivery volumes fell in April, Interfax reported on Sunday.
Russian gas giant Gazprom GAZP.MM has said it supplied China with 3.84 billion cubic
metres of gas via the Power of Siberia pipeline in its first year of operation.
Citing Chinese customs data, Interfax said the price of gas increased to $148 per thousand
cubic metres, rising from $121 in the first quarter, and reversing a downward trend."
Also, Victoria Nuland informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today about Biden's
cave to Russia. That must have been brutal for her. Regardless, nice to see a rare display of
sanity from s US administration.
The primary and only objective of the US Foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe since WW2 has
been to prevent Russia and Germany (now read the German run EU project) coupling up, that's
it, nothing else matters on Europe.
The completion of N-2 presents a serious blow tho this aim, the new pipeline is a must for
Germany, it must get finished, without it Germany's supply of energy would have been almost
fully controlled by the Americans who have either direct or indirect authority over every
major source of hydrocarbons except for Venezuela and Russia, the latter only partly, the
Ukrainian pipeline is fully in their sphere of influence.
Energy fuels everything from private dwellings to major corporations, it's together with
labour and technology the most important ingredient in every economy. To lose control of it
would have been a catastrophe for Germany, in particular if one takes into account the secret
treaty between Germany and the Allies (read the US) from 1949.
"On 23 May 1949, the Western Allies ratified a new German constitution, known as the
"Basic Law" or Grundgesetz.
However, two days prior, a secret state treaty - Geheimer Staatsvertrag - was also signed to
grant complete Allied
control over education and all licensed media, press, radio, television and publishing houses
until the year 2099.
This was confirmed by Major-General Gerd-Helmut Komossa, former head of German Military
Intelligence in his
book, "Die Deutsche Karte" or The German Card".
What's interesting about Power of Siberia-1 is that the gas is being stripped -- refined at
the newly completed Amur Gas Plant -- of its components prior to being piped into China. I
don't know if Germany's petrochemical industry will be deprived in similar manner with
NS2.
CD Waller @36--
Nothing in the energy production realm is carbon neutral. ROSATOM has mastered the fuel
cycle which means most if not all toxic waste will now be burned for energy. New reactors do
NOT use water as coolant. Clearly you need to update what you know about nuclear power.
The Russian 'victory' is very narrow and mostly consists of the patience and determination to
follow-thru while consistently being derided/attacked by Western media, pundits, and
politicians:
Since Russia/Gasprom owns NS2 100% (paying for half the construction cost outright and
financing the rest), there was never much need to stop construction, only to stop/limit
consumption. The 'trick' was to find a way to accomplish US/NATO goals that would not make
German leaders look like puppets.
Biden's approach looks good compared to Trump's heavy-handed approach. As they are BOTH
spokesman of the Empire's Deep State, we can surmise that this is merely good cop / bad cop
theatrics.
This USA-GERMAN agreement makes Germany appear to voluntarily support EU/NATO -
a good thing(tm) that most Germans will accept without question. But behind the scenes,
it's unlikely that there was ever any real choice, just a mutual desire to fashion a
'smart' policy that didn't undermine German political leaders.
Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined
in this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled
as a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark
efforts to force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets.
Russia and China are likely to be increasingly linked in Western media/propaganda.
Deficiencies of one or the other will apply to BOTH.
The next few winters in EU will be very interesting.
Jackrabbit @41 incorrectly says Russia owns NS2 100% It's owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, and
here's its
website listing its financial investors, while its shareholders/owners are global. The
company is located in Zug, Switzerland. Here we are told who the financial companies
are :
"In April 2017, Nord Stream 2 AG signed the financing agreements for the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline project with ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall. These five
European energy companies will provide long-term financing for 50 per cent of the total cost
of the project."
As with the first string, Russia doesn't own it 100% nor did it finance it completely;
rather, its stake was @50% It appears both Nord Streams will be managed from the same
location in Zug. I hope the company produces a similar sort of book to record its
accomplishment as it did for the first string pair, which can be found and downloaded here
.
Who is paying for it: Russia's energy giant Gazprom is the sole shareholder of the
Nord Stream 2 AG , the company in charge of implementing the €9.5 billion ($11.1
billion) project. Gazprom is also covering half of the cost. The rest, however, is being
financed by five western companies: ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and
Wintershall.
Emphasis is mine.
<> <> <> <> <>
Nord Stream 2 AG is a German company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia's
Gazprom. The German subsidiary has borrowed half of the construction cost but is 100% owner
of the NS2 project.
From karlof1's link to Nord Stream 2 AG's Shareholder and Financial Investors page makes it
clear that NordStream 2 AG is a subsidiary of Gazprom international projects LLC, which is,
in turn, a subsidiary of Gazprom. Under "Shareholder" there is only one company listed:
Gasprom.
PS I was mistaken: Nord Stream 2 AG is a Swiss company, not a German one.
"4. Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined in
this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled as
a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark efforts to
force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets."
Germany has been portrayed as not living up to its NATO obligations one way or another
since about 1985, and with respect to NS 2, since 2018. They do not seem fazed - maybe a
Green win would change that. If the USA-Ukraine get (more) belligerent, Germany might be less
likely to insist on Ukraine gas transit after 2024.
The Russian government owns a majority of Gazprom. As majority owner they can be said to
control the company and with that control comes an inescapable political dimension.
For the purposes of this discussion: the Russian government has biggest stake in the
financial success of Nord Stream 2. That "success" depends on gas sold, not simply the
completion of NS2 construction.
So go ahead and say whatever you want around all your networked devices, but don't be
surprised if bad things start happening.
I received another "Our Terms Have Changed" email from a Big Tech quasi-monopoly, and for a
change I actually read this one. It was a revelation on multiple fronts. I'm reprinting it here
for your reading pleasure:
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our Conditions of Use.
What hasn't changed:
Your use constitutes your agreement to our Conditions of Use.
We own all the content you create on our platform, devices and networks, and are free to
monetize it by any means we choose.
We own all the data we collect on you, your devices, purchases, social networks, views,
associations, beliefs and illicit viewing, your location data, who you are in proximity to,
and whatever data the networked devices in your home, vehicles and workplaces collect.
We have the unrestricted right to ban you and all your content, shadow-ban you and all
your content, i.e., generate the illusion that your content is freely, publicly available,
and erase your digital presence entirely such that you cease to exist except as a corporeal
body.
What has changed:
If we detect you have positive views on anti-trust enforcement, we may report you as a
"person of interest / potential domestic extremist" to the National Security Agency and other
federal agencies.
Rather than respond to all disputes algorithmically, we have established a Star Chamber of
our most biased, fanatical employees to adjudicate customer/user disputes in which the
customer/user refuses to accept the algorithmic mediation.
If a customer/user attempts to contact any enforcement agency regarding our algorithmic
mediation or Star Chamber adjudication, we reserve the unrestricted rights to:
a. Prepare voodoo dolls representing the user and stick pins into the doll while
chanting curses.
b. Hack the targeted user's accounts and blame it on Russian or Ukrainian hackers.
c. Rendition the user to a corrupt kleptocracy in which we retain undue influence, i.e.,
the United States.
Left unsaid, of course, is the potential for "accidents" to happen to anyone publicly
promoting anti-trust enforcement of Big Tech quasi-monopolies. Once totalitarianism has been
privatized , there are no rules that can't be ignored or broken by those behind the curtain .
So go ahead and say whatever you want around all your networked devices, but don't be surprised
if bad things start happening.
Editor's note: this is satire. If I disappear, then you'll know who has no sense of irony or
humor.
Two years ago, Wall Street banks were on their way out of a long-term relationship with the
oil industry. Now, with oil prices over $70 for the first time in three years, big bond buyers
are snapping up oil bonds once again.
Only there is a condition this time.
The Wall Street Journal's Joe Wallace and Collin Eaton
wrote this week that Wall Street was buying bonds from non-investment-grade U.S. energy
companies, which took advantage of record low interest rates to raise some $34 billion in fresh
debt in the first half of the year.
That's twice as much as the industry raised over the same period last year. But investors
don't want borrowers to use the cash to drill new wells. They want them to use it to pay off
older debt and shore up balance sheets.
It makes sense, really, although it is a marked departure from how banks normally react to
oil industry crises. The 2014 oil price collapse, in hindsight, may have been the last "normal"
crisis. Oil prices fell, funding dried up, supply tightened, prices went up, banks were willing
to lend again, and producers poured the money into boosting production.
Since then, however, the energy transition push has really gathered pace and banks have more
than one reason to not be so willing to lend to the oil industry. With the world's biggest
asset managers setting up net-zero groups to effectively force their institutional clients to
reduce their carbon footprint and with the Biden administration throwing its weight behind the
push for lower emissions, banks really have little choice but to follow the current. Their own
shareholders are increasingly concerned about the environment, too.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/aQXqMVeoOPs
Yet business is business, and nowhere is this clearer than in banks' dealings with the oil
industry. Bank shareholders may be concerned about the environment, but they certainly would be
more concerned about their dividend""and part of that comes from income made from lending to
oil. And the higher oil prices go, the more willing banks will be to lend to those that produce
it.
When they were unwilling to lend to the oil industry, other lenders
stepped in . Last year, alternative investment firms scooped up hundreds of millions in oil
industry debt from banks that were cutting their exposure to the politically incorrect
industry. Hedge funds and other so-called shadow lenders don't seem to have banks' misgivings
about profiting from oil and gas.
Now banks have mellowed towards oil somewhat, but it is an interesting twist that the
current loans come with the condition of not boosting output. Again, it makes sense. For years,
the shareholders of U.S. shale oil companies have been complaining about poor returns as the
companies put everything into output growth. Now it's payback time, and shareholders want their
returns.
So do lenders, apparently.
Per the WSJ article, this year, bond buyers "want to see companies repairing their
balance sheets and delivering to creditors and shareholders rather than plowing money into new
wells."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In this manic era of meme stocks, cryptocurrencies and real-estate
bidding wars, studying the history of financial markets might seem a little dry and
old-fashioned.
Except to Jeremy Grantham.
The chairman of the board of famed asset managers GMO is a certified bubble-ologist,
fascinated by how and why bubbles emerge. Grantham studies classic ones like 1929, but - now in
his eighties - he has also lived through (and called) numerous modern booms and busts,
including the dot-com wreckage in 2000, the bull market peak in 2008 and the bear market low in
2009.
In case you did not know where this is headed: He says we are in a bubble right now.
In January Grantham wrote an investor letter, "Waiting For the Last Dance," about an
inflating bubble that "could well be the most important event of your investing lives."
Six months later, the stock market is starting to show some cracks. Grantham spoke with
Reuters about this moment of market history.
Q: When your letter of warning came out, what was the response like?
A: I got a lot of pushback. Waves of Bitcoin freaks attacked me in every way possible. They
said my ears were too big, and that I needed to be locked up in an old-folks home.
Q: So if we were already in a bubble then, where do things stand right now?
A: Bubbles are unbelievably easy to see; it's knowing when the bust will come that is
trickier. You see it when the markets are on the front pages instead of the financial
pages, when the news is full of stories of people getting cheated, when new coins are being
created every month. The scale of these things is so much bigger than in 1929 or in 2000.
Q: What is your take on equity valuations now?
A: Looking at most measures, the market is more expensive than in 2000, which was more
expensive than anything that preceded it.
My favorite metric is price-to-sales: What you find is that even the cheapest parts of the
market are way more expensive than in 2000.
Q: What might bring an end to this bubble?
A: Markets peak when you are as happy as you can get, and a near-perfect economy is
extrapolated into the indefinite future. But around the corner are lurking serious issues like
interest rates, inflation, labor and commodity prices. All of those are beginning to look less
optimistic than they did just a week or two ago.
Q: How long until a bust?
A: A bust might take a few more months, and, in fact, I hope it does, because it will give
us the opportunity to warn more people. The probabilities are that this will go into the fall:
The stimulus, the economic recovery, and vaccinations have all allowed this thing to go on a
few months longer than I would have initially guessed.
What pricks the bubble could be a virus problem, it could be an inflation problem, or it
could be the most important category of all, which is everything else that is unexpected. One
of 20 different things that you haven't even thought of will come out of the woodwork, and you
had no idea it was even there.
Q: What might a bust look like?
A: There will be an enormous negative wealth effect, broader than it has ever been, compared
to any other previous bubble breaking. It's the first time we have bubbled in so many different
areas "" interest rates, stocks, housing, non-energy commodities. On the way up, it gave us all
a positive wealth effect, and on the way down it will retract, painfully.
Q: Are there any asset classes which are relatively attractive?
A: You could always own cash, or you could do what the institutions do, which is buy heavily
into the asset classes that are least bad. The least overpriced are value stocks and emerging
markets. Those are the two arbitrages. With value and emerging, you should make some positive
return over the next 10 years.
Q: It is difficult to be bearish right now?
A: Not for me, because I don't have career risk anymore. But every big company has lots of
risk: They facilitate a bubble until it bursts, and then they change their tune as fast as they
can, and make money on the downside.
But this bubble is the real thing, and everyone can see it. It's as obvious as the nose on
your face.
Walmart Brings Automation To Regional Distribution Centers BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY,
JUL 18, 2021 - 09:00 PM
The progressive press had a field day with "woke" Walmart highly
publicized February decision to hikes wages for 425,000 workers to an average above $15 an
hour. We doubt the obvious follow up - the ongoing stealthy replacement of many of its minimum
wage workers with machines - will get the same amount of airtime.
As Chain Store
Age reports , Walmart is applying artificial intelligence to the palletizing of products in
its regional distribution centers. I.e., it is replacing thousands of workers with robots.
Since 2017, the discount giant has worked with Symbotic to optimize an automated technology
solution to sort, store, retrieve and pack freight onto pallets in its Brooksville, Fla.,
distribution center. Under Walmart's existing system, product arrives at one of its RDCs and is
either cross-docked or warehoused, while being moved or stored manually. When it's time for the
product to go to a store, a 53-foot trailer is manually packed for transit. After the truck
arrives at a store, associates unload it manually and place the items in the appropriate
places.
Leveraging the Symbiotic solution, a complex algorithm determines how to store cases like
puzzle pieces using high-speed mobile robots that operate with a precision that speeds the
intake process and increases the accuracy of freight being stored for future orders. By using
dense modular storage, the solution also expands building capacity.
In addition, by using palletizing robotics to organize and optimize freight, the Symbiotic
solution creates custom store- and aisle-ready pallets.
Why is Walmart doing this? Simple: According to CSA, "Walmart expects to save time, limit
out-of-stocks and increasing the speed of stocking and unloading." More importantly, the
company hopes to further cut expenses and remove even more unskilled labor from its supply
chain.
This solution follows tests of similar automated warehouse solutions at a Walmart
consolidation center in Colton, Calif., and perishable grocery distribution center in Shafter,
Calif.
Walmart plans to implement this technology in 25 of its 42 RDCs.
"Though very few Walmart customers will ever see into our warehouses, they'll still be able
to witness an industry-leading change, each time they find a product on shelves," said Joe
Metzger, executive VP of supply chain operations at Walmart U.S. "There may be no way to solve
all the complexities of a global supply chain, but we plan to keep changing the game as we use
technology to transform the way we work and lead our business into the future."
We have owned rigs. We could never keep an operator around long enough to make it
worthwhile. We had a double drum and a single drum. Mud pump. Power swivel. Power tongs on
both. Testing truck. The whole enchilada.
We sold them all to a man who had worked for someone else and then went out on his own. We
gave him a good deal, and he did a lot of work for us. He still does work for us, but he can't
find help that will stay.
We also owned a tank truck. Sold it also. It is currently parked, the man we sold it to
cannot find a driver. He is a one horse tank truck driver. He turns down work all the time. We
had to shut down a lease we haul water on for a few days when he got COVID. Thankfully he
recovered.
All of us around here just cannot quite believe what is going on with the oilfield labor
force. It is a perfect storm.
Meanwhile, most recently we paid $5.63 per foot for 2 3/8" steel tubing, which was under $3
a year ago. We priced a 115 fiberglass tank for $6,800, would have been $3,900 a year ago.
We had a couple wells down for a few weeks because we could neither get new nor rewound
motors for them.
The man who owns the backhoes, trackhoes and cranes that does contract work for us is in his
70's and has great grandkids. He works in the field daily beside his son and grandson.
One of the last rig hands we had broke into our shop last winter. He got out of jail after a
few weeks and immediately got a job in a local factory. Hope he stays clean. He was a good hand
when he was, and had learned to operate a single drum also.
The prosecutor in our county announced the first six months of 2021 that 162 felony cases
had been filed in our small county, that in 2019 the total for the year was 204 felonies, and
that 33 of the 34 jail inmates were addicted to meth.
We do have one pumper now under 50. The rest are from 51 to 63. REPLYINGRAHAMMARK7 IGNORED07/20/2021 at 1:34
am
How much land do you have left? At one well per section how many can you drill and how long
it takes? That's when your business wraps up. REPLYRASPUTIN IGNORED07/20/2021 at 2:40
am
Holy Moly SS
I guess the days of vertical doing things in house are gone. That labor mess is unreal.
However, here in nowhere USA it is hard to find good help but you can usually find help. I was
so surprised at some of the job turnover even during peak covid when some businesses were
restricted and some essential. How are people living that have no jobs? Over the years I hired
relatives that never got it, didn't stay sober and didn't see the long term upside. Maybe it's
all about today for the younger generation.
Over the past year and a half I've been following your posts including labor issues. Were
they so dreadful before covid and helicopter money? It might appear to the uninformed that
training rig help. pumpers and the like is easy, but it's not. One small oops for man is one
huge oops for you.
Perhaps, as we move away from the false narrative that you must have a college degree to get
a good or high paying job, things will improve in the trades and the oilfield.
About 20 years ago I was visiting with a substantial independent stimulation company that
was having labor issues. The head honcho lamented that they had already poached all of the
young guys that grew up on farms and knew machinery, getting up early and how to work. Having
known a few guys and what they earned they most likely didn't point their kids at basket
weaving degrees.
Sure wish I had an answer for you. Personally, I'm shrinking down to a few wells close to
the house/shop/yard, one of which I could walk to for daily exercise. However, I'll run my
equipment myself as long as possible.
The number of basically "homeless" people living here in my part of very rural USA is
startling. People aren't generally sleeping in the parks. They have duffle bags and backpacks
and crash place to place.
We have the tremendous labor shortage, yet the public defender and conflicts public defender
have over 400 clients combined. This in a county of a little less than 20K people. That right
there is the labor force for a decent sized factory around here.
To qualify for the PD you must have income below 125% of federal poverty guidelines, which
is very low. During the height of COVID, nothing got done with their cases because the PD's
couldn't get ahold of them. Few have cell phones that are permanent (track phones) and few have
permanent addresses. The jail is full so there aren't a lot of warrants being issued for the
lower level crimes. So people haven't been showing up for their court cases for months/ over a
year. Our county is going to send close to 100 people to prison this year, almost all for meth
delivery. This is the situation all over rural USA. People who live here and aren't in the
court system are oblivious to it until they get broken into or robbed (or have an addicted
relative, which many do).
The primary reason for the labor shortage here is a combination of young people moving to
larger towns/cities, a very large percentage of the working age population being addicted to
meth (which is now being cut with heroin, fentanyl, etc) and the significant benefits that have
been paid to not work. I hate to think of how many billions of borrowed money stimulus our
future generations are now indebted with that went directly into the pockets of the foreign
drug cartels.
As for the oilfield, add to that the hard work, not the greatest pay in the world at the
bottom end (rig hands) the need to find people who can work unsupervised outdoors, and the
young people being told the industry is dead and a job in that field will soon be gone.
Finally, a ton of "old timers" simply retired during COVID.
Our country has no idea how dependent we are on labor from Mexico and Central America that
keeps us alive. The only farm workers are Hispanic. However, most don't want to work in the
oilfield either, it seems. We just harvested green beans, and all the crew were Hispanic. The
same will be the case here shortly as we harvest watermelons and cabbage. If Trump were
successful and closed the borders and sent everyone back, we would starve.
The largest oil company here shut in everything it owned when oil went negative.
Unfortunately for them they laid off a lot of people. Many of their wells are still idle.
Maybe we are an outlier. But I doubt it. A decent amount people at the lower end of the
labor force seem to have decided they aren't going to work, and offering a lot more $$ won't
bring them back. Maybe they will come back when the government benefits end.
Even the prisons can't find employees. They pay $70K+ plus great benefits. Mentally
difficult work though. Also, can't have a criminal record and cannot use drugs, even pot.
Keep in mind a large percentage of the USA population now smokes or ingests pot. That
doesn't work well in a lot of industries where sobriety is mandatory.
The gas station I fill up at is offering a $300 signing bonus which is paid after 30 days of
no unexcused absences. $13 and hour to start at the cash register. They can't find people to
take that.
I'm rambling now, and I'll stop.
Surely there are some shale basin people reading this. Could any of you comment about
whether there is a labor shortage in your shale basin? If there isn't, maybe we could persuade
a few of them to come to our neck of the woods and work on the simple, shallow wells. Not a lot
of traveling, no weekends unless you pump, and work is daytime only. KANSAS OIL IGNORED07/20/2021 at 9:10
am
Shallow Sand –
I echo all of your sentiments. We are a small operator in Kansas, producing about 300
bbl/day in 13 various counties. We have approximately 50-60 bbl/day offline pushing 3 weeks.
We're talking 8/8ths approximately $75,000 in revenue. Pre-Covid you could count on getting a
pulling unit sometimes next day if you had a mechanical failure. Now it's 3-4 weeks. $20/hour
for green rig hands evidently isn't enough to move the needle, whether it's because the work is
too difficult, or it's easier to keep cashing the government checks. And by my count we are in
a similar situation with oil field pumpers. We have 13 of them. 2 are 50s, and the rest are all
over 60. I'm in my early 40s and my field superintendent is 56. He loves to work and will
probably do so until he's 70-75. When he checks out will probably be when I check out.
REPLYSHALLOW SAND IGNORED07/20/2021 at 9:55
am
Kansas Oil.
Great to hear from you.
Thanks for confirming what we are experiencing.
The big question is whether this is also going on in the shale basins, primarily Permian. If
it is, don't see how USA production grows much.
I drive across Kansas on both I 70 and the South Route through Wichita to the OK panhandle
quite a bit. Always keep my eyes open for whether pumping units are moving or not.
I worry about whether the huge feed lots, hog facilities and packing plants out there can
find enough help. People have no clue how much of the USA is fed from the TX, OK panhandles on
up through Western KS and NE.
Two years ago, Wall Street banks were on their way out of a long-term relationship with the
oil industry. Now, with oil prices over $70 for the first time in three years, big bond buyers
are snapping up oil bonds once again.
Only there is a condition this time.
The Wall Street Journal's Joe Wallace and Collin Eaton
wrote this week that Wall Street was buying bonds from non-investment-grade U.S. energy
companies, which took advantage of record low interest rates to raise some $34 billion in fresh
debt in the first half of the year.
That's twice as much as the industry raised over the same period last year. But investors
don't want borrowers to use the cash to drill new wells. They want them to use it to pay off
older debt and shore up balance sheets.
It makes sense, really, although it is a marked departure from how banks normally react to
oil industry crises. The 2014 oil price collapse, in hindsight, may have been the last "normal"
crisis. Oil prices fell, funding dried up, supply tightened, prices went up, banks were willing
to lend again, and producers poured the money into boosting production.
Since then, however, the energy transition push has really gathered pace and banks have more
than one reason to not be so willing to lend to the oil industry. With the world's biggest
asset managers setting up net-zero groups to effectively force their institutional clients to
reduce their carbon footprint and with the Biden administration throwing its weight behind the
push for lower emissions, banks really have little choice but to follow the current. Their own
shareholders are increasingly concerned about the environment, too.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/aQXqMVeoOPs
Yet business is business, and nowhere is this clearer than in banks' dealings with the oil
industry. Bank shareholders may be concerned about the environment, but they certainly would be
more concerned about their dividend""and part of that comes from income made from lending to
oil. And the higher oil prices go, the more willing banks will be to lend to those that produce
it.
When they were unwilling to lend to the oil industry, other lenders
stepped in . Last year, alternative investment firms scooped up hundreds of millions in oil
industry debt from banks that were cutting their exposure to the politically incorrect
industry. Hedge funds and other so-called shadow lenders don't seem to have banks' misgivings
about profiting from oil and gas.
Now banks have mellowed towards oil somewhat, but it is an interesting twist that the
current loans come with the condition of not boosting output. Again, it makes sense. For years,
the shareholders of U.S. shale oil companies have been complaining about poor returns as the
companies put everything into output growth. Now it's payback time, and shareholders want their
returns.
So do lenders, apparently.
Per the WSJ article, this year, bond buyers "want to see companies repairing their
balance sheets and delivering to creditors and shareholders rather than plowing money into new
wells."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In this manic era of meme stocks, cryptocurrencies and real-estate
bidding wars, studying the history of financial markets might seem a little dry and
old-fashioned.
Except to Jeremy Grantham.
The chairman of the board of famed asset managers GMO is a certified bubble-ologist,
fascinated by how and why bubbles emerge. Grantham studies classic ones like 1929, but - now in
his eighties - he has also lived through (and called) numerous modern booms and busts,
including the dot-com wreckage in 2000, the bull market peak in 2008 and the bear market low in
2009.
In case you did not know where this is headed: He says we are in a bubble right now.
In January Grantham wrote an investor letter, "Waiting For the Last Dance," about an
inflating bubble that "could well be the most important event of your investing lives."
Six months later, the stock market is starting to show some cracks. Grantham spoke with
Reuters about this moment of market history.
Q: When your letter of warning came out, what was the response like?
A: I got a lot of pushback. Waves of Bitcoin freaks attacked me in every way possible. They
said my ears were too big, and that I needed to be locked up in an old-folks home.
Q: So if we were already in a bubble then, where do things stand right now?
A: Bubbles are unbelievably easy to see; it's knowing when the bust will come that is
trickier. You see it when the markets are on the front pages instead of the financial
pages, when the news is full of stories of people getting cheated, when new coins are being
created every month. The scale of these things is so much bigger than in 1929 or in 2000.
Q: What is your take on equity valuations now?
A: Looking at most measures, the market is more expensive than in 2000, which was more
expensive than anything that preceded it.
My favorite metric is price-to-sales: What you find is that even the cheapest parts of the
market are way more expensive than in 2000.
Q: What might bring an end to this bubble?
A: Markets peak when you are as happy as you can get, and a near-perfect economy is
extrapolated into the indefinite future. But around the corner are lurking serious issues like
interest rates, inflation, labor and commodity prices. All of those are beginning to look less
optimistic than they did just a week or two ago.
Q: How long until a bust?
A: A bust might take a few more months, and, in fact, I hope it does, because it will give
us the opportunity to warn more people. The probabilities are that this will go into the fall:
The stimulus, the economic recovery, and vaccinations have all allowed this thing to go on a
few months longer than I would have initially guessed.
What pricks the bubble could be a virus problem, it could be an inflation problem, or it
could be the most important category of all, which is everything else that is unexpected. One
of 20 different things that you haven't even thought of will come out of the woodwork, and you
had no idea it was even there.
Q: What might a bust look like?
A: There will be an enormous negative wealth effect, broader than it has ever been, compared
to any other previous bubble breaking. It's the first time we have bubbled in so many different
areas "" interest rates, stocks, housing, non-energy commodities. On the way up, it gave us all
a positive wealth effect, and on the way down it will retract, painfully.
Q: Are there any asset classes which are relatively attractive?
A: You could always own cash, or you could do what the institutions do, which is buy heavily
into the asset classes that are least bad. The least overpriced are value stocks and emerging
markets. Those are the two arbitrages. With value and emerging, you should make some positive
return over the next 10 years.
Q: It is difficult to be bearish right now?
A: Not for me, because I don't have career risk anymore. But every big company has lots of
risk: They facilitate a bubble until it bursts, and then they change their tune as fast as they
can, and make money on the downside.
But this bubble is the real thing, and everyone can see it. It's as obvious as the nose on
your face.
Walmart Brings Automation To Regional Distribution Centers BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY,
JUL 18, 2021 - 09:00 PM
The progressive press had a field day with "woke" Walmart highly
publicized February decision to hikes wages for 425,000 workers to an average above $15 an
hour. We doubt the obvious follow up - the ongoing stealthy replacement of many of its minimum
wage workers with machines - will get the same amount of airtime.
As Chain Store
Age reports , Walmart is applying artificial intelligence to the palletizing of products in
its regional distribution centers. I.e., it is replacing thousands of workers with robots.
Since 2017, the discount giant has worked with Symbotic to optimize an automated technology
solution to sort, store, retrieve and pack freight onto pallets in its Brooksville, Fla.,
distribution center. Under Walmart's existing system, product arrives at one of its RDCs and is
either cross-docked or warehoused, while being moved or stored manually. When it's time for the
product to go to a store, a 53-foot trailer is manually packed for transit. After the truck
arrives at a store, associates unload it manually and place the items in the appropriate
places.
Leveraging the Symbiotic solution, a complex algorithm determines how to store cases like
puzzle pieces using high-speed mobile robots that operate with a precision that speeds the
intake process and increases the accuracy of freight being stored for future orders. By using
dense modular storage, the solution also expands building capacity.
In addition, by using palletizing robotics to organize and optimize freight, the Symbiotic
solution creates custom store- and aisle-ready pallets.
Why is Walmart doing this? Simple: According to CSA, "Walmart expects to save time, limit
out-of-stocks and increasing the speed of stocking and unloading." More importantly, the
company hopes to further cut expenses and remove even more unskilled labor from its supply
chain.
This solution follows tests of similar automated warehouse solutions at a Walmart
consolidation center in Colton, Calif., and perishable grocery distribution center in Shafter,
Calif.
Walmart plans to implement this technology in 25 of its 42 RDCs.
"Though very few Walmart customers will ever see into our warehouses, they'll still be able
to witness an industry-leading change, each time they find a product on shelves," said Joe
Metzger, executive VP of supply chain operations at Walmart U.S. "There may be no way to solve
all the complexities of a global supply chain, but we plan to keep changing the game as we use
technology to transform the way we work and lead our business into the future."
Unfortunately,
seniors often miss tax-saving opportunities that are available to them. Don't let that happen
to you!
For new retirees, it's more important than ever to take full advantage of every tax break
available. That's especially true if you're on a fixed income. After all, you have to stretch
out your retirement savings to cover the rest of your life. But holding on to your money during
retirement is easier said than done. That's why retirees really need to pay close attention to
their tax situation.
Unfortunately, though, seniors often miss valuable tax-saving opportunities . In many cases,
it's simply because they just don't know about them. Don't let that happen to you -- check out
these often-overlooked tax breaks for retirees . You could save a bundle!
When you turn 65, the IRS offers you a gift in the form of a larger standard
deduction . For example, a single 64-year-old taxpayer can claim a standard deduction of
$12,550 on his or her 2021 tax return (it was $12,400 for 2020 returns). But a single
65-year-old taxpayer will get a $14,250 standard deduction in 2021 ($14,050 in 2020).
The extra $1,700 will make it more likely that you'll take the standard deduction rather
than itemize. And, if you do claim the standard deduction, the additional amount will save you
over $400 if you're in the 24%
income tax bracket .
Couples in which one or both spouses are age 65 or older also get bigger standard deductions
than younger taxpayers. If only one spouse is 65 or older, the extra amount for 2021 is $1,350
– $2,700 if both spouses are 65 or older. Be sure to take advantage of your age!
For new retirees, it's more important than ever to take full advantage of every tax break
available. That's especially true if you're on a fixed income. After all, you have to stretch
out your retirement savings to cover the rest of your life. But holding on to your money during
retirement is easier said than done. That's why retirees really need to pay close attention to
their tax situation.
Unfortunately, though, seniors often miss valuable tax-saving opportunities . In many cases,
it's simply because they just don't know about them. Don't let that happen to you -- check out
these often-overlooked tax breaks for retirees . You could save a bundle!
When you turn 65, the IRS offers you a gift in the form of a larger standard
deduction . For example, a single 64-year-old taxpayer can claim a standard deduction of
$12,550 on his or her 2021 tax return (it was $12,400 for 2020 returns). But a single
65-year-old taxpayer will get a $14,250 standard deduction in 2021 ($14,050 in 2020).
The extra $1,700 will make it more likely that you'll take the standard deduction rather
than itemize. And, if you do claim the standard deduction, the additional amount will save you
over $400 if you're in the 24%
income tax bracket .
Couples in which one or both spouses are age 65 or older also get bigger standard deductions
than younger taxpayers. If only one spouse is 65 or older, the extra amount for 2021 is $1,350
– $2,700 if both spouses are 65 or older. Be sure to take advantage of your age!
The rules are clear: To qualify for tax-free profit from the sale of a home, the home must
be your principal residence and you must have owned and lived in it for at least two of the
five years leading up to the sale. But there is a way to capture tax-free profit from the sale
of a former vacation home.
Let's say you sell the family homestead and cash in on the break that makes up to $250,000
in profit tax-free ($500,000 if you're married and file jointly). You then move into a vacation
home you've owned for 25 years. As long as you make that house your principal residence for at
least two years, part of the profit on the sale will be tax-free.
Basically, the $250,000/$500,00 exclusion doesn't apply to any profit that is allocable to
the time after 2008 that a home is not used as your principal residence. For example, assume
you bought a vacation home in 2001, convert it to your principal residence in 2015 and sell it
in 2021. The post-2008 vacation-home use is seven of the 20 years you owned the property. So,
35% (7 ÷ 20) of the profit would be taxable at capital gains rates; the other 65% would
qualify for the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion.
"... Here are the other ominous signs of froth in the IPO market. ..."
"... Tech leads the way: It dominates the IPO market again, just as in 1999. ..."
"... Frothy first-day gains: The average first-day pop for IPOs in the second quarter was 42% ..."
"... Historically high valuations ..."
"... Retail investors in the mix ..."
"... "I think it says more about general liquidity than it does about where the stock market is going next," says Kevin Landis of the Firsthand Technology Opportunities TEFQX, -3.24% , referring to the IPO frenzy. "There is so much money sloshing around. The capital markets look like the rich guy from out of town who just got off the cruise ship, and we are all coming out of the woodwork to sell him stuff," he says. ..."
"... "Things are going up simply because of liquidity, which means eventually there will be a top," says Landis. "But not necessarily an impending top right around the corner." Landis is worth listening to because his fund outperforms his technology category by 9.6 percentage points annualized over the five years, according to Morningstar. ..."
"... Market calls are always a matter of what intelligence spies call "the mosaic." Each bit of information is a piece of an overall mosaic. While the IPO market froth is disturbing, you should consider this cautionary signal as just one among many. ..."
A frothy market for initial public offerings suggests stocks are overvalued
Oatly, which produces oat milk products, went public in May. (Photo Illustration by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
I hear more money managers say it's starting to feel like 1999" the bubble year followed by an epic market crash.
They may be on to something.
The initial public offering (IPO) market now shows the froth that foreshadows big stock market corrections.
Consider these troubling signals from the IPO market.
1. Ominous volume:
Second-quarter IPO proceeds were the biggest since" get this" the fourth quarter of 1999. The huge
tech selloff that scarred a generation of investors started in March 2000 and then spread to the entire market.
Some details: A total of 115 IPOs raised $40.7 billion in the second quarter. That follows a busy first quarter when 100 IPOs
raised $39.1 billion. Both quarters saw the largest amount of capital raised since the fourth quarter of 1999, when IPOs raised
$46.5 billion. These numbers come from the IPO experts at Renaissance Capital, which manages the IPO exchange traded fund, Renaissance
IPO ETF
IPO,
-3.43%
.
Of course, adjusted for inflation, the 2021 numbers shrink relative to the fourth quarter of 1999. But this doesn't get us off
the hook. The 2021 IPO figures, above, exclude the $12.2 billion and $87 billion raised by special purpose acquisition companies
(SPACs) in the second and first quarters.
This spike in IPO volume is troubling for a simple reason. Investment bankers and companies know the most opportune time to sell
stock is around market highs. They bring companies public at their convenience, not ours. This tells us they may be selling a
top now.
Here are the other ominous signs of froth in the IPO market.
2.
Tech leads the way:
It dominates the IPO market again, just as in 1999.
The tech sector raised the majority
of second-quarter proceeds and posted its busiest quarter in at least two decades with 42 IPOs, says Renaissance Capital. This
included the quarter's largest IPO, DiDi Global
DIDI,
+1.61%
,
the Chinese ride-hailing app. The large U.S.-based tech names were Applovin
APP,
-5.54%
in app software, the robotics company UiPath
PATH,
-3.68%
,
and the payments platform Marqeta
MQ,
-4.93%
.
3. We can expect more of the same:
A robust IPO pipeline sets the stage for a booming third quarter, says Renaissance
Capital. The IPO pipeline has over a hundred companies. Tech dominates.
4.
Frothy first-day gains:
The average first-day pop for IPOs in the second quarter was 42%
. That's well above
the range of 31%-37% for the prior four quarters.
5.
Historically high valuations
:
Typically, tech companies have come public with enterprise-value-(EV)-to-sales
ratios of around 10. Now many are coming public with EV/sales ratios in the 20-30 range or more, points out Avery Spears, an IPO
analyst at Renaissance Capital. For example, the cybersecurity company SentinelOne
S,
-6.14%
came public with an EV/sales ratio of 81, says Spears.
6.
Retail investors in the mix
:
They're big participants in IPO trading" often driving IPOs up by crazy amounts
in first-day trading. "In the second quarter there were a lot of small deals with low floats and absolutely insane trading, popping
well over 100% and in one case over 1,000%," says Spears. Pop Culture Group
CPOP,
-12.38%
rose over 400% on its first day of trading, and E-Home Household Service
EJH,
-3.67%
advanced 1,100%. "This demonstrates presence of retail investors in the market," she says. Both
names have since fallen.
Keep in mind that the 2000 selloff was not the only one foreshadowed by IPO froth. The selloffs during mid-2015 to early 2016
and the second half 2018 were both preceded by high-water marks for IPO deal volume.
IPO-froth pushback
"It's different this time" are maybe the most dangerous words in investing. But market experts say several factors suggest the
robust IPO market isn't such a negative signal.
First, decent quality companies are coming public. "Because companies stay private longer, you are seeing far more mature companies
coming public," says Todd Skacan, equity capital markets manager at T. Rowe Price. These aren't like the speculative Internet
companies of 1999. "It would be more of a signal of froth if more borderline companies were coming public like in the fourth quarter
of 1999," he says.
We saw some of this with the SPACs, says Skacan, but the SPAC craze has cooled off. Second-quarter SPAC issuance fell 79% compared
to the first quarter, muted by "investor fatigue and regulatory scrutiny," says a Renaissance Capital report on the IPO market.
In the second quarter, 63 SPACs raised $12.2 billion, compared to the 298 SPACs that raised $87 billion in the first quarter.
Next, the type of company coming public might also calm fears. Alongside all the tech names, there are many industrial and consumer-facing
companies" not the kinds of businesses that indicate froth. The latter category includes public national brands like Mister Car
Wash
MCW,
-1.82%
and Krispy Kreme
DNUT,
-2.16%
,
and the high-growth oat milk brand Oatly
OTLY,
-2.79%
.
Third, IPOs are only floating 10%-15% of their overall value, and many post-IPO valuations are not that much higher than valuations
implied by pre-IPO capital raises. That's different, compared to 1999. "It is not like they are selling a high number of shares
at inflated prices," says Skacan. This makes sense, because companies that are more mature when they do an IPO don't need as much
money.
Liquidity flood
"I think it says more about general liquidity than it does about where the stock market is going next," says Kevin Landis
of the Firsthand Technology Opportunities
TEFQX,
-3.24%
,
referring to the IPO frenzy. "There is so much money sloshing around. The capital markets look like the rich guy from out of town
who just got off the cruise ship, and we are all coming out of the woodwork to sell him stuff," he says.
"Things are going up simply because of liquidity, which means eventually there will be a top," says Landis. "But not necessarily
an impending top right around the corner." Landis is worth listening to because his fund outperforms his technology category by
9.6 percentage points annualized over the five years, according to Morningstar.
The bottom line
Market calls are always a matter of what intelligence spies call "the mosaic." Each bit of information is a piece of an overall
mosaic. While the IPO market froth is disturbing, you should consider this cautionary signal as just one among many.
Michael Brush is a columnist for MarketWatch. At the time of publication, he owned APP. Brush has suggested APP in his stock
newsletter,
Brush Up on Stocks
. Follow him on Twitter @mbrushstocks,
There's nothing more beautiful to a professional investor than a negative correlation between stocks and bonds. When stocks have
a bad month, bonds have a good month, and vice versa. Since their zigs and zags offset each other, the value of the combined portfolio
is less volatile. The customers are pleased. And that's how it's been for most of the last two decades.
But for almost a year now, Bloomberg market reporters have been detecting anxiety from the pros that the era of negative correlation
may be over or ending, replaced by an era of positive correlation in which stock and bond prices move together, amplifying volatility
instead of dampening it. "Bonds Have Never Been So Useless as a Hedge to Stocks Since 1999," read the headline on one article this
May.
Yet hope springs eternal. The headline on a July 7 article was, "Bonds Are Hinting They'll Hedge Stocks Again as Growth Bets Ease."
In the big picture and over long periods, it's obvious and necessary that stock and bond returns are positively correlated. After
all, they're competing investments. Each generates a stream of income: dividends for (most) stocks, coupon payments for bonds. If
stocks get very expensive, investors will shift money into bonds as a cheaper alternative until that rebalancing makes bonds more
or less equally expensive. Likewise, when one of the two asset classes gets cheap it will tend to drag down the other.
When the pros talk about negative correlation they're referring to shorter periods""say, a month or two--over which stocks and
bonds can indeed move in different directions. Lately two giant money managers have produced explanations for why stocks and bonds
move apart or together. They're worth understanding even if your assets under management are in the thousands rather than billions
or trillions.
Bridgewater Associates, the world's biggest hedge fund, based in Westport, Conn., says that how stocks and bonds play with
each other has to do with economic conditions and policy. "There will naturally be times when they're negatively correlated and naturally
be times when they're positively correlated, and those come from the underlying environment itself," senior portfolio strategist,
Jeff Gardner says in an edited transcript of a recent in-house interview.
According to Gardner, inflation was the most important factor in the markets for decades""both when it rose in the 1960s and 1970s
and when it fell in the 1980s and 1990s. Inflation affects stocks and bonds similarly, although it's worse for bonds with their fixed
payments than for stocks. That's why correlation was positive during that long period.
For the past 20 years or so, inflation has been so low and steady that it's been a non-factor in the markets. So investors have
paid more attention to economic growth prospects. Strong growth is great for stocks but doesn't do anything for bonds. That, says
Gardner, is the main reason that stocks and bonds have moved in different directions.
PGIM Inc., the main asset management business of insurer Prudential Financial Inc., has $1.5 trillion under management. In a report
issued in May, it puts numbers on the disappointment the pros feel when stocks and bonds start to move in sync. Let's say a portfolio
is 60% stocks and 40% bonds and has a stock-bond correlation of -0.3, which is about average for the last 20 years. Volatility is
around 7%. Now let's say the correlation goes to zero" not positive yet, but not negative anymore, either. To keep volatility from
rising, the portfolio manager would have to reduce the allocation to stocks to around 52%, which would lower the portfolio's returns.
If the stock-bond correlation reached a positive 0.3, then keeping volatility from rising would require reducing the stock allocation
to only 40%, hitting returns even harder.
PGIM's list of factors that affect correlations is longer than Bridgewater's but consistent with it. The report by vice president
Junying Shen and managing director Noah Weisberger says correlations between stocks and bonds tend to be negative when there's sustainable
fiscal policy, independent and rules-based monetary policy, and shifts up or down in the demand side of the economy (consumption).
The correlation is likely to be positive, they say, when there's unsustainable fiscal policy, discretionary monetary policy, monetary-fiscal
policy coordination, and shifts in the supply side of the economy (output).
One last thought: It's a good idea to spread your money between stocks and bonds even if they don't hedge each other. The capital
asset pricing model developed by William Sharpe in the 1960s says everyone should have the same portfolio, consisting of every asset
available, and adjust their risk by how much they borrow. True, not everyone agrees. John Rekenthaler, a vice president for research
at Morningstar Inc., wrote a fun article in 2017 about the different strategies of Sharpe and fellow Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz.
Images removed. See the original for the full version...
Notable quotes:
"... To shed light on this question, let's look at where both asset classes stand relative to their long-term trendlines. It's important to take a long-term perspective because commentators seem overly eager to detect bubbles everywhere they look these days. They (and we) need to be reminded that not every bull market is a bubble, and not every bear market represents the bursting of a bubble. ..."
Which U.S. asset class is more likely in a bubble right now" stocks or housing? More than 80% of traders polled in a
Charles Schwab survey say both.
To shed light on this question, let's look at where both asset classes stand relative to their long-term trendlines. It's important
to take a long-term perspective because commentators seem overly eager to detect bubbles everywhere they look these days. They (and
we) need to be reminded that not every bull market is a bubble, and not every bear market represents the bursting of a bubble.
Why are we so eager to detect bubbles? Will Goetzmann, a finance professor at Yale University, told me that he suspects it traces
to the moral overtone that investors have when they declare something to be forming a bubble. When they do, he said, they're implying
that those who lose big in that bear market will be getting what they deserve.
This column leaves moral judgments out of the equation. I instead am focusing on the most comprehensive data set of U.S. equity
and housing returns that I know. This database, which extends back to the late 1800s, was compiled by Ã'scar Jordà of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Katharina Knoll of Deutsche Bundesbank in Frankfurt, Dmitry Kuvshinov and Moritz Schularick, both
of the University of Bonn, and Alan M. Taylor of the University of California Davis.
This database is unique in several ways. One big advantage
is that it includes data for both stocks and housing; other databases extend further back in the case of the stock market but don't
include housing. The database also takes rent into account when calculating housing's return. Some prior historical analyses of housing's
return have focused only on price appreciation, which significantly underreports housing's performance.
The chart below plots the returns since 1890 of U.S. stocks and housing. Notice that equities and housing have each produced
largely similar returns over the past 130 years . As recently as the late 1940s, housing was ahead of equities for cumulative
performance since 1890. As recently as the late 1970s the two data series were nearly neck-and-neck. Notice further that housing's
performance has been less volatile than the stock market's, especially since World War II.
For each asset class I calculated an exponential trendline that most closely fit the 130 years' worth of data. The bad news is
that both stocks and housing currently are above their respective trendlines, so if you insist that both assets are in bubbles now
you in fact could find some statistical support.
Of the two, the stock market is further ahead of its long-term trendline than is housing. So if you'd have to pick which of the
two is more likely to decline significantly, you should choose stocks.
Bonds are vulnerable
I've not said anything about bonds, but they are even further ahead of their trendline than either stocks or housing. So from
this long-term perspective they are even more vulnerable than stocks to a big decline.
when the tax rates increase even more, it just encourages automation or DIY (bring your own sheets to avoid paying the cleaning
fee), which just grinds down growth rather than accelerates it.
Notable quotes:
"... Applebee's is now using tablets to allow customers to pay at their tables without summoning a waiter. ..."
Companies see automation and other labor-saving steps as a way to emerge from the health crisis with a permanently smaller
workforce
PHOTO:
JIM THOMPSON/ZUMA PRESS
... ... ...
Economic data show that companies have learned to do more with less over the last 16 months or so. Output nearly
recovered to pre-pandemic levels in the first quarter of 2021 -- down just 0.5% from the end of 2019 -- even though U.S.
workers put in 4.3% fewer hours than they did before the health crisis.
... ... ...
Raytheon Technologies
Corp.
RTX
0.08%
,
the biggest U.S. aerospace supplier by sales, laid off 21,000 employees and contractors in 2020 amid a drastic
decline in air travel. Raytheon said in January that efforts to modernize its factories and back-office operations
would boost profit margins and reduce the need to bring back all those jobs. The company said that most if not all
of the 4,500 contract workers who were let go in 2020 wouldn't be called back.
... ... ..
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. HLT -0.78% said last week that most of its U.S. properties are adopting "a
flexible housekeeping policy," with daily service available upon request. "Full deep cleanings will be conducted
prior to check-in and on every fifth day for extended stays," it said.
Daily housekeeping will still be free for those who request it...
Unite Here, a union that represents hotel workers, published a report in June estimating that the end of daily
room cleaning could result in an industrywide loss of up to 180,000 jobs...
... ... ...
Restaurants have become rapid adopters of technology during the pandemic as two forces -- labor shortages that are
pushing wages higher and a desire to reduce close contact between customers and employees -- raise the return on such
investments.
...
Applebee's is now using tablets to allow customers to pay at their tables without summoning a
waiter.
The hand-held screens provide a hedge against labor inflation, said John Peyton, CEO of Applebee's
parent
Dine
Brands Global
Inc.
... ... ...
The U.S. tax code encourages investments in automation, particularly after the Trump administration's tax cuts,
said Daron Acemoglu, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the impact of
automation on workers. Firms pay around 25 cents in taxes for every dollar they pay workers, compared with 5 cents
for every dollar spent on machines because companies can write off capital investments, he said.
A lot of employers were given Covid-aid to keep employees employed and paid in 2020. I
assume somebody has addressed that obligation since it wasn't mentioned.
But, what happens to the unskilled workers whose jobs have been eliminated? Do Raytheon
and Hilton just say "have a nice life on the streets"?
No, they will become our collective burdens.
I am all for technology and progress and better QA/QC and general performance. But the
employers that benefit from this should use part of their gains in stock valuation to keep
"our collective burdens" off our collective backs, rather than pay dividends and bonuses
first.
Maybe reinvest in updated training for those laid off.
No great outcome comes free. BUT, as the article implies, the luxury of having already
laid off the unskilled, likely leaves the employer holding all the cards.
And the wheel keeps turning...
Jeffery Allen
Question! Isn't this antithetical (reduction of employees) to the spirit and purpose of
both monetary and fiscal programs, e.g., PPP loans (fiscal), capital markets funding
facilities (monetary) established last year and current year? Employers are to retain
employees. Gee, what a farce. Does anyone really care?
Philip Hilmes
Some of this makes sense and some would happen anyway without the pandemic. I don't need my room
cleaned every day, but sometimes I want it. The wait staff in restaurants is another matter. Losing
wait staff makes for a pretty bad experience. I hate having to order on my phone. I feel like I might
as well be home ordering food through Grubhub or something. It's impersonal, more painful than telling
someone, doesn't allow for you to be checked on if you need anything, doesn't provide information you
don't get from a menu, etc. It really diminishes the value of going out to eat without wait staff.
al snow
OK I been reading all the comments I only have a WSJ access as the rate was a great deal.
Hotel/Motel started making the bed but not changing the sheets every day for many years I am fine as
long as they offer trash take out and towel/paper every day
and do not forget to tip .
clive boulton
Recruiters re-post hard to fill job listings onto multiple job boards. I don't believe the reported
job openings resemble are real. Divide by 3 at least.
Stocks are near all-time highs, and though U.S. markets opened slightly lower on Thursday, it's much easier to find bulls than
bears these days.
But a technical indicator showing itself in five high-profile stocks and two funds suggests that a market correction is
coming, according to strategist
Michael
Kramer of Mott Capital Management
, in our
call
of the day
.
The relative strength index, or RSI, measures the speed and change of recent price movements and is one of the most
renowned technical signals. It allows investors to evaluate whether a security is overbought or oversold -- i.e. overvalued or
undervalued. A reading of 70 or above is considered overbought, while 30 and below is oversold.
A look back at 2018 is enough to tell investors why they should watch this indicator, according to Kramer, who noted on
January 29, 2018 that high RSIs for some of the biggest names signalled that the stock market was ready to fall. "Things
got really ugly after that through February 8," he said.
In those 10 days early in 2018, Dow industrials
DJIA,
+0.15%
tumbled
near 9%, the S&P 500
SPX,
-0.33%
plunged
more than 10%, and the Nasdaq Composite
COMP,
-0.70%
fell
near 10%.
Now, "the same thing is emerging," Kramer said, "with the biggest stocks all reaching very overbought reading."
By the end of Wednesday, Apple had an RSI of more than 80, with Amazon at 70, Microsoft at 76, and Google-owner Alphabet at
73 and showing a rising pattern, Kramer said. He noted that Nvidia's RSI was in the process of breaking a near-two month
rise up to 83.
Ark Innovation ETF's RSI was sitting at 76, while the QQQ was above 75. "When the QQQ RSI gets this high, the outcomes are
not good most of the time, including January 2018," Kramer said.
No. Not true and badly misleading. Remaining EIA PDP from the Permian will not generate sufficient net cash flow to self fund
123,000 wells (your estimate) costing nearly $1T, much less do that AND pay down over $100 B of existing debt in the Permian. That's
using EIA PDP estimates; whack those by 30%. It is not possible to drill $9MM wells for a 135% ROI over 15 years and be financially
self-sufficient, service and pay down debt, provide returns to investors and maintain a 100% RRR. The US shale oil model does not
work without credit. $70 "assumptions" do NOT solve the issue of where the money is going to come from for your miracle of abundance
to actually occur. ANCIENTARCHER IGNORED07/05/2021 at 6:01 am
EIA is expecting excess supply in 2022.
Are they smoking some really good stuff to come up with this? I'd like to smoke that too
As I see it, demand will slowly go back up to previous level of 100mmbpd and then resume its slow march upwards. Where is it that
EIA are seeing that extra production from that will lead to oversupply 6-7 months down the line? All I see is that various regions
of the world are slowly declining in production due to a combination of worsening asset quality and a paucity of capex over the last
several years, especially in 2020/21. US Shale, Russia, Offshore, conventional onshore, small members of OPEC and even Saudi"¦ all
are experiencing pressure on production.
OPEC seems to be concerned about the possibility of excess supply next year, probably due to this report by EIA. The Saudis are
especially concerned and therefore are pushing to extend the supply cut to the end of 2022 which UAE is opposing.
So, am I missing a crucial element or are the EIA on to something here?
This medicine prevents many other drugs from getting into the body. If you take other drugs, check with your doctor or pharmacist
to see if you need to take them at some other time than barium suspension.
To prevent constipation or bowel block from barium
suspension, your doctor may have you use a laxative like
milk of magnesia or
lactulose after using barium suspension. Follow what your
doctor has told you.
Drink lots of noncaffeine liquids after using barium suspension unless told to drink less liquid by your doctor.
Some products have sorbitol in them. Very bad health
problems like low blood sugar
, bleeding, and kidney failure have happened
when people who are not able to break down fructose took a product with sorbitol in it. Talk with the doctor.
If you are 65 or older, use barium suspension with care. You could have more side effects.
Tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan on getting pregnant, or are breast-feeding. You will need to talk about the benefits
and risks to you and the baby.
How is this medicine (Barium Suspension) best taken?
Use barium suspension as ordered by your doctor. Read all information given to you. Follow all instructions closely.
Be sure you know how to take barium suspension. Talk with your doctor if you have questions.
Shake well before use.
Most of the time, barium suspension is taken by mouth. Take as you have been told by your doctor.
Some brands of barium suspension are to be taken with food. Some brands may be taken with or without food. Ask your pharmacist
if you need to take your brand with food.
Some products may be used as an enema. If you are using barium suspension as an enema, it will be given rectally by your doctor.
Cryptos are a collectors item just like fine art. While money has value based on the military jack boot of empire which insures
its value only with its domination of most countries and the violent destruction of any attempt to set up a transparent real money
system exchangable for gold (Libya). A painting by a hot painter is worth 900k because there are a handful of people who will
pay that for it, they're interest in it keeps the value at a certain level. Same with Bitcoin, but that interest is spread out
to millions of people. If they all decide its worthless than it is, but why would they? I think a lot of these evidence free claims
of hacking and ransom wear are made to devalue the currency that the ransom is paid in, it could have easily been paid in dollars
via the internet, as cryptos is basiclly just that: a stand in for the dollar being moved to an account that is a number. Cryptos
in this way provide a window to real capitalism. This to me is natural human evolution toward anarchism and a system of exchange
that is transparent and based on people working together instead of militaristic violence. You can exchange cryptos for gold,
rubles and yaun, so saying that it exist only based on the dollars supremacy is wrong.
What I know about computers and Bitcoin would get lost in a thimble. However, what I've learnt about the US Govt over the years
tells me that this problem wouldn't be happening if the USG hadn't dedicated itself to micro-managing, and dominating the www
- for Top Secret (i.e. bullshit) reasons.
I was appalled when I learnt that the USG had made strong encryption ILLEGAL, and dumbfounded when I first heard about the
PRISM 'co-operative' USG-mandated www surveillance program. Edward Snowden's NSA revellations confirmed that the USG has KILLED
computer security for crappy, feeble-minded reasons.
It's more or less par for the course that the USG blames other entities for its own prying and mischief-making. Were it not
for the USG placing LOW limits on computer security, we would all have access to Pretty Good Privacy and pro-active, timely means
of detecting and defending and/or evading malware.
"They mostly never see the piece, it's kept in climate controlled storage."
This is standard practice. Using "Ports Franches" as in several Swiss towns including Geneva. Perfectly legal as they are not
IN the country (for Tax purposes).
However, this is not really for "drug" cartels but just a way of transferring assets from one rich person to another.
Many ownership deals are made inside the Port Franche itself, without the need to transport the work outside. There is a limitation
on the time a work can be left inside the building, but I believe all that they have to do is drive more or less "round the block"
and re-enter it. I'm a bit hazy about that detail, as I do not have a spare Rembrandt to verify this personally.
****
jsanprox | Jul 12 2021 1:59 utc | 103
A painting by a hot painter is worth 900k because there are a handful of people who will pay that for it, they're interest
in it keeps the value at a certain level.
The primary dealers agree on a common price level for a stated painter. These paintings can even be used as collateral when
borrowing money.
Other painters do not have a "guaranteed" price level but one based on auction values (ie. What the customer is willing to pay.)
The Primary dealers are a very small group who control all the big art fairs and which other dealers are allowed to sell or deal
there -.
There are "rules" about "participation" (not sure about the terminology here), that various dealers will have made between themseves.
ie. There is a split-up of profits following certain agreed parts. Woe unto a dealer that doesn't pay his part. (OK; personal
note here, I once accidently fell foul of the "cartel" because a gallery owner with my works, had not paid "out" on a large sum
that he had made on another artist he was representing. They decided to "get" him.)
****
Ransomware ; Why are people getting all hot and bothered about Corporations paying money in Bitcoin? Happens all the
time.
Another Personal anecdote ; About five years ago I started recieving emails from unknown "people", Real first names,
with an attachement. As normal, these go into trash without being opened (or into a folder I have, called "dodgy spam?) About
20 + of them. Next I recieved one email saying (in French) " I know your little secret, and if you don't want everyone else to
know, pay (about €30) a "Small" sum into the following bitcoin account xxxxx."
In France you can " porter plainte" , ie, denounce and start a legal process against an "unknown person, or persons".
This is to protect yourself, and is run by the Government/police. In my case, never having opened any of the "attachments", I
don't know what they were, probably porn of some sort. IF they had been opened there would have been a suspicion that I was a
"willling" victim. (The first question asked by the Gov. Site was "Have you paid them/it, and by how much". in my case - none)
******
Haven't heard anything since. BUT, Bitcoin was already being used for criminal purposes.
Nobody had to find a super-secret backdoor into my computer. Just buy a data base with working emails - Corporations
use them all the time to send publicity. By looking at the address, and other more or less freely available information, they
can target people, by location, age, etc.
But you only know a Picasso is worth a lot because you can calculate it in USD terms (ultimately: you can also calculate in
any other fiat currency, but, since we live in the USD Standard, we only know a certain amount of fiat currency is worth if we
can convert it to USDs). The USD is still the unit of accountancy and the means of payment even in the art market.
You can never pay your taxes or fill the tank of your car with a Picasso - you would have to sell it for USDs, and use these
USDs to pay for everything you need. Sure, two megarich persons could exchange art between them as some kind of permute, but that
doesn't constitute a societal unity (because billionares don't exist in a vacuum). It is a particularity of society, not society
itself.
The same is true with crypto. And with gold. And with platinum. And with whatever else you want. It is a myth crypto is "fake"
just because it is purely digital: the material specification of the thing doesn't matter for its status of money. Being digital
is the lesser of crypto's problems. Crypto's main problem is the very economic foundations of its existence, which ensure it will
never be money.
And no: subdividing crypto wouldn't solve it - they tried it with gold when capitalism lived through the Gold Standard (when
it was on its death throes) and there's a limit to this. Even if the digital era allowed it, you would then simply have fiat money
system with extra steps and double the brutality, because then the power to issue money would rest with few private individual
hoarders of the crypto with no legal accountability and responsibility; it would be a dystopian "Pirates of the Caribbean" meets
"Mad Max" scenario.
As I often note here, when you push the pendulum to an extreme of wealth and income inequality, it will swing to the opposite
extreme minus a tiny bit of friction.
The depth of America's indoctrination can be measured by the unquestioned assumption that Capital should earn 15% every year,
rain or shine, while workers are fated to lose ground every year, rain or shine. And if wages should ever start ticking upward even
slightly, then the Billionaires' Apologists are unleashed to shout that higher wages means higher inflation, which will kill the
economic "recovery."
Said another way: if wages stagnate so workers lose ground every year as inflation in essentials rises, that's the way it should
be. If wages rise so workers can keep up with inflation, then that will trigger an inflationary death spiral.
That this indoctrination is so widely accepted reveals the success of America's Aristocracy in reshaping the narrative to make
their plundering appear to be "inevitable." But the siphoning of $50 trillion from workers to the Aristocracy, and the Nobility's
control of political power was anything but inevitable: it was engineered by policies that enriched billionaires, the top 0.01% Aristocracy,
and the top 10% who own 90% of America's productive capital.
There are some who blame the current plight of working Americans on structural changes in the underlying economy--on automation,
and especially on globalization. According to this popular narrative, the lower wages of the past 40 years were the unfortunate
but necessary price of keeping American businesses competitive in an increasingly cutthroat global market. But in fact, the $50
trillion transfer of wealth the RAND report documents has occurred entirely within the American economy, not between it and its
trading partners. No, this upward redistribution of income, wealth, and power wasn't inevitable; it was a choice--a direct result
of the trickle-down policies we chose to implement since 1975.
The net result of this four-decade siphoning of wealth/income from workers was recently documented by a Foreign Affairs article:
Monopoly Versus
Democracy :
Ten percent of Americans now control 97 percent of all capital income in the country. Nearly half of the new income generated
since the global financial crisis of 2008 has gone to the wealthiest one percent of U.S. citizens. The richest three Americans
collectively have more wealth than the poorest 160 million Americans.
Now the worm has finally turned, and workers are refusing to accept the Neofeudal dominance of the Aristocracy, not by open revolts
that the State can violently crush but by indirect means. Fed-up Boomers are retiring, fed-up Gen-Xers are cutting their hours, refusing
to go back to the office, starting their own enterprises and Millennials are assembling multiple income streams, building micro-houses,
and leveraging shortages of workers for higher wages.
The techno-fantasy that's Corporate America's fondest dream is automation of all labor: get rid of all human workers and just
manage the robots with loving care. But the reality is robots have limits, as I explain in my book
Will You Be Richer or Poorer? --limits imposed by physics and finance.
And so, weeping inconsolably, Corporate America continues exploiting its workforce with the usual threats: you're powerless because
we can automate your job or offshore it to Lower Slobovia.
Contrast this with the real world: a young man of my acquaintance recently took a job at a Corporate America Big Box outlet. His
wage was $12/hour, and all the power was of course in the hands of Corporate America: he had no power over his schedule, or anything
else.
In the script of the past four decades, Corporate America (while crushing small business and buying the best government money
can buy ) could keep the serfs slaving away for stagnating wages, all in service of maximizing corporate insiders' stock options,
buybacks and soaring profits.
This individual was tipped off to a much better opportunity, and when he gave notice to the Big Box manager, the manager corralled
him for two hours, first offering a $3/hour raise (25%) and then badgering him to stay on as a serf on the Big Box plantation. He
refused.
This is the pure distillation of Corporate America and the Aristocracy: if they'd offered this hard-working individual the 25%
raise after he proved his worth, then maybe he wouldn't have been so motivated to seek better opportunities elsewhere.
At long last, some the $50 trillion plundered from workers is trickling back to the people who actually create the income and
wealth. As a thought experiment, consider an economy in which farmers and workers reaped 15% gains annually like clockwork, and Corporate
America's insiders, financiers and speculators, and Wall Street's parasites all lost 15% of their wealth and income every year like
clockwork.
In other words, imagine the $50 trillion flowing back to those who generated it from those who looted it.
As I often note here, when you push the pendulum to an extreme of wealth and income inequality, it will swing to the opposite
extreme minus a tiny bit of friction. The serfs are quietly slipping away, and the Aristocracy, blinded by hubris and greed, believes
nothing will ever change because, well, their wealth and power is deserved . What they really deserve will manifest in the next four
years as the chairs at the banquet of consequences are shuffled.
... engineered by policies that enriched billionaires ...
90% to 95% of all legislation passed by Congress is special interest i.e. engineered to enrich billionaires.
GreatUncle 8 hours ago
He who makes the rules is always going to win especially when voting is total BS.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 7 hours ago
K Street is profitable. Not for the US Tax$lave of course.
alwaysfindasilverlining 7 hours ago
I've never seen a lobbyist get wealthy pandering the poors needs to corrupt politicians.
FoodStampPrez 7 hours ago
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences
of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
Stop caring. Adjust according to their rules. It's the only way to survive.
Retired_Rat 7 hours ago (Edited) remove link
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a
legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Frédéric Bastiat
I am one of the early leavers from the rat race.... Not rich but am happy with a minimal lifestyle if it means I dont have
to work for the 0.1 per cent Man
Instagator 7 hours ago
Finally an article that states 0.1% instead of the 1% , even though 0.001% is actually who is in control. 1% is a doctor
and no they don't control the world. They are controlled by the Medical Industrial Complex.
There are only 50 families that control the world. Wake up people.
GoldmanSax 6 hours ago
The world economic forum is proof that wealthy robber barons are not happy with their profits alone. They are waging a war
on the planet. For this reason alone, a class struggle is inevitable. It is the planet vs the robber barons. . .
SexyJulian 42 minutes ago
The net result of this four-decade siphoning of wealth/income from workers was recently documented by a Foreign Affairs
article:
Monopoly
Versus Democracy :
During a Foreign Affairs event with various experts on stage 8 years ago(maybe 10) discussing current and future destabilizing
political and security events I asked the panel about the increasing income inequality. The crowd appreciated the question.
The panel had crickets. Over the next few years their mag shunned any objective reporting or interpretation of global events
in exchange for pure bullsht. Very similar to how even McNeil Lehrer went into propaganda mode after 9/11.
Merkel is meeting with President Joe Biden on Thursday this week, and said while
she will discuss the issue at the White House, she does not believe the matter will be resolved
at that time.
"I don't know whether the papers will be fully finalized, so to speak. I believe rather
not," Merkel said. "But these will be important talks for developing a common position."
Sanctions imposed against German companies involved in the project by the U.S. were recently
waived, which raised hopes in Berlin that the two countries may soon be able to find an
acceptable agreement on the matter.
For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.
Washington has long argued that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia
to Germany endangers Europe's energy security and harms allies such as Ukraine, which currently
profits from transit fees for Russian gas.
Germany is keen to increase its use of natural gas as it completes the shutdown of its
nuclear power plants next year and phases out the use of heavily polluting coal by 2038.
Merkel's comments to reporters in Berlin came ahead of a meeting with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has warned that Nord Stream 2 poses a threat to his country's energy
security. Should Russia route all of its gas around Ukraine in the future, the country might be
cut off from the supplies it needs, putting it at further risk of being pressured by
Moscow.
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and supports separatists in Ukraine's eastern
industrial heartland of Donbas.
Zelenskyy said he was looking for guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit country for
Russian gas beyond 2024. He also suggested that the gas issue should become part of four-way
talks between his country, Russia, Germany and France on solving the conflict in eastern
Ukraine and that the United States could join those negotiations.
Merkel said she took Ukraine's concerns seriously and that Germany and the European Union would use
their weight in negotiations with Russia to ensure the agreements are extended.
"We have promised this to Ukraine and we will stick to that. I keep my promises and I
believe that is true also for any future German chancellor," she said.
Merkel isn't running for a fifth term in Germany's national election on Sept.
26.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not
pictured, give statements ahead of talks at the Chancellery in Berlin, Monday, July 12, 2021.
Stefanie Loos/Pool Photo via AP
Keith Speights: Some findings were recently published in Nature magazine that
indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines may provide protection for
years.
Many investors are and were hoping for annual recurring revenue from these companies'
vaccines. Brian, how troublesome is this latest data for the prospects for Pfizer, BioNTech,
and Moderna?
Brian Orelli: There's a bit of an extrapolation going on here. The researchers looked at
memory B cells, which tend to provide more long-term protection than, let's say, antibodies.
They looked at those in the lymph nodes and found the cells were there as long as 15 weeks.
Typically, they'd mostly be gone by four to six weeks. So that's the basis of this claim
that it could offer protection for years. If true, that will be a big blow obviously to vaccine
makers, at least for Moderna and BioNTech.
Pfizer would be fine because it's so diversified. It's really hard to make an argument for
the valuations of Moderna and BioNTech right now if these vaccines are one and done over a
couple of years. They really need to have ongoing sales until they can get growth from other
drugs in their pipelines.
Speights: Brian, when I first saw the story, I went to check out to see how the stocks were
performing, and Moderna is up, BioNTech was barely changed, Pfizer barely changed. It seems to
me that investors really aren't making much of this news. Do you think that's the right take at
this point?
Orelli: I think it's still too early to be able to conclude that it's definitely going to
work for years. The other issue is that we're looking at, will those B cells actually protect
against the variants?
If they don't protect against the variants, then it doesn't really matter if you have B
cells in your lymph nodes. If they're not going to protect against the variants then we're
going to have to get a booster shot anyway.
Speights: Right. Obviously, if these vaccines provide immunity for multiple years, these
companies aren't going to make nearly as much money as they expect and a lot of investors
expect. So this is a big story to watch, but like you said, really, really early right now and
too soon to maybe go drawing any conclusions at this point.
The U.S. is producing roughly 2 million barrels a day less than it was before the pandemic.
In the USA shale patch many "sweet spots" are now gone and what remains is less proficableto drill and thus requres higher prices.
In this sense the currentoil price might be not enough to spur additional activity.
Frackers have been forced to rein in spending and
live
within their means
after many investors lost faith in the companies following years of poor returns, lenders reduced their
credit lines and capital markets showed little interest in funding expansive new drilling campaigns.
The result is that shale drillers, which in the past have played the role of the oil world's swing producer by quickly increasing
output to meet demand, are largely standing pat for now, as the reopening of Western economies leads to a resurgence of global
oil
and
gas prices
.
The companies are raking in more cash than ever. Public shale companies that drill primarily for oil collectively generated a
record $4.1 billion in free cash flow in the first quarter of 2021 and are poised to take in almost $15 billion for the year if
prices remain higher, according to consulting firm Rystad Energy.
U.S. shale producers generated more free cash
flow in the first quarter than any time
in the
industry's history, analysts said.
Free
cash flow
Source:
Rystad Energy
billion
2014
'15
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
-12.5
-10.0
-7.5
-5.0
-2.5
0
.0
2.5
$5.0
But instead of pumping that money back into drilling as they have historically done, large producers such as
Occidental
Petroleum
Corp.
OXY
+2.09%
and
Ovintiv
Inc.,
the
company formerly known as Encana Corp., have said they plan to
focus
on reducing debt
, keeping U.S. output flat. Other sizable shale drillers such as
Pioneer
Natural Resources
Co.
PXD
+0.66%
and
Devon
Energy
Corp.
DVN
+3.40%
are
socking away money to return to investors in the form of variable dividends, one of the enticements they want to use to lure more
investors back.
"We're producing all this free cash flow, but it's not going out to investors yet," said Scott Sheffield, chief executive of
Pioneer, noting that many companies are focusing on debt before they return cash to investors. "There's no reason for them to buy
into this sector at this point in time."
... ... ...
In the heyday of the shale boom, publicly traded oil producers typically reinvested more than 100% of the cash flow they made
from operations back into drilling campaigns. Now they are using about half of the income they generate on new drilling and are
only growing output slightly, if at all.
... ... ...
Shale companies had about $148.6 billion in debt coming into the year, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, and
much of the cash they are collecting is going toward that debt pile. Securing new capital is increasingly difficult for many.
Many large U.S. banks have cut their energy lending, and some European ones such as
Deutsche
Bank
AG
and
Société
Générale
SA
SCGLY
5.48%
have
exited fossil fuel financing altogether...
Callon said it would cut its 2021 capital expenditures to $430 million, a 12% reduction from its 2020 budget. In 2019, it spent
$515 million. As a result, the company said it would produce about 90,000 barrels of oil and gas a day in 2021, down from more
than 101,000 barrels a day in 2020. Callon said it is focused on reducing its roughly $3 billion in debt. The company declined to
comment.
Many frackers made bad bets early this year, hedging their production with oil in the forties and low fifties -
especially Pioneer and Devon. This article, for some reason, fails to mention that fact and it's impact on their
current production.
PAUL HUNT
After 38years in O&G E&P I filtered out of the industry due to changing industry. The loss of expertise and technology
in the energy industry over the last 5 years has been huge. USA has given the energy industry to China. Look for
overall energy prices to triple in less than 10 years.
DAVID LAWRENCE
What is left out in this article are the returns of the 600lb gorilla of frackers in the room.
XOM alone generated almost $7 billion in free cash flow last quarter. With oil prices where they are that figure is
likely to rise to $10 billion next quarter. The company has only $53 billion in debt outstanding having already pared
down $6 billion during the pandemic.
They are going to gobble up even more weaker little guys shortly.
Peter Sullivan
I don't see XOM significantly increasing production in US shale anytime soon. They are focusing CAPEX on deepwater
assets that present a better ROI than shale. Who would of thought we have reached a time where it is less risky for a
US based company to drill in a small South American country than within our own borders?
DAVID LAWRENCE
XOM CAPEX is greatly reduced (1/2) in 2021 across the board. This is because they spent nearly $20 billion in 2020 using
piles of borrowed money that so many junior analysts obsessed over.. The plan is to pay that pile down with the
windfall those investments are generating.
XOM is far from a pure play fracker and have always developed the largest offshore assets of any company and Guyana is a
hot prospect!
Edward Cotterell
The oil market has always been boom and bust. When the pandemic hit people stopped driving and the oil market went
bust. Prices fell and drillers went bankrupt. Now the economy is reviving, people are driving again and oil is
booming. To those who think otherwise, get a grip. The price of gasoline today is about where it was in 2018 and 2019
pre-pandemic. You know, when Trump was president.
This article points out a longer term change in the market. The hype over fracking is over. The lenders want their
principal back plus interest and they are not taking exaggerations from drillers any more. So oil prices may have to go
a bit higher until the lenders are satisfied that they will get their money. Then they will lend to drillers and
fracking will crank up.
Trash that 12 mpg pickup. Get a vehicle that gets better mileage. Some hybrids get over 50 miles a gallon. Electrics
get the energy equivalent of 100 miles a gallon.
Ben Griffith
How is the electricity produced ? Coal, oil, natural gas produced by fracking, nuclear, hydroelectric dam, harnessing
the hot air of Climate Change speech ?
ROBERT STUPP
Many don't realize how many older, experienced energy professionals took retirement over the last few years. Similar to
the 1980's energy bloodbath, it will take a while to establish teams able to stabilize the companies, let alone grow
them from survival mode. You can't turn on production like your kitchen faucet.
Jerome Abernathy
Fracking wells deplete so fast that the capex expenditures needed to maintain and grow production result in a low ROI
for the industry. Worse yet, given the volatility of oil prices and the precarious state of their balance sheets,
frackers are unattractive borrowers. The industry needs a new, creative financing model.
Matthew Oatway
An interesting article, but the authors should have acknowledged (a) the impact of consolidation in the sector on
production discipline and (b) the fact that many shale producers have a large portion of their production hedged at
lower crude prices. Both factors point to a more restrained return to production growth that we have seen in the past.
Update (2130ET): Tucker Carlson responded to today's 'unmasking' - namely an Axios report
which accuses him of trying to set up an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"I'm an American citizen, I can interview whoever I want - and plan to," said the Fox News
host.
Presented without further comment, along with Carlson's sit-down with journalist Glenn
Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden revelations about domestic spying and other illicit
activities conducted by the US government.
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in a bombshell broadcast that an NSA
whistleblower had approached him with evidence that the National Security Agency
has been spying on his communications , with the intent to leak his emails to the press and
'take this show off the air.'
Today, Carlson told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo that the emails have in fact been leaked
to journalists - at least one of whom has contacted him for what we presume is an upcoming
article on their contents.
"I was in Washington for a funeral last week and ran into someone I know well, who said '
I have a message for you ,' and then proceeded to repeat back to me details from emails and
texts that I sent, and had told no one else about. So it was verified. And the person said
'the NSA has this,' and that was proven by the person reading back the contents of the email,
'and they're going to use it against you.'
To be blunt with you, it was something I would have never said in public if it was wrong,
or illegal, or immoral. They don't actually have anything on me, but they do have my emails.
So I knew they were spying on me, and again, to be totally blunt with you - as a defensive
move, I thought 'I better say this out loud.'"
"Then, yesterday, I learned that - and this is going to come out soon - that the NSA
leaked the contents of my email to journalists in an effort to discredit me. I know, because
I got a call from one of them who said 'this is what your email was about.'
So, it is not in any way a figment of my imagination. It's confirmed. It's true. They
aren't allowed to spy on American citizens - they are. I think more ominously, they're using
the information they gather to put leverage and to threaten opposition journalists, people
who criticize the Biden administration. It's happening to me right now..."
" This is the stuff of banana republics and third-world countries ," replied Bartiromo.
What recovery ? What booming economy if they layoff people? Look like stagnation of the
US economy continues unabated...
Initial unemployment claims, a proxy for layoffs, rose by 2,000 the week ended July 3, from
a pandemic low the prior week, to a
seasonally adjusted 373,000 , the Labor Department said Thursday.
... ... ...
...some unemployed workers say they are still struggling to find jobs. Marcellus Rowe of
Dunwoody, Ga., said he has been unable to find a job that pays a salary near the roughly
$50,000 he made working for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Mr. Rowe, 29
years old, lost that job in November 2019, before the pandemic, but was able to stay on
unemployment benefits because of the federal extensions. Georgia cut off those benefits late
last month.
Mr. Rowe said he has applied for more than 100 jobs, including security-guard and
customer-service roles. He said the few employers who have responded to him said he doesn't
have the experience needed for the positions. Mr. Rowe, a Black man, added that he thinks his
race is a reason he has been passed over for some jobs.
He said he is reluctant to take a minimum-wage job because $7.25 an hour wouldn't be enough
to pay his rent and other bills. He sought housing assistance from his county when benefits
expired.
"The job market isn't looking so great," he said. "I'm looking for suitable jobs, but it's
not happening here in Georgia."
Note to Goldman: you're a bank. Stick to banky-stuff. Leave the fear **** and lies to
the professionals in the .gov and MSM.
p3scobar 7 hours ago
Goldman is the government... sooo.....
espirit 9 hours ago
If Goldman can give medical advice, so can I.
A Lunatic 9 hours ago remove link
Turning off the TV will neutralize the Delta Variant.
rag_house 9 hours ago
Just like 'Climate Change' you know it's contrived when the bankers start doing
'science.'
liberty2day 9 hours ago
when did they not?
rag_house 8 hours ago
Bankers aren't scientists. They simply dream up fake things they want to convince people
of and bribe people to try to make it seem real.
Enraged 9 hours ago remove link
Goldman Sachs Charged in Foreign Bribery Case and Agrees to Pay Over $2.9 Billion
The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs (Malaysia) have admitted to conspiring to
violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in connection with a scheme to pay over $1
billion in bribes to Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials to obtain lucrative business for
Goldman Sachs, including its role in underwriting approximately $6.5 billion in three bond
deals for 1Malaysia Development Bhd. (1MDB), for which the bank earned hundreds of millions
in fees.
bond prices have nothing to do with recovery [sic]
stock prices have nothing to do with growth, except growth of the money supply
Kreditanstalt 3 hours ago
"...the price of a beer or a McDonalds in 10-years time will be exactly the same as it
is today. (Which it won't.)"
But the type who buy US government bonds don't care about the price of burgers. They
only plan to flip the thing back to the next Greater Fool...or THE FED
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers
ability to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term
bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw
this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of
secondary forms of money."
Bankers do need to ensure the money they lend out gets paid back to balance their
books.
Banking requires prudent lending.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup
that money.
If they use bank loans to inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when
those asset prices collapse.
As the real estate and stock market collapsed the banks became insolvent as their assets
didn't cover their liabilities.
They could no longer repossess and sell those assets to cover the outstanding loans and
they do need to get the money they lend out back again to balance their books.
The banks become insolvent and collapsed, along with the US economy.
When banks have been lending to inflate asset prices the financial system is in a
precarious state and can easily collapse.
Cont ......
Sound of the Suburbs 2 hours ago
That was the 1920s.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in Japan in 1991?
Japanese real estate.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They killed growth for the next 30 years by leaving the debt in place.
Japan could study the Great Depression to avoid this fate.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in 2008?
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back
of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the
Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
We avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
We left Western economies struggling by leaving the debt in place, just like Japan.
It's not as bad as Japan as we didn't let asset prices crash in the West, but it is this
problem has made our economies so sluggish since 2008.
We, in turn, seem to have learnt something from Japan, as they did let asset prices
crash.
The banking system and the markets are still closely coupled.
Any significant fall in asset prices will feed back into the banking system.
We are trapped, and the only way to keep things from collapsing is to keep pumping in
more and more liquidity.
It's a choice
Let the assets bubbles collapse, and watch this feed back into the financial
system.
Keep the whole thing afloat, but make things worse in the long run as the bubbles
just get bigger and bigger.
We've gone for option two.
That's why the FED get so jittery when the markets start to fall.
During the coronavirus lockdowns there was no way the markets could be allowed to
reflect what was going on in the real economy.
The banking system would go down.
Sound of the Suburbs 1 hour ago remove link
They learnt from the mistakes of the 1920s and put regulations in place to ensure this
didn't happen again.
Financial stability arrived in the Keynesian era and was locked into the regulations of
the time.
"This Time is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff has a graph showing the same thing
(Figure 13.1 - The proportion of countries with banking crises, 1900-2008).
Neoclassical economics came back and so did the financial crises.
The neoliberals removed the regulations that created financial stability in the
Keynesian era and put independent central banks in charge of financial stability.
Why does it go so wrong?
Richard Vague had noticed real estate lending balloon from 5 trillion to 10 trillion
from 2001 – 2007 and knew there was going to be a financial crisis.
Richard Vague has looked at the data for financial crises going back 200 years and found
the cause was nearly always runaway bank lending.
We put central bankers in charge of financial stability, but they use an economics that
ignores the main cause of financial crises, private debt.
Most of the problems are coming from private debt.
The technocrats use an economics that ignores private debt.
The poor old technocrats never really stood a chance.
But wait: wasn't this recent rise in wages in real terms being propagandized as a new boom
for the working class in the USA by the MSM until some days ago?
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
And in the drive-through lane at Checkers near Atlanta, requests for Big Buford burgers and
Mother Cruncher chicken sandwiches may be fielded not by a cashier in a headset, but by a
voice-recognition algorithm.
An increase in automation, especially in service industries, may prove to be an economic
legacy of the pandemic. Businesses from factories to fast-food outlets to hotels turned to
technology last year to keep operations running amid social distancing requirements and
contagion fears. Now the outbreak is ebbing in the United States, but the difficulty in hiring
workers -- at least at the wages that employers are used to paying -- is providing new momentum
for automation.
Technological investments that were made in response to the crisis may contribute to a
post-pandemic productivity boom, allowing for higher wages and faster growth. But some
economists say the latest wave of automation could eliminate jobs and erode bargaining power,
particularly for the lowest-paid workers, in a lasting way.
"Once a job is automated, it's pretty hard to turn back," said Casey Warman, an economist at
Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia who has studied automation in the pandemic .
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3533
The trend toward automation predates the pandemic, but it has accelerated at what is proving
to be a critical moment. The rapid reopening of the economy has led to a surge in demand for
waiters, hotel maids, retail sales clerks and other workers in service industries that had cut
their staffs. At the same time, government benefits have allowed many people to be selective in
the jobs they take. Together, those forces have given low-wage workers a rare moment of
leverage , leading to higher pay
, more generous benefits and other perks.
Automation threatens to tip the advantage back toward employers, potentially eroding those
gains. A
working paper published by the International Monetary Fund this year predicted that
pandemic-induced automation would increase inequality in coming years, not just in the United
States but around the world.
"Six months ago, all these workers were essential," said Marc Perrone, president of the
United Food and Commercial Workers, a union representing grocery workers. "Everyone was calling
them heroes. Now, they're trying to figure out how to get rid of them."
Checkers, like many fast-food restaurants, experienced a jump in sales when the pandemic
shut down most in-person dining. But finding workers to meet that demand proved difficult -- so
much so that Shana Gonzales, a Checkers franchisee in the Atlanta area, found herself back
behind the cash register three decades after she started working part time at Taco Bell while
in high school.
"We really felt like there has to be another solution," she said.
So Ms. Gonzales contacted Valyant AI, a Colorado-based start-up that makes voice recognition
systems for restaurants. In December, after weeks of setup and testing, Valyant's technology
began taking orders at one of Ms. Gonzales's drive-through lanes. Now customers are greeted by
an automated voice designed to understand their orders -- including modifications and special
requests -- suggest add-ons like fries or a shake, and feed the information directly to the
kitchen and the cashier.
The rollout has been successful enough that Ms. Gonzales is getting ready to expand the
system to her three other restaurants.
"We'll look back and say why didn't we do this sooner," she said.
The push toward automation goes far beyond the restaurant sector. Hotels,
retailers ,
manufacturers and other businesses have all accelerated technological investments. In a
survey of nearly 300 global companies by the World Economic Forum last year, 43 percent of
businesses said they expected to reduce their work forces through new uses of
technology.
Some economists see the increased investment as encouraging. For much of the past two
decades, the U.S. economy has struggled with weak productivity growth, leaving workers and
stockholders to compete over their share of the income -- a game that workers tended to lose.
Automation may harm specific workers, but if it makes the economy more productive, that could
be good for workers as a whole, said Katy George, a senior partner at McKinsey, the consulting
firm.
She cited the example of a client in manufacturing who had been pushing his company for
years to embrace augmented-reality technology in its factories. The pandemic finally helped him
win the battle: With air travel off limits, the technology was the only way to bring in an
expert to help troubleshoot issues at a remote plant.
"For the first time, we're seeing that these technologies are both increasing productivity,
lowering cost, but they're also increasing flexibility," she said. "We're starting to see real
momentum building, which is great news for the world, frankly."
Other economists are less sanguine. Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology said that many of the technological investments had just replaced human labor
without adding much to overall productivity.
In a
recent working paper , Professor Acemoglu and a colleague concluded that "a significant
portion of the rise in U.S. wage inequality over the last four decades has been driven by
automation" -- and he said that trend had almost certainly accelerated in the pandemic.
"If we automated less, we would not actually have generated that much less output but we
would have had a very different trajectory for inequality," Professor Acemoglu said.
Ms. Gonzales, the Checkers franchisee, isn't looking to cut jobs. She said she would hire 30
people if she could find them. And she has raised hourly pay to about $10 for entry-level
workers, from about $9 before the pandemic. Technology, she said, is easing pressure on workers
and speeding up service when restaurants are chronically understaffed.
"Our approach is, this is an assistant for you," she said. "This allows our employee to
really focus" on customers.
Ms. Gonzales acknowledged she could fully staff her restaurants if she offered $14 to $15 an
hour to attract workers. But doing so, she said, would force her to raise prices so much that
she would lose sales -- and automation allows her to take another course.
Rob Carpenter, Valyant's chief executive, noted that at most restaurants, taking
drive-through orders is only part of an employee's responsibilities. Automating that task
doesn't eliminate a job; it makes the job more manageable.
"We're not talking about automating an entire position," he said. "It's just one task within
the restaurant, and it's gnarly, one of the least desirable tasks."
But technology doesn't have to take over all aspects of a job to leave workers worse off. If
automation allows a restaurant that used to require 10 employees a shift to operate with eight
or nine, that will mean fewer jobs in the long run. And even in the short term, the technology
could erode workers' bargaining power.
"Often you displace enough of the tasks in an occupation and suddenly that occupation is no
more," Professor Acemoglu said. "It might kick me out of a job, or if I keep my job I'll get
lower wages."
At some businesses, automation is already affecting the number and type of jobs available.
Meltwich, a restaurant chain that started in Canada and is expanding into the United States,
has embraced a range of technologies to cut back on labor costs. Its grills no longer require
someone to flip burgers -- they grill both sides at once, and need little more than the press
of a button.
"You can pull a less-skilled worker in and have them adapt to our system much easier," said
Ryan Hillis, a Meltwich vice president. "It certainly widens the scope of who you can have
behind that grill."
With more advanced kitchen equipment, software that allows online orders to flow directly to
the restaurant and other technological advances, Meltwich needs only two to three workers on a
shift, rather than three or four, Mr. Hillis said.
Such changes, multiplied across thousands of businesses in dozens of industries, could
significantly change workers' prospects. Professor Warman, the Canadian economist, said
technologies developed for one purpose tend to spread to similar tasks, which could make it
hard for workers harmed by automation to shift to another occupation or industry.
"If a whole sector of labor is hit, then where do those workers go?" Professor Warman said.
Women, and to a lesser degree people of color, are likely to be disproportionately affected, he
added.
The grocery business has long been a source of steady, often unionized jobs for people
without a college degree. But technology is changing the sector. Self-checkout lanes have
reduced the number of cashiers; many stores have simple robots to patrol aisles for spills and
check inventory; and warehouses have become increasingly automated. Kroger in April opened a
375,000-square-foot warehouse with more than 1,000 robots that bag groceries for delivery
customers. The company is even experimenting with delivering groceries by drone.
Other companies in the industry are doing the same. Jennifer Brogan, a spokeswoman for Stop
& Shop, a grocery chain based in New England, said that technology allowed the company to
better serve customers -- and that it was a competitive necessity.
"Competitors and other players in the retail space are developing technologies and
partnerships to reduce their costs and offer improved service and value for customers," she
said. "Stop & Shop needs to do the same."
In 2011, Patrice Thomas took a part-time job in the deli at a Stop & Shop in Norwich,
Conn. A decade later, he manages the store's prepared foods department, earning around $40,000
a year.
Mr. Thomas, 32, said that he wasn't concerned about being replaced by a robot anytime soon,
and that he welcomed technologies making him more productive -- like more powerful ovens for
rotisserie chickens and blast chillers that quickly cool items that must be stored cold.
But he worries about other technologies -- like automated meat slicers -- that seem to
enable grocers to rely on less experienced, lower-paid workers and make it harder to build a
career in the industry.
"The business model we seem to be following is we're pushing toward automation and we're not
investing equally in the worker," he said. "Today it's, 'We want to get these robots in here to
replace you because we feel like you're overpaid and we can get this kid in there and all he
has to do is push this button.'"
As of July 2, 2021 out of 4456 total deaths attributed to vaccination (of them 1890 after
vaccination with Pfizer), it looks like there were at least 36 death of people aged less then 30
years after vaccination with Pfizer vaccine (out of 61 total). Around 136 millions were fully
vaccinated,.
Other sources list higher figure (6113)
CDC- 6,113 DEAD Following COVID-19 Injections ("Besides the 6,113 deaths reported, there are
5,172 permanent disabilities, 6,435 life threatening events, and 51,558 emergency room visits."
)so my method of extracting those data from VAERS database might be wrong or not all death are
reported to VAERS.
Another 5 young people were crippled but survived (67 total).
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot. There were 85 reported
deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in
2019
Between mid-December 2020 and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100
million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths
following COVID vaccination, or about 30 per day
In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available
vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 -- a period of 15.5 years
As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events.
In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed
In the European Union, the EudraVigilance system had as of April 17, 2021, received
330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines,
including 7,766 deaths
In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really
allowed to ask: "How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?"
1
Then there's not selling Syria the latest S#00 system to help keep Israel out of Syrian
skies. That tells me he's using Syria for personal / State gain and that is where he's wrong.
That's what makes him just another politician.
I totally get it, there are things that are puzzling to those of us in the audience,
watching the moves from afar.
An advanced S-300 or S-400 system could paint every F-16 as it took off from Israel. This
would be a red line for Israel and would bring in Uncle Shmuel.
Syria (and by extension Russia) has been allowing Israel to overfly her territory and bomb
Hezbollah installations.
It's puzzling – why would you allow a foreign power to bomb your territory, especially
if you have S-300's. The answer must be that Syria and Russia are holding back on purpose for
reasons only known to them. I can speculate, in that they don't want to give away military
capability unless the war goes hot.
Think about the situation now, as opposed to the 90's. Russia's military has been
modernized; Military physical fitness is up by 30% (better nutrition?); Foreign exchange is in
good shape; the economy is modernizing; food production is up – so Russia is no longer
food insecure; oil can be extracted at prices that Saudi cannot compete with; the Artic route
is opening up; national economy is more diversified thanks to the western sanctions; Yamal LNG
will be fueling Asia; Nordstream will be fueling Europe.
Banks have started to cut their exposure to the U.S. shale patch, seeing more than 100
producers and oilfield services firms go bust last year and feeling the environmental, social,
and governance (ESG) pressure to reduce credits to fossil fuels. While traditional lenders are
cutting their losses and de-risking energy loan portfolios, alternative capital providers are
stepping up to scoop up U.S. energy debt at a discount and take part in debt or equity
transactions that could give them returns sooner than a loan would for a bank.
Since the oil price crash in 2020 and the downturn in the U.S. shale industry, banks have
been wary of their exposure to the sector. The commodity price slump last year dramatically cut
the value of the assets of oil and gas firms, against which they have traditionally obtained
loans from banks.
Running for the Exit
Lenders slashed the amounts of reserve-based loans to the U.S. shale firms in the middle
of last year.
But it is not only purely financial considerations that are driving reduced bank exposure
to the oil and gas industry. ESG lending and aligning loan portfolios to the Paris Agreement
goals are now more prominent than ever.
For example, asset manager Schroders, which holds many bonds in the banking sector, is
engaging with banks to understand their fossil fuel exposure.
"Banks that are highly exposed to the fossil fuel industry face significant financial,
regulatory and reputational risks as a result of the transition to a low-carbon economy,"
Schroders said, explaining its rationale to identify the exposure of the banks to oil, gas, and
coal.
Increased pressure from the ESG universe, coupled with years of poor returns of U.S.
shale firms, have prompted several major transactions in which banks have sold energy debt to
hedge funds and private equity firms.
Hancock Whitney, for example, agreed last year to sell $497 million worth of energy loans
to certain funds and accounts managed by alternative investment provider Oaktree Capital
Management. Hancock Whitney expected to receive $257.5 million from the sale of the
reserve-based loans (RBL), midstream, and non-drilling service credits.
Hancock Whitney's main reason to sell the energy loans was to minimize the risks to its
loan portfolio.
"The primary objective of this sale is to continue de-risking our loan portfolio by
accelerating the disposition of assets that have been impacted by ongoing issues within the
energy industry, and have now been further complicated by COVID-19," Hancock Whitney's
President and CEO John M. Hairston said.
At the end of 2020, Bank of Montreal decided it would wind down its non-Canadian
investment and corporate banking energy business.
Most recently, ABN AMRO announced last week it would sell a $1.5 billion portfolio of
energy loans to funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management and affiliates of Sixth Street
Partners. The portfolio consists of loans to around 75 companies active in the North American
energy markets.
With this sale, ABN AMRO is withdrawing from oil and gas related lending in North America
as part of a process to wind down its non-core activities and significantly reducing the
non-core loan book.
"... For now, loose monetary and fiscal policies will continue to fuel asset and credit bubbles, propelling a slow-motion train wreck. The warning signs are already apparent in today's high price-to-earnings ratios SPX , low equity risk premiums, inflated housing and tech assets COMP , and the irrational exuberance surrounding special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), the crypto sector BTCUSD, , high-yield corporate debt , collateralized loan obligations, private equity, meme stocks AMC, and runaway retail day trading. ..."
"... But meanwhile, the same loose policies that are feeding asset bubbles will continue to drive consumer price inflation, creating the conditions for stagflation whenever the next negative supply shocks arrive. Such shocks could follow from renewed protectionism; demographic aging in advanced and emerging economies; immigration restrictions in advanced economies; the reshoring of manufacturing to high-cost regions; or the balkanization of global supply chains. ..."
"... More broadly, the Sino-American decoupling threatens to fragment the global economy at a time when climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic are pushing national governments toward deeper self-reliance. ..."
"... Making matters worse, central banks have effectively lost their independence, because they have been given little choice but to monetize massive fiscal deficits to forestall a debt crisis. With both public and private debts having soared, they are in a debt trap. Central banks will be damned if they do and damned if they don't, and many governments will be semi-insolvent and thus unable to bail out banks, corporations, and households. The doom loop of sovereigns and banks in the eurozone after the global financial crisis will be repeated world-wide ..."
"... When former Fed Chair Paul Volcker hiked rates to tackle inflation in 1980-82, the result was a severe double-dip recession in the United States and a debt crisis and lost decade for Latin America. But now that global debt ratios are almost three times higher than in the early 1970s, any anti-inflationary policy would lead to a depression, rather than a severe recession. The question is not if but when. ..."
Roubini warns: After 'the Minsky Moment' crashes overheated speculative markets, 'the
Volcker Moment' will will arrive to crash the debt-burdened global economy
( Project Syndicate ) -- In
April, I
warned that today's extremely loose monetary and fiscal policies, when combined with a
number of negative supply shocks, could result in 1970s-style stagflation (high inflation
alongside a recession). In fact, the risk today is even bigger than it was then.
After all, debt ratios in advanced economies and most emerging markets were much lower in
the 1970s, which is why stagflation has not been associated with debt crises historically. If
anything, unexpected inflation in the 1970s wiped out the real value of nominal debts at fixed
rates, thus reducing many advanced economies' public-debt burdens.
The warning signs are already apparent in today's high price-to-earnings ratios, low
equity risk premiums, inflated housing and tech assets, and the irrational exuberance
surrounding special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), the crypto sector, high-yield
corporate debt, collateralized loan obligations, private equity, meme stocks, and runaway
retail day trading.
Conversely, during the 2007-08 financial crisis, high debt ratios (private and public)
caused a severe debt crisis -- as housing bubbles burst -- but the ensuing recession led to low
inflation, if not outright deflation. Owing to the credit crunch, there was a macro shock to
aggregate demand, whereas the risks today are on the supply side.
Worst of both
worlds
We are thus left with the worst of both the stagflationary 1970s and the 2007-10 period.
Debt ratios are much higher than in the 1970s, and a mix of loose economic policies and
negative supply shocks threatens to fuel inflation rather than deflation, setting the stage for
the mother of stagflationary debt crises over the next few years.
For now, loose monetary and fiscal policies will continue to fuel asset and credit
bubbles, propelling a slow-motion train wreck. The warning signs are already apparent in
today's high price-to-earnings ratios SPX , low equity risk
premiums, inflated housing and tech assets COMP , and the
irrational exuberance surrounding special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), the crypto
sector BTCUSD, ,
high-yield corporate debt , collateralized loan obligations, private equity, meme stocks
AMC, and runaway
retail day trading.
But meanwhile, the same loose policies that are feeding asset bubbles will continue to
drive consumer price inflation, creating the conditions for stagflation whenever the next
negative supply shocks arrive. Such shocks could follow from renewed protectionism; demographic
aging in advanced and emerging economies; immigration restrictions in advanced economies; the
reshoring of manufacturing to high-cost regions; or the balkanization of global supply
chains.
Recipe for macroeconomic disruption
More broadly, the Sino-American decoupling threatens to fragment the global economy at a
time when climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic are pushing national governments toward
deeper self-reliance. Add to this the impact on production of increasingly frequent
cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and the social and political backlash against
inequality, and the recipe for macroeconomic disruption is complete.
Making matters worse, central banks have effectively lost their independence, because
they have been given little choice but to monetize massive fiscal deficits to forestall a debt
crisis. With both public and private debts having soared, they are in a debt trap. Central
banks will be damned if they do and damned if they don't, and many governments will be
semi-insolvent and thus unable to bail out banks, corporations, and households. The doom loop
of sovereigns and banks in the eurozone after the global financial crisis will be repeated
world-wide
As inflation rises over the next few years, central banks will face a dilemma. If they start
phasing out unconventional policies and raising policy rates to fight inflation, they will risk
triggering a massive debt crisis and severe recession; but if they maintain a loose monetary
policy, they will risk double-digit inflation -- and deep stagflation when the next negative
supply shocks emerge.
But even in the second scenario, policy makers would not be able to prevent a debt crisis.
While nominal government fixed-rate debt in advanced economies can be partly wiped out by
unexpected inflation (as happened in the 1970s), emerging-market debts denominated in foreign
currency would not be. Many of these governments would need to default and restructure their
debts.
At the same time, private debts in advanced economies would become unsustainable (as they
did after the global financial crisis), and their spreads relative to safer government bonds
would spike, triggering a chain reaction of defaults. Highly leveraged corporations and their
reckless shadow-bank creditors would be the first to fall, soon followed by indebted households
and the banks that financed them.
The Volcker Moment
To be sure, real long-term borrowing costs may initially fall if inflation rises
unexpectedly and central banks are still behind the curve. But, over time, these costs will be
pushed up by three factors. First, higher public and private debts will widen sovereign and
private interest-rate spreads. Second, rising inflation and deepening uncertainty will drive up
inflation risk premiums. And, third, a rising misery index -- the sum of the inflation and
unemployment rate -- eventually will demand a "Volcker Moment."
When former Fed Chair Paul Volcker hiked rates to
tackle inflation in 1980-82, the result was a severe double-dip recession in the United States
and a debt crisis and lost decade for Latin America. But now that global debt ratios are almost
three times higher than in the early 1970s, any anti-inflationary policy would lead to a
depression, rather than a severe recession. The question is not if but when.
Under these conditions, central banks will be damned if they do and damned if they don't,
and many governments will be semi-insolvent and thus unable to bail out banks, corporations,
and households. The doom loop of sovereigns and banks in the eurozone after the global
financial crisis will be repeated world-wide, sucking in households, corporations, and shadow
banks as well.
As matters stand, this slow-motion train wreck looks unavoidable. The Fed's recent pivot
from an ultra-dovish to a mostly dovish stance changes nothing. The Fed has been in a debt trap
at least since December 2018, when a stock- and credit-market crash forced it to reverse its
policy tightening a full year before COVID-19 struck. With inflation rising and stagflationary
shocks looming, it is now even more ensnared.
So, too, are the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Bank of England. The
stagflation of the 1970s will soon meet the debt crises of the post-2008 period. The question
is not if but when.
Nouriel Roubini is CEO of Roubini Macro Associates and chief economist at Atlas Capital
Team.
Australia's tertiary education system is large, complex, and poorly regulated. Its
government funding sources, governance structures and annual reporting requirements lack
transparency and are inconsistent between and within jurisdictions. Distorted government
priorities and discredited ideological fixations have created a dysfunctional system that
devalues the work of academics and professional staff while imposing ever higher burdens on
students to pay more for less.
These statements and
others like them reinforce a widely held perception that the Coalition is
focused solely on higher education's economic contribution to the nation. At the same time
as it has raised its expectations of commercial outcomes from higher education, it has imposed
a wide range of additional funding cuts to teaching and research.
It is therefore clear that it is not the Federal Government that will primarily bear the
burden of its tertiary education ambitions. That burden will continue to fall squarely upon
Australian academics, students and professional staff. The ways governance and funding are
currently structured virtually guarantees such an outcome.
However, the overall contribution to the higher education system from the Federal Government
has halved over the last thirty years, from
around 80% to less than 40% . It has been able to do this by clawing back a much higher
proportion of universities' teaching costs from domestic students. Most of this transfer of the
cost burden to students has happened under the Coalition.
Even though total government funding for the higher education system grew 114% in real terms
since 1989, increasing from
$5.6 billion to $12 billion in 2018-19 , the number of domestic students in the system grew
by 165%, increasing from around 410,000 in 1989 to 1,087,850
in 2019 .
Allocated funding for higher education in the 2019‒2020 Federal Budget was $17.7
billion. But again, this included funding of $5.8 billion for HECS-HELP loans. Therefore,
actual government funding was only $11.9 billion out of total revenue for the higher education
system of $36.73 billion for that financial year. In other words, less than a third of the
system's total revenue was provided by the Commonwealth that year, yet it continues to behave
as though its contribution is far higher.
The combination of reduced revenue from domestic tuition fees due to government funding cuts
and from international students due to COVID has inevitably forced all of Australia's public
universities to cut expenditure over the last twelve months.
By late March 2020, however, cost savings in the core functions of teaching and research
were being sought by university executives, even though the full financial implications of the
pandemic were still far from clear.
Because labour costs have sat at around 57% of total university expenditure for the last
decade, they are always at the top of managerial priorities for cost-cutting, rather than
their own inflated wages or
latest pet projects . Executives have imposed early retirement and redundancies on
thousands of staff with little or no consultation. Many more casual and contracted staff have
been laid off or had their positions terminated at the end of their contracts. All the
indications from university executives are that
many more jobs are on the chopping block .
Universities made at least
17,000 full-time equivalent positions redundant in 2020 . This constitutes around 13% of
the total tertiary workforce. However, given that around half of that workforce
is employed casually or on contract , and has been for at least a decade, the total job
losses probably translate to around 50-60,000 in total. In other words, these job cuts need to
be grasped in the context of the massive casualisation of university teaching and
administration over the last few decades.
According to Universities Australia (UA), there was
130,000 full-time equivalent staff directly employed in the system in 2017 . However, like
the universities themselves, UA is unwilling to publicly acknowledge the number of casuals
working in the system. In 2018, there were
94,500 people employed on a casual basis at Australian universities . It would seem
reasonable on that basis to conclude that as many as half of all casuals have either totally
lost any work they had, or have had their work hours significantly reduced. However, most
universities steadfastly refuse to make employee headcount data public, so the data we do have
is inaccurate.
This has been borne out by a recent study of Victorian public university job losses in 2020
published by accounting professors James Guthrie and Brendan O'Connell. They have found that
even in Victoria, where universities are obligated to publish their casual workforce figures,
universities used inconsistent terminology and different techniques for recording their
staffing numbers at the end of 2020 . One estimate
from early May that 7,500 university employees in Victoria lost their jobs in 2020 is
therefore almost certainly an underestimate. Guthrie and O'Connell also found that universities
are using accounting losses to justify reducing employment.
The release of twenty-one university annual reports over the last few weeks strongly
reinforces their observations. UTS professor John Howard argues that the figures reported in
these annual reports raise
serious questions about the extent to which the financial crisis of the tertiary system
has been exaggerated . He points out that all but one of these universities recorded cash
surpluses, which averaged around 3% of total revenue. However, eight of them posted deficits
after they included 'non-cash' expenses such as depreciation, amortisation and changes in
investment valuations: none of these categories of 'expenses' constitute tangible revenue
losses. The bulk of university 'losses' were in decreased returns on investments (around $600
million) and the depreciation of assets, which totalled more than $1.4 billion.
Howard also points out that Australian universities had accessible cash or cash equivalent
reserves of
$4.6 billion at the beginning of the pandemic . Their own estimates indicate revenue losses
in 2020-21 of $3.8 billion. In other words, most of Australia's public universities have ample
financial assets at their disposal to offset any short- to medium-term loss of revenue.
Depreciation, amortisation and finance costs have seen the most significant growth in
'expenses' over the last decade. According to Deloitte, this category of expenses has seen the
highest growth, at
7.5% as a year-on-year average . Universities' adoption of accrual accounting has enabled
them to write off the value of fixed assets more quickly to inflate their expense claims every
year. These inflated expenses are used as an excuse to sack staff and cut programs. Howard
argues that if public universities did not use this business accounting convention, none
of the twenty-one universities he studied would have recorded any earnings deficit in 2020
.
It should therefore be clear that the main problem public universities face is not a lack of
revenue, or a lack of disposable assets to ride through a crisis. Their main problem is a lack
of transparency and accountability at the executive level which has enabled them to misallocate
financial resources, together with a corporate governance regime that has empowered executives
to behave in this fashion. These two issues need to be front and centre of reform of the
Australian higher education system.
Dr Adam Lucas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
at the University of Wollongong. Adam's contemporary research focuses on energy policy
responses to anthropogenic climate change and obstacles to a sustainable energy
transition.
The corporatization of Australia's public universities has been driven by government
funding cuts and regressive changes to how universities are governed. The rationale for
corporatization was that it would encourage universities to become more entrepreneurial by
turning vice-chancellors into CEOs and governing bodies into corporate boards. The resulting
hybrid has been very successful at promoting university 'brands' to international students but
has utterly failed to maintain a supportive and collegial work environment for staff and
students on university campuses.
While it is indisputable that most Australian universities have experienced huge
growth in international student revenues over the last decade, the billions of dollars in
'operating surpluses' that have flowed through the system during this time have not been
invested in expanding and developing academic workforces, or
lowering staff-student ratios , or increasing teaching and learning support for students.
Instead, those responsible for making these decisions have
spent billions of dollars on construction and marketing programs that laud their
institutions' world-class status (usually in the techno-sciences), while systematically
degrading the working conditions of academic and professional staff and the quality of
education received by students.
Resources critical to the performance of a wide range of tasks and initiatives are regularly
withheld for no good reason. Hiring freezes and the imposition of annual staff performance
assessments further contribute to the general atmosphere of fear and anxiety promoted by senior
management, who never appear to have the same performance metrics applied to them. Student and
staff services that had previously been free or subsidized have been monetized and privatized.
Professional services and expertise that could easily be sourced 'in-house' are routinely
outsourced to external consultants.
Few of these negative trends are captured in the metrics senior management regularly deploy
to spruik the virtues of their universities to students, parents and potential donors.
Preoccupied with 'cost recovery', 'performance metrics' and 'efficiency dividends', senior
managers and executives have reconstructed staff and students as revenue-generators who are
surplus to requirements if not producing financial surpluses and/or 'measurable outcomes' that
contribute to improved university rankings. International league tables, performance
monitoring, teaching and research excellence awards, and all the other 'metrics of excellence'
with which university executives and managers are currently obsessed are means to these
ends.
These legislative changes have been primarily motivated by a long-held belief within the
Coalition and certain elements of the Labor Party that universities should be run like
corporations. Those who have embraced this belief are convinced that business and industry
provide the best models for university governance because they always perform better than
public sector institutions.
Following the Dawkins reforms of Australia's higher education system in the early 1990s,
this item of faith has been progressively embedded in all of the administrative and managerial
functions of universities. As successive state and federal governments have continued to reduce
funding to the system they have sought to graft an increasingly Frankensteinian model of
'corporate governance' onto Australia's public universities.
For example, in 2012 the NSW Coalition Government inserted specific clauses in the
enabling
NSW legislation concerning university governance and finances which specify that appointed
members require financial and management experience, while those sub-clauses specifying
requirements for tertiary, professional and community experience have been removed. Similar
changes to university acts were made by the
WA Coalition Government in 2016 .
In a public corporation, the executive is accountable to shareholders and the board of
directors. Poor performance is questioned, and senior executives and managers can be removed if
the board or shareholders are unhappy with that performance. However, unlike corporate boards,
which are answerable to their shareholders, and to some extent, the public as 'clients' or
'consumers' of their goods and services, the accountability of university governing bodies is
effectively restricted to financial issues.
The auditors-general of each state and territory are empowered to annually scrutinize the
financial
accounts of all universities under their jurisdiction . Even so, it is highly unusual for
them to call universities to account for anything other than minor infringements of accounting
rules and standards. They have rarely shown any willingness to delve deeply into university
finances under their jurisdiction, despite some clear cases of
maladministration, mismanagement and even corruption . There is no evidence that any audits
have ever uncovered wrongdoing, conflicts of interest, or incidents of malfeasance, even though
we know from our own colleagues in administrative positions at multiple universities that such
behaviour is not at all uncommon.
Universities, therefore, have the worst of both worlds as far as their governance is
concerned. Staff and students have little or no say over how priorities are set and strategies
are pursued. They are subject to the whims of management, who generally regard academics as an
obstacle to the efficient running of 'their' universities, and who have no legitimate
contributions to make as far as they are concerned. They rarely admit to having made mistakes
or demonstrate any willingness to learn from them.
To illustrate this point, in the wake of COVID, it would make sense to proportionally cut
back on staffing and resources in those areas that had the highest proportions of international
students, and those related to their support and recruitment. However, there is no evidence
from any decisions made to date by university executives that these disciplines or activities
have borne the brunt of 'cost savings'. On the contrary, even prior to the current pandemic,
the arts, humanities and social sciences have been targeted for job cuts, including
non-replacement of tenured academics that have retired or resigned. In most of these instances,
the financial cases for these cuts have been based on decisions that have little or no evidence
to support them.
Many academics and students feel that senior managers target disciplines in these fields
because those who work and study in them are willing to speak out against management and
executive excesses. Critical thinking, teaching and research is deemed by university leaders to
be acceptable within those contexts,
but not when reflexively applied to their decision-making .
All of the distorted priorities that universities manifest today are an outcome of the
inappropriate and dysfunctional corporate governance and reporting models that successive
governments have imposed on universities throughout the country over many years. It is
noteworthy that Coalition governments throughout the country have made successive changes to
university acts that have the clear intention of disenfranchising staff and students from any
meaningful input into university governance.
It should be abundantly clear from all this that the existing legislation concerning
university governance is deeply flawed. It is an obstacle to better university governance and
degrades the value and quality of education for our young people and the next generation of
professionals. It also devalues the work of academic and professional staff and demonstrates no
capacity for critical self-reflection. It is therefore completely inadequate to the task of
confronting the enormous challenges that humanity faces in the twenty-first century.
We need to start a national conversation about the kinds of changes that are needed to bring
about genuine reform of Australia's higher education system. A good start would be to focus on
the ways in which university governing bodies are organized and constituted, with a particular
focus on how and why different categories of members are selected and represented.
Democratic accountability and transparency should be embedded in every new process and
structure.
Dr Adam Lucas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences at the University of Wollongong. Adam's contemporary research focuses on energy
policy responses to anthropogenic climate change and obstacles to a sustainable energy
transition.
"On a daily basis, loadings will decline by 22% in July compared to the current month,
Reuters calculations showed."
REPLYPOLLUX IGNORED06/28/2021
at 1:37 pm
"Russian oil production has declined so far in June from average levels in May despite a
price rally in oil market and OPEC+ output cuts easing, two sources familiar with the data told
Reuters on Monday.
Russia's compliance with the OPEC+ oil output deal was at close to 100% in May, which
means the state is about to exceed its target in June.
Two industry sources said that lower output levels may be due to technical issues some
Russian oil producers are experiencing with output at older oilfields."RON PATTERSON IGNORED
06/28/2021 at 2:38 pm
Yes, they are definitely experiencing issues with their older oilfields, it's called
depletion. But that decline is only 33,000 bpd or .3%. But your post above that one says
exports in the third quarter will decline by 22%. What gives there?
I just checked the Russia site and they have revised up their original May estimate. It is
one week later than the original. Production is now down 9,000 b/d. RON PATTERSON IGNORED06/28/2021
at 4:50 pm
Yeah, they revised it up by 14,000 pbd. A pittance. Now they are down only 9,000 bpd instead
of 23,000. Nothing to get excited about. Basically, they were flat in May.
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FLEURY IGNORED06/28/2021
at 4:09 pm
"Russia plans to decrease oil loadings from its Western ports to 6.22 million tonnes for
July compared to 7.75 million tonnes planned for loading in June, the preliminary schedule
showed." 7,75 x 10^6 – 6,62 x 10^6 = 1130000 t. 1130000×7,3/30 = 274966 b/d.
Therefore, these decrease of oil export suggests a decrease of production of 274966 b/d.
Precedently, it was announced that oil exports of Russia would decrease of 7,2 % for the period
July-September or a decrease of 308222 b/d. Therefore, it's coherent.
https://www.zawya.com/mena/en/markets/story/Russias_quarterly_crude_oil_exports_to_drop_72_schedule-TR20210617nL5N2NY2IQX8/?fbclid=IwAR0ZjvwzjVS427CbUAzTL1vJfqog7R8CDwaJAvI3uUdaw_0z5S5l_57SGFY
I notice that it concerns the "Western ports", therefore the exports toward EU and USA. Well,
EU is also the main customer of Russia with 59% of the oil exports of Russia. RON PATTERSON IGNORED
06/28/2021 at 4:59 pm
Western Syberia is where all the very old supergiant fields are. They produce 60% of Russian
crude oil. Or at least they used to. LIGHTSOUT IGNORED06/29/2021
at 2:11 am
Ron
If one of the West Siberian giants is rolling over in the same way as Daquing did, things could
get very interesting very quickly. RON
PATTERSON IGNORED06/29/2021
at 7:24 am
Four of Russia's five giant fields are in Western Siberia. The fifth is in the Urals, on the
European side. All five have been creamed with infill horizontal drilling for almost 20 years.
All five are on the verge of a steep decline. Obviously, one and possibly more have already hit
that point.
This linked article below is 18 months old but there is a chart here that shows where
Russia's oil is coming from. Notice only a tiny part is coming from Eastern Siberia, the hope
for Russia's oil future. Those hopes are fading fast.
As I have written a few months ago: When you reduce output voluntarily for a longer time,
all the nickel nursers from accounting and controlling will cut you any investing in over
capacity you can't use at the moment. That works like this in any industry.
So you have to drill these additional infills and extensions after the cut is liftet. And
this will take time, while fighting against the ever lasting decline.
The U.S. has won international backing for a
global minimum rate of tax as part of a wider overhaul of the rules for
taxing international companies , a major step toward securing a final agreement on a key
element of the Biden administration's domestic plans for revenue raising and spending.
Officials from 130 countries that met virtually agreed Thursday to the broad outlines of
what would be the most sweeping change in international taxation in a century. Among them were
all of the Group of 20 major economies, including China and India, which previously had
reservations about the proposed overhaul.
Those governments now will seek to pass laws ensuring that companies headquartered in their
countries pay
a minimum tax rate of at least 15% in each of the nations in which they operate, reducing
opportunities for
tax avoidance .
"... The US seems to be especially vulnerable to issues caused by lack of precarity as it has such a poor welfare system, previously relying on infinite growth to smooth things over or a, now failing, religious faith to keep things in order; prolonged economic and political success that has led to a sense of entitlement and self-belief in the American way, a history of putting personal liberty above all else, which embraces competition rather than co-operation; and a world beating phobia of death well beyond when reproductive age has passed. ..."
"... The gig economy, middle class collapse, MAGA, BLM (and the police actions that prompted its rise), cancel culture, (un)reality TV's attraction, FOMO, the increase in low level strife, self-harming, on-line pornography addiction, the Oxycodone/Fentanyl epidemic etc. are all manifestations and/or causes of that precarity. Civil wars and major revolts (and almost any that succeed in their aims) tend to happen only when there is intra elite infighting rather than uprisings from below. The most likely catalyst for that at the moment is Trump, which may be a good sign given his ineffectualness, ineptitude and general repulsive lack of charisma; anyone even a bit more like a real human being could cause serious ructions. ..."
I have been reading "˜A More Contested World: Global Trends 2040' by The National
Intelligence Council; slowly as there's a lot in it but also a lot missing. No mention of
specific resource limits, no discussion of GM just general "˜technology' concerns
concentrating on AI and of course, god forbid any mention of overpopulation. It is very
US-centric "" in the good scenarios the world gets to a better place only through US leadership
"" and humanist focused with no consideration of the rights of the earth in general, only the
perpetuation of our civilisation and to that end all future scenarios are some variant of
technology led, growth obsessed, centralised BAU (maybe not with full globalism but still based
around hegemonic power structures at some level). It's a view from mainstream economists and
politicians carrying all the normal drawbacks that those words imply: i.e. bad things happen
when the world doesn't do as it's told to do by us, and if you don't agree with us about what
constitutes "˜bad' then you're wrong about that too.
The rising wealth gap and other inequality issues are a common theme in these global risk
studies. However, theories in some recent studies have proposed that it is not inequality
itself that is the problem so much as a prolonged sense of precarity (a new word to me and,
apparently, to MS spellchecker, but it is essentially identical to precariousness) of the
non-elites that accompanies it.
This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as parents desire a stable and resource
abundant household in which their children can be expected to reach a reproductive age. This
might be expected to come more from the female side, as they are tied to their offspring more
than males, who are free to spread their sperm and move on. I have read reorts, possibly
anecdotal only, that it will invariably be the woman that will be the party insisting on buying
the largest house that can be attained, whether affordable or not. I'm all for gender equality
and women's rights but some things are innate and equal-rights do not mean equal hormones,
ambitions, impulses and behaviors.
From this viewpoint therefore, solving the wealth inequality issue is actually anathema to
population reduction. For example the already low birth rate in Italy had a further step down
caused by the increased precarity due to the economic impact of Covid-19, the government has
responded by offering direct incentives for having children. The apparent short term aims are
in direct opposition to the what is best long term, this is called a dilemma rather than a
problem.
The US seems to be especially vulnerable to issues caused by lack of precarity as it has
such a poor welfare system, previously relying on infinite growth to smooth things over or a,
now failing, religious faith to keep things in order; prolonged economic and political success
that has led to a sense of entitlement and self-belief in the American way, a history of
putting personal liberty above all else, which embraces competition rather than co-operation;
and a world beating phobia of death well beyond when reproductive age has passed.
The neologism for the growing proportion of people affected by precarity is the precariat.
The always readable Tim Watkins has a new post that touches on some of theses issues, with a
particular eye on the possibility (or not) of significant inflationary issues ( The
Everything Death Spiral ).
The gig economy, middle class collapse, MAGA, BLM (and the police actions that prompted
its rise), cancel culture, (un)reality TV's attraction, FOMO, the increase in low level strife,
self-harming, on-line pornography addiction, the Oxycodone/Fentanyl epidemic etc. are all
manifestations and/or causes of that precarity. Civil wars and major revolts (and almost any
that succeed in their aims) tend to happen only when there is intra elite infighting rather
than uprisings from below. The most likely catalyst for that at the moment is Trump, which may
be a good sign given his ineffectualness, ineptitude and general repulsive lack of charisma;
anyone even a bit more like a real human being could cause serious ructions.
Great post George thank you. It is quite evident for the astute observer that western
democracy has over the years turned more and more into an amalgam of kleptocracy, oligarchy and
plutocracy.
How many countries have colonial Europe and U.S foreign policy destroyed in the name of
"democracy" and "freedom" ?
I've lost count.
Plato famously is said to have said:
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live
under the rule of fools."
In Platos book the republic, Socrates despises democracy as one of the worst forms of
government. His criticism those many years ago still resonates till this day (in my
opinion).
WIthout invoking logic, I feel the world is in uncharted waters and heading towards a
precipice which no one will see coming.
You have a typo, I believe you mean oxycontin (oxycodone) epidemic. HICKORY IGNORED HOLE
IN HEAD IGNORED 06/27/2021
at 1:12 pm
Hicks , not being based in USA ,my view maybe incorrect . The US is undergoing an
identity crisis . Where in the world did we have this gender crisis , male "" female heck can't
people see between their thighs ? Red-Blue . White Supremacy vs BLM . North vs South . Growing
up in the 70's US entrepreneurship was my inspiration . My hero's were Ford, Sloan , Edison etc
and what do we have today, Musk ? What changed that a society where work was an ethic has
transformed into a system where everyone is looking for an opportunity to suck at the teat of
the government . Amazing transformation for someone who has a reference point . Now I am going
into the stupid zone . What changed was the net surplus energy available per capita to the US
citizen . Once that flipped it was downhill all the way . I reserve the right to be incorrect
in my assessment .
Regarding the off-topic finish, I don't think most people realize how fragile is the glue
holding the US together.
Fragmentation along tribal lines is the biggest theme in American culture.
If a minority collection of tribes succeeds in the attempts to reverse election results, even
more than the Electoral College already does, the country will undergo a major restructuring
(polite description) with no guarantees on a recognizable outcome.
"... This is not the first time Summers has predicted that the firehose of fiscal and monetary stimulus will unleash soaring inflation. While career economists at the White House and Fed - who have peasants doing their purchases for them - urge Americans to ignore the current hyperinflation episode, saying that the recent inflation surge will soon pass, Summers has been unique among his fellow Democrats in predicting that massive monetary and fiscal stimulus alongside the reopening of the economy would spark considerable price pressures. ..."
"... Asked how financial markets may behave in the rest of 2021, Summers said "there will probably be more turbulence" as traders react to faster inflation by pushing up bond yields. "We've got a lot of processing ahead of us in markets," he said. ..."
It may not be quite hyperinflation - loosely defined as pricing rising at a double-digit
clip or higher - but if former Treasury Secretary and erstwhile democrat Larry Summers is
right, it will be halfway there in about six months.
One day after Bank of America warned that the coming "hyperinflation" will last at least 2
and as much as 4 years - whether or not one defines that as transitory depends on whether one
has a Federal Reserve charge card to fund all purchases in the next 4 years - Larry Summers,
who is this close from being excommunicated from the Democrat party, predicted inflation will
be running "pretty close" to 5% at the end of this year and that bond yields will rise as a
result over the rest of 2021.
Considering that consumer prices already jumped 5% in May from the previous year, his
forecast is not much of a shock.
Speaking on Bloomberg TV, Summers said that "my guess is that at the end of the year
inflation will, for this year, come out pretty close to 5%," adding that "it would surprise me
if we had 5% inflation with no effect on inflation expectations." If he is right, the recent
reversal in one-year inflation expectations which dipped from 4.6% to 4.2% according to the
latest UMich consumer sentiment survey, is about to surge to new secular highs.
This is not the first time Summers has predicted that the firehose of fiscal and monetary
stimulus will unleash soaring inflation. While career economists at the White House and Fed -
who have peasants doing their purchases for them - urge Americans to ignore the current
hyperinflation episode, saying that the recent inflation surge will soon pass, Summers has been
unique among his fellow Democrats in predicting that massive monetary and fiscal stimulus
alongside the reopening of the economy would spark considerable price pressures.
Asked how financial markets may behave in the rest of 2021, Summers said "there will
probably be more turbulence" as traders react to faster inflation by pushing up bond yields.
"We've got a lot of processing ahead of us in markets," he said.
Ironically, Summers - who now teaches at Harvard University whose president he was not too
long ago when he hung out with his buddy Jeffrey Epstein...
Plus Size Model 5 hours ago (Edited)
Exactly!! Not only that, it's not just the FED that is contributing to inflation. We can
also blame the SEC and the DOJ. I've never seen a Zero Hedge article blaming stock price
appreciation or buybacks for causing inflation or increasing the money supply. The DOJ
never enforces antitrust laws. The FBI never investigates money laundering from overseas
that creates artificial real estate appreciation that inflates the money supply when people
take out HELOC. There are other oversight bodies that, in a sane world, would not allow
foreign investment in real estate. Bitcoin and others are a new tool that is being used to
manipulate the money supply. It's comical how coins always go down when the little guys are
holding the bag and go up when Coinbase executives want to cash out.
Another thing, this artificial chip shortage, punitive tariffs, and new tax laws are
also adding to price increases.
Totally_Disillusioned 1 hour ago
Speculative investments have NEVER been included in the forumulation of CPI that
determines inflation rate.
Revolution_starts_now 6 hours ago
Larry Summers is a tool.
gregga777 5 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Banksters in 2010's: We've got to revise how we calculate inflation again to conceal it
from the Rubes.
Banksters in 2020: Ho Lee Fuk! Gun the QE engine! Pedal to the metal! Monetize all of
the Federal government's debt! Keep those stonks zooming upwards!
Banksters in 2021: Ho Lee Fuk! The Rubes have caught onto our game! Gun the QE engine!
Keep that pedal to the metal! Maybe the Rubes won't notice housing prices going up 20% per
year?
Summer 2021: Ho Lee Fuk! They are noticing Inflation! We'd better revise how we
calculate inflation again to conceal it from the Rubes.
On Fri the July futures contact for WTI closed at 74/bo and on June 21, 2021 (last data
points at EIA) the spot price for WTI was $73.64/bo and Brent spot price was $74.49/bo, so a
spread of under a dollar, quite unusual in the past 5 years or so when typical spread has been
roughly $5/bo between WTI and Brent (Brent usually has been higher). FRUGAL IGNORED POLLUX
IGNORED 06/28/2021
at 5:42 am
"Abu Dhabi's state-owned Adnoc has informed customers that it will implement cuts of
around 15pc to client nominations of all its crude exports loading in September, even as the
Opec+ coalition considers further relaxing production quotas.
It was unclear why Adnoc is deepening reductions for its September-loading term crude
exports, with the decision coming ahead of the next meeting of Opec+ ministers scheduled for 1
July when the group is expected to decide on its production strategy for at least one
month"
"Abu Dhabi's state-owned Adnoc has informed customers that it will implement cuts of
around 15pc to client nominations of all its crude exports loading in September, even as the
Opec+ coalition considers further relaxing production quotas.
It was unclear why Adnoc is deepening reductions for its September-loading term crude
exports, with the decision coming ahead of the next meeting of Opec+ ministers scheduled for 1
July when the group is expected to decide on its production strategy for at least one
month"
The Fed Faces The Greatest Risk In Its History: An Economic Crisis Accompanied By
Inflation BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, JUN 27, 2021 - 11:58 AM
From Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
The fed funds rate was 9.75% when I arrived in the pit, Chicago 1989. US GDP that year was
3.7%, unemployment 5.4%, and inflation 4.6%. But the S&L crisis was widening, as they do.
So the Fed cut rates 75bps. Back then, the Fed certainly didn't signal its intentions. In fact,
the Fed neither confirmed nor denied what changes it made to interest rates even after it made
them. Unimaginable, right? So we had to guess Fed policy changes by observing what happened in
money markets. I obviously didn't understand any of it, after all, I was an economics
major.
The S&P 500 loved that 75bp rate cut more than it feared the S&L crisis, so stocks
took out the 1987 peak, making new highs in the autumn of '89. There was still tons of brain
damage from '87, and traders are notorious for being superstitious, so the pit was nervy that
October. When the S&P plunged -6% out of the blue on October 13th, the trading pit went
utterly berserk. I was so happy in that market mayhem. Soon enough, the Fed cut rates another
75bps. The S&P 500 grinded back up through the end of my first year, but never made new
highs.
Pause Unmute Duration 0:33 / Current Time 0:06 Loaded
: 40.09% Fullscreen Up Next
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.469.0_en.html#goog_756093940 Wall Street
Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity NOW PLAYING SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale
of Alibaba Shares China's Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says U.S.-Saudi
Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market
Environment Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
Despite the 150bps of rate cuts in 1989, and the record S&P highs, the economy soon
entered a recession. The Fed kept cutting rates for a couple years, ending at an impossibly low
rate of 3.00% in Feb 1992. US GDP was 3.5%, unemployment 7.4% and inflation was 2.9%. I had
made my way to London that year as a prop trader, just in time for the Exchange Rate Mechanism
collapse. The Europeans had created a system to ensure stability, certainty. And this naturally
encouraged traders and investors to build massive leveraged investment positions.
When systems designed to ensure stability fail, which they inevitably do when applied to
things as unstable as economies, the consequences are profound. As Europe worked through its
ERM collapse, Greenspan held fed funds at 3.00% for what seemed an eternity. No one could
understand anything he ever said, so you can't blame him for promising certainty, stability.
But people see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to
believe. And soon, folks discovered how to make money by betting rates would never change, much
as they had bet on stability and certainty ahead of the ERM collapse.
US GDP in 1994 was 4.0%, unemployment was 5.5% and inflation 2.7%. Greenspan hiked rates
25bps to 3.25% in Feb 1994. Employment gains had been on a tear, and yet, somehow no one
expected that rate hike. Naturally, he hadn't pre-signaled a change. The bond market collapsed
. Most people don't think bond markets can crash, but that's only because they haven't traded
long enough to live through one. Like all crashes, that one happened for all sorts of complex
reasons, but the biggest was that the system was highly leveraged to a certain future.
Each interest rate cycle has been different of course. Over the decades, the Fed became
increasingly transparent. That transformation was surely well-intended, seeking to reduce the
risk of creating crises like that '94 crash. But it is impossible to create certainty without
also increasing fragility - that's how markets work . As the system became more fragile, it
required increasingly aggressive Fed intervention with each downturn. The process has been
reflexive. Now markets move based on what policy changes the Fed says it may make in 18-30
months.
* * *
Anecdote :
Congress mandated that the Federal Reserve promote maximum employment, stable prices, and
moderate long-term interest rates. That was in 1978. Unsurprisingly, the nation was reeling
from years of high unemployment, rapidly inflating prices, and soaring long-term interest
rates. In the decades since, the Fed has done a remarkably good job at meeting their specific
mandate. But like all systems built to create certainty, stability, it has simultaneously
produced profound fragility. This is most clearly seen in the need for ever more dramatic
monetary interventions with each cyclical downturn.
Less obvious is the rising political fragility which is increasingly destabilizing the
nation . Having tasked the Fed with producing economic prosperity by any monetary means
necessary, our politicians then stepped away. They stopped governing effectively, fanned the
flames of animosity, shielded from the adverse economic consequences of their dereliction of
duty.
In each economic crisis, it was the Fed that provided leadership, forestalling collapse, but
at a compounding cost. Now the nation approaches a point of peak economic and political
fragility . And while it is easy to condemn the Fed for having enabled the decades of
dysfunction, it is the political system that must bear the blame. But no matter, the Fed must
soldier on, like a magnificent machine, attempting the impossible, delivering certainty without
fragility, spinning ever faster to stand still.
And the greatest risk it now faces in meeting its mandate is an economic crisis accompanied
by inflation. Such a crisis would force it to choose between a return to orthodox policy and
the consequent defaults that would devastate asset prices, or a currency collapse and runaway
inflation that rebalances the value of our assets and liabilities. Without a determined
improvement in our politics, it is increasingly likely that we must endure the latter, followed
by the former. And this drama will surely play out in the decade ahead.
When and how another housing bubble will burst? This is the question.
The author forget that the current movement out of the cities into the suburb can lead to the
collapse of prices in overpriced areas of big cities like NYC. Also the retain space collapse is
evident even to untrained observers. So people moving out of big cities like NYC and cities
devastated by riots need to sell their current condos and apartments. To whom?
There are
many reports of homebuyers getting into bidding wars and many cities where home prices have
appreciated
by well more than 10% over the past year. This naturally leads to a concern about market
volatility: Must what goes up come down ? Are we
repeating the excesses of the early 2000s, when housing prices surged before the market
crashed?
Some analysts
argue that this time, it's even less likely that prices will fall. Inventories
of new homes for sale are very low, and lending standards are much tighter than in 2005. This
is true. In fact, the ground is even firmer than it seems.
New home inventories were very high before the Great Recession. Today, they are closer to
the level that has been common for decades. The portion of inventory built and ready for move-in is
especially low because of supply chain interruptions combined with a sudden boost of demand
during the coronavirus pandemic. We shouldn't worry much about a crash when buyers are eagerly
snapping up the available homes.
... ... ...
At the June 2006 Federal
Reserve meeting, Ben Bernanke said, "It is a good thing that housing is cooling. If we could
wave a magic wand and reinstate 2005, we wouldn't want to do that." It's notable that Jerome
Powell, who today holds Bernanke's former position as Fed chair, isn't openly pining for a
"cooler" housing market.
There is a common belief that before the Great Recession, homebuyers were taken in by the
myth that home prices never go down, and they became complacent. Those buyers turned out to
be wrong. Yet, even when a concerted effort to kill housing markets succeeded, we had to beat
them into submission for three full years before prices relented. Home prices can go down, but
we have to work very hard, together, for a long time, to make them fall.
If you are a buyer in a hot market where home prices are 30% higher than they were a year
ago, you're getting a 30% worse deal than you could have had back then. Nothing can be done
about that. That said, the main things to be concerned with are the factors federal
policymakers are in control of. There is little reason to expect housing demand to collapse. If
it does, it will require communal intention""federal monetary and credit policies meant to
create or accept a sharp drop in demand. And even if federal officials intend for housing
construction to collapse, history suggests that a market contraction would push new sales
down deeply for an extended period of time before prices relent.
Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's and
MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit
commentary proposals and other feedback to [email protected] .
Kevin
Erdmannis a visiting research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University and author of Shut Out: How A Housing Shortage Caused the Great Recession and
Crippled Our Economy.
"... De Garay explained that after receiving the second coronavirus vaccine dose, her daughter started developing severe abdominal and chest pains. Maddie described the severity of the pain to her mother as "it feels like my heart is being ripped out through my neck." ..."
"... The Ohio mother added her daughter experienced additional symptoms that included gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, heart rate, and memory loss. "She still cannot digest food. She has a tube to get her nutrition," De Garay said to Carlson. "She also couldn't walk at one point, then she could I don't understand why and [physicians] are not looking into why...now she's back in a wheelchair and she can't hold her neck up. Her neck pulls back." ..."
"... De Garay said she had joined a Facebook support group to help people cope with the unexpected events happening from the coronavirus vaccine trial, and she said it was shut down. "It's just not right," she said. ..."
"... Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis., has sent letters to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna seeking answers about adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine following a June 28 press conference with affected individuals. The conference in Milwaukee included stories from five people, including De Garay ..."
"... The Wisconsin senator noted that some adverse reactions were detailed in Pfizer's and Moderna's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) memorandums following early clinical trials ..."
"... Those reactions included nervous system disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders for the Pfizer EUA memo. The Moderna EUA memo included reactions such as nervous system disorders, vascular disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, according to Johnson's letter. ..."
"... You missed the whole point! The issue is that the government is not acknowledging and and not reporting these side effects of the vaccine. Instead they are lying about the safety. If you are young, you are much more likely to get sick and injured by the vaccine than COVID. ..."
"... anyone under 25 should not get the vaccine because the percentages are about the same or worse having a negative impact from the vaccine versus the actual virus. ..."
"... With the Covid19 mortality rate among the children why even vaccinate? As a Chemist / Biochemist I learned that there is always unintended consequences. ..."
"... Vaccines may have long term effects that are not known today. ..."
"... The CDC's generic guidelines for getting a vaccine for any reason are very restrictive, first being, the disease you're getting vaccinated against has to pose a real, immediate danger. CV-19 poses virtually no danger whatsoever to kids under 14. Of all the deaths of children 14 and under in the last 18 months only .8% of them had a case of CV-19. That's 367 deaths out of over 46,000. (Data from CDC website) Forcing them to take an experimental vaccine that they absolutely don't need is criminal. As a parent, allowing your child to take the vaccine without spending a few hours doing some research is criminally negligent. This is like some terribly warped Kafka novel but it's real. ..."
Mother Stephanie De Garay joins 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' to discuss how her 12-year-old
daughter volunteered for the Pfizer vaccine trial and is now in a wheelchair.
An Ohio mother is speaking out
about her 12-year-old daughter suffering extreme reactions and nearly dying after volunteering
for the Pfizer coronavirus
vaccine trial.
Stephanie De Garay told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Thursday
that after reaching out to multiple physicians they claimed her daughter, Maddie De Garay,
couldn't have become gravely ill from the vaccine.
"The only diagnosis we've gotten for her is that it's conversion disorder or functional
neurologic symptom disorder, and they are blaming it on anxiety," De Garay told Tucker Carlson.
"Ironically, she did not have anxiety before the vaccine."
De Garay explained that after receiving the second coronavirus vaccine dose, her daughter
started developing severe abdominal and chest pains. Maddie described the severity of the pain
to her mother as "it feels like my heart is being ripped out through my neck."
The Ohio mother added her daughter experienced additional symptoms that included
gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, heart rate, and memory loss. "She still cannot digest food. She has a tube to get her nutrition," De Garay said to
Carlson. "She also couldn't walk at one point, then she could I don't understand why and
[physicians] are not looking into why...now she's back in a wheelchair and she can't hold her
neck up. Her neck pulls back."
Carlson asked whether any officials from the Biden administration or representatives from
Pfizer company have reached out to the family. "No, they have not," she answered.
"The response with the person that's leading the vaccine trial has been atrocious," she
said. "We wanted to know what symptoms were reported and we couldn't even get an answer on
that. It was just that 'we report to Pfizer and they report to the FDA.' That's all we
got."
After her heartbreaking experience, the Ohio mother said she's still "pro-vaccine, but also
pro-informed consent." De Garay mentioned she's speaking out because she feels like everyone
should be fully aware of this tragic incident and added the situation is being "pushed down and
hidden."
De Garay said she had joined a Facebook support group to help people cope with the
unexpected events happening from the coronavirus vaccine trial, and she said it was shut
down. "It's just not right," she said.
"They need to do research and figure out why this happened, especially to people in the
trial. I thought that was the point of it," De Garay concluded. "They need to come up with
something that's going to treat these people early because all they're going to do is keep
getting worse."
Sen. Ron
Johnson , R-Wis., has sent letters to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna seeking answers
about adverse reactions to the COVID-19vaccine
following a June 28 press conference with affected individuals. The conference in Milwaukee
included stories from five people, including De Garay.
The Wisconsin senator noted that some adverse reactions were detailed in Pfizer's and
Moderna's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) memorandums
following early clinical trials.
Those reactions included nervous system disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue
disorders for the Pfizer EUA memo. The Moderna EUA memo included reactions such as nervous
system disorders, vascular disorders and musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders,
according to Johnson's letter.
Pfizer and Moderna did not immediately respond to inquiries from Fox News about Johnson's
letters.
J jeff5150357 6 hours ago
My daughter had the same thing happen to
her after getting a flu vaccine 9 years ago. Within days of getting it, she went from being as
healthy as an ox to years of awful, unexplained illness. The short version is they concluded
that she had a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine, but from the delivery chemicals, not the
flu content itself. Formaldehyde was the likely major cause. Now she is getting ready to begin
college and is being required to get the Covid vaccine by her university and the NCAA for
athletics. It is causing her, my wife and I horrible anxiety and we feel like we are being
railroaded into something that could be very dangerous for her. Any discussion or concern
expressed on social media is immediately blocked. I know from years of working in the research
grants office at Yale University that the big pharma industry is powerful and will go to great
lengths to control the narrative. What I don't understand is why mainstream media and social
media are so willing to help them these days!
jeff5150357 4 hours ago
While the college experience is great for a young adult. I would look at getting a degree
online. Her future earnings will be based on her merit, not where she went to school. If
someone was telling me what to do with my personal health, and I was uncomfortable with their
prescription, I would follow my instincts.
LoraJane92649 jeff5150357 5
hours ago
If her flu vax is well documented she should be able to get a waiver. Hopefully you
have an able bodied family physician or medical team to advocate on your behalf.
G gunvald 7 hours ago
You know when you take it that there can be adverse
reactions. So, in that sense, you are informed. Any one of us could be the odd person. That
said, I have a problem with any child getting these vaccines, especially when most people
recover from the disease. It's one thing for me as an elderly person to make the decision to
take it as covid affects the elderly person more and I wanted to avoid that ventilator. Most of
my life has been lived and that's how I evaluated it. This will always come down to putting it
in God's hands.
TheTruthAsItIs gunvald 6 hours ago
You missed the whole point! The
issue is that the government is not acknowledging and and not reporting these side effects of the
vaccine. Instead they are lying about the safety. If you are young, you are much more likely to
get sick and injured by the vaccine than COVID.
D DontDestoryUSA
gunvald 4 hours ago
It's not being informed when you are forced to take a vaccination that they
clearly had trouble with past vaccination sounds like a lawsuit for the university is on the
horizon. With a big pay day
Tony5SFG 7 hours ago
"Ohio
mother said she's still "pro-vaccine, but also pro-informed consent." " And as a pediatrician
for over 40 yrs (retired now) and a 10 year member of my medical school's Institutional Review
Board (which had to approve all human research), THAT is a problem I have been bringing up As
far as requiring all young people, such as entering or in college, to get the vaccine Children
are a protected class and the informed consent for research on them is much more strenuous than
for adults And, requiring young people to take these new vaccines is the equivalent of doing
research on them. The issue of myocarditis is quite troubling. And while it has been seen in
natural infections, I have not yet seen an adequate risk - benefit evaluation regarding risking
natural infection versus vaccination And people say that the myocarditis is not severe, no one
can be sure of the long term effects of a young person getting it. The vaccines that we give
children have been used for decades and the risks/benefits have been well established
D DallasAmEmail Tony5SFG 6 hours ago
A friends daughter who just went through internship as
Physicians assistant based on the percentages in age groups believes anyone under 25 should not
get the vaccine because the percentages are about the same or worse having a negative impact
from the vaccine versus the actual virus. Yes, older age groups the percent having negative
impact from the virus is much greater than the vaccine, so yes older age groups should get the
vaccine. What really is bothersome is when Youtube removes Dr. Robert Malone video who helped
create the mrna vaccine express concern that normal testing has not happened and be cautious
about taking it, especially for the young.
marinesfather601 Tony5SFG 5
hours ago
With the Covid19 mortality rate among the children why even vaccinate? As a Chemist /
Biochemist I learned that there is always unintended consequences.
Hilltopper9 7 hours ago
Vaccines may have long term effects that are not known
today. The same could be said of all the chemicals we apply to our body daily through shampoos,
hair dyes, body lotions, and suntan lotions. Life's a gamble. It's up to each individual to
make the best decisions possible given the facts available.
A akbushrat
Hilltopper9 6 hours ago
The CDC's generic guidelines for getting a vaccine for any reason are
very restrictive, first being, the disease you're getting vaccinated against has to pose a
real, immediate danger. CV-19 poses virtually no danger whatsoever to kids under 14. Of all the
deaths of children 14 and under in the last 18 months only .8% of them had a case of CV-19.
That's 367 deaths out of over 46,000. (Data from CDC website) Forcing them to take an
experimental vaccine that they absolutely don't need is criminal. As a parent, allowing your
child to take the vaccine without spending a few hours doing some research is criminally
negligent. This is like some terribly warped Kafka novel but it's real.
F
Fauxguy930 Hilltopper9 5 hours ago
☢️ N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)nitrosamine is a
nitrosamine that has butyl and 4-hydroxybutyl substituents. In mice, it causes high-grade,
invasive cancers in the urinary bladder, but not in any other tissues. It has a role as a
carcinogenic agent. Ingredient in all shots. How did a carcinogen get FDA approved, oh it was
an emergency.
R RussellRika 6 hours ago
I have a
twelve year old, and not a chance I'd allow her to volunteer for any vaccine trial, and
especially not this one. She very much wanted to get a vaccine, until she started reading about
some of the adverse reactions. Sorry, but I'm a child, the benefit does not outweigh the risk.
MrEd50 6 hours ago
I took the vaccine because I'm 60 years old and work with special ed kids. My 18 year old child
refuses to take it and I support him on this. COVID shouldn't be an issue for most of us.
The problem is that many people face long term unemployment without substantial emergency funds, which further complicates
already difficult situation.
Notable quotes:
"... More than 2K adults to were interviewed to try and ascertain how long they could survive without income. It turns out that approximately 72.4MM employed Americans - 28.4% of the population - believe they wouldn't be able to last for more than a month without a payday. ..."
Imagine you lost your job tomorrow. How long would you be able to sustain your current
lifestyle? A week? A month? A year?
As we await Friday's labor market update, Finder has just published the results of a recent
survey attempting to gauge the financial stability of the average American in the post-pandemic
era.
More than 2K adults to were interviewed to try and ascertain how long they could survive
without income. It turns out that approximately 72.4MM employed Americans - 28.4% of the
population - believe they wouldn't be able to last for more than a month without a payday.
Another 24% said they expected to be able to live comfortably between two months and six
months. That means an estimated 133.6MM working Americans (52.3% of the population) can live
off their savings for six months or less before going broke.
On the other end of the spectrum, roughly 8.7MM employed Americans (or 3.4% of the
population) say they don't need to rely on a rainy day fund since they have employment
insurance which will compensate them should they lose their job.
Amusingly, men appear to be less effective savers than women. Some 32.4MM women (26.7% of
American women) say their savings would stretch at most a month, compared to 40MM men (29.9% of
American men) who admit to the same. Of those people, 9.7MM women (8% of American women) say
their savings wouldn't even stretch a week, compared to 15.5MM men (11.6% of American men) who
admit to the same.
A majority of employed Americans over the age of 18 say their savings would last six months
at most. About 70.7MM men (52.8% of American men) and 62.8MM women (51.8% of American women)
fear they'd be in dire straits within six months of losing their livelihood.
Unsurprisingly, younger people tend to have less of a savings buffer - but the gap between
the generations isn't as wide as it probably should be.
While increasing one's income is perhaps the best route to building a more robust nest egg,
Finder offered some suggestions for people looking to maximize their savings.
1. Create a budget and stick to it
Look at your monthly income against all of your monthly expenses. Add to them expenses you
pay once or twice a year to avoid a surprise when they creep up. After you know where your
money is going, you can allot specific amounts to different categories and effectively track
your spending.
"... Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the perspective of private employers and their lobbyists. The American public is expected to sympathize more with the plight of wealthy business owners who can't find workers to fill their low-paid positions, instead of with unemployed workers who might be struggling to make ends meet. ..."
"... West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless benefits early in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work. That's what has made this great country." Interestingly, Justice owns a resort that couldn't find enough low-wage workers to fill jobs. Notwithstanding a clear conflict of interest in cutting jobless benefits, the Republican politician is now enjoying the fruits of his own political actions as his resort reports greater ease in filling positions with desperate workers whose lifeline he cut off. ..."
For the past few months, Republicans have been waging a ferocious political battle to end
federal unemployment benefits, based upon stated desires of saving the U.S. economy from a
serious labor shortage. The logic, in the words
of Republican politicians like Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, goes like this: "the government pays
folks more to stay home than to go to work," and therefore, "[p]aying people not to work is not
helpful." The conservative Wall Street Journal has been beating the drum for the same argument,
saying recently that it was a " terrible
blunder " to pay jobless benefits to unemployed workers.
If the hyperbolic claims are to be believed, one might imagine American workers are
luxuriating in the largesse of taxpayer-funded payments, thumbing their noses at the earnest
"job creators" who are taking far more seriously the importance of a post-pandemic economic
growth spurt.
It is true that there are currently millions of jobs going unfilled. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics just
released statistics showing that there were 9.3 million job openings in April and that the
percentage of layoffs decreased while resignations increased. Taking these statistics at face
value, one could conclude this means there is a labor shortage.
But, as economist Heidi Shierholz explained in a New York
Times op-ed , there is only a labor shortage if employers raise wages to match worker
demands and subsequently still face a shortage of workers. Shierholz wrote, "When those
measures [of raising wages] don't result in a substantial increase in workers, that's a labor
shortage. Absent that dynamic, you can rest easy."
Remember the subprime mortgage housing crisis of 2008 when
economists and pundits blamed low-income homeowners for wanting to purchase homes they
could not afford? Perhaps this is the labor market's way of saying, if you can't afford higher
salaries, you shouldn't expect to fill jobs.
Or, to use the logic of another accepted capitalist argument, employers could liken the job
market to the surge pricing practices of ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft. After
consumers complained about hiked-up prices for rides during rush hour,
Uber explained , "With surge pricing, Uber rates increase to get more cars on the road and
ensure reliability during the busiest times. When enough cars are on the road, prices go back
down to normal levels." Applying this logic to the labor market, workers might be saying to
employers: "When enough dollars are being offered in wages, the number of job openings will go
back down to normal levels." In other words, workers are surge-pricing the cost of their
labor.
But corporate elites are loudly complaining that the sky is falling -- not because of a real
labor shortage, but because workers are less likely now to accept low-wage jobs. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
insists that "[t]he worker shortage is real," and that it has risen to the level of a
"national economic emergency" that "poses an imminent threat to our fragile recovery and
America's great resurgence." In the Chamber's worldview, workers, not corporate employers who
refuse to pay better, are the main obstacle to the U.S.'s economic recovery.
Longtime labor organizer and senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies Bill Fletcher Jr. explained to me in an email
interview that claims of a labor shortage are an exaggeration and that, actually, "we suffered
a minor depression and not another great recession," as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
In Fletcher's view, "The so-called labor shortage needs to be understood as the result of
tremendous employment reorganization, including the collapse of industries and companies."
Furthermore, according to Fletcher, the purveyors of the "labor shortage" myth are not
accounting for "the collapse of daycare and the impact on women and families, and a continued
fear associated with the pandemic."
He's right. As one analyst
put it, "The rotten seed of America's disinvestment in child care has finally sprouted." Such
factors have received little attention by the purveyors of the labor shortage myth -- perhaps
because acknowledging real obstacles like care work requires thinking of workers as real human
beings rather than cogs in a capitalist machine.
Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the perspective of
private employers and their lobbyists. The American public is expected to sympathize more with
the plight of wealthy business owners who can't find workers to fill their low-paid positions,
instead of with unemployed workers who might be struggling to make ends meet.
Already, jobless benefits were slashed to appallingly low levels after Republicans reduced a
$600-a-week payment authorized by the CARES Act to a mere
$300 a week , which works out to $7.50 an hour for full-time work. If companies cannot
compete with this exceedingly paltry sum, their position is akin to a customer demanding to a
car salesperson that they have the right to buy a vehicle for a below-market-value sticker
price (again, capitalist logic is a worthwhile exercise to showcase the ludicrousness of how
lawmakers and their corporate beneficiaries are responding to the state of the labor
market).
Remarkably, although federal jobless benefits are funded through September 2021,
more than two dozen Republican-run states are choosing to end them earlier. Not only will
this impact the bottom line for
millions of people struggling to make ends meet, but it will also undermine the stimulus
impact that this federal aid has on the economies of states when jobless workers spend their
federal dollars on necessities. Conservatives are essentially engaged in an ideological battle
over government benefits, which, in their view, are always wrong unless they are going to the
already privileged (remember the GOP's 2017
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy?).
The GOP has thumbed its nose at federal benefits for residents before. In order to
underscore their ideological opposition to the Affordable Care Act, recall how Republican
governors
eschewed billions of federal dollars to fund Medicaid expansion. These conservative
ideologues chose to let their own
voters suffer the consequences of turning down federal aid in service of their political
opposition to Obamacare. And they're doing the same thing now.
At the same time as headlines are screaming about a catastrophic worker shortage that could
undermine the economy, stories abound of how American billionaires paid
peanuts in income taxes according to newly released documents, even as their wealth
multiplied to extraordinary levels. The obscenely wealthy are spending their mountains of cash on luxury
goods and fulfilling
childish fantasies of space travel . The juxtaposition of such a phenomenon alongside the
conservative claim that jobless benefits are too generous is evidence that we are indeed in a
"national economic emergency" -- just not of the sort that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants
us to believe.
West
Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless benefits early
in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work. That's what has
made this great country." Interestingly, Justice owns a resort that couldn't find enough
low-wage workers to fill jobs. Notwithstanding a clear conflict of interest in cutting jobless
benefits, the Republican politician is now enjoying the fruits of his own political actions as
his resort reports greater ease in filling positions with desperate workers whose lifeline he
cut off.
When lawmakers earlier this year
debated the Raise the Wage Act , which would have increased the federal minimum wage,
Republicans wagged their fingers in warning, saying higher wages would put companies out of
business. Opponents of that failed bill claimed that if forced to pay $15 an hour, employers
would hire fewer people, close branches, or perhaps shut down altogether, which we were told
would ultimately hurt workers.
Now, we are being told another story: that companies actually do need workers and won't
simply reduce jobs, close branches, or shut down and that the government therefore needs to
stop competing with their ultra-low wages to save the economy. The claim that businesses would
no longer be profitable if they are forced to increase wages is undermined by one
multibillion-dollar fact: corporations are raking in record-high profits and doling them out to
shareholders and executives. They can indeed afford to offer greater pay, and when
they do, it turns out there is no labor shortage .
American workers are at a critically important juncture at this moment. Corporate employers
seem to be approaching a limit of how far they can push workers to accept poverty-level jobs.
According to Fletcher, "This moment provides opportunities to raise wage demands, but it must
be a moment where workers organize in order to sustain and pursue demands for improvements in
their living and working conditions."
Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali,"
a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing
fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute. This article was
produced by Economy for All , a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
Personalities of the Left are group-thinkers, not critical-thinkers.
Group-thinkers have two giant vulnerabilities: They're easily misled by ANYONE with
harisma, and psychopaths actively exploit that weakness. And inasmuch as group-think
inherently discounts primary evidence in favor of social affirmation, group-think is ALWAYS
wrong.
In the paper market, Brent Crude prices already hit $75 a barrel this
week, for the first time in over two years.
WTI Crude was above $73 early on Wednesday as
demand strengthened and as U.S. crude oil inventories were estimated by the American Petroleum
Institute (API) to have
shrunk by 7.199 million barrels for the week ending June 18.
Backwardation in the WTI futures continues to tighten "a sign of a tighter market.
For example, the September-October spread is at a seven-year high at $1.09 per barrel on
expectations that storage levels at the WTI futures delivery hub at Cushing will continue to
decline amid strong Midwest refinery demand, Saxo Bank said
on Tuesday.
Similar to BofA, Goldman Sachs is expecting firmer oil prices moving forward. Strategists at
the investment bank don't rule out prices nearing $100 a barrel before year end.
"Near term our highest conviction long is oil where we still see brent [crude oil] averaging
$80/bbl this third quarter with potential spikes well above $80/bbl. Global demand likely rose
to 97.0 million barrels a day in recent days from 95.0 million barrels a day just a few weeks
ago as the U.S. passes the baton to Europe and emerging markets, where even India is beginning
to show improvements," Goldman Sachs global head of commodities research
Jeffrey Currie contends .
Adds Currie, "With such robust demand growth against an almost inelastic supply curve
outside of core OPEC+ (GCC + Russia), the global oil market is facing its deepest deficits
since last summer at nearly 3.0 million barrels a day. With refiners quickly responding to
small improvements in margins, petroleum product supplies have broadly matched this jump in
end-use demand, leaving this deficit almost entirely in crude."
"Objective judgement is our jugement about the people we do not like ;-)"
In view of the fact that Delta (Indian) variant can infect vaccinated with the first
generation of vaccines people Fauci statement "when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your
own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the
spread of the virus throughout the community." i obviously wrong.
Delta Covid-19 Variant Can Infect Vaccinated People
Those who don't get their news from mainstream media have been aware of Anthony Fauci's
connection to "gain of function" research for months. Now, mainstream media is picking it up so
the White House is scrambling.
For months, there wasn't a day that went by when Dr. Anthony Fauci wasn't doing multiple
interviews spreading fear of Covid-19, demanding people take the various "vaccines," and
changing his talking points from moment to moment on a slew of healthcare-related issues. We
saw a clear change last week when the White House's chief doc seemed to fly under the radar for
the first time since Joe Biden took office.
It all comes down to "gain of function" research that is almost certainly the cause of the
Wuhan Flu. Developed in the Wuhan Virology Lab, Covid-19 either escaped or was intentionally
released. While many in academia still hold onto the notion that the pandemic was started by
bats, they do so simply because it hasn't -- and likely cannot -- be completely ruled out as
long as the Chinese Communist Party has a say in the matter. But many are now accepting the
likelihood that it came from the Wuhan Virology Lab as a result of "gain of function"
research.
We also now know that Fauci has been a
huge proponent of this research and he participated
in funding it at the Wuhan Virology Lab.
More evidence is emerging every day despite the bad doctor's protestations. And when I say
"we also now know," that's to say more mainstream media watchers know. Those who turn to
alternative media have known about Fauci's involvement with the Wuhan Virology Lab for a
while.
They've been trying to cover their tracks. A bombshell revelation from The
National Pulse yesterday showed they realized this was going to be a problem long before
Rand Paul
or Tucker Carlson started
calling Fauci out.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology scrubbed the U.S. National Institutes of Health as one
of its research partners from its website in early 2021. The revelation comes despite Dr.
Anthony Fauci insisting no relationship existed between the institutions.
Archived versions of the Wuhan lab's site also reveal a research update – "
Will SARS Come Back? " – appearing to describe gain-of-function research being
conducted at the institute by entities funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
On March 21st, 2021, the lab's website listed six U.S.-based research partners:
University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, The
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife
Federation.
One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research
partners – EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama. By March 23rd,
EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner
remaining .
The Wuhan Institute of Virology's decision to wipe the NIH from its website came amidst
heightened
scrutiny that the lab was the source of COVID-19 – and that U.S. taxpayer dollars
from the NIH may have funded the research. The unearthing of the lab's attempted coverup also
follows a heated
exchange between Senator Rand Paul and Fauci, who attempted to distance his organization
from the Wuhan lab.
Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institue of
Virology, now-deleted posts
from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research
conducted with the Wuhan-based lab. Fauci, however, asserted to Senator Paul that "the NIH
has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology."
There is still a tremendous gap between those who know the truth about Fauci and those who
still think he's just a smart little guy who tells Joe Biden what to do when it comes to Covid.
As we've documented multiple times in the past, there seems to be a cult of personality
surrounding Fauci, or as many have called it, Faucism. He is practically worshipped as a savior
by millions who believe everything he says even if he contradicts something he had said in the
past.
Today, he was interviewed on CBS News during "Face the Nation." It was a softball interview,
as always, and at no point was "gain of function" research discussed. Instead, John Dickerson
tried to sound smart and Fauci gave him kudos in an odd back-and-forth promoting vaccines.
JOHN DICKERSON : So, if- if a person is deciding whether or not to get vaccinated, they
have to keep in mind whether it's going to keep them healthy. But based on these new
findings, it would suggest they also have an opportunity, if vaccinated, to knock off or
block their ability to transmit it to other people. So, does it increase the public health
good of getting the vaccination or make that clearer based on these new findings?
DR. FAUCI : And you know, JOHN, you said it very well. I could have said it better.
It's absolutely the case. And that's the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not
only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community
health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words,
you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus
is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly
diminished rate of infection in the community. And that's exactly the reason, and you said it
very well, of why we encourage people and want people to get vaccinated. The more people you
get vaccinated, the safer the entire community is.
JOHN DICKERSON : And do you think now that this guidance has come out on relaxing the
mass mandates if you've been vaccinated, that people who might have been hesitant before will
start to get vaccinated in greater numbers?
DR. FAUCI : You know, I hope so, JOHN. The underlying reason for the CDC doing this was
just based on the evolution of the science that I mentioned a moment ago. But if, in fact,
this serves as an incentive for people to get vaccinated, all the better. I hope it does,
actually.
Don't let the presence of this interview fool you. It was almost certainly scheduled before
the "gain of function" research discussion hit the mainstream. But as Revolver News reported
today, we should start seeing less and less of Fauci going forward.
What happened to the almighty Dr. Fauci? Last week he was on TV telling all of us that life
wouldn't get back to normal for at least another year or so, and this week he's pretty much
gone. So what happened?
Well, a lot, actually. The biggest turn for Fauci involves 3 little words: Gain of Function.
It was this past week when the "gain of function" dots were publicly connected to the good
doctor. This is nothing new for those of us on the right. Here on Revolver, we've covered
Fauci's gain of function research extensively and the evidence against him is very damning.
A couple of months ago Fox News Host Steve Hilton blew the lid off of Fauci's macabre
obsession (and funding) of research involving the manipulation of highly contagious viruses.
Hilton laid the groundwork, but it was Senator Rand Paul who called out Fauci and his ghoulish
research face to face during a Senate hearing.
But even more notable, is that the CDC just updated their guidelines on mask-wearing and
essentially ended the pandemic -- a pandemic that Fauci has been the proud face of for over a
year now -- and when that announcement hit, he was nowhere to be found. And his absence didn't
go unnoticed.
Yes indeed, you'd think that Fauci would have been front and center to discuss the CDC's new
guidelines the moment the news hit. The "Golden Boy" taking yet another victory lap. After all,
Fauci never misses a moment in the spotlight. But he was not hitting the airwaves with the
typical fanfare.
It is still very possible that Fauci can make a resurgence. His fan-base is up there with
Meghan Markle and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, though even more devoted than the divas'. Unlike
other useful idiots, the White House will not be able to detach easily from Fauci, nor do they
want to. At this point, they're telling him to lay low and avoid any interviews in which they
do not have complete control over the "journalist" involved. John Dickerson has been a Democrat
Party pawn for decades.
Behind the scenes, they're already planning on ditching him. It will be done with all the
pomp one would expect for one of their heroes and will be used to mark the end of the
"emergency" in the United States. He'll still be promoting vaccines and will try to stay in his
precious limelight, but Democrats are ready to move on and open up the country. It has just
been too politically suicidal to persist with their lockdown mentality.
The key to seeing Fauci's narcissistic reign end is for patriots to continue to hammer him
on his involvement with developing Covid-19. His beloved "gain of function research" needs to
be explained to any who will listen. Then, maybe, Fauci will go away.
Sounds like a great book for Tucker to recommend to that Army Chief of Staff!
Notable quotes:
"... I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism. ..."
"... A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say you are a victim." ..."
Recently the Joint Chiefs of Staff remarked that the US military should teach CTR to our
military essentially because they shoild teach all theories.
That doesn't make sense to me but I would like to put another theory into the public
sphere. I call it ROLE -- The Racism Of Low Expectations. This phenomenon has done ten times
more to damage Black lives than can be attributed to CRT or institutionalized racism.
A subset of ROLE is MVT. This is Manufactured Victimhood Theory. This comes about from
influential Black "leaders" who, instead of teaching Blacks the truth about how to live good
lives (work hard, develop skills, etc.), they told them to apply as their life strategy "say
you are a victim."
I am hoping that ROLE and MVT will become part of all aspects of American life -- all
levels of education, the military, businesses, the media, etc.
If the goal really is to improve Black lives, ROLE and MVT should be the rage over the
next few years.
Tom F
John Callahan 4 hours ago
Corporate America 'makes money critiquing itself.' The rest of us pay the price in
diminished freedom.
Wokeism is fascism dressed up in new clothes- the censorship, demonization of
groups and individuals and the physical violence against people and property remain the same.
Corporate America has one overriding interest- making money. Paying the left (and yes,
fascism is of the left) through critiquing itself and token monetary donations is a get out
of jail free card for Corporate America.
"Capitalism knows only one color: that color is green; all else is necessarily
subservient to it, hence, race, gender and ethnicity cannot be considered within it."
- Thomas Sowell
Dom Fried 4 hours ago
It will end the same. Almost, because there will be nobody to stop it.
Ed Baron 3 hours ago
Very well said, John. Fascism is a fundamental element or subset of Leftist or Marxist
thought. It demands conformity of the individual to the new "woke" state and it punishes any
who dissent. It's not incidental that American Leftists, including FDR, loved Mussolini prior
to WWII. That bromance has been washed clean, and attributed instead to the Right. Such a
typical transference technique used by Marxist.
Alex Guiness
I interpret your supposition 'White male global warming', as meaning White Males are
particularly flatulent hence are producing Green House Gases with their diets of greasy meats
(some on sticks), carnival funnel cakes, corn dogs, Philly cheese-steaks, Popeyes fried
chicken, all washed down with Bud Light. Would it kill them to have a salad now and then? How
can their spouses stand to be around them unless they are also consuming the same foods.
Imagine what it must be like at a sermon in a Lutheran Church, the whitest church of all.
They leave the doors open else a spark could set the whole place ablaze.
carol Perry
Thanks for today's chuckle Alex.
Alex Guiness
read my smurfs comment. i just posted it
Lynn Silton
Mr. Ramaswamy is right in every way! I don't belong to the Woke Church. I'll never join.
America is an inspirational country as is all it's written declarations. We, the people rule.
No religion can overrule it. We will not allow religious 'honor killings.' They are murder
here. We will not allow Wokism here it is the murder of our hopes and dreams which belong to
everybody regardless of appearance. I don't even know how appearance (of all things) became a
religion. The whole thing is so sick, people of all shades are speaking out and we will put
this crazy idea down. Here, we marry across all appearances. New people are often different
in appearance than parents. Woke will die of that alone. That's why we have an immigration
'problem' . People love our constitution and Declaration of Independence. People love that
they rule here, not the government. That's our creed and promise. Help protect it!!
VAERS data: "5,888 deaths", "19,597 hospitalizations", "43,891 urgent care", "58,800
office visits", "1,459 anaphylaxis", "1,737 Bell's palsy", "2,190 heart attacks" and "652
miscarriages". CDC says data is "unreliable". You choose who to believe.
WarrenLiz 16 hours ago
Over 15,472 dead from Jab in 27 EU countries, about half of Europe's 50 countries.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through June 19, 2021 there are 15,472 deaths
and 1,509,266 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19
shots:
The answer to Carlson's question is because.. it's a money grabbing death cult!.
Natural immun system is destroyed... just wait till next flu season or the next virus
they relase and see what death numbers we see!
racing_flowers 17 hours ago
Isn't it curious that the 3 big pharma Corps (think Vacc pushers) and the big 2 MSM
Corps are BOTH controlled by Blackrock Partners Hedge Fund...
Nona Yobiznes 18 hours ago remove link
Them going after the children makes me deeply suspicious. Nobody under 50, unless
they're made of blubber, dies from this. In 2020, there was practically zero excess death
for people younger than 70 years old in Sweden. These are their official statistics. For
the vast majority of people it's basically a flu you get for a couple days and you're over
it. What the **** is all this about? If the vaccine is only really good for preventing
hospitalizations, and doesn't stop you from spreading or from catching variants, what in
the hell are we giving kids vaccines when they are more likely to die from the regular flu?
It's freaky, and it stinks.
As oil price stays above $70/barrel, most shale will come back. However the max reached by
USA was 13,100 million b/d. So whether World will hit 75 million b/d is doubtful. But NGL keeps
increasing because of increase in natgas output. Besides nearly 6 million b/d that comes from
CTL, GTL and bio-fuels will keep overall oil consumption above 100 million b/d.
Despite rapid increase in electric vehicles, oil will hold above 100 minion b/d mark.
REPLYHOLE IN HEAD IGNORED06/20/2021
at 1:34 pm
Ted , demand is governed by price and availability . Demand of 100 mbpd is immaterial if the
supply is only 80mbpd . Shale is not coming back . USA has peaked . Period . The peak in shale
was (is) the peak of oil production in USA . I have commented earlier that " all liquids " is
BS . The 6mbpd of NGPL ,CTL , GTL etc. are just " fill in the blanks " . These are not
transportation fuels and have 65% of the BTU of crude . HICKORY IGNORED 06/20/2021
at 2:30 pm
Hole- Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids are nothing to belittle. It is a lot of energy-
"HGLs accounted for over a quarter of total U.S. petroleum products output in 2018"
NGL has about 70% of the energy content of a barrel of crude. In addition most uses for HGLs
are not for transportation which is the the main use for crude plus condensate.
As Ron has said we don't count bottled gas. I would say NGL should be put in a basket with
natural gas.
Or we could define liquid petroleum as that which is a liquid at 1 atmosphere pressure and
25C aka STP.
By that standard only pentanes plus would qualify, which makes sense as it is essentially
condensate, the proportion of pentanes plus in the US NGL mix is less than 12% by volume, 2020
data (582
kbpd). RON PATTERSON IGNORED06/21/2021
at 4:01 pm
I am expecting prices a lot higher in 2022. An average of $85 would not shock me at all.
They will be higher because oil production will not fully recover to the 2019 level as everyone
expects it to.
The EIA Short Term Outlook has production fully recovered by the end of 2022 and total
liquids about one million barrels per day higher for non-OPEC.
OPEC officials heard from industry experts that US oil output growth will likely remain
limited in 2021 despite rising prices,
While there was general agreement on limited US supply growth this year, an industry source
said for 2022 forecasts ranged from growth of 500,000 bpd to 1.3 million bpd
The forecasts for 2021 were for average output to be close to 200 kb/d. The 1.3 Mb/d
prediction for 2022 is out to lunch. The 500 kb/d has a chance but I think the average will be
closer to 350 kb/d.
I think WTI will be $85 plus/minus $5 in mid 2022. This will push the average price of
gasoline slightly above $3/gal. As for output, the US will add somewhere close to 300 kb/d
average in 2022 over 2021. I am betting on some restraint on the part of the drillers. The
Permian is the pivotal basin and I see that the early results for 2021 wells are not as good as
2020.
The big unknown for me is: What is a sustainable price for WTI, $100? At what point does
gasoline suck too much money out of the economy. Once the economy starts to slow, oil demand
will slow. We can all remember 2008.
If WTI crosses $90, OPEC might start to worry. However will they have the spare capacity to
try to control it? Six months from now we can revise our estimates.
What do you mean by confirmation? Do you mean they will confirm that the peak was 2018-2019?
If so, I cannot agree. No, there will be deniers all the way down. There is something about the
human psyche that just cannot accept reality... MATT MUSHALIK IGNORED06/19/2021
at 8:57 pm
Thanks for continuing to monitor crude oil production. As of now, we are back to 2005
levels!
In the later years of an abusive relationship I was in, my abuser had become so confident in
how mentally caged he had me that he'd start overtly telling me what he is and what he was
doing. He flat-out told me he was a sociopath and a manipulator, trusting that I was so
submitted to his will by that point that I'd gaslight myself into reframing those statements in
a sympathetic light. Toward the end one time he told me "I am going to rape you," and then he
did, and then he talked about it to some friends trusting that I'd run perception management on
it for him.
The better he got at psychologically twisting me up in knots and the more submitted I
became, the more open he'd be about it. He seemed to enjoy doing this, taking a kind of
exhibitionistic delight in showing off his accomplishments at crushing me as a person, both to
others and to me. Like it was his art, and he wanted it to have an audience to appreciate
it.
I was reminded of this while watching a recent Fox News appearance by Glenn Greenwald where he
made an observation we've discussed here
previously about the way the CIA used to have to infiltrate the media, but now just openly
has US intelligence veterans in mainstream media punditry positions managing public
perception.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/jU58mrEpPvU
"If you go and Google, and I hope your viewers do, Operation Mockingbird, what you will
find is that during the Cold War these agencies used to plot how to clandestinely manipulate
the news media to disseminate propaganda to the American population," Greenwald
said .
"They used to try to do it secretly. They don't even do it secretly anymore. They don't
need Operation Mockingbird. They literally put John Brennan who works for NBC and James
Clapper who works for CNN and tons of FBI agents right on the payroll of these news
organizations. They now shape the news openly to manipulate and to deceive the American
population."
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled " The CIA and the Media " reporting
that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America's most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who
it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media are meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and the public is too
brainwashed and gaslit to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like
The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC's Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
They're just rubbing it in our faces now. Like they're showing off.
And that's just the media. We also see this flaunting behavior exhibited in the US
government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a propaganda operation geared at
sabotaging foreign governments not aligned with the US which according to its own founding
officials was set up to do overtly what the CIA used to do covertly. The late author and
commentator William Blum
makes this clear :
[I]n 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic
institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the
"nongovernmental"" part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny
of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial
statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO
(Non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad
that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a
GO.
"We should not have to do this kind of work covertly," said Carl Gershman in 1986, while
he was president of the Endowment. "It would be terrible for democratic groups around the
world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60's, and that's why it has
been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the endowment
was created."
And Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991:
"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.
We see NED's fingerprints all over pretty much any situation where the western power
alliance needs to manage public perception about a CIA-targeted government, from Russia to
Hong
Kong to Xinjiang to the
imperial propaganda operation known as Bellingcat.
Hell, intelligence insiders are just openly running for office now. In an article titled "
The CIA
Democrats in the 2020 elections ", World Socialist Website documented the many veterans of
the US intelligence cartel who ran in elections across America in 2018 and 2020:
"In the course of the 2018 elections, a large group of former military-intelligence
operatives entered capitalist politics as candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination
in 50 congressional seats" nearly half the seats where the Democrats were targeting
Republican incumbents or open seats created by Republican retirements. Some 30 of these
candidates won primary contests and became the Democratic candidates in the November 2018
election, and 11 of them won the general election, more than one quarter of the 40 previously
Republican-held seats captured by the Democrats as they took control of the House of
Representatives. In 2020, the intervention of the CIA Democrats continues on what is arguably
an equally significant scale."
So they're just getting more and more brazen the more confident they feel about how
propaganda-addled and submissive the population has become. They're laying more and more of
their cards on the table. Soon the CIA will just be openly selling narcotics door to door like
Girl Scout cookies.
Or maybe not. I said my ex got more and more overt about his abuses in the later years of
our relationship because those were the later years. I did eventually expand my own
consciousness of my own inner workings enough to clear the fears and unexamined beliefs I had
that he was using as hooks to manipulate me. Maybe, as humanity's consciousness continues to
expand , the same will happen for the people and their abusive relationship with the
CIA.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
following me on Facebook , Twitter , Soundcloud or YouTube , or throwing some money into
my tip jar on Ko-fi ,
Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you
can buy my books .
Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand,
and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here .
By Joe Carroll and Kevin Crowley
June 21, 2021, 3:30 PM EDT Updated on June 21, 2021, 4:00 PM EDT
Performance-improvement program will involve 5%-10% annually
Reviews are separate from sweeping job cuts disclosed in 2020
Exxon Mobil Corp. is preparing to reduce headcount at its U.S. offices by between 5% and 10%
annually for the next three to five years by using its performance-evaluation system to suss
out low performers, according to people familiar with the matter.
The cuts will target the lowest-rated employees relative to peers, and for that reason will
not be characterized as layoffs, the people said, asking not to be identified because the
information isn't public. While such workers are typically put on a so-called performance
improvement plan, many are expected to eventually leave on their own. This year's evaluation is
happening now but affected employees have not yet been notified, the people said.
"Our annual performance assessment process has been occurring over the last several months,"
Exxon spokesman Casey Norton said in an email. "Where employees are not contributing to their
highest ability, they may need to participate in an improvement plan. This is an annual process
which has been in place for many years, and it is meant to improve performance. This process is
unrelated to workforce reduction plans."
The plan is separate from Exxon's announcement last year that it will cut 14,000 jobs
worldwide by 2022, and it would extend reductions well beyond that original time frame. It's a
tumultuous time for Exxon, which is still grappling with the fallout from last month's annual
meeting, when shareholders rebuffed top management and replaced a quarter of the company's
board over climate and financial concerns.
Exxon had 72,000 employees globally at the end of last year, of which 40% worked in the
U.S., according to a company filing.
White-Collar Jobs
Several high-profile traders have also left in the last few weeks. While the
performance-review process mostly applies to white-collar jobs in areas such as engineering,
finance and project management, there's no suggestion the trading departures were related to
the review program.
Exxon's other cost-cutting initiatives have included suspending bonuses and halting
employee-contribution matches to 401k savings plans as the pandemic crushed demand for crude,
saddling the company with a record annual loss.
International crude prices have surged 44% this year to almost $75 a barrel, improving
Exxon's financial position markedly. Still, the supermajor has some way to go to pay down debts
accumulated during 2020's market collapse. A smaller and more efficient workforce is key to
further improvements.
Exxon achieved $3 billion of annual "structural cost reductions" in 2020 and will continue
to make savings through 2023, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said at the annual meeting
in May.
"We've got additional work to continue to take advantage of the new organization and find
opportunities to reduce our costs," Woods said.
Exxon's shares rose 3.6% to $62.59 at the close in New York trading amid a broad rally in
energy stocks on stronger oil prices.
Frac Sand Baroness @sand_frac · Jun 16 There is
currently a @chevron well
uncontrollably blowing out on my land that I live and raise cattle on in West Texas. It is
injecting super concentrated brine and benzene into my water supply. The casing (metal pipe) is
so corroded that Chevron literally cannot re plug it. 5.7K views 0:01 / 0:06 3 60 117
Frac Sand Baroness @sand_frac
· Jun 16 More concerningly, this
well was plugged and abandoned (P&A) in 1995. For those not in the oil industry, a P&A
blowout is extremely rare. A plugged well is exactly that: plugged. It is filled with concrete
plugs, and considered to be permanently deactivated and safe. 2 7 67 Frac Sand Baroness @sand_frac · Jun 16 We've had
issues with Chevron before. In 2002, we flushed a toilet at the ranch house (approximately 1.5
miles south of the blowout) and crude oil bubbled up. The leak source was never fully
identified, and we shut in that water well. 2 6 66 Frac Sand Baroness @sand_frac · Jun 16 Chevron had
operations nearby, so drilled water monitoring wells. These monitoring wells identified a crude
oil plume in the groundwater, and also found a large salt water plume. See Texas Railroad
Commission OCP #08-2423. Again, we never found the source. 1 5 57 Frac Sand Baroness @sand_frac · Jun 16 This
required Chevron to provide an annual water test result to the landowners (me). Of course, they
didn't comply from 2007 through 2013. We never heard about this, and thought our water was safe
again.
Meme-based investing 'is a totally nihilistic parody of actual investing,' says Jeremy Grantham, who called 3 stock-market
bubbles
Last Updated: June 24, 2021 at 7:18 p.m. ET
First
Published: June 24, 2021 at 3:16 p.m. ET
By
Mark DeCambre
18
'This is it guys, the biggest U.S. fantasy trip of all time,' says Grantham
Jeremy Grantham, founder of GMO, speaks in 2012 in Oxford, England
GETTY
IMAGES
"'Meme' investing -- the idea that something is worth investing in, or rather gambling on, simply because it is funny --
has become commonplace. It's a totally nihilistic parody of actual investing. This is it guys, the biggest U.S. fantasy
trip of all time."
That's Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and chief investment strategist at Boston-based money manager Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo
& Co., in a recent interview with
Bloomberg
News
, lamenting the state of an investment world that has prominently featured the emergence of meme-linked trading in
stocks like GameStop Corp.
GME,
-1.32%
,
AMC
Entertainment Holdings
AMC,
-4.66%
and
BlackBerry Ltd.
BB,
-4.42%
,
among
others.
Grantham noted that the meme cryptocurrency dogecoin
DOGEUSD,
-1.74%
is
"worth billions in the market and not even pretending to be [a] serious [investment]."
"Dogecoin was created as a joke to make fun of cryptocurrencies being worthless, and, not only has it taken off, but it's
such a success that second-level joke cryptocurrencies making fun of dogecoin have gone to multibillion-dollar valuations,"
he said.
Indeed, AMC Entertainment is up over 2,500% in 2021 thus far; GameStop has gained over 1,000% in the year to date; dogecoin
is up by about 5,000%, despite a precipitous drop; and BlackBerry shares are up over 90% so far this year.
By comparison, traditional assets have seen more mundane returns. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
+0.69%
is
up a more than respectable 12% so far in 2021, while the S&P 500
SPX,
+0.33%
has
returned over 13% in the year to date and the Nasdaq Composite
COMP,
-0.06%
has
made a powerful comeback in June to achieve a gain of nearly 12% in the first six months of the year.
Grantham views the social-media-driven meme-stock moves as concerning and indicative of bubbles percolating in financial
markets that will ultimately need to be contended with.
Grantham is worth paying attention to due to his prescient calls over the years. He said that stocks were overvalued in
2000 and again in 2007, anticipating subsequent market downturns,
the
Wall Street Journal reports
. Grantham also signaled that elements of the financial market had become unmoored from
reality leading up to the 2008–09 financial crisis.
However, his bearishness thus far hasn't helped his core investment strategies, amid a relentless run-up in stocks, be they
traditional or meme. The Nasdaq Composite has already put in back-to-back record closes this week and was aiming for a 17th
record finish on Thursday, while the S&P 500 index was eyeing a record of its own.
The US is not capitalist. There are no "capitalist powers." There are only managerial
states. Read Orwell who, yes, was a socialist.
The US was overtaken by ex-Trotskyites in the form of Neocons, eg. Irving Kristol. They
redefined the US from a nation-state into an ideological state, as the Soviet Union had been.
But we do not have any particular ideology here; the ideology is always changing.
The US empire does not serve the interests of the American people, you'll agree. But it's
not as simple as "capitalism." These ideological battles are theatre. They are not the real
battles. They are pretend religions, like sports teams, which motivate and justify war for
two different elites.
Read James Burnham, another ex-Trotskyite, on Machiavellians and, separately, on the
managerial state. However, Burnham became something akin to a Neocon; so, certainly, don't
come to the same conclusions as he did.
The US is not capitalist. There are no "capitalist powers." There are only managerial
states. Read Orwell who, yes, was a socialist.
Posted by: Weaver | Jun 22 2021 19:35 utc | 15
This is a rather strange interpretation. The power of the managers stems fro the power of
large active shareholders, while the majority of shares may be passively owned by middle
class in the form of retirement savings. As it was explained: "Contrary to popular beliefs,
there are no bulls and bears on Wall Street, but sheep and wolves. And the money is not made
by the bah bah crowd", followed by the distinction between "smart money" and the rest of
investors. The financial games that we discussed in the case of Boeing may seem stupid in
terms of "maximizing long term stock value", but excellent for providing gains for active
investors who got artificial run-up in stock prices followed by selling to the "bah bah
crowd".
One of the biggest pieces of news for Royal Dutch Shell recently has been the Dutch court
ruling that forces them to make a larger 45% emissions reduction by 2030.
Despite this sounding very transformation, considering the geological and economic
reality of their current situation, it actually does not significantly change their underlying
future.
Their reserve life is only sitting at just above seven years and thus even if they wished
to maintain their fossil fuel production, they already required significant investments before
2030.
SNIP You Cannot Fight Geology
Upon reviewing their reserves, it may initially sound very impressive to hear that their
oil and gas reserves currently stand at slightly over nine billion barrels of oil equivalent.
Although in reality this actually sits rather low when compared to their annual production
during 2020 of 1.239b barrels of oil equivalent. This effectively only leaves their reserve
life at just above seven years, which is not particularly long and thus means that their fossil
fuel production would already begin shrinking dramatically by the latter half of this decade.
Admittedly they would likely continue replacing a portion of their oil and gas reserves in the
future but their current production rate would still see them running very low by 2030 if
approximately half were replaced per annum, as the graph included below displays.
There are two charts in this article. The second on titled: Oil Discoveries Lowest Since
1847 is alarming. STEPHEN HREN IGNORED06/17/2021 at 8:25 am
Hi Ron, any thoughts on why Shell would bag their operations in the Permian while they are
also running low on reserves everywhere else? Seems like they would be holding on to every
scrap of producing land they could. Unless one of two things: 1) they are making a serious
attempt to transition to a low carbon energy company; and/or 2) their holdings in the Permian
are worth squat REPLYRON PATTERSON IGNORED06/17/2021 at
9:22 am
NEW YORK/HOUSTON, June 15 (Reuters) – A cadre of oil companies, seeing continued
profits in shale, are mulling Royal Dutch Shell's (RDSa.L) holdings in the largest U.S. oil
field as the European giant considers an exit from the Permian Basin, according to market
experts.
The potential sale of Shell's Permian holdings, located in Texas, would be a litmus test
of whether rivals are willing to bet on shale's profitability through the energy transition to
reduce carbon emissions.
Shell would follow in the footsteps of other producers, including Equinor (EQNR.OL)
and Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N) that have shed shale assets this year, looking to cut debt and
reduce carbon output in the face of investor pressure.
Shell, like a lot of other companies, sees shale assets as a very low profit, or even a
losing proposition. They can take the money from the sale, reduce their debt, and reduce carbon
emissions of their company in one fell swoop. More from the article:
Against this backdrop, estimates for Shell's acreage run from $7 billion to over $10
billion, the latter implying a valuation of almost $40,000 an acre.
That would be in line with the per-acre price Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N) paid for
DoublePoint Energy in April, the most costly deal since a 2014-2016 rush by producers to grab
positions in the Permian.
Most Permian deals this year have closed between $7,000 and $12,000 per acre, said
Andrew Dittmar, senior mergers and acquisitions analyst at data provider Enverus.
If they can get $40,000 per acre they have found a greater fool to offload their acreage on.
HICKORY IGNORED06/17/2021 at 9:44 am
Something about that doesn't make sense. The need or desire to downsize is likely due to an
inability to project making profit on the shale assets rather than any concern over a carbon
footprint- I don't believe they are in business to win any kind of beauty contest. REPLYROGER
IGNORED06/17/2021 at 8:17 pm
"Shell's position as a major European enterprise has become untenable. The Spar had gained a
symbolic significance out of all proportion to its environmental effect. In consequence, Shell
companies were faced with increasingly intense public criticism, mostly in Continental northern
Europe. Many politicians and ministers were openly hostile and several called for consumer
boycotts. There was violence against Shell service stations, accompanied by threats to Shell
staff."
Things are a little different for European companies I recall "Greenpeace sympathizers"
fire-bombed a gas station back then; in light of what has transpired in the US recently who is
to say it couldn't happen again?
Shell is well aware of peak oil, and can't solve the problem. So, what would you have them
do? REPLYKOLBEINIH IGNORED06/17/2021 at 1:26 pm
"Shell would follow in the footsteps of other producers, including Equinor (EQNR.OL) and
Occidental Petroleum (OXY.N) that have shed shale assets this year, looking to cut debt and
reduce carbon output in the face of investor pressure."
I don't think it has anything to do with shale oil specifically. For Equinor it has to do
with that it can draw on competence in Norway in the harsh offshore environment in the North
Sea. Floating offshore wind power is where Equinor is world leading with technology and know
how; now about to be utilised in the North Sea, Japan, US East coast and California. It is not
more economical than ground based offshore wind mills, but has some advantages when it comes to
lifecycle costs. For one, the wind mills can be placed in optimal wind condition areas not in
the way of fishing resources. The big size of wind mills will not cause problems (the height
and diameter of the blades are necessary to capture enough wind energy). And also the wind
mills can be more easily moved to land and recycled, e.g. the steel. Wear and tear offshore is
on the minus side.
Usually the blades are made of carbon fiber to make it lighter, but it can also be made of
aluminum in the future with lower efficiency.
Shell is just now investing in North Sea South II in Norway for ground based offshore mill
farms together with BP. To make the North Sea work with the enormous amount of wind power
coming online and connection cables everywhere is very serious business and just a priority.
Shale oil is too much of a distraction for Shell and Equinor, not even within their core
competence area. REPLYJAY
WOODS IGNORED06/18/2021 at 7:50 am
Shell was ordered by a Dutch court to cut by 45%. Of course, they will cut their "losers"
first.
The chart is old and was published in 2016 by Wood Mackenzie and there is no data for 2016.
It also leaves out the discovery of Ghawar in 1948, first bar/spike. I have not seen any
updates since then. Not sure if Guyana had been discovered in 2016. The original is
attached.
Ironically, the wave of ESG investing in global energy markets may lead to much higher
oil prices as a serious lack of capital expenditure on new fossil fuels dries up just as demand
for crude continues to grow
Pressure from investors, tighter emissions regulation from governments, and public
protests against their business have become more or less the new normal for oil companies. What
the world -- or at least the most affluent parts of it -- seem to want from the oil industry is
to stop being the oil industry.
Many investors are buying into this pressure. ESG investing is all the rage, and
sustainable ETFs are popping up like mushrooms after a rain. But some investors are taking a
different approach. They are betting on oil. Because what many in the pressure camp seem to
underestimate is the fact that the supply of oil is not the only element of the oil
equation.
"Imagine Shell decided to stop selling petrol and diesel today," the supermajor's CEO Ben
van Beurden wrote in a LinkedIn post earlier this month. "This would certainly cut Shell's
carbon emissions. But it would not help the world one bit. Demand for fuel would not change.
People would fill up their cars and delivery trucks at other service stations."
Van Beurden was commenting on a Dutch court's ruling that environmentalists hailed as a
landmark decision, ordering Shell to reduce its emissions footprint by 45 percent from 2019
levels by 2030.
Ironically, the wave of ESG investing in global energy markets may lead to much higher
oil prices as a serious lack of capital expenditure on new fossil fuels dries up just as demand
for crude continues to grow
Pressure from investors, tighter emissions regulation from governments, and public
protests against their business have become more or less the new normal for oil companies. What
the world -- or at least the most affluent parts of it -- seem to want from the oil industry is
to stop being the oil industry.
Many investors are buying into this pressure. ESG investing is all the rage, and
sustainable ETFs are popping up like mushrooms after a rain. But some investors are taking a
different approach. They are betting on oil. Because what many in the pressure camp seem to
underestimate is the fact that the supply of oil is not the only element of the oil
equation.
"Imagine Shell decided to stop selling petrol and diesel today," the supermajor's CEO Ben
van Beurden wrote in a LinkedIn post earlier this month. "This would certainly cut Shell's
carbon emissions. But it would not help the world one bit. Demand for fuel would not change.
People would fill up their cars and delivery trucks at other service stations."
Van Beurden was commenting on a Dutch court's ruling that environmentalists hailed as a
landmark decision, ordering Shell to reduce its emissions footprint by 45 percent from 2019
levels by 2030.REPLYHICKORY IGNORED06/18/2021 at 9:37 am
Cute headline.
'Energy Transition Fad'
Wrong terminology.
Its a shift that has barely started.
The global economy isn't going to just sit around while fossil fuel sources go into decline,
despite how poorly large human organizations perform in the job of planning.
The effort is very weak to this point.
Poor grasp of the situation.
It will be grasped eventually, and then the effort will be strong.
Fad no. REPLY likbez
06/22/2021 at 4:10 pm
There is a possibility of Seneca cliff as major Western countries probably will not be able to
adapt to dramatically shirking of oil supply. That raises the question of the size of Earth
population which is sustainable without "cheap oil" and several other interesting questions
about the destiny of the current civilization and neoliberalism. Which is already in crisis
since 2008 and the USA economy is in "secular stagnation" mode since the same date. The USA
standard of living is partially based on cheap oil and when cheap oil is gone the crisis of
neoliberalism will probably became more acute. It is difficult to predict what forms it will
take but Trump in the past and the current woke movement are two examples of mal-adaptation to
the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite (woke
movement=, which is supported by Dems and several major companies, is the attempt to switch the
attention from this issue -- "look squirrel") I suspect this that current "irrational
exuberance" about EV among the neoliberal elite and upper middle class (especially techno
hamsters of Silicon Valley) will play a bad joke with the USA. Prols can't care less about this
fashion and will stick to tried and true combustion engine cars, especially with the current
exorbitant prices on EV.
Traders are addicted to trading, much like murderers fixate on murdering. The traders
noticed a slight change in the Fed's tone and sold anything tied to inflation. They whacked
gold good. Then they went after the other commodities. When they were done there, they went
after value stocks, before finishing the week by blasting a bunch of cyclical names.
25 play_arrow
ted41776 5 hours ago
the only kind of ism that has exist is sociopathism
they always end up at the top of any power pyramid and make the rules that apply to all
others but not them
same as it always was and same as it always will be
NoDebt 4 hours ago
Traders are addicted to trading, much like murderers fixate on murdering
A line I wish I had come up with.
lambda PREMIUM 4 hours ago
This was already modeled and formalized: The Gambler Fallacy.
(cointelegraph.com)
45BeauHD on Monday June 21,
2021 @05:20PM from the not-dog-friendly dept. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, took a jab at Dogecoin (DOGE) last week by referring
to the memecoin as a Ponzi scheme , upping his rhetoric against cryptocurrencies.
Cointelegraph reports: Kashkari's comments were in response to a LinkedIn poll by Paul
Grewal, the chief legal officer and corporate secretary of Coinbase, who
asked his connections about the proper way to pronounce "Doge." "The right pronunciation is
pon-zi," Kashkari quipped.
This isn't the first time Kashkari has taken aim at cryptocurrencies. In February 2020,
he said digital assets like Bitcoin (BTC) lack the basic tenants of a stable currency and
praised the Securities and Exchange Commission for "cracking down" on initial coin offerings.
Kashkari is not a member of this year's Federal Open Market Committee, the group responsible
for setting United States monetary policy. The Minneapolis branch of the Fed will serve as an
alternate FOMC member in 2022 before rotating back onto the committee as a voting member in
2023.
While Alphabet Class A and Facebook shares are up 37% and 21%, respectively, other members
of the group have weighed on the market. Amazon shares are up 7.1% in 2021, lagging behind the
11% rise in the benchmark S&P 500. Apple and Netflix have fared even worse, down 1.7% and
7.4% for the year.
... ... ...
For much of 2020, a badly constricted economy pushed investors toward stocks -- like the
FAANG names -- whose businesses were less affected and whose future growth became even more
alluring with the drop in interest rates. The Russell 1000 Growth Index advanced 37% for the
year, while the Russell 1000 Value Index eked out a 0.1% gain -- the largest annual performance
gap between the two style benchmarks in FactSet data going back to 1979.
Big tech stocks were among the leaders of that rally. Apple shares climbed 81% in 2020 --
last August becoming the first U.S. public company to
surpass $2 trillion in market value -- while Amazon rose 76% and Netflix gained 67%.
Facebook added 33% for the year, and Alphabet 31%.
These companies are too big and too powerful. I hope for anti-trust legislation that cuts
them down to size. The tech oligarchs have too much influence on what Americans think and do.
They are a direct threat to our democracy. I hope more Americans will decide to support
smaller companies (especially local stores), putting conviction ahead of convenience.
J Pate
Google and Amazon has no near peer competitors. Netflix and Apple do. My family got rid of
Netflix last year and now have Hulu. There is a ton of free steaming sites also. We never
missed Netflix.
Jay Urbain
"While Alphabet Class A and Facebook shares are up 37% and 21%, respectively, other members
of the group have weighed on the market. Amazon shares are up 7.1% in 2021, lagging behind
the 11% rise in the benchmark S&P 500. Apple and Netflix have fared even worse, down 1.7%
and 7.4% for the year."
Time to take another look at AMZN and AAPL.
Jon Tannen
Gasp! So after breathtaking rises for Apple and Netflix stocks, they're merely flat these
days? Not up 30% this month? Uh-oh! Sound the alarms! Someone please tell the writer that
stocks are not a straight diagonal to the sky. [She's actually wrong about Apple's valuation
being down this year, according to WSJ's very charts! The price is 130 now vs. 129 on Jan 4.
But hey, she's obliged to come up with an article this week.]
This all reminds me of analyst Dan Niles coming on CNBC for years and proclaiming he's
shorting Apple. Every few months: "I'm shorting Apple." "I'm shorting Apple." Again and again
and again. The guy must be broke. [Of course, no one calls him out about it.]
Marshall Dillon
Amazon? Not for me. I have switched most of my online buying to Walmart and local stores.
Amazon needs to get out of politics and stop suppressing free speech, much like the WSJ
moderators.
SACHIN SHARMA
This entire article is misleading. Choosing 2020 as a base year to compare this group of
stocks leaves out the important context of what happened the prior ten years, when FB and
GOOGL underperformed vs APPL, NFLX, AMZN. A mean reversion within this group because money
managers need to justify their existence could be the simple explanation. Also, how much of
the Russel growth fund performance came from AMC and GME, those bell weather companies?
In IT corporate honchos shamelessly put more then a dozen of very specific skills into the
position rescription and want a cog that hit that exactly. they are not interested in IQ, ability
to learn and such things. that want already train person for the position to fill, so that have
zero need to train this persn and they expect that he will work productively from the day
one.
But corporate elites are loudly complaining that the sky is falling -- not because of a
real labor shortage, but because workers are less likely now to accept low-wage jobs.
Duh. This is so blindingly obvious, but NC is the only place that seems to mention this
fact.
Here in the UK, the outmigration of marginally paid workers from Eastern Europe and the
resultant "labour shortage" triggered by Brexit has made it abundantly clear that Blair's
change to open borders was not from any idealistic considerations but as a way of importing
easily exploited labor.
Business leaders quoted in the the tsunami of hand-wringing MSM articles about the current
catastrophe are offering such helpful solutions as allowing housekeepers to use pools and
gyms in off hours, free meals to waiters, etc. Anything but a living wage.
" I don't actually see any untruths to the GOP talking points. "
"" Workers are less likely to accept a job while receiving Gov't benefits" and "workers are
less likely to accept low wage crappy jobs ".
Well,if u can survive on a $300/week program that ends after several weeks pass,bless u.
No one else in America can. That's a $7.50 hr full time "summer job" with no pension or
medical benefits that teenagers with no dependents,few bills n maintenance issues might be
interested in; adults with adult responsibilities,no way. That so called RepubliCons, the
"economics experts", can make such a fraudulent claim n anyone out of elementary school
believes it has a quantum particle of reality or value is . well I'll just say a sad n
unbelievable situation.
They get 300 dollars plus regular UI. They can also get Medicaid and CHIP, or if they are
still making too much they are eligible for Obamacare exchange. Plus they're eligible for
SNAP and housing vouchers
There is one significant fallacy in this article: The author conflates Republican
opposition to enhanced benefits with opposition to unemployment benefits overall.
I very much stand with labour over business on most (probably all) points, but the
Republican argument is to end the enhanced benefits in most cases – Not to abolish
unemployment assistance. They believe the role of government is to step in to help pay basic
bills in the event of unemployment, but oppose the current higher level of benefit due to the
market distortions it causes (Hence the appearance of the term 'labour shortage'.)
I agree that it basically forces mcdonalds et al to up their wages if they want to do
business, which should be a positive for society, but I find it unlikely that the author
could have unintentionally mistunderstood the argument on such a fundamental level, and all
it does is try to drive a wedge further between each side of the argument.
Anyone that believes that workers supported their jobs being sent overseas is either
demented or delusional or suffers from a mental hernia. The same goes for the common working
stiffs supporting massive immigration to help drive down their ability to demand a livable
wage.
American labor has been sold down the river by the International Labor Leaders,
politicians and the oligarchy of US corporate CEO's.
======
Got a new hip recently. Do your P.T., take it easy, follow the warnings of what not to do
until you heal and you should discover that decades feel like they are lifted off your
shoulders.
Sierra,
You've made a very interesting point that actually never occurred to me and one in which I
never seen fully examined.
Exploiting labour and outsourcing it are two sides of the same coin with the same goal in
mind, diverting revenue streams into the C-suite and rentier class.
Obviously you cannot outsource most of the workers in the hospitality industry or the
non-virtual aspects of world's oldest profession, but a lot of the tech industry and the
virtual aspects of the latter are very amenable to being shipped overseas.
Immigrants are extremely visible and an easy target, while outsourcing is essentially an
impossible to contain concept that creates real world hardship.
Dear NC readers, do you know of any studies comparing and contrasting the economic impact of
immigration and/or limiting it and outsourcing?
Indeed, economists and analysts have gotten used to presenting facts from the
perspective of private employers and their lobbyists.
You are acting if economists and lobbyists are separate groups, as opposed to largely a
subset thereof. Funny how a field entirely based on the study of incentives claims incentives
don't distort their policy prescriptions, isn't it?
As for low-paid jobs, they are traditionally the last resort of immigrants and other
marginalized populations, but the anti-immigration push that began under Obama, and
enthusiastically continued by Trump and Biden, has perfectly predictable consequences.
One factor not mentioned is many free-riding businesses refuse to pay for training, then
wonder why there are no trained workers to hire.
Now, there are definitely fields where there is a genuine and deliberate labor shortage.
Usually white-collar credentialed professions like medical doctors and the AMA cartel.
Economics is not based on incentives. That's behavioral economics. I hate to quote Larry
Summers, but this is Summers on financial economics:
Ketchup economists reject out of hand much of this research on the ketchup market. They
believe that the data used is based on almost meaningless accounting information and are
quick to point out that concepts such as costs of production vary across firms and are not
accurately measurable in any event. they believe that ketchup transactions prices are the
only hard data worth studying. Nonetheless ketchup economists have an impressive research
program, focusing on the scope for excess opportunities in the ketchup market. They have
shown that two quart bottles of ketchup invariably sell for twice as much as one quart
bottles of ketchup except for deviations traceable to transaction costs, and that one
cannot get a bargain on ketchup by buying and combining ingredients once one takes account
of transaction costs. Nor are there gains to be had from storing ketchup, or mixing
together different quality ketchups and selling the resulting product. Indeed, most ketchup
economists regard the efficiency of the ketchup market as the best established fact in
empirical economics.
Happy to see you back at a keyboard, and hoping your recovery is progressing well. I had
the misfortune of spending two days in the hospitals while they got my blood chemistry
strightened out. Here's the kicker; the hospitalist, who I saw 3 times, submitted a bill for
a whopping $17,000. Just yesterday, the practice she works for submitted a bill that was
one-tenth her charges for the work she did, yet her bill is still sitting waiting to be
processed.
OMG, how horrible. HSS is a small hospital for a big city like NYC, only 205 beds and 25
operating rooms. No emergency room. They are not owned by PE and so I don't think play
outsourcing/markup games (they are very big on controlling quality, which you can't do if you
have to go through middlemen for staffing). Some of the MDs do that their own practices
within HSS but they are solo practitioners or small teams, which is not a model that you see
much of anywhere outside NYC
The last time I was hospitalized, all the hospitalists were in the employ of the hospital,
now they are in the employ of a nationwide hospitalist practice, which has all the smell of
private equity around it. I'm really beginning to think that a third party focusted on
healthcare might have a real shot at upsetting the political order – maybe it's time to
drag out your skunk party for 2024.
As for low-paid jobs, they are traditionally the last resort of immigrants and other
marginalized populations, but the anti-immigration push that began under Obama, and
enthusiastically continued by Trump and Biden, has perfectly predictable
consequences.
Well I'm sorry you can't find easily exploitable labor, except I'm not immigrants face the
same ridiculous costs, and weren't hispanic workers more heavily impacted by covid due
to those marginal jobs (I'll switch your dynamic to low wage workers , and
marginal jobs, thanks), so by your logic more should have been let in to die from
these marginal jobs? but yeah we need more PMC except we don't Now, there are definitely fields where there is a genuine and deliberate labor shortage.
Usually white-collar credentialed professions like medical doctors and the AMA
cartel."
Last I checked it was private equity, wall st and pharmaceutical companies and their
lobbyists that drive up costs so labor needs to charge more.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
How much of this is over specification on the part of employers in the ad for the job? We
want the perfect candidate who can do the job better than we can with no training .
OMG this is such a long-standing pet peeve! We've commented on this nonsense regularly.
Companies took the position that they don't have to train and now they are eating their
cooking.
The mismatch between job openings and job applicants is not just about wages.
In fact, if companies were willing to take a chance on people who didn't exactly match the
job requirements, the likely effect would be to raise the wages some of those that did not
qualify under the over exacting job requirements. [And likely paying these new employees less
than they had contemplated paying the perfect candidate.]
But that seems like someone making the hiring decision might, just possibly, be seen as
taking a risk.
At my empolyer we know we can't find any colleges that teach mainframe skills, so we bring
in graduates who are willing to learn those skills – we submit them to a 3-month
bootcamp and then there's a long period of mentorship under a senior person to their group
that has an opening. Since everybody and their dog are now moving headfirst into DevOps,
where all the tooling is in somewhat less ancient software, they get exposed using those
Eclipse/VScode-based tools and are able to come up to speed somewhat quicker. Still, no one
in corporate America dares to bite the bullet and re-platform their core systems with few
exceptions (SABRE) for fear of losing all the institutional knowledge that's in software,
rather than wetware (humans).
Just think what is happening right now with everyone holding an Indian outsourcing
contract. You don't have individual's cellphone numbers over in India, which would cost you
an arm and a leg to call, never mind what's going on in their facilities.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for employers not training their staffs.
In the SF Bay Area computer industry, employees and independent contractors alike continually
race to train themselves in the new technologies that seem to crop up like mushrooms after a
rain. Many companies train their customers–and charge them for it–before they'll
train their staffs. This is a principal reason there's a market for contractors. Training
oneself in new technologies lays a base for opportunities that don't appear if you spend a
decade in the same job (unless, like mainframe programming, your job is so old it's new). I
suppose this is a beneficial side of capitalism?
I get that you want experience for mid to senior level jobs but the experience
requirements for what are ostsensibly entry-level jobs have gotten absurd. The education
requirements have also gotten out of hand in some cases.
That being said, a lot of the shortages are in low-wage, part-time jobs so the issue isn't
necessarily ridiculous requirements, like you sometimes see for entry level white collar
jobs, but wages that are too low and awful working conditions.
How many people want to be treated like dirt–be it by customers, management, or
both–for not much more than minimum wage if they have other options?
A wage increase will help fill these jobs but there also needs to be a paradigm shift in
how employees are treated–the customer is not always right and allowing them to treat
employees in ways that would not be tolerated in other businesses, and certainly not in many
white-collar workplaces is a huge part of the problem and why these jobs have long had
high-turnover.
It never ends – when it was about immigrant labor under George B junior – I
think – the call was
-- - They do jobs that Americans won't -- or something to that effect.
It always bothered me that the sentence was never, in my mind, completed. It should have been
said
-- They do jobs that Americans won't do at that pay level. --
The tax system, economic system and higher education departments have been perverted by the
continuous bribery and endowments by the rentier class to our elected law makers and dept
heads for decades –
The creditor, debtor relationships distorted for eons.
The toll takers have never, in history, been in any higher level of mastery than they are
now.
It is not to throw out the constitution but, to throw out those who have perverted it.
The construction industry knows how to exploit immigrant labor, documented as well as
undocumented. I'm sure most peole born here refuse to work for the same wages.
The exploitation occurs on many levels. For small residential jobs, a lot of wage theft
occurs. For larger jobs, a lot of safety regs get ignored. When you have a population that
won't use the legal avenues available to other citizens to push back against abuse you can
get a lot done :/
When I go looking for a job if a degree isn't required I am very unlikely to pursue it
further. Same if the list of 'required' is overly detailed. I'm making assumptions in both of
these cases (that might not be correct) about pay, benefits, work environment, etc. and what
is actually going on with a job listing. Why? Chiefly my likelihood of actually getting a
reasonable offer. I expect either being seen as overqualified in the first case or the job
only being listed because of some requirement in the second.
I have to wonder if many places know how to hire. This is made much more difficult by
years of poorly written (maybe deceptive) job postings. You probably know many of the
phrases; flexible schedule, family ___, reliable transportation required, and so on. Its no
surprise if puffery doesn't bring back the drones.
If we're playing with statistics. How many of these posted job openings, how many
interviews did the companies offer v. how many offers were made until the position was
filled? If position remains open, has the company increased the base pay offer? guaranteed an
increased min. number of weekly hours? offered bonuses or increased benefits? How many times
has this same job opening using the original posting criteria been re-posted? Is this a real
single job opening that the company plans to fill in real time or just a posting that they
keep opening because they have high turnover? etc., etc., etc.
The real problem with this workers are lazy meme is that it is repeated and repeated all
year long on the local news from the viewpoint of business. It has filtered down to local
people. I hear them repeating what the local news said without giving it any critical
thought. Even those who say that we need unions and believe themselves to be on the side of
workers.
Ear wigs are good for businesses. Insidious for workers.
In the UK, in the days of Labor Strive, before Neo-liberalism , there was always newspaper
reports about "Labor Strife" and "bolshy workers." Never once did the press examine
Management had behaved and caused the workers to become "bolshy" – a direct reaction to
Management's attitudes and behavior, probably based on the worst attributes of the UK's class
system.
Definition: A bolshy person often argues and makes difficulties.
Management get the workers (Their Attitudes) it deserves.
I recommend reading "The Toyota Way" to explore a very successful management style.
This song is getting a probably getting more hits these days
Take this job and Shove It https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIjEauGiRLo
But I hear lots of businesses will close to to no labor, so when they close they can go work
for 7.25 an hour for one of their competitors who also needs laborors Solidarinosc!
If businesses are suffering, it's restaurants and small scale enterprise. The Covid
response was tailored to the needs of economy of scale mega biz. They likely knew multitides
of mom-n-pops would go away- and they have. But that's fine.
So if state governments can turn down federal unemployment supplements because they want
labor to go back to work for unlivable wages this means the federal government can do nothing
about it. When push comes to shove the question that must be settled is, Is it a human right
to receive employment assistance until a job is found that pays a livable wage? (Not even a
republican will actually say No). So then that puts all the stingy states on notice that
there is a human rights issue here. States will have the choice to either let businesses shut
down for lack of workers, or states can subsidize minimum wages and benefits. If states
choose, in desperation, to subsidize minimum wages, then the states can apply to the feds to
be compensated. The thing that is needed in the interim, between when the real standoff
starts and ends, is a safety net for workers who are being blocked by the state from
receiving unemployment benefits. I say call in the national guard. This is a human rights
issue.
The real exploitation happened when we allowed companies to delocalize, manufacture
product in China and sell it here with no strings attached.
James Goldsmith seems like a prophet now, he was so absolutely right.
Wow. The Clinton flack was insufferable. AND WRONG about pretty much everything. Goldsmith
was brilliant. I wasn't paying enough attention at he time, but how many high profile people
were making the arguments he was making?
I'm surprised that nobody has taken the opportunity to comment on how this discussion
shows how hypocritical Biden and the democrats were not to press for raising the minimum
wage.
The pretense (which they must have coached the "Senate scholar" on) was that raising the
minimum wage was not related to revenue (i.e., a revenue bill). But of course it is! Right
now, paying below-poverty wages enabled Walmart and other employers to make the government
pay part of their wage bill. Higher minimum wages would raise these government aid recipients
out of the poverty range, saving public revenue.
That is so obvious that the failure of the Democrats to make the point shows that they really
didn't want to raise wages after all.
I didn't expect much from Biden but he's even worse than I thought. Along with those
bought senators hiding behind Joe Manchin. Depressing to think how much worse everything will
become for working people here.
When I think about how they're complaining about Manchin now when there was a serious
primary challenge against him last year, and how the Democrat organization rallied around
Manchin and not his challenger, it is disgusting to see Slate/The Guardian/NYT/other "Blue no
matter who" mouth breathers write articles asking what can be done to salvage a progressive
agenda from the curse of bipartisanship.
I had given up on national politics long before the 2020 election circus but this latest
has confirmed my resolve. The destruction of the Democrat party can't come soon enough.
If I call them Hypocritics, when I never believed them in the first place, will they feel
any shame at all? Or must I be part of their class for them to feel even the tiniest of
niggles?
Perhaps they'll feel ashamed once they cut the check for the $600 they shorted us this
winter. Or maybe that they are reneging on the extended unemployment benefits early or
One side makes you sleep on a bed of nails and swear allegiance.The other side generously
offers to help you out, no strings attached, but you might bleed out from the thousands of
tiny means-testing cuts. Each side want the lower tiers to face the gauntlet and prove one's
worthiness, hoping to convince us that a black box algorithm is the same thing as a jury of
peers.
Exactly right! And keep in mind deluge of op-eds telling us that Biden is a
transformational president! The same authors presented a deluge of op-eds telling us how
Senator Sanders was to radical for the American people after he did well in early primaries.
That the reforms he supported like Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage, lowering drug
costs, help with daycare, doing something about climate change etc. were reforms that the
people would never accept because the people value their freedom and don't want to live in a
socialistic country.
It looks like none of the promises Biden made during the campaign will be implemented by
President Biden. That why he is in the White House.
Would a lot of these positions be filled if the US had single payer healthcare or similar?
Would workers accept low paying positions if they didn't have to lose so much of their pay to
crappy health insurance?
At our local Petsmart they cut staff during the pandemic. They laid off all full time
workers
And are only hiring back part time. I knew several of the laid off people and they are not
coming back. Two of the people that worked full time have found other jobs one with slightly
better pay the other with slightly better benefits. We are in California where rent is very
high so another person we know decided to use this as a chance to relocate to another state
where housing is less expensive. Our older neighbor retired, although vaccinated now, he
decided it just wasn't safe and after the CDC told everyone to take off their mask off. He is
glad he just decided to live on a little less money. I suspect there are a lot of reasons as
Yves stated above for a lack of workers, but this "they are lazy" trope is capitalistic
nonsense.
Some highlights:
>> everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will
never be industrious.
-- Arthur Young; 1771
>>Even David Hume, that great humanist, hailed poverty and hunger as positive
experiences for the lower classes, and even blamed the "poverty" of France on its good
weather and fertile soil:
'Tis always observed, in years of scarcity, if it be not extreme, that the poor labour more,
and really live better.
>>Poverty is therefore a most necessary and indispensable ingredient in society It
is the source of wealth, since without poverty, there could be no labour; there could be no
riches, no refinement, no comfort, and no benefit to those who may be possessed of
wealth.
I'll just point out, per the Old Testament, that wage, debt and rent slavery were the
exception, not the norm (as they are in the US) for citizens (Hebrews) in ancient
Israel/Judah.
That's because the assets in ancient Israel/Judah were roughly equally owned by all
citizens with provisions in the OT Law (eg. Leviticus 25, eg. Deuteronomy 15, eg. Deuteronomy
23:19-20) to keep it that way in the long run (but less than 50 years).
Contrast that to US where we have privileges for a private credit cartel, aka "the banks",
and no limits to the concentration of land ownership and the roots of our problems are
evident.
So begging for better jobs for citizens is, in the Biblical context, pathetically weak tea
indeed.
On a personal note I had a great job interview Thursday at the local food co-op. This is
my first in person interview since I was terminated without cause by IBM (after almost 24
years there in a server development job) almost a year ago. Despite applying for over 100
positions. I'm over 60 and haven't worked in a year so I admit I'm grateful to even get the
chance.
I have another interview with them next week and hoping to start soon as a produce clerk
making $13.50 an hour. If I can get on full time they offer a decent insurance plan including
dental. The HR person acknowledged that I was "wildly overqualified" but encouraging. The
possibility of getting health care is key; my IBM Cobra benefits will start costing me almost
$1400/monthly for myself and my husband in September after the ARA subsidy expires.
I've adjusted my expectations to reinvent myself as a manual laborer after decades in
fairly cushy corporate life. I've managed to keep my health and physical capacity so somewhat
optimistic I can meet the job requirements that include lifting 50 lb boxes of produce. But
we'll see.
You mean you haven't had a job in a year since it's highly doubtful that you have not done
any work in a year; eg. cooking, cleaning, shopping, car maintenance, gardening,
chauffeuring, mowing the lawn, home maintenance and caring for others count as work.
We need to stop conflating work (good) with wage slavery as if the former necessarily
requires the latter.
Okay sure. I haven't earned in a year. But it's still a problem I'm trying to sort
out best as I can.
Since I still live in the US where earning is highly correlated with insurance
coverage, and I still have about 5 years until we're both qualified for Medicare this may
turn out to be a great thing that has happened.
And since I don't see a path out of wage slavery today I'll be happy to accept almost any
offer from the food co-op. It's a union job with decent pay and benefits and may offer other
opportunities in the future. They mostly buy and sell products that are locally made so that
makes it easier too. The money we are all enslaving each other over is staying around here as
much as possible. Okay.
Good luck! Fyi i strongly suggest u look into taking your IBM pension asap as 1. It will
minimally impact your taxes as u r now earning less n 2. How many more years do u think it
will be there? ( I usually recommend most people take their social security at 62 for similar
reasons but in your case I'd do your research b4 making any move like that. ) Take a blank
state n Fed tax form n pencil in the new income n see what the results are.
Btw truly wonderful people are involved in food co-ops,enjoy!
No one really questions the idea of maximising profit.
How do you maximise profit?
You minimise costs, including labour costs, i.e. wages.
Where did the idea of maximising profit comes from?
It certainly wasn't from Adam Smith.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and
fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and
high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to
ruin." Adam Smith
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon didn't suck its profits out as dividends and look how big it's grown (not so good on
the wages).
The benefits of the system can be passed upwards in dividends or downwards in wages.
Both actually detract from the money available for re-investment as Jeff Bezos knows only too
well.
He didn't pay dividends, and paid really low wages, to maximise the amount that he could
re-invest in Amazon and look how big it's grown.
The shareholders gains are made through the value of the shares.
Jeff Bezos hopes other people are paying high enough wages to buy lots of stuff from Amazon;
his own workers don't have much purchasing power.
Where do the benefits of the system go?
Today, we pass as much as possible upwards in dividends.
In the Keynesian era they passed a lot more down in wages.
> Jeff Bezos hopes other people are paying high enough wages to buy lots of stuff from
Amazon; his own workers don't have much purchasing power.
You are missing the tree in the forest. Jeff hopes other people will pay a high enough
price for Amazon stawk. We already know Jeff doesn't give a shit about the stuff he sells, or
the inhumane working conditions that go along with the low pay and short "career". I mean,
not even the nastiest farmer would treat his mules like that, even if mules were easy and
cheap to come by.
We don't think people should get money when they are not working.
Are you sure?
What's the point in working?
Why bother?
It's just not worth all the effort when you can make money doing nothing.
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
They love easy money.
With a BTL portfolio, I can get the capital gains on a number of properties and extract
the hard earned income of generation rent at the same time.
That sounds good.
What is there not to like?
We love easy money.
You've just got to sniff out the easy money.
All that hard work involved in setting up a company yourself, and building it up.
Why bother?
Asset strip firms other people have built up, that's easy money.
"West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice justified ending federal jobless
benefits early in his state by lecturing his residents on how, "America is all about work.
That's what has made this great country."
Have you had a look around recently?
In 1984, for the first time in American history, "unearned" income exceeded "earned"
income.
America is not about work at all.
The US is largely about exploiting or being exploited with most of US doing both.
We should resent an economic system that requires we exploit others or be a pure victim
ourselves.
That said and to face some truths we'd rather not, the Bible offers some comfort, eg:
Ecclesiastes 7:16 Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin
yourself?
Ecclesiastes 5:8-9 If you see oppression of the poor and denial of justice and righteousness in the province,
do not be shocked at the sight; for one official watches over another official, and there are
higher officials over them. After all, a king who cultivates the field is beneficial to the
land.
Nonetheless, we should support economic justice and recognize that most of us are net
losers to an unjust economic system even though it offers some corrupt compensation* to
divide and confuse us.
*eg positive yields and interest on the inherently risk-free debt of a monetary
sovereign.
Jim Justice made his money the old fashioned way, he inherited it:
From Wiki: James Conley Justice II (born April 27, 1951) is an American businessman and
politician who has been serving as the 36th governor of West Virginia since 2017. With a net
worth of around $1.2 billion, he is the wealthiest person in West Virginia. He inherited a
coal mining business from his father and built a business empire with over 94 companies,
including the Greenbrier, a luxury resort.
I wonder how much of this is also related to a change in the churn we assume existed
pre-pandemic? For example, the most recent JOLTS survey results from April
2021 show the total number of separations hasn't really changed but the number of quits
has increased.
So, one possible interpretation of that would be employers are less likely to fire people
and those who think they have skills in demand are more interested in leaving for better
opportunities now. That makes intuitive sense given what we've been through. If you had a
good gig and it was stable through 2020 you had very little reason to leave it even if an
offer was better with another company. That goes double if you were a caregiver or had
children. Which of course is why many women who were affected by the challenges of balancing
daycare and a career gave up.
This is also my experience lately. While it's only anecdotal evidence, we're having a hard
time hiring mid career engineers. Doesn't seem like pay is the issue. We offer a ton of
vacation, a separate pool of sick time, decent benefits, and wages in the six figures with a
good bonus program. We're looking to hire 3 engineers. We can't even get people to apply. In
2019 we could be sure to see a steady supply of experienced candidates looking for new
opportunities. Now? If you have an engineering position and your company is letting you work
from home it seems you don't have a good reason to jump.
Look no further than Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio. They had only half the
staff they normally need at $10 an hour. So they double the wage to $20 an hour and filled
every job in less than a week. The Conservaturds will never admit they are lying.
As a small business owner providing professional services I am grateful for the comment
section here.
I have called professional peers to get a behind the corporate PR perspective of their
businesses. Although anecdotal, the overall trend in our industry is to accept the labor
shortage and downsize. Most firms have a reliable backlog of work and will benefit from an
infrastructure bill. Our firm has chosen to downsize and close vacant positions.
Remote work, although feasible, has employees thinking they are LeBron James, regardless
of their skill set. Desperate employers are feeding their belief. Two years from now it will
be interesting to see if these employees they fail forward. Company culture minimized
employee turnover pre-covid. This culture has little meaning to an employee working in his
daughter's playroom.
For context, in California, I believe the median income for licensees is approximately
$110,000 with lower level technicians easily at $75k in the urban areas.
Lastly, the "paltry" $300 per week is in additional to the state unemployment checks and
is not subject to taxes. As stated previously, $300 is equal to $7.50 per hour. Federal
minimum wage is $7.25 and is adopted by many states minimum, for what it's worth.
With respect, I do not see any there there in the comment. Adjusted for inflation the
minimum wage at its height in 1968 at 1.60, would be just under $13 per hour today. However,
even at $15 in California, it is inadequate.
Anyone making anything like the minimum wage would not be working from home, but would be
working in some kind of customer service job, and would find paying for adequate food,
clothing, and shelter very difficult. Not in getting any extras, but only in getting enough
to survive. People, and their families, do need to eat.
If the response of not paying enough, and therefore not getting new hires, is to downsize,
perhaps that is good. After all no business deserves to remain in business, especially if the
business model depends on its workers being unable to survive.
I am also fed up with the "lazy worker" meme. Or rather, propaganda. People are literally
exhausted working 2 or 3 lousy jobs and no real healthcare. Equally irritating to me is a
misguided notion that we have some magically accessible generous safety net in the US. As
though there aren't thousands and thousands on waiting lists for government subsidized
housing. Section 8 vouchers? Good luck.
We've ended "welfare as we [knew] it" (AFDC) thanks to Bill Clinton and then the screw was
turned tightly by Junior Bush (no child care, but go to work.) The upshot was bad news for
kids.
Seems to me one of the few things left is the food stamp program, and I can't imagine how
that's been reconfigured. Whomever gave that fantastic list of goodies people can get in the
US with a mere snap of the fingers isn't in the real world, imho.
Ok! Yves, lovely to see you again, my friend! (Cue the Moody Blues ) Get well!
Here is my story.
I am 56 years old, on dialysis and I was collecting SSI of 529 a month.
I was living with and taking care of my mother in her home because she had dementia.
She died in December and I had to start paying the bills. In March I inherited her IRA which
I reported to SS. I was able to roll it over into my own IRA because I am disabled, due to
the Trump tax law changes.
I reported the changes in a timely manner and because I couldn't afford to live here without
a job, I took a part time job for 9 an hour.
So now, because I inherited my mother's IRA and have too much resources I no longer qualify
for SSI and have been overpaid to the tune of almost 2 grand, which I am assuming I will have
to pay back. I have no idea how that works either. Do they just grab money out of your
account? Anyone who knows please tell me.
I would run, run, run to the nearest public assistance counselor or lawyer. In the San
Francisco Bay Area, it is should not be too hard to find one. They saved me. There are also
in California several state websites. There was a useful to me benefits planning site (It only covers nine states though).
The rules for SSI (Supplemental Security Income), SSDI (Social Security Disability
Insurance), Social Security, Medi-Cal or Medicaid, and Medicare are each different. Each
state has its own modifications as well, so that is fifty additional sets of modified rules
especially for the medical benefits. If they are determined to claw back the money, how it is
done might depend on the individual state. It is truly a maze of flycatchers and trapdoors
out for you and your money.
The overworked benefits clerks often do not have the knowledge to deal with anything even
slightly unusual and are not encourage or at least discouraged from finding out due to
the never shrinking pile, not from anyone's malice. This means you could lose benefits
because they did not know what they were doing or just by mistake. So, it is up to you to
find those nonprofit counselors or the for profit lawyer to help you through the laws, rules,
and whatever local regulations there are. Hopefully, you will not have to read through some
of the official printed regulations like I did. If wasn't an experience paper pusher.. The
average person would have been lost. Intelligence and competence has nothing to do with.
Hell, neither does logic, I think.
In my case, when I inherited a retirement account, SSDI was not affected, because of how
the original account was set up. However, SSDI is different from SSI although both have
interesting and Byzantine requirements. I guess to make sure we are all "deserving" of any
help.
So don't ask anonymous bozos like me on the internet and find those local counselors. If
it is nonprofit, they will probably do it completely free. If needed, many lawyers, including
tax lawyers, and CPAs will offer discounted help or will know where you can go.
What is the floor on wages?
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Set disposable income to zero.
Minimum wages = taxes + the cost of living
So, as we increase housing costs, we drive up wages.
The neoliberal solution.
Try and paper over the cracks with Payday loans.
This what we call a short term solution.
Someone has been tinkering with the economics and that's why we can't see the problem.
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital".
They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the Classical
Economists as this is where rentier activity in the economy shows up.
It's so well hidden no one even knows it's there and everyone trips up over the cost of
living, even the Chinese.
Angus Deaton rediscovers the wheel that was lost by the early neoclassical economists. "Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like
the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton, Nobel prize winner.
Employees get their money from wages and the employers pay the cost of living through wages,
reducing profit.
This raises the costs of doing anything in the US, and drives off-shoring.
The Chinese learn the hard way.
Davos 2019 – The Chinese have now realised high housing costs eat into consumer
spending and they wanted to increase internal consumption. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNBcIFu-_V0
They let real estate rip and have now realised why that wasn't a good idea.
The equation makes it so easy.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
The cost of living term goes up with increased housing costs.
The disposable income term goes down.
They didn't have the equation, they used neoclassical economics.
The Chinese had to learn the hard way and it took years, but they got there in the end.
They have let the cost of living rise and they want to increase internal consumption.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
It's a double whammy on wages.
China isn't as competitive as it used to be.
China has become more expensive and developed Eastern economies are off-shoring to places
like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
Total DUCs in shale basins are falling at the rate of about 250 per month. I don't know how long this can continue. I have been
told by some experts in the field that there are some DUCs that will never be completed because they would not produce enough oil
to pay the completion cost. So we just cannot count the DUCs and divide by 250. The decline in DUCs will have to stop sooner or
later.
Frugal, I am not an oilman, and an oilman could obviously give a better answer than I. But I will give it a shot, and hopefully,
I will be corrected for any mistakes I make.
Drillers are not frackers and frackers are not drillers. That is an entirely different operation requiring different crews, different
equipment, and different CAPEX. But the driller leaves behind samples from the well, indicating just how productive the well should
be. The best wells will obviously be fracked first. The less promising wells will be left for times when the price is high enough
to justify the fracking cost.
But"¦. the total cost of the well is the drilling cost plus the fracking cost. And in a DUC, the drilling cost has already been
spent. So when times get hard, and you can get a well, though it might not be the best well, you have already paid the drilling
cost, so you can get it for only the fracking cost now. So you pay the fracking cost and recover what you can. And this would
be the case especially if the new wells that are coming in are less promising than the poor wells already drilled.
But then, that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Comments for this article are pretty instructive about the particular strata of US population
mindset right now. Reminds the mood of dissidents in the USSR.
Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was
from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol
'insurrection,' and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor
Gretchin Whitmer .
" Why are there so many factual matters that we don't understand about that day? " asked
Carlson.
" Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration
still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th?
What could possibly be the reason for that - even as they call for more openness... they could
release those tapes today, but they're not. Why?"
Carlson notes that
Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that
unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.
We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6
-- and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those
indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and
egregious participants in the very so-called "conspiracy" serving as the basis for charging
those indicted.
The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider
whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in
1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.
Key segment from Tucker:
"We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that
were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt.
According to the government's own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated
in the riot - sometimes in violent ways . We know that because without fail, the government
has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a
nationwide dragnet to find them - and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But s
trangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged ."
Look at the documents , the government calls those people 'unindicted co-conspirators.'
What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives
... in the Capitol, on January 6th."
"For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents
identify only as "person two." According to those documents, person two stayed in the same
hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell - an 'insurrectionist.' A man alleged to be a
member of the group "The Oathkeepers." Person two also "stormed the barricades" at the
Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government's indictments further
indicate that Caldwell - who by the way is a 65-year-old man... was led to believe there
would be a "quick reaction force" also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction
force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called "Person 3," who had a hotel room and
an accomplice with them . But wait. Here's the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were
organizers of the riot . The government knows who they are, but the government has not
charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So
FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to
government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are
"upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various
roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities
and in some cases much, much more severe activities - as those named alongside them in the
indictments."
Revolver , meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th
In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers,
the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI , DOJ , Pentagon and
network news have labeled most
responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the
federal government, or informants of said agencies?
Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the
Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous "siege" and what roles did they play (merely
passive informants or active instigators)?
Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of
those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an
undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:
We recommend you read the entire
Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int he
"Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .
_Rorschach 7 hours ago
Just remember folks
a Klan meeting is always 33 FBI agents
and 2 ACTUAL white supremacists
Dragonlord 7 hours ago
No CIA? I am disappointed.
_Rorschach 7 hours ago (Edited)
Glowies are never at the meetings
theyre busy planting bombs for the false flag afterwards
Misesmissesme 6 hours ago
90% of "terrorists" would never commit acts of terror if the US Guv wasn't coercing them
to commit said acts. The wrong people are in jail.
Wonder who in government started the ball rolling on 9/11 before it got away from
them?
Sedaeng PREMIUM 6 hours ago
it never got away from them! They directed through and afterwards... Patriot act just
'happened' to be on standby just in case? ha!
Not Your Father's ZH 6 hours ago (Edited)
Amid this chronic Machiavellian conniving, here are creatures who know how to act
right:
"Civilization is a stream with banks. The stream is sometimes filled with blood from
people killing, stealing, shouting and doing things historians usually record; while on the
banks, unnoticed, people build homes, make love, raise children, sing songs, write poetry
and even whittle statues. The story of civilization is the story of what happened on the
banks. Historians are pessimists because they ignore the banks of the river." ~ Will
Durant, "The Story of Civilization"
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a
monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss , the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich
Nietzsche
"Everything human is pathetic. The secret source of humor itself is not joy, but sorrow.
There is no humor in Heaven." ― Mark Twain
thomas sewell 6 hours ago
everything in the USA is bull sheet. its all polluted with mind fook.
the last 1+ year has gone beyond any psycho drama i could ever imagine.
krda 5 hours ago
Didn't Brennan issue the 9/11 hijackers' visas?
zedwork 1 hour ago
Yes, but no planes. That would have been way too risky when you can just add them into
the live feed later using CGI.
Bob Lidd 1 hour ago
You mean like what happen in the 1993 WTC bombing.....??
How there hasn't been a day of reckoning yet is beyond me.
SexyJulian 6 hours ago
And stacks of bricks.
E5 5 hours ago
The FBI does not have the right to commit a crime. They chose to run an operation they
should disavow all agents involved and they know it. Arrest them.
With Wray out there spreading fear about the Great White Supremacy Threat, you can bet
the FBI is working overtime to make something newsworthy happen. Remember folks: 3
"militia" = 2 FBI informants + 1 patsy
Until the JFK murder/coup is brought to light, you can bet it's all hoax, including
Trump being an 'outsider'. He's not. He did everything Israel told him to do.
GhostOLaz 3 hours ago
America's perception of the FBI comes from TV "programs", not history or reality.
Joiningupthedots 1 hour ago
"Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from
the US capitol on January 6th?"
For the same reason the UK government wont release the Skripal Tapes from Salisbury,
UK.......LMAO.
Its an inside job........OBVIOUSLY!
Faeriedust 2 hours ago
So. Incidents are being staged and then used as excuses for more draconian State
security powers. How is this different from the behavior of known historical groups such as
the SS and the KGB? How can this be interpreted except as the actions of a totalitarian
State?
Sizzurp PREMIUM 6 hours ago
Scary stuff. They manufacture their own crimes to suit their political narrative and
agenda. This is straight out of the Nazi playbook.
Garciathinksso 6 hours ago
this is SOP for FBI, long rich history of manufacturing crimes and low, mid and high
level corruption . Prior to that the BOI was even worse.
JaxPavan 7 hours ago remove link
The chickens coming home to roost.
This was a "color revolution" by us, against us. And, it was designed to fail. Like a
freakish side show.
Why? Let off political steam. Keep all the people in their respective aisle of the
democan and republicrat uniparty bus. Distract political attention away from the full
****** plandemic lockdowns. Keep the rest of the world agape for a few more years thinking
things will fall apart on their own, while their resources are extracted. . .
Jam 47 minutes ago
This scam getting some press now is better late than never, but not by much. Some of
these media types being all surprised by this must have lived pretty sheltered lives and
are lacking any street smarts. This set up was obvious since day one, this is the same
bunch that won't call out these crooks for rigged elections.
Oxygen Likes Carbon 48 minutes ago
It should be painfully clear that with the level of surveillance in 2021, nobody can
walk into high security governmental building, without being arrested. Let alone organize a
mass demonstration then go into Capitol Building during the day, while the politicians
being there, to take ... selfies.
... without some help, or coordination from some governmental services.
anti-bolshevik 7 hours ago (Edited)
Replace 'unindicted co-conspirators.' with Agent Provocateurs.
The entire chain-of-command that authorized / planned / executed / gave material support
to this Operation should be indicted and prosecuted.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY
SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved
FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions
and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil.
Enraged 56 minutes ago
With FBI Director Comey, Assistant Director McCabe, and FBI agent/covert CIA agent
Strzok acting against President Trump, this should be considered treasonous, and hopefully
they will be prosecuted.
The question is who authorized the latest actions on January 6 since Comey, McCabe, and
Strzok were fired.
Conductor "Corn Pop" Angelo 38 minutes ago
I can think of two to start with. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. Both refused
additional security even after being told that the latest intel suggested there was going
to be a protest at the capital building on Jan 6th. The two were offered National Guard
troops, in addition to Capital Police, to help out, but refused. IIRC, both the Senate and
House Sgt at Arms lost their jobs over this, too
Make it three, Mayor Bowser had the same intel and did nothing
Andro1345 7 hours ago
These are old tricks by the FBI. They have been just as bad as the CIA for years.
So many instances going back so far. They plan things, set it up, help to encourage and
supply sheep to do these things. If I had someone trying to encourage me to get on board
something similar my first guess would be a government operative, seriously.
WeNamedTheDogIndiana 1 hour ago
I attended protests after the election, and it was obvious to be that the rallies at our
state capitol were infiltrated by FBI/deep state stooges. A number of them were talking
civil war, and said it too boldly in my opinion, and then many of them were carrying AKs,
when that was not necessary.
The only rally that I attended that seemed uncorrupted was the first protest in DC a few
weeks after the election.
taketheredpill 7 hours ago
Don't be shocked if the FBI funded some of the trips, hotels etc.
And for sure the FBI operatives "wound up" the participants...
But you won't find out for 10 years.
Alfred 7 hours ago
Not just infiltrated.
The FBI actually creates the organizations they then infiltrate.
Someone goes on a good rant here or there, can expect to be befriended by someone of
like mind. Thereafter that someone undergoes radicalization and then organization via FBI
sting ops. They get funding, they get resources, they get ready, they get busted.
Ha! It's all shake-n-bake, baby!
ProudZion 6 hours ago
...The proud boys was led by a FBI agent....
Mad Muppet PREMIUM 1 hour ago
They're called Agents Provacateurs and it's nothing new. The Government always initiates
the violence they say they want to prevent.
Ms No PREMIUM 1 hour ago remove link
"Informants" is a very misleading title. They aren't out there ferretting info of people
up to no good. It's more an infiltration and steering game and always has been.
They are basically agents without the boundaries of law. Good front guys too. They will
keep them out of trouble and protect them if they can but if it gets too hot they are
expendable and even easily patsied. It's all actually actually technically illegal because
even when they do real informant work it's actually entrapment.
We used to be protected from these things and now you see the reason behind that.
Nothing is new it just has different names and since it's always avoided by media, some of
it doesn't even have proper names, at least for the public.
It's basically false flag color revolution operations.
QuiteShocking 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The USA's standing in the world is vastly diminished by the continue lies and
mischaracterizations of what happened on Jan 6th by the democrats. The police officer died
from a stroke and not from the rioters. The unarmed white woman was executed by capital
police and no one was held responsible. The democrats have continued to blatantly lie and
mislead on what really happened on Jan 6th for political gain...
Max21c 7 hours ago
We recommend you read the entire
Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int
he "Whitmer Kidnapping Plot" were undercover agents and federal informants .
People were already aware that the FBI kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor
Gretchen Whitmer was an FBI thing from the start and all throughout. Just as many if not
most of these things are as they involve the secret police creating the plots and then
unraveling the plots they've created and managed and orchestrated all along the way.
Angular Momentum 7 hours ago
The states need to outlaw entrapment in cases like that. The FBI moles need to be
punished as severely as the dupes.
junction 7 hours ago
The FBI and the CIA apparently fund the so-call White Supremacist organizations. Your
tax dollars at work. Meanwhile, total silence for a decade from the FBI as Jeffrey Epstein
ran a transnational white slavery operation out of his Manhattan mansion, aided by the
Israeli Mossad.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The intelligence community and secret police community were well aware of what was going
on with the Epstein operation. It's not just the US side either as the UK and Israelis were
aware of it also.
Uncle Sugar PREMIUM 7 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Trump is better than Xiden, but
He left Chris Wray running the FIB
He didn't prosecute Comey, Brennan, anyone
He pushed the "Vax"
He spent worse than a drunken sailor
Conclusion - He's not the answer
OldNewB 6 hours ago
He should have pardoned Snowden.
otschelnik 7 hours ago
Well looks like the DOJ is bringing back the Obummer spygate team. John P. Carlin who
was head of DOJ/National Security Division is now deputy AG. He let the FBI give 4 civilian
contractors access to the NSA database for 702 inquiries, which Admiral Rogers stopped.
Also back is Lisa Monoco who oversaw the FISA warrants for Carter Page, and now she's going
to be heading up Garland's domestic terror task force.
That's all very ominous.
Farmer Tink 4 hours ago
I didn't realize that Carlin was back. He tried to defend his actions in the annual
report to the FISA court but Adm. Mike Rogers, on whose watch the NSA found out what the
DOJ was doing, carried the day. I also didn't realize that Lisa Monaco was the one in
charge of those illegal Page warrants. It's just sickening that they are being rewarded.
Thanks for the info.
glenlloyd 2 hours ago (Edited)
With such a high percentage of those 'involved' in the "insurrection" (said loosely
here) and the so called Whitmer kidnapping being from FBI / CIA / other intelligence
agencies AND those same people end up apparently being in leadership roles in these groups
that are supposedly going to be doing the kidnapping and insurrecting, then it's really
hard not to come to the conclusion that the fault was with the FBI et al.
It just seems like the FBI et al were way more involved in this than they should have
been, if you're going to suggest that it was the others that are to blame. The tough pill
to swallow is the claim that it was the people the FBI et al infiltrated and coerced into
do these things, that are to blame.
Things really do stink with this.
newworldorder 5 hours ago
How are these actions are not "entrapment."
InfiniteIntellRules 5 hours ago
I will stop, just too many tales of FBI corruption. Last 1
Under COINTELPRO, FBI agents infiltrated political groups and spread rumors that loyal
members were the real infiltrators. They tried to get targets fired from their jobs, and
they tried to break up the targets' marriages. They published deliberately inflammatory
literature in the names of the organizations they wanted to discredit, and they drove
wedges between groups that might otherwise be allied. In Baltimore, the FBI's operatives in
the Black Panther Party were instructed to denounce Students for a Democratic Society as "a
cowardly, honky group" who wanted to exploit the Panthers by giving them all the violent,
dangerous "dirty work." The operation was apparently successful: In August 1969, just five
months after the initial instructions went out, the Baltimore FBI reported that the local
Panther branch had ordered its members not to associate with SDS members or attend any SDS
events.
EVERY MAJOR EVENT. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
heehaw2 6 hours ago
All happened under Trumps watch. He said he was going to lead the March to Capital
building, then totally disappeared.
MrNoItAll 7 hours ago
Got to hand it to them. Those Fed guys sure know how to stage a riot to get media
attention and shape public opinion. How else could they explain why all the guard troops
were needed in D C. When getting them there could have been the primary goal of this staged
event.
lightwork 7 hours ago
In the early 70's it seemed that a government informant/ mole was instrumental in the
activities of virtually every left wing group in the country. It became common knowledge
that whomever was most vocal and advocated the most activist positions was usually "that
guy". It was effective since paranoia caused most groups to disintegrate.
otschelnik 8 hours ago remove link
Probably more snitches than that.
Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell who is one of the lucky few released but still charged is a
former FBI contractor who had top secret security clearance according to his lawyer.
Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio who was arrested 2 days before the riot for vandalism (burning
a BLM banner), had been an informer to the FBI and law inforcement in Florida, according to
his lawyer.
They forgot Antifa and BLM in their list of groups.
State sponsored terrorist groups favored by Liberal Elites and their secret police are
generally omitted and immune.
heehaw2 6 hours ago
George Bush Senior, then head of CIA was in Dallas when JFK was assinated. Ol George
announced as President the New World order
QE49er 6 hours ago
Reichstag Fire style false flag.
Ruff_Roll 6 hours ago
It makes perfect sense that FBI or government supported operatives were acting as agents
provocateurs on 1/6, organizing and instigating the riot, and subsequently let off as
"unindicted co-conspirators." Pelosi was probably in on it, too.
TheySayIAmOkay 7 hours ago
This is the biggest "duh" ever. Of course the government is involved. Just like they
were in 9/11. Just like they were stealing the election. Just like they are in at least
some of these mass shootings (the FBI was warned about the Parkland shooter multiple
times). Just like they will be in the next big incident that massively strips rights from
the people.
The Deep State is real. And it is the upper echelons of the FBI, DHS, CIA, ATF, etc.
They are the shadow government that wags the tail. They can do whatever they want and
nobody can do anything about it. Do you think if Ted Cruz or Nancy Pelosi killed someone
they'd get away with it? No. They are figures. The limits of their power can be stripped
with a single, stupid, scandal. How about John Brennan? I have absolutely no doubt in my
mind he could. Because who will hold him accountable? Nobody in the CIA or FBI went down
for not listening to the FBI agent about the 20th hijacker. Mueller got PROMOTED! He's deep
state. Brennan was regional chief of the CIA in Riyadh leading up to 9/11. He got...
PROMOTED! Deep state.
3-fingered_chemist 7 hours ago
The fact the Capitol had essentially zero security the day all members were present to
tally the EC votes and people still think this wasn't faked?
Jim in MN 7 hours ago
Speaking as someone who actually attended the earlier 'Stop the Steal' rally in DC, I
said at the time that the Jan. 6th event didn't smell right and felt like a setup.
Recommended that folks stay away, expect trouble and stay frosty at that time.
Note that the FBI was/is also deeply involved in the BLM riots. AKA a criminal
conspiracy to destabilize US civil order. Of course a lot of mayors and police chiefs are
also involved in that criminal conspiracy.
The more you know.....
jammyjo 7 hours ago
FBI is making contact with unstable people, and do nothing but keep them on a list of
"assets" to be activated when needed.
Patmos 7 hours ago
Gives new meaning to false narrative. More than just spin, they actually create the
events themselves. Not quite a false flag, because nothing really happened.
Is anyone involved going to stand up and say no? Or have they all just decided to
reserve themselves to being corrupt little b!tches?
Feck Weed 7 hours ago
FBI is the US domestic secret police force for the Globalist Empire. Nationalism is the
enemy of the globalists...
Let us preface our inflation note with one of our favorite quotes:
"World War II was transitory"
– GMM
Inflation has eroded my purchasing power in my transitory life. Bring back the $.35 Big Mac,
which was only about 20% of the minimum wage. Now? About 40-50%... Enough to spark a
revolution?
In its latest Monthly Oil Report, the IEA called on OPEC+ to increase production in order to
counter higher demand in 2022.
... ... ...
The current market situation is very clear. OPEC+ is leading the sector, no matter what
political strategies or activist shareholders at IOCs are planning. The market is still fully
hydrocarbon addicted, and this will not change overnight.
The IEA also needs to reassess its current strategies and press approach, as a continuation
of the diffuse ''Lala-land predictions'' will not make their case stronger.
As indicated by the IEA OMR report demand will increase by 5.36 million bpd in 2021, and
another 3.07 million bpd in 2022. At the end of 2022, global demand is expected to be at 99.46
million b/d on average.
This optimism in the market is widely shared, looking at price predictions from Goldman
Sachs, Bank of America, and Citibank, with some analysts even predicting $100 per barrel in
2022.
cowdiddly 1 hour ago (Edited)
I do not listen to government clowns.
"You want to know what the price of oil is going to do watch the rig count" T. Boone
Pickins
Single best piece of energy investment advice I ever had.
gregga777 48 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
The IEA seems to be following this very mature behavioral advice:
"When in trouble,
When in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout."
Falconsixone 40 minutes ago
Tanks eat a lot of fuel.
GrayManSix 23 minutes ago
Instead of "kill all the lawyers," it should now be "kill all the academics." People in
ivory towers who have no inkling of the real world realities....
radical-extremist 39 minutes ago remove link
I highly recommend "Unsettled" by Steven E. Koonin.
He does the best job to date of unpacking what we know and don't know about Climate
Change.
Educate yourself on it...and hurry before the book is banned.
19331510 48 minutes ago remove link
There is no climate emergency and absolutely no reason to pursue net-zero emissions.
Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere and it is impossible for that small amount of gas to
significantly impact the climate.
Co2 is the key driver of photosynthesis and higher levels of atmospheric co2 increase
agricultural production necessary to feed an ever growing population.
The UAH temperature data indicates the average global temperature is 0.08 C above the 30
year average. There is no global warming.
The severity of storms and and number of severe storms are not increasing.
The oceans may be rising between 1.8 mm/yr to 3.6 mm/yr if at all. Tide gauges a wrought
with issues.
The pursuit of a green economy will destroy our economy. manhattan-institute.org Mark P. Mills
There is no need to end the use hydrocarbons. Please educate yourself.
By Rebecca Elliott and Collin Eaton Updated Aug. 26, 2020 4:11 pm ET
Refineries, petrochemical facilities and ports along the Gulf Coast were closing as
Hurricane Laura barreled toward the Texas-Louisiana border.
The hurricane strengthened to a Category 4 storm Wednesday, with sustained winds of 140
miles an hour, according to an afternoon update from the National Hurricane Center. It is
projected to unleash a storm surge as high as 20 feet along portions of the Louisiana coast
with as much as 15 inches of rainfall.
Exxon Mobil Corporation XOM has been generating fewer barrels of oil from the prolific
shale fields of the United States since 2019, per Reuters.
According to a latest report, the company's oil wells, which are involved in some of the
most promising shale fields, produced fewer barrels of oil per well despite an increase in
overall expenditure and production.
In 2017, Exxon, which is one of the largest shale oil producers, acquired $6.6 billion of
net acres in New Mexico, which doubled the company's assets in the Permian basin that spans
west Texas and New Mexico. Notably, the company intends to boost shale output in the New Mexico
portion of the Permian basin to 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) by 2025.
Per data released by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis ("IEEFA"),
Exxon's average liquid output for the first 12 months of a well dropped to 521 bpd in 2019
from an average of 635 bpd in 2018 in its Delaware basin assets of New Mexico.
That's an 18% drop in production per well. And this was before the pandemic
Another scenario is that some exporting nations realize they will need this oil as the world
stares into a scarcity of oil. They might say: "Shit, why are we selling this stuff when we
will desperately need it for ourselves in a few years?" And as they cut back, or stop exporting
altogether, the problem gets a lot worse, and prices spike even higher. REPLYDOUG LEIGHTON IGNORED06/13/2021 at 3:34 pm
L.O.L. The decision concerning the proportion of a domestic resource that should be
preserved for domestic needs, and how much to export, is interesting. China's REE deposits come
to mind. Also, the impact of the immediate use of a resource versus a lower level of
exploitation over time might come into play in some (perhaps unrealistic) scenarios as well.
Not many examples of countries that have exhaustible natural resources saving some for future
generations I'm aware of; probably would result in an unwelcome war or another ugly result!
WTI at $70 is probably still bearable. Higher numbers dramatically increase chances of the
recession (actually the USA is in secular stagnation since 2008).
You need EROEI around 7 for the source of energy to be economically viable. Wind barely
makes it, but solar, outside of deserts does not.
Another interesting figure is that the energy density ( KW/kg ) of lithium batteries is
approximately 100 times less then energy density of diesel (gas has slightly lower energy
density; kerosene approximately the same).
A subcompact car with a 10-gallon gas tank can store the energy equivalent of 7 Teslas, 15
Nissan Leafs or 23 Chevy Volts, according to industry sources.
REPLYPHIL S IGNORED
06/07/2021 at 7:50 pm
" interesting figure is that the energy density ( KW/kg ) of lithium batteries is
approximately 100 times less then energy density of diesel "
but don't forget the energy in the diesel is about 30% efficient converting into work while the
battery is over 90% efficent doing work – so comparing energy "stored" in compact cars
and teslas etc is either pretty useless or pretty misleading
REPLYMIKE SUTHERLAND IGNORED HOLE IN HEAD IGNORED
06/12/2021 at 6:35 am
Likbez , I will make an effort to answer your 3 questions .
1. Peak oil was /is 2018 . Plateau will be 5 years . Why ? The parameter is exportable oil
production and not total oil production . ELM is a bitch .
2 . Nuclear fusion . Not going to happen . It is like the horizon . We can see it but we can't
reach it .
3 . USA situation . I am least qualified to comment as I am in Europe , but still the safest is
that the current political system cannot continue for long especially when I look at it with
the lenses of resource availability . There are no volunteers for starvation . What will
replace this ? I don't know .
P.S :Your sentence "Like in war this is the question of strategy. Wrong strategy usually leads
to defeat. " I am going to be using this . Hope you don't have a copyright on this .
🙂
But your post is also misleading and leaves the reader with the impression that you're
little more than an EV propagandist. Even at 30% efficiency for diesel, there is still 100/3 =
33.3x more energy available than a comparably sized lithium battery. That huge difference is
far and anyway superior to anything a battery will ever do, ever. It will never be matched by
any electrochemical storage scheme. So there is that.
REPLYKLEIBER IGNORED
06/09/2021 at 1:42 pm
Indeed. The advantages EVs have come from efficiency in weight reduction (aside from the
battery pack) and aerodynamics, along with electric motors being super simple and efficient.
But in terms of raw energy density, you cannot beat chemical fuels, and there really isn't
anything that threatens this by virtue of the chemistry.
Batteries, for all their advantages in simplicity, are never going to be lighter and more
energy dense. Lithium is just about the best there is in terms of weight to energy ratio,
something quite key for a moving vehicle.
REPLYLIKBEZ IGNORED
06/09/2021 at 7:10 pm
Mike,
Electrical engines proved to be viable for small cars and delivery trucks with short ranges.
No question about it. But that does not mean they are optimal. This is just a fashion partially
fueled by people who missed their STEM classes 😉
I think natural gas is currently a viable competitor to EV and is IMHO a much better
feat.
First of all charging efficiency of lithium battery is only 80%.
That's true that electrical motor is more efficient, but when you have a transmission using
multiple gears most of this difference is lost.
Also you overestimated the efficiency of the tandem lithium battery -- electrical motor, as
it includes converter with efficiency less then 90% and a lithium battery has its own internal
resistance which increases with age and also lead to losses. 0.8*0.8*0.9=0.57. BTW modern
diesel engines efficiency is about 43%-44%, based on 2013-2014 certified engines.
Moreover the efficiency of lithium battery in winter is dismal. And not only because at low
temperatures is simply does not work well and its capacity is less. A lot of energy is consumed
by the cabin heater. IMHO driving EV in severe winter is dangerous not withstanding short trips
to nearby sky resort that some make on their Tesla 3 🙂
REPLYJOHN NORRIS IGNORED
06/10/2021 at 7:06 am
The average US car goes 0.74 miles on a kWh of gasoline. Many Teslas and the Hyundai Kona
(among others) go 4.0 miles per kWh.
Cost per mile is $0.12 for gasoline, $0.06 for California EV, $0.03 for average EV.
HICKORY IGNORED
06/07/2021 at 10:35 pm
Likbez.
Switzerland has poorer solar input than any place in the lower 48, even pacific northwest
coastal, so its a lame site to use as a yardstick.
I know people who do 100% of their driving miles with solar from the roof, at lower cost than
your miles.
And they didn't check the EROEI figures before or after the purchase of equipment.
The solar is already paid off for them, and they've got 2 to 4 more decades of electricity
coming from that system.
And I know people who have driven across the entire country with no liquid fuel tank-nothing
for energy storage in their EV but lithium. And the acceleration of their car will pin you deep
in your seat if they aren't careful with the pedal.
Hey- look on the bright side- every mile that solar/electric vehicles travel is just another
mile of gasoline left for you.
REPLYMIKE SUTHERLAND IGNORED
06/09/2021 at 9:22 am
Hickory, how many of those solar panels were subsidized by government? A lot of them. And
what's more, even though early adopters charged their Teslas from those subsidized panels, did
that somehow change the EREOI from 0.8? How is the rest of society going to benefit if all the
early opportunists managed to get cheap cells at an artificially low price, that actually were
fantastically expensive in real terms regarding the cheap energy (at the time) that was used to
make them?
And so what if they drove across the country in electric power??? WTF? What does that prove?
Was there actually anything productive generated by this hugely energy intensive
self-interested activity? No, there was not. It was nothing more than a display of self
indulgence, and an excessive one at that.
REPLYHICKORY IGNORED
06/09/2021 at 10:11 am
MikeS.
"The Energy Payback Time of PV systems is dependent on the geographical location: PV systems in
Northern Europe need around 1.5 years to balance the input energy, while PV systems in the
South equal their energy input after 1 year and less,"
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf
After 25 years modern panels still have between 82-93% peak capacity output.
In regard to the feasibility of lithium batteries- I was pointing out that they work well
enough (are dense enough) to get the job done. Its not a complicated idea. Likebz referenced
diesel energy density. Thats very good, but in case you haven't been keeping up- peak crude oil
is upon us, so time to adapt. Past time actually.
Bottomline- both solar energy and electric vehicles are viable systems for transportation.
And that is nice considering the world faces peak oil supply.
Some people would prefer to witness the countries economy crash and burn as peak oil becomes
a reality. I guess they think they would make more money for the short term. Others would like
to see the country gradually deploy other ways to get around.
REPLYKLEIBER IGNORED
06/09/2021 at 1:57 pm
If nothing else, this scenario will lead to a radical reshaping of how we as a species go
about doing logistics. If the pandemic hasn't called into question the application of JIT
logistics for all industries, then the loss of cheap diesel certainly will. Even if long haul
electric trucks become a thing, it will require a different approach to matters.
Cars are otherwise a solved issue with EVs. There's nothing that an ICE can really offer
over an EV. Trucking and heavy industry is another matter, and that's where problems will be.
Frankly, I welcome this uprooting of a paradigm that has no resilience built in whatsoever.
LIKBEZ IGNORED
06/10/2021 at 3:26 pm
You are both funny and superficial.
There is no question that "electric vehicles are viable systems for transportation. " that's
true since 1940th I think. Just think about electric trains and diesel-electric trains :-).
Also as compact cars they are viable in temperate climate (Leaf, Tesla, etc) and possibly in
big cities and corresponding metropolitan areas.
Some people would prefer to witness the countries economy crash and burn as peak oil
becomes a reality. I guess they think they would make more money for the short term. Others
would like to see the country gradually deploy other ways to get around.
Like in war this is the question of strategy. Wrong strategy usually leads to defeat. I
think the current EV fashion driven by people who missed their STEM classes is
counterproductive and probably harmful.
It might well lead to problems in the near future. You should never put all eggs into one
basket. Lightweight and emotion-driven arguments like your above just does not make the cut, if
we are taking about the strategy.
Some interesting questions are
1. If we reached "plato oil" stage (I think so), then how long it will last before Seneca
cliff? 10 year, 50 years, 100 years ? That's a big difference.
2. Will we get fusion energy driven energy generation or not.
3. Will neoliberalism be replaced in the USA by some other social system, because
neoliberalism (and connected with it imperial tendencies ("Full Spectrum Domination" doctrine),
and the corresponding level of military expenses -- money that should be allocated toward the
energy transition are simply waited on maintaining and expanding of the empire) can't reform
itself and probably will drive this country off the economic cliff, or to the WWIII (with even
worse results).
Environmentalists and activist shareholders intensified pressure on large public oil
firms to align their businesses with a net-zero scenario, while some of the international
majors acknowledged they have a part to play in the energy transition.
But the leaders of the OPEC+ group, Saudi Arabia and Russia, will continue to invest in
oil and gas because, they say, the world will still need those resources for decades, despite
the growing push against fossil fuels and investment in new supply.
Chronic underinvestment in oil and gas supply while operational oilfields mature would
lead to a supply crunch and a spike in oil prices down the road, analysts and Big Oil top
executives such as TotalEnergies' Patrick Pouyanné say.
From your link: BP's chief executive Bernard Looney wrote that forecasts of much lower
investments in oil and gas were "in many ways consistent with our approach – to reduce
our oil and gas production by 40% in the next decade.
Snip. In Russia, the chief executive of the largest Russian oil producer, state-controlled
Rosneft, warned that underinvestment in oil is setting the stage for a severe deficit in
supply.
Yes, oil production will be falling and oil prices will be rising. Anyone with half a brain
can see that. But it will have to happen before the world will be able to see what is right now
as plain as the nose on their face. Their worldview keeps them from seeing the very blatantly
obvious. Ideology will obviously alwayse trump common sense.
REPLYFRUGAL IGNORED
06/10/2021 at 8:17 pm
There are also Bagdad Bobs from IEA " "World oil supply is expected to grow at a faster rate
in 2022, with the US driving gains of 1.6 million bpd from producers outside the OPEC alliance.
"
John Kilduff of Again Capital has predicted Brent to hit $80 a barrel and WTI to trade
between $75 and $80 in the summer, thanks to robust gasoline demand. Brent is currently trading
at $71.63 per barrel, while WTI is changing hands at $69.13.
On 05/07/21 the US 10year chart formed a hammer candlestick on daily chart within a consolidation pattern. Which suggested higher
yields coming. Well little over a month later price broke below the bottom of that candlestick which suggest that the bond market
doesn't believe the inflation we have seen is here to stay. Yield headed lower.
The inflation we have had seems to be supply side due to covid. If inflation is at peak which bond market is suggesting. Oil price
might not have much more room to run higher. And I'd take it a step further and say price inflation due to a weaker dollar is starting
to real hurt places like China and they are going to act by tightening monetary policy. You think this would be positive for the
yuan and push the dollar even lower. But when you tightening monetary policy credit contracts and economic activity contracts.
I do expect oil price to rollover and head back to $50-$55 might happen from a slightly higher price from here because of lag
time between when bond market signals rollover in inflation back into deflation and when prices start reacting to this.
REPLYEULENSPIEGEL IGNORED06/11/2021
at 10:07 am
This isn't your history bond market.
Inflation doesn't really matters, what only matters is the one big question: "How much bonds does the one market member with unlimited
funds buy?".
And the time the FED was able to rise more than .25% is in the rear mirror "" when they hike now, inflation or not, all these
zombie companies and zombie banks will fail and no lawyer in the world will be able to clean up the chaos after all these insolvency
filings.
They have to talk the way out of this inflation. They have to talk until it stops, or longer. They can't hike. They can perhaps
hike again when most of the debt is inflated away "" a period with 10+% inflation and 1% bond interrest.
And yes, they can buy litterally any bond dumped onto the market "" shown this in March last year when they stopped the corona
crash in an action of one week.
I think most non-investment-banks are zombies at the moment, and more than 20% of all companies. They all will fail in less than
1 year when we would have realistic interrest rates. On the dirty end, this would mean 10%+ for all this junk out there "" even mighty
EXXON will be downgraded to B fast.
In old times the FED rates would be more than 5% now with these inflation numbers. Nobody can pay this these days.
And now in the USA "" look for how much social justice and social security laws you'll get. The FED has to provide cover for all
of them.
We in Europe will do this, too. New green deal, new CO2 taxes, better social security "" the ECB already has said they will swallow
everything dumped on the market.
So, oil 100$ the next years "" but some kind of strange dollars buying less then they used to.
This is nonsense. They have Brent crude oil prices peaking, so far, in March 2025 at $164.11. And they have WTI peaking the same
month at $132.55, $32.56 lower. There is no way the spread could be that large. Also, they have natural gas prices dropping over
the same period. Just who the hell are these "Longforcast.com" people?
Disregard anything with "forecast" in the title. They don't have a time machine, and extrapolation is a horrible metric with dynamic
markets as complex as the energy ones.
Might as well show me the tea leaves or goat entrails and tell me the price on 11 June 2027.
REPLYSHALLOW SAND IGNORED06/11/2021
at 3:58 pm
Dennis Gartman is still considered a commodities expert.
He infamously said in 2016 that WTI would never be above $44 again in his lifetime. He is still alive last I knew.
Since I have owned working interests in oil wells (1997) I have sold oil for a low of $8 and a high of $140 per barrel. 6/14 oil
sold for $99.25 per barrel. 4/20 oil sold for $15.40 per barrel.
Predicting oil prices is impossible.
About the only oil price prediction I have had right so far is that if Biden won, oil prices would rebound. Of course, we can
argue about why that is, and if there is even any connection.
There are still no drilling rigs running in the field we operate in. There are still hundreds of production wells shut in. There
are still less than 10 workover rigs running in our field. The largest operator still has a help wanted sign up in front of its office.
We finally found one summer worker, he is still in high school, but thankfully covered by our workers comp. He cannot drive our trucks,
and is limited to painting, mowing, weed control, digging with a shovel, cleaning the shops and pump houses and other tasks like
those. That's ok, because we need that, but not being able to drive is a pain. But auto ins won't allow anyone under 21 to be covered.
REPLYIRON MIKE IGNORED06/11/2021
at 11:53 am
Yea Ron i agree with Kleiber, I wouldn't take anything on that site too seriously.
REPLYOVI IGNORED06/11/2021
at 1:34 pm
The IEA is now starting to sound warnings about supply. Last week they were telling the oil companies to stop exploring and to
move toward a renewable energy future.
IEA: OPEC needs to increase supply to keep global oil markets adequately supplied
In its monthly oil report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that global oil demand is set to return to pre-pandemic
levels by the end of 2022, rising by 5.4 million bpd in 2021 and by a further 3.1 million bpd next year. The OECD accounts for 1.3
million bpd of 2022 growth while non-OECD countries contribute 1.8 million bpd. Jet and kerosene demand will see the largest increase
( 1.5 million bpd year-on-year), followed by gasoline ( 660 000 bpd year-on-year) and gasoil/diesel ( 520 000 bpd year-on-year).
World oil supply is expected to grow at a faster rate in 2022, with the US driving gains of 1.6 million bpd from producers outside
the OPEC alliance. That leaves room for OPEC to boost crude oil production by 1.4 million bpd above its July 2021-March 2022 target
to meet demand growth. In 2021, oil output from non-OPEC is set to rise 710 000 bpd, while total oil supply from OPEC could increase
by 800 000 bpd if the bloc sticks with its existing policy.
(IEA) has said that global oil demand is set to return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022, rising by 5.4 million bpd
in 2021 and by a further 3.1 million bpd next year.
That comes to about 500,000 barrels per day monthly increase, every month until the end of 2022. I really don't believe that is
going to happen. No doubt most nations can increase production somewhat, but returning to pre-pandemic levels will be a herculean
task for most of them.
"... As bubbles peak, they combine objective signs of excess" prices rising much faster than earnings can justify" with subjective signs of mania, such as frenzied trading and borrowing. ..."
"... My research on the 10 biggest bubbles of the past century, from the US stock market in 1929 to Chinese shares in 2015, shows that prices typically rise 100 per cent in the year before the peak, with much of the gain packed into the climactic last months. That finding is closely in line with bubble studies from academics at Harvard and others. ..."
"... By those standards, there are at least five current bubblets. They include the cryptocurrency market for bitcoin and ethereum; clean energy stocks, including some of the biggest names in electric vehicles; small cap stocks, including many of the hottest pandemic stories; a basket of tech stocks that lack earnings, which is also chock-a-block with famous brands; and special purpose acquisition companies (Spacs) , which allow investors a new way to buy into private firms before they go public. ..."
"... The historical bubbles in my study did suffer midcourse setbacks on the way up, but typically those corrections were around 25 per cent and never more than 35 per cent. Beyond that point" a 35 per cent drop" the bubbles in my sample became monophasic, or stuck on a one-way downhill path. ..."
"... It is important to remember that a bubble is often a good idea gone too far. In the early 2000s, the conventional wisdom was that the dotcom bubble had fuelled mainly junk companies with business plans barely worth the napkins they were written on. Later, researchers found that, compared with other bubbles, those in the tech sector produce many start-ups that fail but also help launch major innovations. For every few dozen dotcom flame-outs, there was a giant survivor such as Google or Amazon that would go on to make the economy more productive. ..."
As bubbles peak,
they combine objective signs of excess" prices rising much faster than earnings can justify"
with subjective signs of mania, such as frenzied trading and borrowing.
To some the entire US
stock market looks bubbly given its dizzying run-up, but earnings growth has also been
extraordinarily strong through the pandemic. Beneath the surface, however, sectors of the
market from green tech to cryptocurrency show tell-tale bubble signs.
My research on the 10 biggest bubbles of the past century, from the US stock market in 1929
to Chinese shares in 2015, shows that prices typically rise 100 per cent in the year before the
peak, with much of the gain packed into the climactic last months. That finding is closely in
line with bubble studies from academics at Harvard and others.
By those standards, there are at least five current bubblets. They include the
cryptocurrency market for bitcoin and ethereum; clean energy stocks, including some of the
biggest names in electric vehicles; small cap stocks, including many of the hottest pandemic
stories; a basket of tech stocks that lack earnings, which is also chock-a-block with famous
brands; and special purpose acquisition
companies (Spacs) , which allow investors a new way to buy into private firms before they
go public.
Each of these bubblets is captured in an index that rose in the last year by around 100 per
cent, often much more, to a peak value between $500bn and $2.5tn. Day traders and other newbies
rushed in, a common symptom of late stage market manias. Now these bubbles are faltering, as
they so often do, in response to increases in long-term interest rates. What's next?
The historical bubbles in my study did suffer midcourse setbacks on the way up, but
typically those corrections were around 25 per cent and never more than 35 per cent. Beyond
that point" a 35 per cent drop" the bubbles in my sample became monophasic, or stuck on a
one-way downhill path.
For the median case, the bottom was found 70 per cent below the peak, and came just over two
years after the peak. Except for the index of small-cap pandemic stocks, the other four bubble
candidates have all experienced drops of at least 35 per cent, but also of no more than 50 per
cent (in the case of ethereum). In other words, they are not likely to resume inflating any
time soon, and they are still far from the typical bottom.
There is one new factor that could upset this historical pattern. Despite the rise in
long-term interest rates, there is plenty of liquidity sloshing around the markets, with
central banks committed to easy money as never before. The risks though are skewed to the
downside.
It is important to remember that a bubble is often a good idea gone too far. In the early
2000s, the conventional wisdom was that the dotcom bubble had fuelled mainly junk companies
with business plans barely worth the napkins they were written on. Later, researchers found
that, compared with other bubbles, those in the tech sector produce many start-ups that fail
but also help launch major innovations. For every few dozen dotcom flame-outs, there was a
giant survivor such as Google or Amazon that would go on to make the economy more
productive.
"... Just in time for Pride Month, a new exchange traded fund aims to connect with LGBTQ investors. ..."
"... LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings partners with Harris Poll to annually survey 150,000 self-identifying LGBTQ constituents across the U.S. for their views about a company's brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and how the firm supports the community. As noted in its prospectus , 25% of the index's weighting is derived from that survey data. ..."
Just in time for Pride Month, a new exchange traded fund aims to connect with LGBTQ investors. Two previous efforts failed to
attract enough assets.
The fund, LGBTQ + ESG100 ETF LGBT,
, launched in late May, is a passively managed, large-cap index fund that holds the top 100 U.S. companies that most align with
the LGBTQ community.
In 2019, two LGBTQ-focused ETFs were delisted: ALPS Workplace Equality Portfolio ETF and InsightShares LGBT Employment Equality
ETFs. Like this new fund, both were mostly U.S. large-cap, passive index ETFs comprising companies that received high or perfect
marks for workplace equality in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality
Index , a benchmark for corporate LGBTQ policies.
The first ETF stuck around for five years, but the second barely made it two years, even though it was launched with much fanfare
by UBS. Neither gained many assets.
Bobby Blair, CEO and founder of LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings, which launched the fund with issuer ProcureAM, says community input on
holdings makes this fund different.
LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings partners with Harris Poll to annually survey 150,000 self-identifying LGBTQ constituents across the U.S.
for their views about a company's brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and how the firm supports the community. As noted in
its prospectus
, 25% of the index's weighting is derived from that survey data.
... the LGBTQ + ESG100 has an annual expense ratio of 0.75%.
David Milliken and Kate Holton Sat, June 5, 2021, 4:01 AM
...Hundreds of billions of dollars could flow into the coffers of governments left
cash-strapped by the COVID-19 pandemic after the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies agreed
to back a minimum global corporate tax rate of at least 15%.
Facebook said it expected it would have to pay more tax, in more countries, as a result of
the deal, which comes after eight years of talks that gained fresh impetus in recent months
after proposals from U.S. President Joe Biden's new administration.
"G7 finance ministers have reached a historic agreement to reform the global tax system to
make it fit for the global digital age," British finance minister Rishi Sunak said after
chairing a two-day meeting in London.
The meeting, hosted at an ornate 19th-century mansion near Buckingham Palace in central
London, was the first time finance ministers have met face-to-face since the start of the
pandemic.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the "significant, unprecedented commitment" would
end what she called a race to the bottom on global taxation. German finance minister Olaf Scholz said the deal was "bad news for tax havens around the
world". Yellen also saw the G7 meeting as marking a return to multilateralism under Biden and a
contrast to the approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, who alienated many U.S. allies. "What I've seen during my time at this G7 is deep collaboration and a desire to coordinate
and address a much broader range of global problems," she said.
Ministers also agreed to move towards making companies declare their environmental impact in
a more standard way so investors can decided more easily whether to fund them, a key goal for
Britain.
... ... ...
Key details remain to be negotiated over the coming months. Saturday's agreement says only
"the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises" would be affected.
... ... ...
The G7 includes the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and
Canada.
Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang
with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but
introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
Replay Unmute Duration 0:22 / Current Time 0:22
Loaded : 100.00% Fullscreen Up Next Replay the list
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.464.0_en.html#goog_652049397 The World Now
Officially Has Five Oceans UP NEXT Kevin Connolly and girlfriend welcome daughter Edge Of The
World: Going Up River Political leaders arrive in Cornwall for G7 summit French president
Emmanuel Macron slapped in face during visit to town The G7 summit: What you need to know
Awake: Gina Rodriguez On What Drew Her To The Film Awake: Lucius Hoya On How He Prepared For
His Role NOW PLAYING
I did not know it then, but I've since learned from Michael Lewis's (mostly terrible) book
The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for
George W. Bush's White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of
influence "" serving an apocalyptic president" he was the driving force for a dramatic change
in U.S. policy during pandemics.
He literally unleashed hell.
That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying
that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put
Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in
the name of disease containment.
I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little
did I know, we were in for a wild ride"¦
The Man Who Lit the Match
Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument.
He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was
wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only
choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called
brutal. So on it went.
The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting
his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?
The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people
(along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.
There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya's voice. He saw the awesome thing
he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was
trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.
This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and
YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It's been censorship from the
beginning.
For all the problems with Lewis's book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory
right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some
imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan" make a threat assessment, distribute
therapeutics, work toward a vaccine" he was furious.
"This is bulls**t," the president yelled.
"We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And
travel? And commerce?"
Hey, if the president wants a plan, he'll get a plan.
"We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat," Venkayya
reports having told colleagues.
"We were going to invent pandemic planning."
This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.
Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent
of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to
help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator
working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Cranks, Computers, and Cooties
His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less
knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his
14-year-old daughter was working on.
She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space
themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick.
Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders,
travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.
Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this
convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, "Why didn't these epidemiologists figure it out?"
They didn't figure it out because they didn't have tools that were focused on the problem. They
had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to
stop them.
Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public
health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some
people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became
Glass's apostle.
Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis's book: "If you got
everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn't let them talk to anyone, you
would not have any disease."
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease" and human life as we know it too! As
preposterous and terrifying as this is "" a whole society not only in jail but solitary
confinement" it sums up the whole of Mecher's view of disease. It's also completely wrong.
Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each
other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them.
That's 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn't have a clue.
Fanatics Win the Day
Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close
schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost risk to people
under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any
serious way.
Didn't matter. Mecher's models" developed with Glass and others" kept spitting out a
conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I've read his memos
from this period" some of them still not public" and what you observe is not science but
ideological fanaticism in play.
Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much.
Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?
There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in
reality that school closures had been part of "pandemic planning" for the better part of 15
years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition.
Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism
prevailed.
Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy
lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we
now have a first draft of history.
As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause
prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of
vengeance will burn very hot.
The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane
people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.
Nicholas Megaw in London Sun, June 6, 2021, 8:00 PM
The UK's competition regulator has been accused of "putting foxes in charge of the henhouse"
after asking the banking industry's own lobby group to design a supervisory body to combat the
dominance of big banks. Dozens of organisations including fintech start-ups, established tech
groups like Experian and Equifax, consumer representatives and a cross-party group of MPs have
raised concerns over the Competition and Markets Authority's plan to use proposals drawn up by
UK Finance as the basis for a consultation on the future of so-called open banking rules. Open
banking forces banks to share valuable customer data with other financial services providers,
allowing smaller firms to make faster lending decisions or offer new services such as budgeting
tools.
China's Foreign Ministry blasted the resurgent interest in the Covid-19 lab-origin theory,
noting that the journalist behind a report about Wuhan scientists falling ill is the same one
who peddled lies that led to the Iraq War.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin took aim at Michael R. Gordon, a national
security correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and one of the authors of the report that
added fuel to speculation about Covid-19's lab origin.
"Not long ago, Michael R. Gordon, an American journalist, by quoting a so-called
"˜previously undisclosed US intelligence report,' hinted [at] a far-fetched connection
between the "˜three sick staff' at the Wuhan lab and the Covid-19 outbreak," Wang said
at a briefing on Friday.
"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing
unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which
directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.
The WSJ
piece , published on May 23, cites "a previously undisclosed US intelligence report" as
saying that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell seriously ill in
November 2019 with symptoms "consistent" with Covid-19 as well as a seasonal flu.
The report got picked up by other mainstream media, which recently began shifting their
coverage on Covid-19's origins from outright dismissing theories that the virus was man-made
to admitting that a lab leak remains a possibility.
Furthermore, I wouldn't personally point to Gordon as the source for the "Wuhan Lab Leak
Hypothesis" "" I would point to the Jewish neocon Josh Rogin.
Rogin, like Gordon, spent years promoting various atrocity hoaxes in the Middle East and
pushing wars for Israel, and is the original source for the version of the "Wuhan Lab theory,"
that is currently circulating, writing a
Washington Post column promoting the hoax on April 14, 2020.
The point of course is that everywhere you look, there are neocons "" most of them Jewish ""
promoting this Wuhan Lab stuff. They are the absolute source of the claim "" they and a Falun
Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman, Li-Meng Yan.
She is claiming to be a "whistleblower," despite the fact that she in no way meets the
definition of that term. The term necessarily implies insider knowledge "" usually, a
whistleblower is an employee or former employee of the organization they are blowing the
whistle on.
Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that she
worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in Hong Kong
when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the supposed
coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.
Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from China
for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now the real
ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.
While they were on the boat in front of the Statue of Liberty saying they were going to
"overthrow the government of China," they flew planes around with signs announcing their new
government.
No one understood what was going on, and even Fox News
reported on "confusion" regarding the banners and the livestream on the boat. The
livestream has since been deleted, and there is no news from the Federal State of New China.
But there is a Wikipedia page documenting this
incredibly strange event.
Guo also runs a fake news website (I use that term in the most literal sense) where he
published the Hunter Biden footjob videos.
The point is: this is a very weird operation, and it is absurd to take a person funded by
these people seriously, as Tucker Carlson shamefully has.
(I'm not attacking Tucker over this, he's overall great and is sometimes just really slow on
the uptake, unfortunately "" but it is shameful to get involved with a Hong Kong woman who was
literally given money by Steve Bannon and his "Federation of New China" group to write a fake
science paper.)
To pretend that she is a whistleblower, to pretend that political organizations funding
papers with a predetermined outcome is serious science, is non-serious behavior.
The first time I heard the Wuhan lab leak theory it was being promoted by neocon extremist
Tom Cotton. It was then promoted by neocon extremist Mike Pompeo, who was then in the process
of trying to start a war with China. Now, it is being promoted by the Jews of CNN.
There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese lab
who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all of
these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the government of
China" (his words) to be his goal.
It's very obvious to see how people who want a war with China would use this hoax, and it is
great that China is making the link to the Iraqi WMD hoax. It truly is the same thing.
The United States is a country with a lot of problems. None of those problems are the fault
of China. China is not promoting gay sex to children, they are not flooding us with millions of
brown people, they did not steal our election, they did not take all of our freedoms and
collapse the economy.
Our enemies are domestic and they are Jewish. Any attempt to fear-monger and attack China is
intended as a distraction from what is going on in this country, and intended to stoke a
war.
Furthermore, this "lab leak" nonsense is designed to get people to continue to believe in
this coronavirus hoax.
Though none of the media promoting her says it outright, there is an implication that
she worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She did not. She worked at a university in
Hong Kong when she was funded by Steve Bannon to write a paper making the claim that the
supposed coronavirus is a Chinese bioweapon.
Bannon has recently been associated with Guo Wengui, a billionaire who was exiled from
China for fraud and various crimes. In June of last year, Bannon declared that Guo is now
the real ruler of China in a bizarre video on a boat.
This style of presentation is updated "internet culture" gonzo that stands on the
shoulders of Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, and in a sense Mark Twain.
That fact that today's Anglospheric system no longer has a place within itself for this
type of "dominant narrative-jamming" creativity, and to write like this means one has chosen
to become a hunted outcast, means this culture is in a death spiral. It's no longer a
self-renewing organism, but simply a collection of isolated biomass units used and thrown
away by the masters.
"Nineteen years ago, it was this very reporter who concocted false information by citing
unsubstantiated sources about Iraq's "˜attempt to acquire nuclear weapons,' which
directly led to the Iraq War," he charged, referring to the 2003 US invasion.
Either the neo-cons thought no one would notice or the noe-cons didn't notice
themselves.
I'm leaning towards the latter, especially with sloppy drunk Steve Bannon and a "Falun
Gong Hong Kong CIA feminist woman" in the mix. Is this really the best they can do?
These times we're living in are absolutely surreal. Not surprised though, we've been doing
this for a long time now. Alas, a great many of my fellow White Americans will fall for it
completely & be all in for a war with China. None of them ever even contemplating what
that would mean for us & the world. But, these are the same people who boast "we're
number one" when we rank at or near the bottom in positive stats for all developed nations,
beset with crippling societal ills. The same people who think we can vote ourselves out of
this mess & Trump will win in "˜24 & somehow save the day. The same people who
think our best days are ahead when our productivity base has been utterly gutted, our
infrastructure is collapsing & our ability to maintain it & the skill set needed to
sustain that productivity/infrastructure is slipping away. The same people who boast of "muh
freedoms" when their freedoms & their children's future is being pulled from right under
their feet. The same people who think we'll always be on top even when every example of
history shows that every empire in history has collapsed. We're racing toward a cliff but
they still think "god" is on their side & won't let it happen or we'll stay on top
because, well, "we're America"..
Utter denial & abject delusion seem to be a central aspect of our people..
" There is no one involved in claiming that the supposed coronavirus came from a Chinese
lab who doesn't have vested interests in starting a war with the Chinese. This goes for all
of these Jews, as well as Steve Bannon, who has actually declared "overthrowing the
government of China" (his words) to be his goal."
" History often repeats itself, first as a tragedy and second as a farce"
Karl Marx.
The tragedy of the WMD of Iraq follows many other tragedies that got young Americans to
spill their blood for the sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers. The
farce of " China spread the Corona virus will the biggest tragedy to hit America if the
waning bald eagle tries to poke the rising dragon.
Andrew Anglin, is one of the few American journalists who stand boldly for the truth. Not
bad for someone labelled a Neo Nazi by Wikipedia.
"The problem of empires is that they think they are so powerful that they can afford
small inaccuracies and mistakes. "But problems keep piling up. And, at some point, they are
no longer able to cope with them. And the United States is now walking the Soviet Union's
path, and its gait is confident and steady."
The current consensus that Covid was likely a Wuhan lab leak was triggered by an article
by Nicholas Wade, a former science writer for the NY Times and an impeccably
establishmentarian journalist. Previous attempts by right wingers or maverick scientists to
advance this hypothesis were ignored or scorned by the establishment press. Wade could not be
so easily dismissed. His article, plus the release of emails by Fauci acknowledging the
possibility of a lab-created virus (which he publicly ridiculed) and the revelation that
Fauci had funded bat research at Wuhan, have changed the game entirely. My own suspicion is
that the Biden administration is preparing to throw Fauci under the bus and has signaled the
press that he is now fair game. He has served his purpose and can now be used as a scapegoat.
It is unlikely that the Wuhan release will ever be definitively proven. It is more important
to realize that this research is not restricted to Wuhan or China and that steps should be
taken to shut down all such research world-wide, including the USA, lest we have a succession
of these disasters.
The USA has been using bio-warfare for 200 years plus and can NEVER be trusted not to
carry on such research. It controls c.200 labs, worldwide, where research into pathogens and
vectors, particularly arthropods, and the collection of pathogens, is carried out. It used
biological agents in Korea in the early 50s, and against Cuba (African Swine Fever and
dengue) in the 70s, and God knows where else, and against its own people, most infamously the
Tuskegee syphilis abomination. And it is responsible for SARS CoV2, you can be sure.
The West has been trying to bring down China since they tried to turn them all into opium
addicts. Americans were complicit with the British in this and many of the so-called deep
state players made their money from the opium trade. Apparently the same families control the
present day drugs trade and the laundering of the profits from it; the so-called drug cartels
are mostly minor actors well below those who run the operation at the top. Members of the
cartels are often sacrificed but those at the top remain the same.
@Ber t we have is the Josh Hawley demand to declassify everything related to Covid from
day-1, and since he made that proposal, it has been crickets from everyone else, which is
again indicative that no one in the power elite has any incentive or goal to do more than
batter their usual targets.
All that said "" the best practices at this stage of overwhelming deception is to start
with what we can in fact establish and prove as actual plain fact, and proceed from there. If
you start from what you suspect or theorize, you will soon be enmeshed in fevered
propositions ("missiles hit the pentagon on 9/11") that crap all over the genuine facts and
do nothing but hand-craft a made-to-order, wild goose chase. This is very welcome by those
who want to control the entire denouement, to serve their own agenda.
"¦ many other tragedies that got young Americans to spill their blood for the
sake of special interests making a killing as war profiteers.
Agree the main thrust of your post, Joe.
It is also worth remembering that very many innocent souls in countries across the world
have been going about their daily lives when they were attacked, maimed and killed, their
houses destroyed, infrastructure wrecked etc by those same young Americans. Some countries at
this very hour are occupied and are being looted by the same.
Perhaps not a comfortable thought for Americans to add in as they see their country now
descending into certifiable lunacy.
But what goes around does have a habit of coming around, sooner or later.
@Anon t Ron Unz has been saying from the beginning. If you look at it geostrategically,
this is most plausible conclusion. They released the virus in China but those who created it
suffered a massive blowback and even worse China came out of it even stronger than ever
before. They were hoping China would crumble but instead got stronger while they weakened.
That's why they are fanning out a major Anti-China propaganda campaign to contain her now
openly with an overwhelming support of western citizens. This frenziness displayed by western
politicians is the reflection that China is on the verge an unstoppable economic powerhouse
within a few years and they need to put the brakes right now. It is an implicit admission of
desperation. The tussle between China and the US is going to dramatically intensify.
A country can't bring another country down by giving it "Most Favored Nation Trading
Status".
Then sending all it's major corporations there to make big deals.
And how has it served the United States where practically every item, pill in the US is
"Made in China"?
The American people were sold out decades ago in order for the 1% and their Congressional
lackeys to make major bucks. We were even working with them to create a deadly virus!
"Over the past five years, the S&P 500 stock index has more than doubled. For the past
10 years, it has nearly quadrupled," says Orman. "If you have left your portfolios on
autopilot, that could likely mean that you now own more stock than you intend to, or
should."
Left to their own devices, your increasingly valuable stocks may have started to account for
an even larger portion of your account
... ... ...
Orman cites a recent analysis from Fidelity Investments on the retirement plans the company
handles. Fidelity estimates about 20% of savers own more stock than they'd recommend for
someone of their age.
Whereas climate change issues are the presumptive reasons behind the latest wave of investor revolts at the oil and gas giants,
lurking beneath the surface is a growing sense of apprehension about Big Oil's strategy and failure to generate adequate returns for
shareholders in recent decades.
The naked truth is that Exxon and its cohorts have severely underperformed the broader market over the last two decades in terms of
total returns to shareholders, implying the sector's woes are long-term and strategic rather than short-term and cyclical.
Chronic underperformance
XOM
Source: CNN Money
Big Oil's underperformance relative to the market is clearly evident whether you are looking at 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, or even
20-year timespans.
For instance, since 2015, Exxon shares have returned a -2.5% compound annual loss based on share prices and dividends, a far cry
from the average annual gain of +14.4% by the
S&P 500
over the timeframe.
Over the past two decades, Exxon's compound annual return has clocked in at +4.2%, still considerably lower than the broad market
benchmark's return of +7.1%.
... ... ...
Exxon is hardly alone, with none of its peers, including Chevron,
Royal Dutch Shell
(NYSE:RDS.A),
BP
Inc.
(NYSE:BP), and
Total
(NYSE:TOT) coming close to matching the returns by
the broader share market over the past decade.
In fact, on an inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar basis, returns by Exxon, Shell, and BP have been negative over the past five years, a
period which coincided with the biggest bull market in the history of the stock market.
The renewable energy conundrum
You cannot blame the oil majors for continuing to engage in a lot of hand-wringing at a time when investors are demanding they pump
less oil and transition to cleaner energy.
For the oil majors, successfully transitioning to green energy companies is not going to be a walk in the park because these
companies have to ride two horses.
That's the case because the majority are already battling dwindling cash flows which means they cannot afford to gamble with
whatever little is left. Oil prices have been on a downtrend since 2014, a situation that has only worsened during the pandemic.
Oil and gas firms are still grappling with the best way to presently use dwindling cash flows; in effect, they are still weighing
whether it's worthwhile to at least partially reinvent themselves as renewables businesses while also determining which low-carbon
energy markets offer the most attractive future returns.
Most renewable ventures, like solar and wind projects, tend to churn out cash flows akin to annuities for several decades after
initial up-front capital expenditure with generally low price risk as opposed to their current models with faster payback but high
oil price risk. With the need to generate quick shareholder returns, some fossil fuel companies have actually been scaling back
their clean energy investments.
Energy companies are also faced with another conundrum: Diminishing returns from their clean energy investments.
A
paper
published in Science Direct
last August says that dramatic reductions in the cost of wind and solar have been leading to an even
bigger reduction in revenue inflows leading to falling profits. This is particularly true for wind energy as later deployments of
wind usually have lower market value than earlier ones due to wind energy revenue declining more rapidly than cost reductions. Solar
is more resilient, with technological progress approximately balancing out the revenue degradation, which perhaps explains why
solar
stocks have gone ballistic.
Adding wind and solar to our grid tends to reduce electricity prices during peak generation times: Indeed, electricity prices in
California can come down to zero during long sunny durations. This was not a problem for early deployments but is becoming a major
concern as renewables increasingly play a bigger part in our electricity generation mix.
But, ultimately, Big Oil will have to take the plunge and engage in drastic internal restructuring and product cycle transitions
even as activists like Engine No.1 promise to continue turning the screw. As Charlie Penner of Engine No.1 has told
FT
, the
energy transition is happening faster than expected and has undermined Big Oil's assumptions about long-term demand for its oil.
"The bots' mission: To deliver restaurant meals cheaply and efficiently, another leap in
the way food comes to our doors and our tables." The semiautonomous vehicles were
engineered by Kiwibot, a company started in 2017 to game-change the food delivery
landscape...
In May, Kiwibot sent a 10-robot fleet to Miami as part of a nationwide pilot program
funded by the Knight Foundation. The program is driven to understand how residents and
consumers will interact with this type of technology, especially as the trend of robot
servers grows around the country.
And though Broward County is of interest to Kiwibot, Miami-Dade County officials jumped
on board, agreeing to launch robots around neighborhoods such as Brickell, downtown Miami and
several others, in the next couple of weeks...
"Our program is completely focused on the residents of Miami-Dade County and the way
they interact with this new technology. Whether it's interacting directly or just sharing
the space with the delivery bots,"
said Carlos Cruz-Casas, with the county's Department of Transportation...
Remote supervisors use real-time GPS tracking to monitor the robots. Four cameras are
placed on the front, back and sides of the vehicle, which the supervisors can view on a
computer screen. [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and
in-field team looking for the robot."] If crossing the street is necessary, the robot
will need a person nearby to ensure there is no harm to cars or pedestrians. The plan is to
allow deliveries up to a mile and a half away so robots can make it to their destinations in
30 minutes or less.
Earlier Kiwi tested its sidewalk-travelling robots around the University of California at
Berkeley, where
at least one of its robots burst into flames . But the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In
about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000
deliveries...
"Kiwibot now offers their robotic delivery services in other markets such as Los Angeles
and Santa Monica by working with the Shopify app to connect businesses that want to employ
their robots." But while delivery fees are normally $3, this new Knight Foundation grant "is
making it possible for Miami-Dade County restaurants to sign on for free."
A video
shows the reactions the sidewalk robots are getting from pedestrians on a sidewalk, a dog
on a leash, and at least one potential restaurant customer looking forward to no longer
having to tip human food-delivery workers.
...Analysts at Goldman Sachs""in October""ran the numbers on the stock market impact of
previous capital-gains tax hikes. While there is only a modest impact on the stock market as a
whole, momentum stocks usually get socked before they are levied, they found. That makes
sense""investors logically are more motivated to sell the stocks where they would save the most
by avoiding higher capital-gains taxes.
The last time capital-gains taxes were hiked, in 2013, the wealthiest households sold 1% of
their equity assets, the Goldman analysts found. According to the
Federal Reserve's distributional financial account data , the top 1% held $17.79 trillion
of equities and mutual funds in the fourth quarter of 2020""so a 1% selling of stocks this time
would be $178 billion. (The most recent Internal Revenue Service breakdown, from 2018, found
that millionaires accounted for just over 500,000 filers or about 0.4% of the total.)
Marching in ideological lockstep is less forgivable in a society where one has a choice in
the matter.
...In this country, scientists, bureaucrats, journalists and executives of Big Tech
companies suppressed the story not out of fear of imprisonment or death, but of their own
volition, out of ideological or even venal motives. You may well ask: Whose culpability is
greater?
It's not simply that the lab-leak theory was "debunked," as news organizations repeatedly
told us when anyone tried to raise it a year ago. It wasn't even permitted to be considered.
Discussion of the topic was deliberately extinguished on tech platforms, in the respectable
scientific journals and in newsrooms.
...Thanks to a recent release of emails under the Freedom of Information Act, we now know
that some of the scientists dismissing the idea had themselves expressed concerns that the
zoonotic explanation they were publicly championing might not be right. We also know that in
the case of the Lancet letter
, some of the correspondents were involved in similar research and had a strong professional
interest in denying the possibility of an engineered virus.
...Last year, many scientists beclowned themselves by bowing to the prevailing political
pieties with their absurd assertion that taking part in protests on behalf of Black Lives
Matter was literally salubrious, whereas taking part in protests against lockdowns was lethally
reckless.
If too many American scientists failed to help us get a proper understanding of the origins
of Covid, they seem to have been abetted by like-minded people in the permanent bureaucracy.
Emails to and from Anthony Fauci uncovered last week show that while there were some genuinely
diligent officials determined to get to the truth, too many in positions of power seemed keen
to stamp out a proper investigation.
As Katherine Eban
reported in Vanity Fair last week, officials from two separate bureaus in the State
Department warned against a proper investigation for fear of opening a "can of worms."
Again we have good grounds to suspect that officials in a bureaucracy that had already
undermined Donald Trump's presidency with baseless allegations about Russian collusion seemed
intent on suppressing any suggestion, however well-supported it might be, that Trump officials
might be right about a critical issue of state.
Yet the largest responsibility for the failure to consider in a timely fashion the lab-leak
theory lies with the media.
Journalists were once marked by their curiosity. Now the only thing that's curious about
many of them is their lack of curiosity when a story doesn't fit their priors.
...It seems increasingly likely that Chinese officials mishandled research and
misrepresented and misinformed the public. But they did so under pain of punishment, even
death, in a system designed to suppress that kind of information.
In this country, constitutionally protected, free and independent scientists, bureaucrats,
journalists and others did the same. What's their excuse?
"... As I argued three weeks ago, this sentiment pattern suggests that the market may remain in a fairly narrow range for the next several months. ..."
"... be on the lookout for when the market timers remain bullish in the face of declines, or bearish in the wake of rallies. That will indicate that a bigger decline or rally is in store. ..."
"... In the meantime, the market timers' behavior suggests both market rallies and declines will be subdued. That's good news to the extent you were worried that a major new bear market is about to begin, but bad news if you were hoping for a more sustained rally. ..."
This quick jumping onto and off of the bullish and bearish bandwagons has become the new
normal, as you can see from the table below.
... ... ...
As I argued three weeks ago, this sentiment pattern suggests that the market may remain
in a fairly narrow range for the next several months. The contrarian bet is that the
market will finally break out of that trading range whenever the market timers stubbornly hold
onto their sentiment beliefs in the face of the market moving in the opposite direction.
That is, be on the lookout for when the market timers remain bullish in the face of
declines, or bearish in the wake of rallies. That will indicate that a bigger decline or rally
is in store.
In the meantime, the market timers' behavior suggests both market rallies and declines
will be subdued. That's good news to the extent you were worried that a major new bear market
is about to begin, but bad news if you were hoping for a more sustained rally.
... ... ...
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks
investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at [email protected] .
Job gains in May were led by leisure and hospitality, with the sector adding 292,000 jobs.
Payrolls grew by
559,000 last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, up from a revised 278,000 in
April, which marked a sharp drop from March's figure.
The labor recovery has slowed from earlier in the year -- in March, the economy added
785,000 jobs
... The labor-force participation rate, the share of adults working or looking for work,
edged slightly lower in May to 61.6%, down from 63.3% in February 2020.
Republicans, always eager to snatch the bread from the mouths of the poor, are blaming
unemployment benefits for the reluctance of workers to return to jobs. In some red states,
they already are snatching it.
But more men are returning to work than are women. Doesn't that prove that unemployment
benefits are not holding back former workers?
I'll bet more women will return to work in September, after schools start up in-person
classes.
William Lamb
Republican turn a blind on helping people, except themselves. They would rather have one
being a slave and get pay less then nothing with little perks in making less then high
quality item that will still have defects, even if we pride our workmanship that is suppose
to equal to none. It would like being in 1950s, when there was not much world competition,
when world economy was still recovering from WW2.
I guessed Republican want American to continue working by low paying wages so they can
enrich themselves, and show that America can still produce things with slave wages.
johm moore
Most of the jobs are insufficient to support a reasonable quality of life. A job today is
about like a half a job pre-NAFTA and the job export process in terms of the quality of life
that it supports.
Bryson Marsh
If UI was holding back employment, then why are we adding so many low wage jobs? The missing
jobs are in *middle income* sectors.
David Chait
I wouldn't call people returning to work "new" jobs, that just seems disingenuous.
rich ullsmith
Asset prices rise when the jobs report is lukewarm. Thank you, Federal Reserve. May I have
another.
Sam Trotter
It should be made mandatory to publish the offered wage/rate. I see so many fake jobs posted
on LinkedIn with no description of bill rate for contract positions or Base+Bonus for
Full-Time roles. Too many mass scam messages.
The percentage of people quitting their jobs, meanwhile, also rose to a record 2.8% among
private-sector workers. That's a full percentage point higher than a year ago, when the
so-called quits rate fell to a seven-year low.
...A recent study by Bank of America, for example, found that job switchers earned an extra
13% in wages from their new positions. That's a big chunk of money.
...Normally people who quit their jobs are ineligible for unemployment benefits, but they
can get an exemption in many states for health, safety or child-care reasons.
About half of the states, all led by Republican governors, plan to stop giving out the
federal benefit by early July to push people back into the labor force. Economists will be
watching closely to see how many people go back to work.
If nothing else, this scenario will lead to a radical reshaping of how we as a species go
about doing logistics. If the pandemic hasn't called into question the application of JIT
logistics for all industries, then the loss of cheap diesel certainly will. Even if long haul
electric trucks become a thing, it will require a different approach to matters.
Cars are otherwise a solved issue with EVs. There's nothing that an ICE can really offer
over an EV. Trucking and heavy industry is another matter, and that's where problems will be.
Frankly, I welcome this uprooting of a paradigm that has no resilience built in whatsoever.
There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate problems due to declining oil
production. When it comes to SA, they can start using natural gas from Ghawar or Qatar to
replace fuel oil for power generation during especially summer.
Okay, first point: Qatar has plenty of natural gas. The problem is they are in a feud with
Saudi and they do not trade with each other:
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations. The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited
political differences with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Second point: Saudi does not have nearly enough natural gas to power their own power plants
and desalination plants:
New York CNN Business --
Saudi Arabia has placed a huge bet on American natural gas.
In a sign of shifting energy fortunes, Saudi Aramco announced a mega preliminary
agreement on Wednesday to buy 5 million tons of liquefied natural gas per year from a Port
Arthur, Texas export project that's under development.
If completed, the purchase from San Diego-based Sempra Energy (SRE) would be one of the
largest LNG deals ever signed, according to consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
But this may change. Saudi is desperate for natural gas and this has led them to try to make
amends with Qatar:
(CNN)Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies agreed on Tuesday to restore diplomatic relations
with Qatar and restart flights to and from the country, ending a three-year boycott of the tiny
gas-rich nation.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations.
The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited political differences
with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Doha, unlike its Gulf neighbors, has friendly
relations with Tehran, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has hosted groups
affiliated with the Islamist group.
Qatar's only land border -- which it shares with Saudi Arabia -- was sealed shut.
Boycotting countries closed their airspace to Qatar, and nearby Bahrain and the UAE closed
their maritime borders to ships carrying the Qatari flag.
REPLYRATIONALLUDDITE IGNORED
06/08/2021 at 8:29 pm
Fantastic Ron. Too many people practising truth by assertion and liar's bluff / wishful
thinking. They won't change, but you persuade others whom are genuinely seeking the truth and
can distinguish between evidence supported logic and security blanket speculation.
SA is going to end badly, as too will fever dreams that don't realise that their electric
transition is a mirage – largely it's all fossil fuels in disguise and totally parasitic
on upon the peak energy infrastructure of previous and current fossil fuel excess calories.
We may have an Electric Middle Ages (Ugo Bardi), but unless a new energy source AT LEAST as
energy dense and net positive as FF is discovered like yesterday then this lovely wealth Blip
we all enjoyed is going away.
The media is buzzing with claims of an "Economic Boom" in 2021. While the economy will most
certainly grow in 2021, the question is how much is already "baked in?"
"The economy has entered a period of supercharged growth. Instead of fizzling, it could
potentially remain stronger than it was during the pre-pandemic era into 2023.
Economists now expect the second quarter to grow at a pace of 10%, and they expect growth
for 2021 to be north of 6.5%. In the past decade, only a few quarters gross domestic product
growing at even 3%."
The premise is that strong "pent up" demand will sustain the economic recovery over the next
few years.
However, since market lows in 2020, the market surge has not only recouped all of those
losses but has rocketed to all-time highs on expectations of surging earnings growth.
"Vaccines and herd immunity continue to bring COVID cases down, and the economic reopening
continues to kick into a higher gear. Such is what the data is starting to show. Across
economic metrics, from the gross domestic product ( GDP ) to retail sales and job growth, boom
conditions are evident ."
She is correct in her statement. However, there is a difference between an "economic boom"
and a "recovery." As shown in the chart of GDP growth below, the U.S. has already experienced a
very sharp "economic recovery" from the recessionary lows. (I have included estimates for the
rest of 2020, which shows a return to trend growth.)
The following chart shows the economic recovery against the massive dumps of liquidity
pumped into the economy. (Estimates run through the end of 2021 using economist's
assumptions.)
Can't Recoup Losses
Certain areas of the economy, like airlines, hotels, and cruise ships, have yet to recover
to pre-pandemic levels. However, those industries only make up a relatively small amount of
overall economic activity. Furthermore, these industries will continue to struggle for some
time as individuals will not take "two vacations" this year since they missed last year. That
activity is now forever lost.
Yes, the economy will recover most likely to pre-pandemic levels this year due to stimulus
injections, but as
discussed previously , what then?
"The biggest problem with more stimulus is the increase in the debt required to fund it.
There is no historical precedent, anywhere globally, that shows increased debt levels lead to
more robust economic growth rates or prosperity. Since 1980, the overall increase in debt has
surged to levels that currently usurp the entirety of economic growth. With economic growth
rates now at the lowest levels on record, the change in debt continues to divert more tax
dollars away from productive investments into the service of debt and social welfare."
Just as it is with investing, getting "back to even" is not the same thing as "organic
growth."
"In calculus, the second derivative , or the second-order derivative , of a function f is
the derivative of the derivative of f." – Wikipedia.
In English, the "second derivative" measures how the rate of change of a quantity is itself
changing. Since we measure GDP growth on an annual rate of change basis, the larger the economy
grows, the lower the rate of change will be. Here is a simplistic example go GDP growth:
In year 1, GDP = $1. In the second year, GDP grows to $2. The annual rate of change is
100%. However, in year 3, even though the economy grows to $3, the annual rate of change
falls to just 50%.
Given the long-term historical correlation between economic growth, corporate earnings, and
annualized returns, the reversion to trend growth has implications for investors. As Liz
notes:
"Using three broad ranges for GDP growth historically, the lowest range (when the economy
is barely growing or in recession) is accompanied by the highest annualized stock market
performance. GDP is only slightly back into positive territory on an annualized basis.
However, the strong growth expected in the second quarter will push GDP into the highest
zone. At that level, stocks have historically posted a negative annualized return."
The reason is that once economic growth reaches higher levels, stocks have climbed to levels
incorporating those expectations. In other words, when things are as "good as they can get,"
stocks begin to reprice for slower future growth rates.
That is the phase we are at currently.
How Much Pent Up Demand Is There Anyway
The main driver of the expected recovery from a "recessionary" low stems from the question
of how much "pent up" demand currently exists?
If we look at durable goods as an example, such would suggest that much of the demand for
long-lasting products got pulled forward by consumers over the last 12-months.
Of course, if we broaden that measure to retails sales which make up ~40% of the personal
consumption expenditures (PCE) index , we see much the same.
Given PCE, which comprises nearly 70% of GDP, has already recovered much of pandemic-related
decline, how much "pent up" demand remains.
However, wage growth outside of personal transfer payments (i.e., stimulus) hasn't
recovered. It is impossible to sustain higher rates of economic growth without wage growth.
Importantly, as we saw in January and February following the $900 billion stimulus bill
passage, there was a short-lived surge of activity. However, once individuals spent the money,
activity quickly faded. We saw the same with retail sales in April following the American
Rescue Plan, which sent out $1400 checks.
After the $1400 checks get spent, what will be the driver for continued consumption at
previous rates? Further, given the impact of a larger economy (as it recovers), the rate of
change will decline markedly in the months to come.
Earnings Growth Inflection
"Earnings growth has a high correlation to stock market performance, but with time lags
that are less well-understood. We are about halfway through the first quarter S&P 500
earnings season and so far, the results are exceptionally strong." – Liz Ann
Sonders
That is correct, and given the high correlation between earnings and market returns, we come
back to the same question. Has the advance in the market accounted for the rebound in earnings?
More importantly, what happens when that growth reverses?
"Relative to last year's second-quarter plunge of nearly -31% year-over-year, expectations
are that S&P 500 earnings will be up more than 46% in this year's first quarter. The
second quarter will boast a whopping 60% increase. Such should be the inflection point in
terms of the year-over-year growth rate." – Liz Ann Sonders
The problem is the S&P rose to levels that earnings growth will have difficulty
supporting, particularly as the stimulus fades from the system. As with economic growth, the
2nd derivative of earnings growth is now a headwind for the markets.
Notably, the outsized growth of the market reflects repetitive interventions into the
financial markets by the Fed. Those interventions detached financial asset growth from their
long-term correlation to GDP growth, where corporate revenue comes from. Historically, when the
S&P
500 becomes separated from economic growth, a reversion occurred.
Currently, analysts are expecting earnings to surge well above economic growth rates.
However, the flaw in the analysis is the assumption earnings growth will continue its current
trend.
While there will be an economic recovery to pre-pandemic levels, a recovery is very
different from an expansion.
As Liz concludes:
"Optimism is extremely elevated. Such is certainly justified by stock market behavior over
the past year and recent economic releases. But some curbing of enthusiasm may be warranted
given the history of the stock market as an uncanny 'sniffer-outer' of economic inflection
points."
As she goes on to point out, this is not a time for FOMO-driven investment decision-making.
The reality is that the supports that drove the economic recovery will not support an ongoing
economic expansion. One is self-sustaining organic growth from productive activity, and the
other is not.
The risk of disappointment is high. And so are the costs of being "wilfully blind" to the
dangers.
Biden Admin proposing elimination of IDC expensing and percentage depletion, among other tax
preferences.
Elimination of IDC expensing will affect US shale.
Percentage depletion only affects small producers. We can make it without percentage
depletion. Will just result in us paying more income tax. But lower 48 onshore conventional
production in US is below 2 million barrels per day and slowly falling. Hopefully we will be
permitted to continue to produce oil for the many uses of it besides light transport.
As long as Biden doesn't try to sell these as "Big Oil Tax breaks" I'm not going to
complain.
I think elimination of these tax preference items will lower US production, which will
increase oil prices. US is historically the only major producer that has desired low oil
prices. That is because we are still a net importer of crude oil.
Now that Trump is gone, it appears US also is not too concerned about oil prices.
What a turnaround from this time, last year. We had just reactivated our wells at the end of
May, 2020, after oil had went negative on April 20.
Yesterday WTI closed around $69.50.
President Biden could turn out to be very good for small conventional lower 48 onshore
producers. He just needs to recognize that our oil is still needed, and will still be needed
for decades.
I will keep beating my drum. Stripper well oil is small footprint. Existing source. Very low
methane emissions from upstream operations. Employs the highest number of persons per BO.
Employs largely rural populace. Owned by small business. Family owned. Pays a lot in local
taxes. Is very low decline. Predictable. Uses the smallest amount of materials, such as
plastics and steel. I can go on, but won't.
Stripper well doesn't need "tax breaks" either, if it is afforded a strong, stable oil
price. In my view, $60-70 WTI won't kill the consumer.
But, I heard on Bloomberg radio yesterday that the Reddit investors are beginning to pour
into oil and grains. So, worried about volatility.
Only about 1/5-1/6 of voters in the very rural counties (25K or less in population) votes
for Biden. Yet his policies appear to be a boon for those populations.
Here's to $5+ corn, $14+ soybeans, $6+ wheat, $6+ milo and $65+ WTI! Keeping prices there
would really solidify a part of the US that is really struggling.
I suspect I might be the only person still posting here that lives in an oil and grain
producing region. There just aren't many of us left.
Labor will be our huge problem. Maybe strong and stable commodity prices could bring some
people back, or keep some of our young people here?
Thank goodness for the people from Mexico and Central America. Without them, rural USA would
be in really big trouble. SHALLOW SAND IGNORED
06/05/2021 at 10:48 am
Dennis.
I will add, if rural is in big trouble, I believe the entire USA is in big trouble.
I have never seen the labor shortages that I am seeing today in my community.
I know there are many efforts to radically change how our country's food supply is produced.
But, like energy transition, those will take decades.
It is not attractive to most to live in rural locations. Very, very difficult psychological
and emotional transition for those that try to move from urban/suburban to rural. I have seen
it first hand. We cannot keep doctors for that reason, for example. There are almost no
attorneys here under the age of 60. Management of our factories has mostly been moved, because
it can be due to technology, and because management doesn't want to live here.
Most in the factories here are being hired in at $16-19 per hour, and will be over $20 soon
after. Most work at least 10 hours of overtime a week.
But we have a very high percentage of young adults in the rural areas struggling with hard
drug dependency. Meth is the big one, and it is easier for a 20 year old to get meth than to
get a beer in most rural areas.
Our country needs to do so much better across the board on hard drug dependency. One of the
many reasons being to fill all of these job openings. Of course, there are more important ones
than that.
I bet if hard drug dependency was completely eliminated, over 90% of child abuse and neglect
court cases would also be wiped out. That is the most important reason we need to do
better.
WTI Punched a $70 ticket sometime after 6:00 PM EST, June 6, 2021. The last time this
happened was Oct 16, 2018, $71.92 before falling below $70 the next day.
"Igor Sechin, the head of Russian oil major Rosneft (ROSN.MM), said on Saturday the world
was facing an acute oil shortage in the long-term due to underinvestment amid a drive for
alternative energy, while demand for oil continued to rise."
Exxon Mobil Corp. is
pulling out of a deep-water oil prospect in Ghana just two years after the west African nation
ratified an
exploration and production agreement with the U.S. oil titan.
The company relinquished the entirety of its stake in the Deepwater Cape Three Points block
and resigned as its operator after fulfilling its contractual obligations during the initial
exploration period, according to a letter to Ghana's government seen by Bloomberg and people
familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the information isn't
public.
Energy giant BP Plc
sees a strong recovery in global crude demand and expects it to last for some time, with U.S.
shale production being kept in check, according to Chief Executive Officer Bernard Looney.
"There is a lot of evidence that suggests that demand will be strong, and the
shale seems to be remaining disciplined," Looney told Bloomberg News in St. Petersburg,
Russia. "I think that the situation we're in at the moment could last like this for a
while."
Just in time for Pride Month, a new exchange traded fund aims to connect with LGBTQ investors. Two previous efforts failed to
attract enough assets.
The fund, LGBTQ + ESG100 ETF LGBT,
+0.91%
, launched in late May, is a passively managed, large-cap index fund that holds the top 100 U.S. companies that most align with
the LGBTQ community.
In 2019, two LGBTQ-focused ETFs were delisted: ALPS Workplace Equality Portfolio ETF and InsightShares LGBT Employment Equality
ETFs. Like this new fund, both were mostly U.S. large-cap, passive index ETFs comprising companies that received high or perfect
marks for workplace equality in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality
Index , a benchmark for corporate LGBTQ policies.
The first ETF stuck around for five years, but the second barely made it two years, even though it was launched with much fanfare
by UBS. Neither gained many assets.
Bobby Blair, CEO and founder of LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings, which launched the fund with issuer ProcureAM, says community input on
holdings makes this fund different.
LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings partners with Harris Poll to annually survey 150,000 self-identifying LGBTQ constituents across the U.S.
for their views about a company's brand awareness, brand image, brand loyalty and how the firm supports the community. As noted in
its prospectus
, 25% of the index's weighting is derived from that survey data.
... the LGBTQ + ESG100 has an annual expense ratio of 0.75%.
As bubbles peak,
they combine objective signs of excess" prices rising much faster than earnings can justify"
with subjective signs of mania, such as frenzied trading and borrowing. To some the entire US
stock market looks bubbly given its dizzying run-up, but earnings growth has also been
extraordinarily strong through the pandemic. Beneath the surface, however, sectors of the
market from green tech to cryptocurrency show tell-tale bubble signs.
My research on the 10 biggest bubbles of the past century, from the US stock market in 1929
to Chinese shares in 2015, shows that prices typically rise 100 per cent in the year before the
peak, with much of the gain packed into the climactic last months. That finding is closely in
line with bubble studies from academics at Harvard and others.
By those standards, there are at least five current bubblets. They include the
cryptocurrency market for bitcoin and ethereum; clean energy stocks, including some of the
biggest names in electric vehicles; small cap stocks, including many of the hottest pandemic
stories; a basket of tech stocks that lack earnings, which is also chock-a-block with famous
brands; and special purpose acquisition
companies (Spacs) , which allow investors a new way to buy into private firms before they
go public.
Each of these bubblets is captured in an index that rose in the last year by around 100 per
cent, often much more, to a peak value between $500bn and $2.5tn. Day traders and other newbies
rushed in, a common symptom of late stage market manias. Now these bubbles are faltering, as
they so often do, in response to increases in long-term interest rates. What's next?
The historical bubbles in my study did suffer midcourse setbacks on the way up, but
typically those corrections were around 25 per cent and never more than 35 per cent. Beyond
that point" a 35 per cent drop" the bubbles in my sample became monophasic, or stuck on a
one-way downhill path.
For the median case, the bottom was found 70 per cent below the peak, and came just over two
years after the peak. Except for the index of small-cap pandemic stocks, the other four bubble
candidates have all experienced drops of at least 35 per cent, but also of no more than 50 per
cent (in the case of ethereum). In other words, they are not likely to resume inflating any
time soon, and they are still far from the typical bottom.
There is one new factor that could upset this historical pattern. Despite the rise in
long-term interest rates, there is plenty of liquidity sloshing around the markets, with
central banks committed to easy money as never before. The risks though are skewed to the
downside.
It is important to remember that a bubble is often a good idea gone too far. In the early
2000s, the conventional wisdom was that the dotcom bubble had fuelled mainly junk companies
with business plans barely worth the napkins they were written on. Later, researchers found
that, compared with other bubbles, those in the tech sector produce many start-ups that fail
but also help launch major innovations. For every few dozen dotcom flame-outs, there was a
giant survivor such as Google or Amazon that would go on to make the economy more
productive.
LONDON (Reuters) -The United States, Britain and other large, rich nations reached a
landmark deal on Saturday to squeeze more money out of multinational companies such as Amazon
and Google and reduce their incentive to shift profits to low-tax offshore havens.
Hundreds of billions of dollars could flow into the coffers of governments left
cash-strapped by the COVID-19 pandemic after the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies agreed
to back a minimum global corporate tax rate of at least 15%.
Facebook said it expected it would have to pay more tax, in more countries, as a result of
the deal, which comes after eight years of talks that gained fresh impetus in recent months
after proposals from U.S. President Joe Biden's new administration.
"G7 finance ministers have reached a historic agreement to reform the global tax system to
make it fit for the global digital age," British finance minister Rishi Sunak said after
chairing a two-day meeting in London.
The meeting, hosted at an ornate 19th-century mansion near Buckingham Palace in central
London, was the first time finance ministers have met face-to-face since the start of the
pandemic.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the "significant, unprecedented commitment" would
end what she called a race to the bottom on global taxation.
German finance minister Olaf Scholz said the deal was "bad news for tax havens around the
world".
Yellen also saw the G7 meeting as marking a return to multilateralism under Biden and a
contrast to the approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, who alienated many U.S. allies.
"What I've seen during my time at this G7 is deep collaboration and a desire to coordinate
and address a much broader range of global problems," she said.
Ministers also agreed to move towards making companies declare their environmental impact in
a more standard way so investors can decided more easily whether to fund them, a key goal for
Britain.
... ... ...
Key details remain to be negotiated over the coming months. Saturday's agreement says only
"the largest and most profitable multinational enterprises" would be affected.
European countries had been concerned that this could exclude Amazon - which has lower
profit margins than most tech companies - but Yellen said she expected it would be
included.
How tax revenues will be split is not finalised either, and any deal will also need to pass
the U.S. Congress.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said he would push for a higher minimum tax, calling
15% "a starting point".
Some campaign groups also condemned what they saw as a lack of ambition. "They are setting
the bar so low that companies can just step over it," Oxfam's head of inequality policy, Max
Lawson, said.
But Irish finance minister Paschal Donohoe, whose country is potentially affected because of
its 12.5% tax rate, said any global deal also needed to take account of smaller nations.
The G7 includes the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and
Canada.
Nicholas Megaw in London Sun, June 6, 2021, 8:00 PM
The UK's competition regulator has been accused of "putting foxes in charge of the henhouse"
after asking the banking industry's own lobby group to design a supervisory body to combat the
dominance of big banks. Dozens of organisations including fintech start-ups, established tech
groups like Experian and Equifax, consumer representatives and a cross-party group of MPs have
raised concerns over the Competition and Markets Authority's plan to use proposals drawn up by
UK Finance as the basis for a consultation on the future of so-called open banking rules. Open
banking forces banks to share valuable customer data with other financial services providers,
allowing smaller firms to make faster lending decisions or offer new services such as budgeting
tools.
"The bots' mission: To deliver restaurant meals cheaply and efficiently, another leap in
the way food comes to our doors and our tables." The semiautonomous vehicles were
engineered by Kiwibot, a company started in 2017 to game-change the food delivery
landscape...
In May, Kiwibot sent a 10-robot fleet to Miami as part of a nationwide pilot program
funded by the Knight Foundation. The program is driven to understand how residents and
consumers will interact with this type of technology, especially as the trend of robot
servers grows around the country.
And though Broward County is of interest to Kiwibot, Miami-Dade County officials jumped
on board, agreeing to launch robots around neighborhoods such as Brickell, downtown Miami and
several others, in the next couple of weeks...
"Our program is completely focused on the residents of Miami-Dade County and the way
they interact with this new technology. Whether it's interacting directly or just sharing
the space with the delivery bots,"
said Carlos Cruz-Casas, with the county's Department of Transportation...
Remote supervisors use real-time GPS tracking to monitor the robots. Four cameras are
placed on the front, back and sides of the vehicle, which the supervisors can view on a
computer screen. [A spokesperson says later in the article "there is always a remote and
in-field team looking for the robot."] If crossing the street is necessary, the robot
will need a person nearby to ensure there is no harm to cars or pedestrians. The plan is to
allow deliveries up to a mile and a half away so robots can make it to their destinations in
30 minutes or less.
Earlier Kiwi tested its sidewalk-travelling robots around the University of California at
Berkeley, where
at least one of its robots burst into flames . But the Sun-Sentinel reports that "In
about six months, at least 16 restaurants came on board making nearly 70,000
deliveries...
"Kiwibot now offers their robotic delivery services in other markets such as Los Angeles
and Santa Monica by working with the Shopify app to connect businesses that want to employ
their robots." But while delivery fees are normally $3, this new Knight Foundation grant "is
making it possible for Miami-Dade County restaurants to sign on for free."
A video
shows the reactions the sidewalk robots are getting from pedestrians on a sidewalk, a dog
on a leash, and at least one potential restaurant customer looking forward to no longer
having to tip human food-delivery workers.
Whereas climate change issues are the presumptive reasons behind the latest wave of investor revolts at the oil and gas giants,
lurking beneath the surface is a growing sense of apprehension about Big Oil's strategy and failure to generate adequate returns for
shareholders in recent decades.
The naked truth is that Exxon and its cohorts have severely underperformed the broader market over the last two decades in terms of
total returns to shareholders, implying the sector's woes are long-term and strategic rather than short-term and cyclical.
Chronic underperformance
XOM
Source: CNN Money
Big Oil's underperformance relative to the market is clearly evident whether you are looking at 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, or even
20-year timespans.
For instance, since 2015, Exxon shares have returned a -2.5% compound annual loss based on share prices and dividends, a far cry
from the average annual gain of +14.4% by the
S&P 500
over the timeframe.
Over the past two decades, Exxon's compound annual return has clocked in at +4.2%, still considerably lower than the broad market
benchmark's return of +7.1%.
... ... ...
Exxon is hardly alone, with none of its peers, including Chevron,
Royal Dutch Shell
(NYSE:RDS.A),
BP
Inc.
(NYSE:BP), and
Total
(NYSE:TOT) coming close to matching the returns by
the broader share market over the past decade.
In fact, on an inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar basis, returns by Exxon, Shell, and BP have been negative over the past five years, a
period which coincided with the biggest bull market in the history of the stock market.
The renewable energy conundrum
You cannot blame the oil majors for continuing to engage in a lot of hand-wringing at a time when investors are demanding they pump
less oil and transition to cleaner energy.
For the oil majors, successfully transitioning to green energy companies is not going to be a walk in the park because these
companies have to ride two horses.
That's the case because the majority are already battling dwindling cash flows which means they cannot afford to gamble with
whatever little is left. Oil prices have been on a downtrend since 2014, a situation that has only worsened during the pandemic.
Oil and gas firms are still grappling with the best way to presently use dwindling cash flows; in effect, they are still weighing
whether it's worthwhile to at least partially reinvent themselves as renewables businesses while also determining which low-carbon
energy markets offer the most attractive future returns.
Most renewable ventures, like solar and wind projects, tend to churn out cash flows akin to annuities for several decades after
initial up-front capital expenditure with generally low price risk as opposed to their current models with faster payback but high
oil price risk. With the need to generate quick shareholder returns, some fossil fuel companies have actually been scaling back
their clean energy investments.
Energy companies are also faced with another conundrum: Diminishing returns from their clean energy investments.
A
paper
published in Science Direct
last August says that dramatic reductions in the cost of wind and solar have been leading to an even
bigger reduction in revenue inflows leading to falling profits. This is particularly true for wind energy as later deployments of
wind usually have lower market value than earlier ones due to wind energy revenue declining more rapidly than cost reductions. Solar
is more resilient, with technological progress approximately balancing out the revenue degradation, which perhaps explains why
solar
stocks have gone ballistic.
Adding wind and solar to our grid tends to reduce electricity prices during peak generation times: Indeed, electricity prices in
California can come down to zero during long sunny durations. This was not a problem for early deployments but is becoming a major
concern as renewables increasingly play a bigger part in our electricity generation mix.
But, ultimately, Big Oil will have to take the plunge and engage in drastic internal restructuring and product cycle transitions
even as activists like Engine No.1 promise to continue turning the screw. As Charlie Penner of Engine No.1 has told
FT
, the
energy transition is happening faster than expected and has undermined Big Oil's assumptions about long-term demand for its oil.
...Analysts at Goldman Sachs""in October""ran the numbers on the stock market impact of
previous capital-gains tax hikes. While there is only a modest impact on the stock market as a
whole, momentum stocks usually get socked before they are levied, they found. That makes
sense""investors logically are more motivated to sell the stocks where they would save the most
by avoiding higher capital-gains taxes.
The last time capital-gains taxes were hiked, in 2013, the wealthiest households sold 1% of
their equity assets, the Goldman analysts found. According to the
Federal Reserve's distributional financial account data , the top 1% held $17.79 trillion
of equities and mutual funds in the fourth quarter of 2020""so a 1% selling of stocks this time
would be $178 billion. (The most recent Internal Revenue Service breakdown, from 2018, found
that millionaires accounted for just over 500,000 filers or about 0.4% of the total.)
This quick jumping onto and off of the bullish and bearish bandwagons has become the new
normal, as you can see from the table below.
... ... ...
As I argued three weeks ago, this sentiment pattern suggests that the market may remain
in a fairly narrow range for the next several months. The contrarian bet is that the market
will finally break out of that trading range whenever the market timers stubbornly hold onto
their sentiment beliefs in the face of the market moving in the opposite direction. That is, be
on the lookout for when the market timers remain bullish in the face of declines, or bearish in
the wake of rallies. That will indicate that a bigger decline or rally is in store.
In the meantime, the market timers' behavior suggests both market rallies and declines
will be subdued. That's good news to the extent you were worried that a major new bear market
is about to begin, but bad news if you were hoping for a more sustained rally.
... ... ...
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks
investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at [email protected] .Continue
Reading
Customers wouldn't have to train the algorithm on their own boxes because the robot was made
to recognize boxes of different sizes, textures and colors. For example, it can recognize both
shrink-wrapped cases and cardboard boxes.
... Stretch is part of a growing market of warehouse robots made by companies such as 6
River Systems Inc., owned by e-commerce technology company Shopify Inc., Locus Robotics Corp. and Fetch
Robotics Inc. "We're anticipating exponential growth (in the market) over the next five years,"
said Dwight Klappich, a supply chain research vice president and fellow at tech research firm
Gartner Inc.
As fast-food restaurants and small businesses struggle to find low-skilled workers to staff
their kitchens and cash registers, America's biggest fast-food franchise is seizing the
opportunity to field test a concept it has been working toward for some time: 10 McDonald's
restaurants in Chicago are testing automated drive-thru ordering using new artificial
intelligence software that converts voice orders for the computer.
McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski said Wednesday during an appearance at Alliance Bernstein's
Strategic Decisions conference that the new voice-order technology is about 85% accurate and
can take 80% of drive-thru orders. The company obtained the technology during its 2019
acquisition of Apprente.
The introduction of automation and artificial intelligence into the industry will eventually
result in entire restaurants controlled without humans - that could happen as early as the end
of this decade. As for McDonald's, Kempczinski said the technology will likely take more than
one or two years to implement.
"Now there's a big leap from going to 10 restaurants in Chicago to 14,000 restaurants
across the US, with an infinite number of promo permutations, menu permutations, dialect
permutations, weather -- and on and on and on, " he said.
McDonald's is also exploring automation of its kitchens, but that technology likely won't be
ready for another five years or so - even though it's capable of being introduced soooner.
McDonald's has also been looking into automating more of the kitchen, such as its fryers
and grills, Kempczinski said. He added, however, that that technology likely won't roll out
within the next five years, even though it's possible now.
"The level of investment that would be required, the cost of investment, we're nowhere
near to what the breakeven would need to be from the labor cost standpoint to make that a
good business decision for franchisees to do," Kempczinski said.
And because restaurant technology is moving so fast, Kempczinski said, McDonald's won't
always be able to drive innovation itself or even keep up. The company's current strategy is
to wait until there are opportunities that specifically work for it.
"If we do acquisitions, it will be for a short period of time, bring it in house,
jumpstart it, turbo it and then spin it back out and find a partner that will work and scale
it for us," he said.
On Friday, Americans will receive their first broad-based update on non-farm employment in
the US since last month's report, which missed expectations by a wide margin, sparking
discussion about whether all these "enhanced" monetary benefits from federal stimulus programs
have kept workers from returning to the labor market.
Canadian economist Mario Seccareccia, recipient of this year's John Kenneth Galbraith
Prize in Economics, says it's time to reconsider the idea of full employment. He spoke to Lynn
Parramore of the Institute for New
Economic Thinking about why 2021 offers a rare opportunity to rebalance the economy in
favor of Main Street.
Once upon a time – not so long ago, really – unemployment was not a thing.
In agricultural societies, even capitalistic ones, most people worked on the land. A smaller
number worked in villages and towns – shoemakers and carpenters and so on. Some might go
back and forth from the countryside to the town, depending on the availability of work. If your
work in town building houses dried up, you might come back to the country for the harvest.
Economist Mario Seccareccia, who loves history, notes that before the Industrial Revolution,
it was unthinkable that someone ready and able to work had no job to do.
Questions: If unemployment was once unknown, why do we accept it now?
Where did unemployment come from?
In those pre-Industrial Revolution times, there were paupers, mostly people who could not
work for some reason such as a disability. These were deemed deserving of charity. A small
number of paupers were considered deviants and treated harshly, perhaps made to labor in public
work-houses under vile conditions.
Seccareccia notes that early classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo
recognized that able-bodied people could experience temporary joblessness, but not the
long-term variety. The word "unemployment" only became widely used in the nineteenth century.
As cities grew and manufacturing took off, people living in cities and towns grew apart.
Movement between the two places grew less fluid. The agricultural sector of the economy was
shrinking.
At first, if you lost your factory job, you could still probably pick up something in the
countryside to tide you over. But if you had grown up in the city, as more and more people did,
you might not know how to do rural work. By the late nineteenth century, most city dwellers
could no longer count on falling back on agricultural work during hard times.
Karl Marx noted that England's enclosure movement, which gained momentum as early as the
seventeenth century, had made things hard for agricultural workers as wealthy landowners
grabbed up the rights to common lands that workers had traditionally been allowed to use and
were a vital part of their sustenance. Uprooting peasants from the land and traditional ways of
life, Marx observed, created an "industrial reserve army" – basically a whole bunch of
people wanting to work but unable to find a job during times when industrialists held back
investment or when machines took over certain jobs.
Marx saw that this new kind of unemployment was a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Still, a
lot of mainstream bourgeois economists thought that the market would somehow sort things out
and eventually provide enough job openings to prevent mass unemployment.
It didn't turn out that way. Exhibit A: The Great Depression.
Especially after World War I, many later economists, most notably John Maynard Keynes,
warned that high rates of unemployment were getting to be the norm in the twentieth century.
Keynes predicted that a lot of people would go on being jobless unless the government did
something. This was very bad for society.
Keynes emphasized that full employment was never going to just happen on its own. Mainstream
economists thought that if wages fell enough, full employment would eventually prevail. Keynes
disputed that. As wages fell, demand contracted even further, leading to even less business
investment and so forth in a never-ending cycle. No, capitalism, with its business cycles led
to involuntary unemployment, according to Keynes.
Seccareccia observes that economist Michał Kalecki agreed that the government could
make policies to help more people stay employed at a decent wage, but there was just one
problem: wealthy capitalists weren't going to have it. They would oppose state-supported
systems to hold demand up so that fear of unemployment checked workers' demands for better pay
and improved work conditions.
For a while, after World War II, the capitalists were on the defense. The Great Depression
and the Communist threat got western countries spooked enough to go along with Keynes's
argument that governments should try to encourage employment by doing things like creating big
projects for people to work on. Safety nets were created to keep folks from falling into
poverty. The goal of full employment gained popularity and many more workers joined unions.
Capitalists v. Full Employment
Economists have bandied about various definitions of what full employment ought to look
like, explains Seccareccia: "A well-known definition came from William Beveridge, who said that
what you wanted was as many jobs open as people looking for them – or even more jobs
because every person can't take every type of job."
In the mid-twentieth century, with the economy doing well, neoclassical economists like
Milton Friedman started to push back against the idea of full employment. He discouraged the
use of fiscal and monetary policy to support employment, arguing that attempts to push down
unemployment beyond what he insisted was its "natural" rate in the economy would simply lead to
inflation.
In the 1960s, some of what Friedman warned about did actually happen. Employment was low and
prices started to go up mildly, particularly during the Vietnam War era. However, the biggest
boost to the credibility of Milton Friedman came with the OPEC cartel oil-price hikes of the
1970s that pushed the inflation rate to double-digit levels while simultaneously pushing up
unemployment. So, in the '70s, western countries started backing off from encouraging full
employment and maintaining strong safety nets. Proponents of the new neoliberal framework were
in favor of cutting safety nets, shedding government jobs, and leaving it to the market to
decide how much unemployment there would be. They said that it had to be this way to keep
inflation from rising, even though the cause of that high inflation of the '70s had nothing to
do with high public spending and excessive money creation that Friedman and his friends talked
about.
Seccareccia points to proof that the neoclassical logic didn't hold up. In the two decades
before the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-8, the rate of unemployment went down, but inflation
didn't go up. That proved that the neoclassical economists were wrong. But unfortunately,
policymakers didn't really digest this before the Great Recession hit. So, they bungled the
response badly by putting the brake on public spending too quickly because of fears of
excessive budget deficits and potentially higher future inflation that never materialized. They
kept insisting that the employment level would return to that "natural" state Friedman had
talked about if they just left things to the market.
"But it didn't work out that way," says Seccareccia. "Unemployment skyrocketed and it took a
decade to return to pre-crisis levels.
Which brings us to the COVID-19 crisis.
A Crisis Is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Seccareccia says that we have to understand the difference between the current situation and
the Global Financial Crisis. This time, it really is different.
"The earlier crisis started in the financial sector and spread to the real economy," he
explains. "But in 2020, when the Coronavirus emerged, the financial and industrial sectors got
hammered at the same time." This meant that people in both sectors stopped spending. Households
couldn't spend even if they wanted to because traveling, dining out, and other activities were
off-limits. Businesses cut investment as uncertainty loomed and exports declined due to
restrictions at borders. Unless you were Home Depot or an e-commerce company, you couldn't sell
anything.
The COVID-19 crisis also saw workers pulled out of activities thought to be too high risk
for spreading the virus. Across the country, non-essential workers were sent home and told to
stay there. Most, especially in sectors like leisure and hospitality,
can't do their work from home . A lot of these people lost their wages, and because most of
them were low-wage to begin with, they could least afford the hit. Many were only able to
maintain their incomes through government unemployment insurance. Businesses, meanwhile, were
kept afloat with subsidies.
Seccareccia notes that unemployment had an interesting twist in the pandemic because it was
both the problem and the initial cure for the health crisis. Unemployment kept the virus from
circulating. It saved lives.
Fast-forward to late spring, 2021. As America and other western countries seek to put the
pandemic behind them, the economy is opening back up. Employers are wanting to hire, and they
are even competing with each other for workers. But many job seekers are waiting to go back to
work. There are a lot of reasons why: caregiving for kids is still a huge burden, and people
are still worried about getting sick. Transit routes have been disrupted making it harder for
people to get to work. It's also possible that some workers may be resisting jobs on offer
which come with low pay and inadequate benefits.
Employers have started complaining they can't find workers and blame the social safety net
as the problem. Some employers, like those in the hospitality industry, are offering higher pay
to lure workers back.
Just as Kalecki predicted, the wealthy capitalists are getting uneasy. The Chamber of
Commerce, for example, has pushed the U.S. to stop expanded unemployment insurance benefits so
that people will be forced to return to low-wage jobs. Some Republican-dominated states have
jumped on board with this idea. Economist Larry Summers, for his part, is warning about
inflation and telling the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates so that wages don't go up. He
complains that when he walks outside,
all he sees are people eager to fill job vacancies . It's unclear where he was living when
he said that, or which people he is talking about.
Others argue that expanded unemployment insurance isn't the problem, but the crappy jobs on
offer. Seccareccia believes that it's a good thing if employers raise their wages, even if that
means a little bit of inflation.
Rising inequality, he emphasizes, is unsustainable in a healthy society, and it's about time
ordinary people had a little power to improve their lot. "When employers are worried about
people quitting," he says, "that's when you know you're getting close to full employment. And
in a capitalist society, it's an extremely rare situation when the number of quits begins to
exceed the number of new hires as an economy nears the peak of a business cycle."
In Seccareccia's view, "there's a balancing act between workers 'fearing the sack' and
employers 'fearing the quit.'" He observes that capitalists are very good at making sure that
the former situation is more common, and they've been spectacularly successful in the last 40
years. "This is why you have flat wages and runaway inequality," says Seccareccia.
"Productivity goes up but the workers don't share in it." Profits pile up at the top.
Right now, inflation has been creeping up in some areas. In a couple of sectors, like used
cars, it's rising a lot. The question is, beyond a couple of unique cases, what will happen to
inflation overall? And will be temporary? A lot of economists think that inflation will be
short-lived and will not get very high, so it's nothing to get excited about. Some economists,
like Antonella Palumbo, think the
worry about inflation is overdone . She notes that with unemployment still high and vast
numbers of people who formerly worked but are still out of the labor force, the ranks of the
famous reserve army of unemployed are still huge. As the economy restarts, all kinds of
short-run bottlenecks are cropping up, but that reserve army is not going anywhere fast and
will continue to limit wage increases.
Seccareccia points out that wealthy capitalists trying to stop workers from getting paid
better and conservatives complaining about laziness fail to mention that meanwhile, the stock
market is soaring, making the rich richer. Plus, the housing market is booming because the more
affluent people lucky enough to have kept their jobs over the pandemic now have extra money
saved to spend on big-ticket items. "Is it really fair," he asks, "to complain about a few
hundred dollars a week received by those at the bottom of the economic ladder? Especially how
much the economy is already titled in favor of the haves?"
So, what exactly should the government do about unemployment? Should it do anything at all?
For Seccareccia's part, he thinks this is a perfect time to reconsider the idea of full
employment, which has been so long abandoned by policymakers in favor of some "natural"
unemployment rate. "Policymakers need to understand why COVID may offer a chance not seen since
the end of WWII," he says. "We could actually make the economy fairer for ordinary people."
> So, what exactly should the government do about unemployment?
My favoured solution, and that of other readers of this blog, I suspect, is the Job
Guarantee as promoted by MMT.
Because a well designed job guarantee would provide a floor on wages and benefits, the
private sector would be forced to match it at the very least. But as has been pointed out on
this blog many times before, Kalecki's point that full employment would remove employers
ability to effectively threaten workers with the sack, means that it will be very difficult
politically to see it implemented.
Next week I start my 2nd year of pandemic triggered unemployment after I was terminated
without cause. On June 26th my extended UI benefits will be halted by TX Governor Greg Abbot.
Okay.
In a year of applying for new positions I have managed to get exactly 1 phone interview
after a 40 year career in technology development, ending up with almost 24 years at IBM. In
my last year with them I received both a performance bonus and a salary hike. But I'm now
over 60 and have been unemployed longer than 3 months so that's probably fairly typical
experience. Okay.
The path to full employment is probably going to require the creation of new opportunities
in a still contracting economic system. It's not impossible if you're focused on the goal.
Here's my shortlist of policy initiatives that could dramatically and quickly grow the number
of available jobs, particularly for the under employed younger people who are paying off
student loans.
Dramatically increase social security and medicare eligibility/benefits to convince older
workers to leave the workforce.
Expand paid family leave and vacation policies to align with other industrialized nations in
order to require businesses to hire to cover needed absences.
Drop the number of hours that define full time work to allow more workers to get full
benefits.
Yeah, I'd like to be considered for another good paying job in a still viable industry. I
spent decades developing skills that are still relevant and valuable. But I'm old and I'm
expensive because I have expectations based on my own employment history that 40 years of
neoliberal policies have rendered obsolete. Okay.
I'm close enough to retirement and lucky enough in my ability to save and plan that this
won't wreck us. I try to imagine my pandemic inspired involuntary retirement as an
opportunity to become a labor rights activist. It helps.
My situation is virtually the same, although in academia as research scientist at major US
university, with last 6 years as invited scientist at German research institute. Returned to
US to the nightmare of Trump at 63, but fully (and naively) intending to continue working.
I've lost count of how many job applications I've tendered, with only one interview in two
years, then COVID. Now resigned to the fact that work for me from here on out will be
different. I continue to write papers with colleagues at university to maintain a reputation
in my field. Now recognize that people take one look at my CV, and think: "Old! Expensive!"
-- but the truth is I would be willing to work for little just to stay active in a field
applying expertise I've spent decades acquiring. I've since met many, many seniors in the
same boat: trained professionals with lots of experience who still want to work (and, in my
case, need at least some income).
But at least I had a career. I can't imagine the hopelessness of people 35-40 years my
junior, with huge debt from college, grad school, and unable to find a decent job.
Something must change. The situation as it exists is unsustainable. One bright light seems
to be increasing recognition of the way the economy actually functions, the role of public
spending, and the real limits to growth, prosperity.
Appreciate your commiseration Rolf. I expect there is an army of people like us who are in
this situation or about to be.
Fwiw (maybe not much), I'm actively trying to get hired full time at the food coop near my
house. The workers there are represented by a union and get full insurance benefits including
dental with a 40 hour work week. The Vt minimum wage of $11.75/hr doesn't matter as much as
those insurance benefits do; we're still in that 5 year gap between age 60 and age 65 where
you are on your own if you need healthcare.
And I've pretty much decided to laugh off Beaux Jivin's campaign promise to drop the
medicare eligibility age to 60 etc. It's abandoned along with many other campaign promises.
Okay.
Thanks, A/S, for your kind words. Yes, benefits are key. I really am increasingly worried
that Biden, and the Democratic Party in general, don't seem the grasp the fact that the GOP
is absolutely committed to recovering control of Congress and the White House by *any* means
necessary. Biden in particular seems to entertain the notion that he can bring the right wing
to his way of thinking by conciliation, negotiation, compromise, and good performance. But
the GOP is not interested in Dem's performance or compromise -- McConnell has made this quite
clear. So Dems have an opportunity to make significant history, a true course correction, but
only this once. To pursue "bipartisanship" with a party that has no interest in compromise is
hugely naïve -- I can't imagine Biden is that foolish, except that he did begin his
campaign with the promise that "nothing would fundamentally change".
The food coop gig sounds like a good, sound shot -- all the best to you.
Fellow army member, age 61. Lucky to have health care via spouse but definitely not enough
wealth to retire. Two interviews in last two years, both in retrospect clearly designed to
fill out an interview field when preferred (much younger) hire had already been identified.
The canard about atrophied skills might apply in the occasional instance but IMO is just more
bullsh1t in defense of existing social order.
Dem obliviousness to the reality all around us is truly horrifying. I used to argue that
the big sort would result in fenced "progressive" enclaves in which all parties – those
inside and those outside – would be thrilled to not have to interact with each other.
But it's clear to me now that progressives don't need physical separation to avoid seeing
what they don't want to; they are completely able to not see the world right in front of
them.
I guess I should include this post script regarding my IBM termination:
After I'd been unemployed for about 90 days I was contacted by a recruiter working on
behalf of IBM and my former managers. They were looking for people with exactly my skills and
experience to come back to work at IBM as temporary contractors. I agreed to a short phone
interview to learn more about the opportunity.
Once the recruiter verified my experience and contacts at IBM, I managed to confirm that
they expected to bring me back on at about 80% of my former salary. With no benefits and zero
job security. I laughed out loud at this acknowledgment of their duplicity but agreed to let
myself be considered and provided a resume. Never heard back which is probably okay.
Amateur Socialist, Rolf and Left in Wisconsin -- I take my hat off to all of you. Work
left both my partner and me a number of years ago, and we quickly learned that we had aged
out of the market and were useless to society as we thought of it. Fortunately, we relatively
quickly became eligible for Medicare, which even in its steadily diminishing state was (and
is) a significant help.
Good luck to all of you, and A/S, please let us know the outcome of your pursuit of the
job with benefits at your local Food Co-op.
I think your experience demonstrates the problem with defining full Employment as, "anyone
who wants a job has one". Using this definition, the simple way to get the economy to FE then
is to just make all the jobs so terrible and low paying that no one wants them. You dont need
a job, and you dont want just any old crappy job. You want one similiar to your old one, If
that doesnt exist anymore, one would reasonably say you dont want a job, since what you want
doesn't exist, hence we're at full employment
All of this is to say, we shouldnt necessarily just encourage the government to get us to
FE. Capitalists by themselves are quite capable of getting us there, as I'd argue they did in
the 19th century. Its government interventions like minimum wage and basic safety protocols
that keep us from reaching FE since that's what makes people actually want a job
it was unthinkable that someone ready and able to work had no job to do.
I think there is a conflation of the language terms bandied
about–work-v-jobs-v-employment are all couched in the concept of a Consumption Based
Economy. I am tired of this.
weeding the garden is work–unless I'm paying you then it becomes a job. In both
instances, however, you are employed in the endeavor. This is grooming behavior using
language, imo, and needs to stop.
I think this muddle is a componant of the current 'Jobs Discussion".
Covid has rattled generations coming out of Displacements following the very unequal GFC,
and an undefined(maybe) examination of Meaning and Place within the current state of the
world and the Economy that has been chosen to fulfill the needs of that Economy (Societal and
Personal). More Intuitive than cognitive to many.
Selling Plastic bric-a-brac for the Man, to make the rent in an endless cycle, may have
lost its cache' subconsciously, to the 'common man' in this time of apparent Climate Crises
et al.
There is still plenty to do, and little time for Idleness( itself a "reward' promoted as a
'something' by the Consumptive Economy).
"Proponents of the new neoliberal framework were in favor of cutting safety nets, shedding
government jobs, and leaving it to the market to decide how much unemployment there would be.
They said that it had to be this way to keep inflation from rising,"
"The market" – that's the first con people have to get over. There is.no "the
market" like there it is something like nature.
It's system of intentional, changeable human decisions backed by beliefs and emotions of all
kinds now matter how many theories or quantifications occur. And a corporate beuracracy is
still a beuracracy.
And actually this neoliberal thinking of letting some imaginary entity "the market"
"decide" (we should be lughing at this silliness!) to keep people unemployed to avoid
"inflation" only makes sense if it actually meant to signify "avoid inflation of the
population."
The modern police force is a consequence of idle and unemployed city dwellers. Idled
workers don't just sit down and die from malnutrition. Instead, they roam around looking for
food, or opportunities that would lead to procuring food. Hungry, impoverished mobs are never
a good idea: Ask Czar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm, or the French aristocrats of the 1780's
(rather, interrogate their ghosts) how idle, hungry crowds furthered their reigns. For all
that, look to the unrest of the 1930's in the US.
Given this reality–that unemployed and starving people refuse to sit down and die
peacefully–what will happen as automation starts to rob routine jobs? Already we are
seeing robots prowling the Walmart aisles, driverless vehicles delivering pizzas, and
self-checkout lines in big box stores. We who work are losing the war on unemployment, which
leads to a question: Who is the winner?
Almost as an afterthought, one wonders how much in contributions to Social Security and
Medicare have been lost because of automation. Robots don't pay taxes.
After the achievement of the 40-hour workweek, paid vacations, and other labor
concessions, many influential figures believed that egalitarian access to leisure would
only increase in the 20th century. Among them was economist John Maynard Keynes, who
forecast in 1930 that labor-saving technologies might lead to a 15-hour workweek when his
grandchildren came of age. Indeed, he titles his essay, "Economic Possibility for our
Grandchildren."
The benefits of labour-saving technologies have mostly been taken as money instead of time
and by doing so the capitalist class kept power thereby leading to them getting the
lions-share of the benefits of the labour-saving techologies.
The political class could, and still can, side with people and decide that labour-saving
technologies is to be taken out as reduced amount of hours spent working for someone else. As
is the politcal class have bought the 'lump of labour'-fallacy-fallcy hook, line and sinker
so what we see is increased pension-age etc
I tried out retirement for a few months. I'm 62 and got SS and a very small pension. It's
not enough so I went back – temping. The jobs I can get as a paralegal/admin person
don't pay a lot but there seem to be quite a few of them based on companies that are merging
or have merged and have a huge mess to clean up. So they hire you for a few months to slog
through chaos and fix it. Then on to the next one. I'll keep doing this until I can move to a
cheaper part of the U.S. Remote helps in that if I don't have a Zoom interview they can't
tell how old I am. I feel for everyone who can't even get tedious work. If my SS was higher I
would stop working. If my salary had matched that of the male co-workers that had the exact
same job as me, my pension would be higher. Retiring in America for many people is part
nomadic as you have to move out of your area to survive after you leave your regular job, or
it gets rid of you and the other part is being extremely frugal. Woohoo what a life after
over 40 years of helping companies make money.
Yes a totally true statement. For it to be higher I would have had to wait until almost 67
to take it. It will go up a tad from my additional employment – maybe. Anyway it's a
mostly a set amount. I make as a temp in 2 weeks (take home) what I get in SS once per month.
If I make over about $19k annually while taking the SS, the US gov will begin to reduce the
SS payment.
Social Security takes the highest 40 quarters (10 years) of your earnings to calculate
your benefit. If your current work results in higher numbers than are being used currently,
the higher numbers will be used and your benefit will increase.
I tried to reply to your question – yes it is a true statement. What I wrote
additionally may have been moderated out for some reason so I won't repeat it. It only
mentioned dollar amounts and the US gov so maybe that was bad – not sure!
Victoria H
and I thank you for that.
But I think you, and I will 'work' until we die–
What does work mean?
noun. exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil. productive
or operative activity. employment, as in some form of industry, especially as a means of
earning one's livelihood: to look for work. the result of exertion, labor, or activity; a
deed or performance.
Work | Definition of Work at Dictionary.comhttps://www.dictionary.com › browse
› work
I am personally familiar with what you are going through and My wife is there right
now.
I waited till full retirement at 66 to collect–not being able to leave 2k on the
table(diff btwn 62 and 66 for me). I cannot describe the amount of effort and gyration I
needed to extend to achieve that– which may explain why I am the only one in my
'Friend Circle' to actually accomplish it.
Trigger Warning
I thought the coup de grace was when I had to sign up for–and Pay For, with cash,
Quarterly–Medicare without a SS check to have it automatically deducted from. Because
of my birthday I needed to pony up about 5 months worth of premiums(but i had 3 months to
save up for the next Q pymt). I doubt you've ever been curbed at the end of a physical
altercation, but that is what it felt like to me. Best think about all that.
Good news–do your own taxes for your enlightenment and you will see that the SS Income
Worksheet provides a path to structuring your Income to counter-balance additional
Income.
Discalimer–I am in no way an Acc'tant or Tax Man or even giving Advice. I am a
Carpenter–but Written Instructions are Written Instructions and Numbers are Numbers and
I made a paid living following both–so it's understandable enough to give you some
options to ponder.
And to Rolf/AmSoc and all the others -- IMNSHO(the first ever time I have used this
phrase) the most dispiriting element about 'Retirement' in America is the Stranding of So
Many Valuable Assets embodied in the Retired when the world desperatly needs "All Hands On
Deck" to resist the Man Made Extinction looming.
the most dispiriting element about 'Retirement' in America is the Stranding of So Many
Valuable Assets embodied in the Retired when the world desperately needs "All Hands On
Deck" to resist the Man Made Extinction looming.
These are true words, Rod. I think catastrophic changes (no hyperbole) lie ahead, for
which there is little precedent. Many make absurdly blithe assumptions, thinking they
won't be affected, or that wealth will insulate them. This is arrogant folly, and we will
need everyone to row in the same direction.
The man who owns the Heating and Air Conditioning company I have been using for the last
decade lives in the neighborhood and is 88 years old. After his brother had health problems,
and the young nephew he employed left for greener pastures,he now does pretty much all the
work himself, and let me tell you, he knows his stuff. I know I should have a back-up in
mind, just in case, but so far, haven't found anyone else I can trust.
Well said. I took retirement at 62 for several reasons,number 1 being i didn't believe it
would be around long enough to pay me back.
"All hands on deck" is imo exactly what is needed,but the mostly planned divisiveness
(fake right vs fake left aka RepubliCons vs Dumbocrats) will help ensure that never occurs,to
someone's benefit.
Just think how many people would quit working, or enter self-employment, if they weren't
dependent on employer providedmedical insurance. I don't know the answer/estimate; it would
have to be a large number, enough to significantly raise wages across the board.
Retiring in America for many people is part nomadic
This observation made me remember a critical scene from the excellent oscar winner last
year, Nomadland . Frances McDormand's character meets a friend who explains why she
took to the road: "Five hundred forty dollars a month from Social Security. After working non
stop for over 40 years. How am I supposed to live on that".
I'm paraphrasing possibly badly from memory; it's a very short scene that isn't really
pursued farther in the script. But I do remember thinking "Aha! This is the root cause of all
this misery and despair "
We moved to southern Vermont from Texas just prior to the pandemic believing we had
relocated to a cheaper part of the US as you also mentioned. But Vermont's strong public
health track record during the pandemic has unleashed a huge real estate boom here so who
knows We may end up priced out of Vermont eventually too.
Real estate is still relatively cheap in Texas (at least around Houston), with the caveat
that Republicans don't always keep the power on or the water pressure up in the middle of
winter.
Unfortunately our place was in the Austin exurb of Bastrop. Which is now part of the
Austin insane real estate boom. And yes Houston can be cheap but only if you don't mind
living near a refinery. Or in the path of many future hurricanes. Hard pass.
I keep seeing references to "flat wages." While it's technically true, I suspect it's
enormously deceptive.
Yes, we have flat wages. But the cost of necessities that add little or no value to
people's lives but which they're FORCED to pay for have shot up far, far beyond the pace of
inflation. Think medical care, housing and education, to name just three, all of which are
somehow ignored or slighted in official inflation stats.
Right now the best transition is for the government to regulate capitalism in the
direction the future (sustainability) dictates. The problem with regulating capitalism is
that most capitalists think it is already too regulated; taxes are too high, etc. They are on
the edge of revolution themselves. And regulated capitalism is almost an oxymoron to most
Americans. It's just business as usual to a European because they have better social spending
and blablablah. The statistic I remember is that the EU spends about 45% of its revenue on
social stuff; the US spends a little less than 35%. The problem, as I see it, is this: If we
in the US do not achieve adequate social spending we create the perfect breeding ground for
exploitation of the environment. People will be desperate for a job – any job. Which
will not only cause worse CO2 problems, it will poison off, or starve off, many many species
now living on the edge. We will further pollute the oceans and waterways. And we will not
only stick with our sick and poisonous agricultural practices, we will exponentiate them
– precluding all efforts to fix these unsustainable things. Capitalism as we have known
it must change. So, even the great idea of capitalism must adapt to reality. Somebody please
tell Larry. At this point "inflation" is an absolutely meaningless word. It would be a very
good thing if we followed Eisenhower's advice to LBJ and began to create social structures
that are fair to all of society – to the capitalists whose current mandate of voracious
profiteering is clearly unsustainable, as well as to "labor" – as we see it evolving
– and now, most importantly, we must include the rights of the planet itself and all of
our fellow travelers. We won't last very long if we kill them all off and trash the Earth.
The race to the bottom that all privateering capitalism eventually creates is the most absurd
thing in the history of civilization.
A good start would be breaking up all of the ubiquitous monopolies/monopsonies/cartels,
that have taken over every sector of the economy, from food processing to entertainment to
banking to manufacturing to politics to (ad infinitum/nauseum).
I went to Firehouse Subs yesterday there was a whiteboard inside on a table, facing into
the restaurant, that said they were hiring and offered starting pay of $9.00 for crew members
and $12.00 for shift managers.
Just inside the door, facing out, was a whiteboard offering starting pay of $11.00 for
crew members and $14.00 for shift managers. Seems like they're getting the message.
As an aside, I'd like to give props to Firehouse Subs for using pressed paper clam boxes
and paper bags.
Who caused the flight to be diverted is still uncertain to me. It's clear that Roman was
the target though. And that relations between the West and Russia are suffering.
With that said, I think it's worthwhile to note that this new low in relations is
something that is not in Russia's interest as NordStream2 is still under attack.
Some say that Nordstream 2 is unstoppable. Well, the completion of the pipeline is near
but whether Germany buys gas from Russia and/or how much gas is still a question. The Empire
opposition to NS2 has been relentless but they may accept a pipeline that guarantees German
energy security yet demand that it restrict purchases of Russian gas to only what is
absolutely necessary.
Barring a mistranslation, Putin said that continued gas transit through Ukraine depends on
Ukraine's behaviour. Based on a quick impression, that contracts pretty much every previous
Russian / Gazprom statement that Garprom intends to retain same flows through Ukraine. No one
expects Russia to keep flows in the event of hostilities, but to give opponents of the
pipeline a soundbyte to say "see, we told you they would do that" is a shocking blunder.
Actually, he kept repeating that the current transit contract will be maintained, but that
if Ukraine wants to increase the volume of gas that goes through their territory, and
subsequently earn more money from transit contracts, they have to make that option more
lucrative for customers and suppliers. Primarily, by breaking up the gas monopoly on that
territory -- harking back to the consortium suggestion by Shroeder in 2008-2009(?).
That said, he was fairly blunt about the advantages of supplying gas directly to Germany
and the lack of any strictly economical reason to use Ukrainian gas transit, and that's a
fairly obvious aspect of this entire project -- provided that the capacity of these auxiliary
pipelines isn't exceeded, there's no good economic reason to use the Ukrainian
infrastructure.
When asked about Ukrainian financial woes, in the comical context of Zelensky complaining
that the gas transit income is essential for financing the Ukrainian army, he replied
sardonically that it's not the responsibility of the Russian state to keep the Ukrainian
state fed. There's a sort of Russian gag, where a guy asks his neighbor for something to eat,
so that he has the strength to take a dump on his doorstep, which neatly fits the
situation.
For the past several months, Morgan Stanley's fundamental analysts have been turning
increasingly bearish on stocks, with the pessimistic sentiment plateauing
earlier this week when chief equity strategist Michael Wilson said that there is far too
much optimism in the market, and that while earnings are slowly rising, forward PE multiples
are far too high and are set to slide, with "the de-rating about 75% to go or an approximate
15% decline in P/Es from here." As a result, in Wilson's view - which is rapidly emerging as
the most bearish on Wall Street - " earnings revisions will not be able to offset that
de-rating, leaving the overall market vulnerable to a 10-15 % correction over the next 6
months."
It now appears that Morgan Stanley's fundamental bearishness has spilled over into the
bank's technical analyst team and as the bank's chief Euro equity Strategist Matthew Garman
writes, for only the fifth time in over 30 years, each of Morgan Stanley's five market timing
indicators are giving a sell signal at the same time.
Not only that, but the bank's Combined Market Timing Indicator - which has been in sell
territory since March - just hit a new all time high of 1.19, surpassing the previous record
high seen in June-2007, right around the time of the first great quant crash and before the
market collapsed.
According to Garman, the only time equities have risen after a "Full House" Sell Signal was
in Feb 17, shortly after the Shanghai Accord kicked in to prevent a global recession. The other
previous occasions where there was a "Full House" Sell Signal were Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07.
According to MS, "in the 6M post the initial Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe has fallen on
average 6% ."
So with every in house risk indicator screaming sell, does that mean that Morgan Stanley
will have the balls to tell its clients to sell? Why of course not, because in this market
where stuff like the AMC, GameStop and Bed Bath squeezes force analysts to admit they no longer
have any idea what's going on...
... Morgan Stanley is keeping the hope and assuming that the current period will be similar
to 2017 - the only other time when a massive sell signal did not result in a market plunge.
Back in 2017, we remained constructive despite the signal given i) strong EPS growth, ii)
an early cycle environment, iii) EU inflows, iv) low sentiment and v) a rise in M&A.
Sentiment metrics may look more elevated than in 2017, but many of those factors remain in
place today. While we see a trickier risk-reward for equities globally, we maintain our view
that there is a compelling case for Europe to outperform global peers.
Yet even Morgan Stanley is forced to admit that while Defensives may just scrape by after a
record sell signal, cyclicals are about to be hammered. The next chart shows the relative
performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives after a Full House Sell Signal on. As MS notes,
"perhaps unsurprisingly, given the poor performance at the market level, Cyclicals have
struggled. In the 6M post the four initial Full House Sell Signals, Cyclicals have
underperformed Defensives on average 12%, and this drops to -15% looking at any day
when the MTIs have all said sell at the same time."
This was true even in 2017 when equity markets rose: "we previously cited similarities with
the 2017 Full House Sell Signal as reasons to not get overly cautious on equity markets in
aggregate at this moment in time. After the February-2017 Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe
continued to rise pretty consistently through the rest of the year. However, despite strong
performance from the market in aggregate, the performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives was
much poorer. Between February and June 2017 Cyclicals underperformed Defensives by 6%."
It's not just the bank's sell signal that is prompting concerns about the future returns of
cyclicals: Borrowing a page from our own warnings (see "
China's Credit Impulse Just Turned Negative, Unleashing Global Deflationary Shockwave "),
Morgan Stanley looks at "a number of China data points which are giving warning signs" first
and foremost the collapse in China's credit impulse, to wit:
While credit tightening has been front-loaded in 1H21, as outlined here, our economists
remain constructive on China's growth recovery. Having said that, a number of Chinese data
points do suggest the Cyclical bounce looks overextended. China's credit impulse has just
turned negative, and historically this has provided a lead indicator for the year-on-year
performance of European Cyclicals (Exhibit 5). Similarly, the relative performance of Cyclicals
versus Defensives has closely tracked moves in Chinese 10Y bond yields, which are now at their
lowest levels since September 2020, standing in sharp contrast to the performance of
Cyclicals.
Putting it all together, readers have to ask themselves if what is coming will be an analog
of the one and only episode on history when the market did not plunge after all Morgan Stanley
market timing indicators hit a sell (and were at an all time high), or will this case be
similar to Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07 when the outcome was anything but a happy ending.
If we take ZH commentariat opinions as a representative sample of the US conservatives
opinion, Fauci days are now numbered. And not only because he over 80.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham, Paul asserted that "The emails paint a disturbing picture, a
disturbing picture of Dr. Fauci, from the very beginning, worrying that he had been funding
gain-of-function research. He knows it to this day, but hasn't admitted it."
The Senator also urged that Fauci's involvement has not been adequately investigated because
in the eyes of Democrats "he could do no wrong".
Paul pointed out that Fauci was denying that there was even any funding for gain of function
research at the Wuhan lab just a few weeks back, a claim which is totally contradicted by his
own emails in which he discusses it.
"In his e-mail, within the topic line, he says "˜acquire of perform research.' He was
admitting it to his non-public underlings seven to eight months in the past," Paul
emphasised.
The Senator also pointed to
the email from Dr. Peter Daszak , President of the EcoHealth Alliance, a group that
directly funded the Wuhan lab gain of function research, thanking Fauci for not giving credence
to the lab leak theory.
Ingraham asked Paul if Fauci could face felony culpability, to which the Senator replied "At
the very least, there is ethical culpability," and Fauci should be fired from his government
roles.
Earlier Paul had reacted to Amazon pulling Fauci's upcoming book from pre-sale:
In softball interviews with MSNBC and CNN Thursday, Fauci dismissed the notion that his
emails show any conflicts of interest, and claimed that it is in China's "best interest" to be
honest about the pandemic origins, adding that the US should not act "accusatory" toward the
communist state.
Roger Stone was given 9 years for lying to Congress. Fauci should be on the same
hook.
truth or go home 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Looks like Fauci is going the way of Gates, but he won't be arrested, because he is
doing the bidding of the overlords.
What could he be arrested for? Let's see: Misappropriation of government funds, lying to
a senator under oath, covering up a criminal operation, operating a conspiracy to deceive
the people of the United States.
Seems like Rand is willing to nail Fauci to the wall, but he is not willing to go after
the big kahuna - the entire hoax - the fake vaxxes, the fake lockdowns, the fake "cases",
the fake death count, the elimination of flu...
Lucky Guesst 10 hours ago
Fauci is owned by big pharma. All the major news channels have at least one big pharma
rat on the board. MSM continues to push the vaccines. They are all in bed together and need
busted up if not taken out.
SummerSausage PREMIUM 15 hours ago
2012- Fauci says weaponized virus research may produce a pandemic but it would be worth
it.
Jan 9, 2017 NIAD memo recommends lifting ban on funding weaponized virus research. Fauci
controls the funds.
Jan 4, 2017 - CIA/FBI/DNC - under Obama's direction are told, essentially, to get
Trump.
Obama is behind release of this virus, creating pandemic panic and lockdown to
facilitate stealing the 2020 election.
OBAMA must be investigated.
play_arrow
CheapBastard 10 hours ago
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak
it."
~ Anonymous
serotonindumptruck 17 hours ago remove link
Call me a pessimist, but I predict no accountability, no malfeasance, no criminal
charges will be filed against Fauci.
We've all witnessed similar criminal behavior being perpetrated by the wealthy elite
which result in no consequences.
Why should this be any different?
(((They))) now know that (((they))) can lie to us with impunity, and get away with
it.
alexcojones 16 hours ago
New Nuremberg Needed Now.
Fauci in the witness chair.
"So, Dr. Fauci, your decisions, your outright lies, led to thousands, perhaps millions
of unnecessary deaths."
Baric & Batwoman published their chimeric coronavirus with ACE2 receptor access in
2015. Funded by Fauci, of course.
Kevin 3 hours ago (Edited)
That document only shows that Gain Of Function research exists - not that the deaths,
falsely attributed to covid are due to the product of that research.
What self-respecting, lab-created, killer virus, supposedly so deadly that it warrants
the shutting down of the entire planet, is incapable of doing any more damage than the flu
does every year?
In the case of the UK, and according to its own official figures, it hasn't even been
able to do that compared to its history of seasonal flu.
So, 2020 was just a blip compared to the past and most of that blip in increased deaths
was due to the insane policies imposed rather than any lab-created Fluzilla. If you
subtract the deaths that occurred due to:
1. Kicking seniors out of hospital and dumping them into nursing homes where they died
because they no longer got the treatment they needed but where they could infect the other,
previously healthy residents.
2. The many tens of thousands of people who had life-saving surgeries and procedures
cancelled.
3. The huge increase in suicides.
..... I doubt there would even be that blip.
If those historically, insignificant 2020 death figures are due to a lab-created,
chimeric coronavirus then that's an epic fail of the scientists and an enormous waste of
money for their education and the G.o.F. research.
However, it has conned enough idiots into believing that there was a Fluzilla in 2020
and got them to beg for jabs that might be how a lab created, chimeric coronavirus with
ACE2 receptor access gets into their bodies and kills them.
The new con that it was a leaked GoF bio-weapon that caused the 2020 'pandemic' is just
a lie upon a lie.
But it will persuade many of the gullible and fence-sitters to get jabbed because they
will have accepted (subconsciously), that the Fluzilla must have existed last year and that
the only way to combat such a bio-weapon is to jab themselves with poison. Ironically, that
will create in their bodies what they fear most.
Befits 9 hours ago remove link
No, you are not thinking clearly. The Covid death numbers were clearly and horrifically
inflated
1) The CDC changed how death certificates were recorded. Co-morbidities ( cancer,
congestive heart failure, COPD for example) that co- morbidity was listed as cause of death
in part one of the death certificate for 2 decades until the CDC changed death
certificates. If that person had for example a flu At that time ( cough, stuffy nose etc)
it might be listed as a contributing factor ( part 2 of death certificate) person died of
co- morbidity but flu was a contributing factor. The CDC reversed these to make sure Covid
was the cause of death- but truth was people died with Covid not from Covid.
2) 95% of Covid listed deaths actually died of co- morbidities- with Covid not from
Covid. The CDC published that only 5% of " Covid " deaths had only Covid- the other 95% had
on average 4 co- morbidities. In other words their cause of death was co- morbidity not
Covid.
3) personal experience. I was a nurse. A close friend's brother had cancer for 7 years-
in and out of remission. He was " diagnosed with Covid via PCR, almost no symptoms but for
a slight cough and runny nose in March 2020. In April his cancer came back his liver shut
down and he was dead by May 2020. He died from liver cancer but his death was recorded as
Covid 19 simply because he had tested positive 60 days before on a Covid PCR test. This is
the fraud the CDC perpetrated.
4) Hospitals received greatly enhanced financial renumeration if a patient was "
diagnosed" with Covid. Compare hospital reimbursement ( Medicare) for a hospitalized Covid
patient v influenza patient - similar symptoms- on or off respirator. Bottom line the
medical system was financially rewarded for diagnosing " Covid" v influenza. Indeed the
hospital did not even have to confirm a " Covid diagnosis with the fraudulent PCR test to
diagnose Covid- just " symptom" based.
5) The PCR test can not diagnose any viral illness- simply by amplification cycles (30
plus) you can " find" Covid from a dead, partial RNA fragment. As Kary Mullis, Nobel prize
inventor of PCR testing said PCR testing is NOT a diagnostic tool. Hospitals and docs,
universities and public health departments, corporations, the CDC, FDA, used false PCR
testing to financially enrich themselves while destroying the lives and livelihoods of
millions inc careers of medical truth- tellers.
Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA knows all of this. Crimes v humanity trials must be
undertaken v every medical person- from Big Pharma, CDC, FDA, Doctor, nurse, hospital
administrator, public health official, corporate leader etc who used this Covid plandemic
for personal benefit or whom through their actions harmed another.
SoDamnMad 17 hours ago
Watch Tucker Carlson's expose on "Why they lied for so long" At 3:29 he goes into Peter
Danzak getting 27 "scientists" to write in the Lancet that the Covid virus didn't come from
the Wuhan Lab but rather from nature (with the HIV spliced into the genome). But he also
tells individuals at UNC NOT to sign the letter so that their gain-of-function research
isn't tied into this. His e-mail goes to Ralph Baric, Antoinette Baric, as well as Andre
Alison and Alexsei Chmura at EcoHealthAlliance who Fauci got the money to for funding GOF
Chinese research.
Fauci is 80. Why was he allowed to stay on so long?
He controls $32 billion in annual grants that all US scientists and researchers depend
on.
There's a whole lot more corruption to explore.
CatInTheHat 8 hours ago remove link
This whole thing feels CONTRIVED
Why does this even matter anymore?
China is NOT the problem here and focusing on CHINA DISTRACTS from a few things
here.
1 FORT DETRIK. A nefarious US BIOWEAPONS lab that Fraudci worked at for 20 years. FD
also works in conjunction with DARPA
2. Whenever it's WAPO or Buzzfeed (FFS!) who breaks a story related to the Rona, I am
convinced that the elite have called them up to DISTRACT the public from something more
important. Maybe that Fort Detrik was the source of the virus transferred to China via the
US MIC/CIA and the Wuhan military games in China in Nov of 2019. 2 weeks later the first
cases showed up at Wuhan.
3. This VACCINE has now killed over 5000 people and since the rollout for children
between 12-16, several hundred have now been hospitalized with MYOCARDITIS OR
PERICARDITIS.. In Israel a study conducted as the vax rolled out in YOUNG MEN, it was
revealed that one in 3,000 was suffering from MYOCARDITIS within 4 days of the jab.
MSM is now reporting on adolescents in several states hospitalized with INFLAMMATION.
... Which they blame on RONA. FUNNY how every one of those states have rolled out the jab
for CHILDREN
WE are being massively LIED too.
Also, Biden's press secretary PSAKI LIED when she said, today, that 63% of the
population has had the jab.
Wrong. Only 41% of the US population has had BOTH jabs. Anti gun Biden is now offering
guns in exchange for a vax in Virginia. And anti marijuana Biden offering MJ in AZ for
those who take the jab. Why the desperation?
For more perspective on the massive deaths piling up due to this jab, in 1976, when 50
people were killed after the Swine flu jab IT WAS PULLED FROM THE MARKET.
Many thousands who have not had the jab are reporting illness after being in close
contact with those who are vaxxed.
Lots and lots to DISTRACT from
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
ableman28 10 hours ago
True story....one of my VC firms investments was approached by the defense department to
create a wearable lapel style detector for chemical and biological weapons that would work
in very low concentrations giving people time to put on their CBW gear. Our investee said
sure, we'll take a crack at it, but where are we going to get all the biological and
chemical agents to test it with. The DOD response was don't worry, we have everything
you'll need. And they did.
The US bio weapons program was supposedly terminated by Nixon in 1969. And our official
policy is that we don't research or stockpile such things. ********.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
This virus was engineered at Ft. Detrick. It's the same place that made the
military-grade Anthrax the deep state sent to Tom Daschle and others in government post
9/11 to gin up more fear.
This was a Fauci-coordinated deep state bio weapon they released in Wuhan to kick off
the scamdemic and the "great reset". Releasing it China gave some cover to the deep state
and the people there are under total control of the state. The rest is just filler. Always
about more control.....
BeePee 15 hours ago
The virus was not engineered at Ft. Detrick.
You are a CCP troll.
Sorry you have such a low pay grade job.
Armed Resistance 15 hours ago (Edited)
Anybody who Questions the deep state is a CCP troll? Look in the mirror. You're the one
running cover for these satanists! You rack up downvotes like Jordan did points! ZH'ers can
spot a troll a mile away son.
louie1 PREMIUM 14 hours ago (Edited)
The US way is to put the perpetrators in charge of the inuiry to control the outcome.
Dulles, Zellick, Fauci
Mighty Turban of Gooch 11 hours ago
Our government is corrupt. As long as the Democrats and the MSM have Fauci's back, he
has nothing to worry about no matter what he's done.
He's just a typical lying bureaucrat and lying to the public thru the media outlets, as
we have seen countless times now by countless government 'officials', is not a crime. Lying
under oath however is. But now days we see these guys get away with that too without
consequence.
So don't hold your breath. There is absolutely nothing that can take these guys out.
Even if they throw one of their own under the bus, the best you can ever hope for is a
resignation as criminal charges would never happen.
dustinthewind 16 hours ago (Edited)
"The CDC Foundation operates independently from CDC as a private , nonprofit 501(c)(3)
organization incorporated in the State of Georgia."
"Because CDC is a federal agency , all scientific findings resulting from CDC research
are available to the public and open to the broader scientific community for review."
"The Board of Directors of the CDC Foundation today named Judith A. Monroe, MD, FAAFP,
as the new president and CEO of the CDC Foundation . Monroe joins the CDC Foundation from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ), where she leads the agency's Office
for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support."
Gates is the largest private donor of the CDC and WHO. Gates is part of the World
Economic Forum who controls Fauci which using US taxpayers funds did gain of function
studies first in the US and caught moved to China where it was intentionally leaked to
blame the Chinese. John Kerry is also part of the WEF and is their man in Washington
calling the war mongering narrative against both China and Russia. Gates funded Imperial
College and Ferguson to write the code that was fake and used by many countries to justify
lockdowns. Gates is the largest ag landowner and wants to ban meat. Who just got hacked and
now it is blamed on Russia? Boris is destroying the UK and after a call from Gates gave 500
million pounds to vaccinate third world countries and lockdowns. Both fathers were tied to
Rockefeller Institute. Rand, connect the dots!
Fauci is under attack globally and has shown himself to be unreliable and should be
fired "" PERIOD! All the emails that have come out from an
FOIA request are interesting, and it shows he has information that was credible
concerning a leak from the lab in Wuhan. Let me make this PERFECTLY clear! This was NOT a
DELIBERATE leak by the Chinese government. If China wanted to really hurt the West, the
technology is there where a virus can be used as a delivery system, and as such, it can be
designed to attack specific genetic sequences meaning that it could target just Italian,
Greeks, English, Germans, or whoever.
COVID-19, based upon everything I see from our model and reliable sources, was created
in a lab and was DELIBERATELY unleashed to further this Great Reset. I BELIEVE someone from
this agenda bribed a lab technician to release it in the local community. China did NOT
benefit from this pandemic. The only ones who benefitted were the World Economic Forum
(WEF) consortium, which I know sold stocks and bonds ahead of the crash. They are also in
league with the World Health Organization (WHO), and the head of the WHO is a politician
and not even a doctor. That is like putting me in charge of surgery at a hospital. How can
Tedros Adhanom be in such a position with no background in the subject matter? Tedros appears at the World
Economic Forum and has participated in its agenda. The WHO should be compelled to turn over
ALL emails and communication ASAP. My bet is they pull a Hillary"¦Oh sorry. They
were hacked by Russians who destroyed everything.
The World Economic Forum is at the center of everything. When will someone investigate all
of these connections right down to creating the slogan, Build Back Better? Of course, they
will call this a conspiracy theory so they can avoid having to actually investigate
anything. My point is simple: produce the evidence and prove this is just a conspiracy
theory.
'John Kerry's Think Tank Calls for War With Russia Over Climate Change'
" America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is."" John Kerry
Recently-appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry has announced his
intention of dealing with the pressing issue of global warming as a national security
concern. "America will soon have a government that treats the climate crisis as the urgent
national security threat it is," the 76-year-old former Secretary of State wrote. "I am
proud to partner with the President-elect, our allies, and the young leaders of the climate
movement to take on this crisis." Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank,
the American Security Project (ASP) , whose board is a who's who of retired generals,
admirals and senators.
For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
The ASP recommends "prioritizing the measures that can protect readiness" of the
military to strike at any time, also warning that rising sea levels will hurt the combat
readiness of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Thus, a rebuilding of the U.S.' worldwide
network of military bases is in order.
Fort Detrik a US BIOWEAPONS lab working in tandem with the Wuhan lab. The US is the
leader in BIOWEAPONS research and has 100's of labs across the US and in other
countries.
FRAUDCI having worked at FD for 20 years.
MommickedDingbatter 12 hours ago
Without Nuremberg trials 2.0, this is all meaningless.
Nycmia37 16 hours ago remove link
Follow the science, lol. Just ask yourself who controls the science?? Big drug pharmas,
people is so stupid they believe in everything doctors tell them. The vast majority are on
the field to get rich and enjoy from the big bonuses and trips they get paid in order to
promote a drug. If they speak out they get called a conspiracy person. Nobody cant go
against this mafia because they have the total control, media, politicians, government. We
the people have to self educate about health and finance otherwise we will become zombies
like the majority of people.
SoDamnMad 7 hours ago remove link
Here are the 27 starting with Peter Daszak who signed THE LANCET letter saying ," We
stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not
have a natural origin. "
Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, New York
Charles Calisher, Colorado State University
Dennis Carroll, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Texas
Fauci is protected at the very highest levels of the oligarchy. So regardless of these
revelations nothing serious will ever happen to him. At worst, he will step down and retire
to his villa in the south of France. Then the controlled MSM will refuse to mention him
again.
Clearing 17 hours ago
Gee, while you're at it, sue Fauci in his individual capacity. He doesn't get immunity
for lying. See below:
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government
officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless
the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of
sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials
who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions" extending to "all
[officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law " Qualified
immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the
government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.
DemandSider 3 hours ago (Edited)
"PCR is separate from that, it's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of
something out of something. That's what it is. It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it
doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything
like that," Mullis said.
-Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR being used as a "test" to perpetuate the scamdemic.
Mr. "small government" Rand Paul is only making it worse.
Almachius 2 hours ago
Never mind Fauci. White Supremacists are the greatest threat to America.
Obiden said so.
And Obiden is an honourable man.
Fiscal Reality 14 hours ago
Fauci doesn't give a crap what happens. He got his book deal payoff. He's praying to get
fired so he can cash in on his taxpayer funded pension and get a $10 million contract with
CNN.
2types PREMIUM 13 hours ago
Amazon pulled his book from presale so says the article. Probably in his best interest
to keep his mouth shut right now. Anything he says can and will be used against him. On
second thought.... maybe that's why water carrier Bezos suspended sales?
"... LTO drilling locations are diminishing faster and faster. Look for massive consolidation as E&P companies can only grow through M&A. ..."
"... The energy transition will be painful and longer than anticipated. Criminalization of an industry that embodies national security and that gives the "haves" a competitive advantage in favor of hopes and prayers is folly and irresponsible. ..."
"... A few years ago I heard Chinese venture capitalist speak at the Aspen Institute. He claimed that democracy is not a form of government but instead a religion. He gave the example that in Nigeria, the US is concerned about human rights while the Chinese could care less who dies in Nigeria as long as they can get the oil. He also stated that the Chinese only care about how they can feed, shelter, move, and run their economy and human rights are not remotely introduced into their paradigm. Something to think about. ..."
Ovi, great work as usual .My POV is that it is GOM that is the major factor in the comeback
, not "shale plays " that are supposedly going to be the saviors of Industrial civilisation .
Confirms my argument ( and of many others )that shale is all juiced out . Better to lower
expectations from LTO for the future .
REPLYOVI IGNORED HOLE IN HEAD IGNORED
05/30/2021 at 1:40 pm
Ovi, great work as usual .My POV is that it is GOM that is the major factor in the
comeback , not "shale plays " that are supposedly going to be the saviors of Industrial
civilisation . Confirms my argument ( and of many others )that shale is all juiced out . Better
to lower expectations from LTO for the future .
REPLY OVI IGNORED
05/30/2021 at 5:00 pm
Thanks HH
I know the general opinion seems to be that the shale plays are finished. Looking at the
data that is in the post doesn't confirm, at this time, that shale is overblown. Let's look at
the two states at the top of the post, Texas and NM and the onshore L48 first chart.
Looking at the Texas increase from January to March one gets 4,745 – 4,661 = 84
kb/d or 42 kb/d/mth. Looking at NM from November to March, one gets 1,155 – 1,112 = 43 or 11 kb/d/mth. The total being 53 kb/d/mth.
Looking at the total onshore L48 increase from January to March, one gets 8,861 –
8,814 = 47 or a net of 23.5 kb/d/mth. So within the onshore lower 48 there is 30 kb/d/mth of
decline.
I would not bet much on my two month or four month analysis, but I think we will need to
monitor what is happening in Texas and NM for another six months to get a better idea of what
is happening in the Permian. The price of oil will be the determining/critical factor.
I know the general opinion seems to be that the shale plays are finished. Looking at the
data that is in the post doesn't confirm, at this time, that shale is overblown. Let's look at
the two states at the top of the post, Texas and NM and the onshore L48 first chart.
Looking at the Texas increase from January to March one gets 4,745 – 4,661 = 84 kb/d
or 42 kb/d/mth.
Looking at NM from November to March, one gets 1,155 – 1,112 = 43 or 11 kb/d/mth.
The total being 53 kb/d/mth.
Looking at the total onshore L48 increase from January to March, one gets 8,861 –
8,814 = 47 or a net of 23.5 kb/d/mth. So within the onshore lower 48 there is 30 kb/d/mth of
decline.
I would not bet much on my two month or four month analysis, but I think we will need to
monitor what is happening in Texas and NM for another six months to get a better idea of what
is happening in the Permian. The price of oil will be the determining/critical factor.
LTO drilling locations are diminishing faster and faster. Look for massive consolidation as
E&P companies can only grow through M&A. Many companies have drilling inventories of
less than four years. The LTO revolution is over as we knew it and the number of E&P
companies will shrink dramatically. There will be minimal growth and much less than 75kbd per
month.
The energy transition will be painful and longer than anticipated. Criminalization of an
industry that embodies national security and that gives the "haves" a competitive advantage in
favor of hopes and prayers is folly and irresponsible.
China will bury us as they try to capture as much of the hydrocarbon as they can knowing
that energy equals power.
A few years ago I heard Chinese venture capitalist speak at the Aspen
Institute. He claimed that democracy is not a form of government but instead a religion. He
gave the example that in Nigeria, the US is concerned about human rights while the Chinese could
care less who dies in Nigeria as long as they can get the oil. He also stated that the Chinese
only care about how they can feed, shelter, move, and run their economy and human rights are
not remotely introduced into their paradigm. Something to think about.
Investments in real estate, commodities and gold can help offset higher inflation, wealth
manager say.
Real estate, for instance, can gain value amid inflation, while property owners can increase
rent on tenants. Real estate investment trusts have also offered attractive returns in prior
periods of rising inflation.
Commodities historically do well when the U.S. dollar is weak, and higher inflation tends to
push the greenback lower.
"Inflation is inevitable, especially with the amount of money the government is spending,"
says Patrick Healey, founder and president of Caliber Financial Partners, a financial planning
firm. "From a financial standpoint, you do need to have some hedges in your portfolio."
...Materials and energy companies stand to benefit from higher commodities prices, while
higher interest rates tend to help financial stocks with higher profit margins.
the OMB expects slower growth in the long run. It projects gross domestic product growth
running slightly over 2% on average annually between fiscal 2022 and 2031, while the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pegs growth at less than 2% on average over the same
window. Either growth rate is anemic, making more "broadly shared prosperity" unlikely as
well.
...
It may be that raising federal spending turns out to be a winning formula for Democrats in
2022. Then again, it may not. Especially since Mr. Biden would hike taxes high enough to eat up
more GDP than in any 10-year period in American history, according
to the American Action Forum's Gordon Gray. The spending binge would also increase the nation's
public debt to 117% of GDP""greater than the previous record GDP percentage that Washington
clocked in the year after World War II.
Recent polling suggests the Democrats' approach may not help them in the midterms.
... Democrats may be counting on Republicans to emphasize "culture war" issues rather than
deliver a focused, principled attack on the president's orgy of spending and tax increases.
This isn't to suggest issues like defunding the police, critical race theory and border
security are unimportant. But in 2022, as in most years, the economy will likely be the real
congressional battleground. The sooner Republicans recognize that, the better.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of
"The Triumph of William McKinley" (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
I don't believe policies matter any more. In 2020, democrats secured a permanent upper hand
for themselves which is mail-in ballots.
Kenneth Johnson
WSJ headline---"Yes, It's Still The Economy, Stew ped"
If....by the summer of 2022....inflation is 4%+....we're in a recession....and
unemployment is 6%+....the Democrats will lose the midterms....I hope.
If none of those things is true....they may 'dodge a bullet'.
Any other opinions?
Ron Hoelscher
They have lost the culture war and do not seem to realize it.
As far as spending, when an economy evolves to have very few people controlling the 90% of
the economy then the governing party must resort to handouts to the 90% to stay in power.
I think the Romans called it "bread and circuses." Trump was the circus, now people want
some bread.
Defeats in the courtroom and boardroom mean Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) , ExxonMobil (XOM.N) and Chevron (CVX.N) are all under pressure to cut carbon
emissions faster. That's good news for the likes of Saudi Arabia's national oil company Saudi
Aramco (2222.SE) , Abu
Dhabi National Oil Co, and Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) and Rosneft (ROSN.MM) .
It means more business for them and the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC).
"Oil and gas demand is far from peaking and supplies will be needed, but
international oil companies will not be allowed to invest in this environment, meaning
national oil companies have to step in," said Amrita Sen from consultancy Energy Aspects.
... ... ...
Climate activists scored a major victory with a Dutch court ruling requiring Shell to drastically cut emissions, which in
effect means cutting oil and gas output. The company will appeal.
The same day, the top two U.S. oil companies, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, both lost battles with shareholders who accused them
of dragging their feet on climate change.
...Western oil majors control around 15% of global output, while OPEC and Russia have a share of around 40 percent. That
share has been relatively stable in recent decades as rising demand was met with new producers like smaller private U.S. shale
firms, which face similar climate-related pressures.
...Despite pressure from activists, investors and banks to cut emissions, Western oil majors are also tasked with maintaining
high dividends amid heavy debts. Dividends from oil companies represent significant contributions to pension funds.
Ovi, refer Iranian oilfields . I have always said that Iran is producing and selling all the
oil it wants to sell or can sell . The regime has outlived 10 US administrations and 6 US
presidents inspite of sanctions . They are having to sell at a discount but at the end of the
day the oil flows . Just some road bumps and a zig zag route . I doubt they have a lot of spare
capacity .If and when the sanctions are lifted all what is " unofficial " will become "
official " . As to OPEC or OPEC+ that they are close to capacity viewpoint is more prevailing
by the day .
Current around of stimulus has run it's coarse. I look for jobs numbers and inflation
numbers to soften over next few months. Which means more QE and lower interest rates for
longer. Higher stock prices.
But for the real economy. We pulled 5 years worth of GDP forward. Unless governments are
prepared to spend even more on a monthly and yearly basis going forward than they did since
March 2020 until now. And put more money into the hands of average people. We roll over first
then fall off a cliff economically. Private banks just aren't going to create the money via
loan creation in volume needed to offset or match what the government has done over past year.
So without further massive stimulus we get massive credit contraction.
With the debt burden not just public debt but private debt hanging over the economy we
likely never return to pre-pandemic levels of Global GDP
Price action for oil is still bullish but that can change in a hurry when jobs and inflation
data turn soft. HOLE IN HEAD IGNORED
05/31/2021 at 2:00 pm
HHH, " With the debt burden not just public debt but private debt hanging over the economy
we likely never return to pre-pandemic levels of Global GDP " . Been parroting this from a long
time but few want to admit that
the BAU is over . Life is(was) a party and all parties must end .
LONDON (Reuters) - Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are a "farce" and a symptom of bubbles forming in financial markets, Amundi
chief investment officer Pascal Blanque said on Thursday.
Bitcoin, trading at around $39,364, fell 35% last month after China doubled down on efforts to prevent speculative and financial
risks by cracking down on mining and trading of the largest cryptocurrency.
Speaking at a news conference, Blanque described the crypto currency as a "farce," adding that it was a symptom of the bubbles
forming in markets.
Abridged version. See the original for full version.
Notable quotes:
"... In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security." ..."
"... the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. ..."
"... In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7 million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples, building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO framework. ..."
"... Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance. ..."
"... EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said Richard Ebright of Rutgers. ..."
"... now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the funding, research resources, training, and direction come from? ..."
"... The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China ..."
As the NSC tracked these disparate clues, U.S. government virologists advising them flagged
one study first submitted in April 2020. Eleven of its 23 coauthors worked for the Academy of
Military Medical Sciences, the Chinese army's medical research institute. Using the
gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, the researchers had engineered mice with humanized
lungs, then studied their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. As the NSC officials worked backward
from the date of publication to establish a timeline for the study, it became clear that the
mice had been engineered sometime in the summer of 2019, before the pandemic even started. The
NSC officials were left wondering: Had the Chinese military been running viruses through
humanized mouse models, to see which might be infectious to humans?
In October 2014, the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on new funding for
gain-of-function research projects that could make influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses more
virulent or transmissible. But a footnote to the statement announcing the moratorium carved out
an exception for cases deemed "urgently necessary to protect the public health or national
security."
In the first year of the Trump administration, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with a
review system called the HHS P3CO Framework (for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and
Oversight). It put the onus for ensuring the safety of any such research on the federal
department or agency funding it. This left the review process shrouded in secrecy. "The names
of reviewers are not released, and the details of the experiments to be considered are largely
secret," said the Harvard epidemiologist Dr. Marc Lipsitch, whose advocacy against
gain-of-function research helped prompt the moratorium. (An NIH spokesperson told Vanity
Fair that "information about individual unfunded applications is not public to preserve
confidentiality and protect sensitive information, preliminary data, and intellectual
property.")
Inside the NIH, which funded such research, the P3CO framework was largely met with shrugs
and eye rolls, said a longtime agency official: "If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban
all of virology." He added, "Ever since the moratorium, everyone's gone wink-wink and just done
gain-of-function research anyway."
British-born Peter Daszak, 55, is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York
City–based nonprofit with the laudable goal of preventing the outbreak of emerging
diseases by safeguarding ecosystems. In May 2014, five months before the moratorium on
gain-of-function research was announced, EcoHealth secured a NIAID grant of roughly $3.7
million, which it allocated in part to various entities engaged in collecting bat samples,
building models, and performing gain-of-function experiments to see which animal viruses were
able to jump to humans. The grant was not halted under the moratorium or the P3CO
framework.
By 2018, EcoHealth Alliance was pulling in up to $15 million a year in grant money from an
array of federal agencies, including the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to 990 tax exemption
forms it filed with the New York State Attorney General's Charities Bureau. Shi Zhengli herself
listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae:
$665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID. At
least some of those funds were routed through EcoHealth Alliance.
EcoHealth Alliance's practice of divvying up large government grants into smaller sub-grants
for individual labs and institutions gave it enormous sway within the field of virology. The
sums at stake allow it to "purchase a lot of omertà" from the labs it supports, said
Richard Ebright of Rutgers. (In response to detailed questions, an EcoHealth Alliance
spokesperson said on behalf of the organization and Daszak, "We have no comment.")
In July, the NIH attempted to backtrack. It reinstated the grant but suspended its research
activities until EcoHealth Alliance fulfilled seven conditions, some of which went beyond the
nonprofit's purview and seemed to stray into tinfoil-hat territory. They included: providing
information on the "apparent disappearance" of a Wuhan Institute of Virology researcher, who
was rumored on social media to be patient zero, and explaining diminished cell phone traffic
and roadblocks around the WIV in October 2019.
Ebright likened Daszak's model of research -- bringing samples from a remote area to an
urban one, then sequencing and growing viruses and attempting to genetically modify them to
make them more virulent -- to "looking for a gas leak with a lighted match." Moreover, Ebright
believed that Daszak's research had failed in its stated purpose of predicting and preventing
pandemics through its global collaborations.
It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S.
Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet
statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific
unanimity.
Under the subject line, "No need for you to sign the "Statement" Ralph!!," he wrote to two
scientists, including UNC's Dr. Ralph Baric, who had collaborated with Shi Zhengli on the
gain-of-function study that created a coronavirus capable of infecting human cells: "you, me
and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn't
work in a counterproductive way." Daszak added, "We'll then put it out in a way that doesn't
link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice."
Baric agreed, writing back, "Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact."
Baric did not sign the statement. In the end, Daszak did. At least six other signers had
either worked at, or had been funded by, EcoHealth Alliance. The statement ended with a
declaration of objectivity: "We declare no competing interests."
Daszak mobilized so quickly for a reason, said Jamie Metzl: "If zoonosis was the origin,
it was a validation of his life work . But if the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it
had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear
science." It could mire the field indefinitely in moratoriums and funding restrictions.
In a CNN interview on March 26, Dr. Redfield, the former CDC director under Trump, made a
candid admission: "I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of
this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped." Redfield added that he
believed the release was an accident, not an intentional act. In his view, nothing that
happened since his first calls with Dr. Gao changed a simple fact: The WIV needed to be ruled
out as a source, and it hadn't been.
After the interview aired, death threats flooded his inbox. The vitriol came not just from
strangers who thought he was being racially insensitive but also from prominent scientists,
some of whom used to be his friends. One said he should just "wither and die."
Peter Daszak was getting death threats too, some from QAnon conspirators.
Inside the U.S. government, meanwhile, the lab-leak hypothesis had survived the transition
from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the House
Intelligence Committee that two "plausible theories" were being weighed: a lab accident or
natural emergence.
Even so, lab-leak talk was mostly confined to right-wing news outlets through April,
gleefully flogged by Tucker Carlson and studiously avoided by most of the mainstream media. In
Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee's Republican minority had launched its own inquiry,
but there was little buy-in from Democrats and the NIH didn't provide responses to its lengthy
list of demands for information.
The ground began to shift on May 2, when Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times
science writer known in part for writing a controversial book about how genes shape the social
behavior of different races, published a lengthy
essay on Medium. In it, he analyzed the scientific clues both for and against a lab leak,
and excoriated the media for its failure to report on the dueling hypotheses. Wade devoted a
full section to the "furin cleavage site," a distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2's genetic code
that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells.
Within the scientific community, one thing leapt off the page. Wade quoted one of the
world's most famous microbiologists, Dr. David Baltimore, saying that he believed the furin
cleavage site "was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus." Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate
and pioneer in molecular biology, was about as far from Steve Bannon and the conspiracy
theorists as it was possible to get. His judgment, that the furin cleavage site raised the
prospect of gene manipulation, had to be taken seriously.
Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago
Gain of function research is weaponization. We are under attack by a biological weapon
designed in a laboratory to kill people. We are, in effect, at war.
KickIce, 1 hour ago, (Edited)
With who, Washington DC? FWIW, that would be my pick.
ted41776, 1 hour ago
Yes, except "we" moved this "research" to china many years ago to speed up the weaponization
of bioweapons. the original researchers came to the us from nazi Germany after WW2 (Project
Paperclip). it wasn't moving fast enough here because of that whole experimenting on humans
thing was looked down upon here in the US (at least in the past). so "we" hired china what "we"
couldn't do domestically on "our" own.
And now the spin doctors come around pointing the finger
at china. Sure, china may have done the experimentation and research, but where did the
funding, research resources, training, and direction come from?
gregga777, 1 hour ago
Gain of function research is weaponization
It's also insane. Hey, look at what we did! We made smallpox* in our gene sequencing
laboratory. Oops! It's release into the 'wild' was an unfortunate accident.
Anyone engaged in the research & development of making viruses or bacteria more lethal
or the resurrection of presumably extinct pathogens (e.g., smallpox*) are International War
Criminals. They should be arrested and placed on trial in a suitable jurisdiction. At the very
least they should be barred forever from working in any kind of even remotely related
laboratory research.
*The complete gene sequence of smallpox is apparently freely available over the
Internet.
is an example of GOF engineering that bat lady Shi Zhengli participated in, engineering
chimeras of SARS and SARS like coronaviruses and splicing with HIV to make it more
transmissible to humans.
Pax Romana, 1 hour ago
10 page article could have been condensed into one sentence: Fort Detrick -> Canadian Lab
-> Wuhan -> Spooks -> Election Fraud -> Vax -> State Control
ted41776, 1 hour ago
The US banned bioweapon development (in the US) and moved it to China with Fraudci in charge
so that they could do human experiments and make lots of money on GMO "vaccines" And now the US is trying to spin the story and put the blame on China
no, this covaids was MADE IN THE USA even if it was produced and manufactured in China under
US funding, direction, and supervision
brian91145, 1 hour ago
100% right that is the truth that everyone will know very soon
ted41776, 1 hour ago, (Edited)
not sure if it will make any difference
911: US training and funding bin laden for over a decade? WMDs, they got WMDs! pools of
molten metal caused by... kerosene (jet fuel)? building 7...
we gotta get that f||cker bin laden though
bammy arming cartels (fast and furious) and guns they got from him used to kill americans
(including cops and border patrol)? crickets
there is no election fraud, after seeing them spend 4 years trying to overthrow a president
who allegedly used fraud and russian collusion to get elected?
and on and on and on, the neverending 24/7 stream of lies and distortion
unfortunately, truth has become pretty worthless in this sick reality most people live
in
konputa, 1 hour ago
Designed in the US, manufactured in China. We've known this since early 2020.
CheapBastard, 1 hour ago
(((Vanity Fair))) has the same editorial weight that Teen Vogue has.
The article is meant to obfuscate the truth, not clarify it.
CheapBastard, 51 minutes ago, (Edited)
The author carefully avoids inconvenient but important truths including::
Fauci funded the Wuhan bioweapons lab thru NIH (proven by emails) Fauci lied repeatedly from
day#1 about the characteristics and origin of the deadly virus (also proven by emails) the
WHO lied repeatedly about the origin the involvement of Gates in this entire fiasco
S.Parker, · 1 hour ago
Fort Detrick, USA
Handful of Dust, · 4 minutes ago
· Bumbler-in-Chief Biden in the White House Backs 'Incredible' Dr. Anthony Fauci;
Refuses Comment on Explosive Emails Exposing the Lies & Deceit
Its a book! Damn Tylers it will take me days to read. · The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:
"Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires,
retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or
knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both."
Weedlord Bonerhitler, 1 hour ago
Don't need a next leak. Just need time for the leaky vaccines to do their work. A
vaccine that doesn't stop transmission and merely reduces symptoms, is not a vaccine, but an
evolutionary pressure upon the virus.
This is Marek's disease, found in chickens. A few decades ago, it was fairly
benign, but then it was treated with a vaccine that merely reduced symptoms to a minimum
without stopping the virus. Now, after evolving over a few decades while butting heads with
that leaky vaccine, it's so deadly to chickens that any unvaccinated flocks tend to be wiped
out by it, making vaccinating every chicken on Earth a necessity.
This is our future. They want people completely dependent on their vaccines to
survive.
The book is very weak. I agree that it was "dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated." Both the novel and the film romanticize sociopathic
violence and as such as distasteful. The wantonness of the film is nauseating...
But the urban dysfunctional and corrupt hell which the described neoliberal societies in summer of 2020 with with social cohesion
and morals falling so low that society can't even neither with banksters crimes, with the corruption of intelligence agencies, as well
as the street gangs violence makes film like an early warning about the dangers of neoliberalism.
It might also interpreted as a parable of what might happen with countries which rely on violence international politics.
Notable quotes:
"... the movie's sugar coating of violence and vicious sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved, actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel. ..."
"... The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie off. ..."
"... psychopath obviously on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts. ..."
"... The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering to them. ..."
"... Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse "Cuties" last year. ..."
"... Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can't speak for Burgess but I've seen enough of Kubrick's work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best. ..."
"... Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground. ..."
"... I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College. ..."
"... One of the best sociopath roles. Maybe the most disturbing. Willams' best role. ..."
"... The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. ..."
"... Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence. ..."
For years now, readers have been urging me to review Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (1971), which adapts Anthony
Burgess' 1962 novel of the same name. I have resisted, because although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I
thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated, so I didn't want to watch it again. Of course I had first watched it decades
ago. But maybe I would see it differently if I gave it another chance. So I approached it with an open mind. But I was right the
first time.
A Clockwork Orange is set in Great Britain in a not-too-distant future. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his three buddies are
violent hooligans who engage in rape, assault, robbery, and wanton destruction. The movie opens with an amphetamine-fueled crime
spree. They beat up an old drunk, brawl with another gang, run people off the road while joy riding, then use a confidence trick
("There's been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?") to invade a couple's home, whereupon they beat the man, rape
his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply
be killed.
Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely
breeds resentment. One night they decide to rob a wealthy woman's house. The old accident trick does not work, so Alex breaks in.
There is a struggle. She attacks him with a bust of Beethoven, so he kills her with a sculpture of a penis. Hearing sirens, he exits,
whereupon his ex-friends clobber him with a bottle and leave him for the police.
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex is imprisoned for murder. He seeks to ingratiate himself with the authorities by feigning Christian piety. (As a violent
sociopath, he finds the Old Testament more to his liking.)
When a new Left-wing government comes into power, they want to free up prison space for political prisoners, so they introduce
an experimental cure for his violent sociopathy: the Ludovico technique, which is basically a form of Pavlovian conditioning. Alex
is the test subject. He is injected with a nausea-producing drug then forced to watch films of violence, including sexual violence.
Eventually, he can't even think of violence without becoming violently ill. Pronounced cured, he is released into society.
Newly paroled, Alex bumps into the bum that he assaulted, who recognizes him and wants revenge. He calls together his fellow bums
to beat Alex, whose Ludovico conditioning makes it impossible for him to fight back.
Ironic, huh?
Let that be a lesson to you.
When the mob of hobos is broken up by two cops, they turn out to be two of Alex's old gang, the very ones he humiliated. Eager
to exact further revenge, they beat him mercilessly and abandon him in the countryside. Alex is helpless to resist.
Ironic, huh?
Let that be a lesson to you.
Alex wanders through the countryside until he takes refuge at the home of the very couple he and his gang brutalized. Ironic,
huh? The husband was crippled by the beating. The wife has died and been replaced with a gigantic muscular dork named Julian. The
husband figures out who Alex is and drugs him. Then he and some of his friends, who oppose the government that introduced the Ludovico
technique, try to drive Alex to commit suicide, hoping to create a scandal that will embarrass the government. Alex throws himself
from a window and is severely injured but does not die.
To contain the scandal, the Justice Minister throws the cripple in prison and tries to win Alex's favor by tending to his wounds.
While unconscious, he is also given brain surgery to reverse the Ludovico technique. The happy ending is that Alex returns to being
a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism
to pure cynicism in the end. Apparently, the book's final chapter was "redemptive," but this was omitted as being contrived -- as
if that weren't true of the whole story.
But isn't this all redeemed by a "deep message" about human freedom? No, not really, because the moral psychology of A Clockwork
Orange is remarkably crude.
The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the
innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don't necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed
at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can
create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of
his violent sociopathy.
Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because
they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that. Alex does not feel
sick with empathy for victims, he just feels sick. And his physiological response makes no moral distinctions between violence meted
out to the deserving and the undeserving. When he is attacked, he can't defend himself, because even violence in self-defense makes
him sick.
Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn't exactly make such a "cure"
for crime implausible.
Burgess's "deep" objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues
that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex's freedom, which takes away his humanity. Alex, being a sociopath,
takes pleasure in hurting innocent people. The Ludovico treatment teaches him to feel disgust at violence.
But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex's behavior? Is that also a
dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so.
Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.
Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean
that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio
ad absurdum .
The Ludovico technique and Burgess' alternative both depend on a pat dualism between body and mind, which leaves no place for
what the ancients called virtues and the moderns called moral sentiments. For the ancients, virtue is rooted in habit. For moral
sentiments theorists, our ability to perceive the good is caught up in feelings like empathy and disgust. But to the Ludovico technique,
virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach. From the
chaplain's point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath's lack of virtue
or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.
But isn't Kubrick's treatment of this material brilliant? No, not really. Kubrick's treatment of sex and violence veers between
the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets,
and dreadful over-acting. The whole production reminded me of the comics of R. Crumb, who puts his prodigious talent to work churning
out pornography, grotesquerie, and world-destroying cynicism. Crumb obviously hates America. He especially hates women. Likewise,
the director of A Clockwork Orange obviously hates everything about Great Britain. He also takes particular pleasure in the
mockery and degradation of women. Handling such material with technical skill does not redeem it. Indeed, by making it seductive,
Kubrick actually it makes it worse.
A Clockwork Orange is violence-porn and porn-porn combined with a middle-brow, moralistic "message" and some classical
music. But these function merely as an alibi, like the interviews in Playboy . A Clockwork Orange is obscene in the
literal sense of the word: it should not be watched.
The Burgess novel explored a simple question: is it good enough if someone does the right thing (abhors gratuitous violence
and carnage) for the wrong reason (Pavlovian programming).
The novel incorporated a bastardized lexicon with a short unnecessary dictionary at the very end to help the reader along.
As with his also futuristic Wanting Seed, Burgess's Clockwork is a satire of the absurd lefty politics of his day. The novel has
aged well, as sixty years later the lefty politics of the day are even more absurd.
When Kubrick's movie version of "The Clockwork Orange" premiered, Burgess was asked what he thought of it. After a half century,
I cannot recall Burgess's exact words but they were to the effect that the movie perfectly illustrated the points he had made
in his novel.
Most naively interpreted this as an endorsement of the movie. However, Burgess was adept with words. I understood this to be
a subtle barb. Burgess's words had an alternative implication, i.e. that the movie's sugar coating of violence and vicious
sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved,
actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel.
OTOH, my personal opinion is that despite the moral repugnance which the movie engendered for me it is, like all of Kubrick's
movies, a cinematic masterpiece. It's an unfortunate fact that some art can be immoral and even hostile to truth yet still have
aesthetic virtue.
The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie
off.
It's like he can't decide if Alex should be his unique and wonderful self even if it means raping and killing people. The scene
of him of setting his rank in the gang is a celebration of violence as an art form.
Kubrick clearly thought that Alex beating the woman with a giant d-k must have been great fun and anyone in the stodgy British
chattering class probably had it coming anyways. There seems to be nothing wrong with cruising the British countryside for a bit
of the ultraviolence as long as you have style and can show off your good taste by listening to Beethoven.
Are we supposed to pity Alex when the husband tries to kill him? Kubrick seems to think so but who could blame a husband that
wants to avenge his wife? According to Kubrick he is really boring and went gay anyways.
The movie is a mess but still worth watching as a sort of shock to the senses. Some say the book is better which while true
on a story level it's also a bit of chore since there is so much fictitious slang. My copy in fact had a compendium slang dictionary.
So you spend half the time looking up all these words that the author made up. Fun.
What I don't get is why anyone would want you to review the movie. I would put it towards to top of the 70s rape and violence
trash heap but that isn't saying much. If anything I have more respect for the blatantly violent biker flicks like Wild Angels
because they at least aren't trying to pretend that they have some deep message about society.
It's one of those movies that would have much worse reviews if a famous director wasn't attached to it. Great acting by Malcom
though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.
@Rahanpsychopath obviously
on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent
the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts.
The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering
to them.
It would be like creating a movie about the degenerate nature of porn but the first 20 minutes is a gang bang. Oh but the main
characters will later change and find complexity in their predicament. It's a social criticism of modern society you see.
This had to be one of the dumbest movies that I ever TRIED to watch. Was underway on a ship and they played this movie for
us to watch, got up and left after only maybe 15-20 minutes into the film. "Overrated" is too mild a word for it. GARBAGE FILM.
Out of 5 stars I don't even give it half a star.
Good review. I will add one positive point: It is relevant to current events. Roger Ebert pointed out that Kubrick is playing
with the idea that in a world where the ruling pattern of thought is criminal insanity, one might as well be criminally insane.
This turned out to be prescient, because the conversion to woke insanity has taken hold. I could give dozens of examples, but
I will stay with the Beethoven theme of the movie. Beethoven has recently been proclaimed an "above average " composer, and a
supremicist, worthy of cancellation. Oxford is now debating canceling musical notation if the world is crazy, might as well join
them.
@Mr. Ed is meaningless, the
client of the police algorithm is a woman with testicles, which she had implanted just to enjoy the testosterone boost, but still
identifies as a woman. Just like everyone, she only has virtual sex, because real sex is for degenerate fascist perverts known
as "piggies". The moment a piggie man and a piggie woman start making out, the closest electronic gadgets start blasting feminist
propaganda on how disgusting and humiliating it is for a woman to be banged by a man.
And of course, the new iPhuck 10 is a semi-AI sex toy for the upper middle classes, which randomly goes into various BDSM and
fetish modes, in order to comply with diversity mandates.
One reading of the film is as a dark, slanted allegory for England's history as a conquering nation from 1066 to its eventual
post-WW2 shrinking to be too afraid to fight or conquer anymore.
The droogs represent England, or English martial spirit. As the the film begins, they assault an old drunk hobo singing Molly
Malone (representing Ireland), a group of similar ruffians (representing Scotland) who are about to rape a girl and jump off a
stage (the Scottish Highlands, or perhaps just north of the English border generally) to fight the English, and, finally, successful
assault against a cultured, peace-loving old man and his beautiful wife (representing either Wales or France). In all the assaults,
the ruffians make no apologies, and, in fact, later, in sequence are seen walking around wearing various hats of other martial
nations, showing the same conquering, harsh martial spirit has been alive in others.
All of this is brought to a halt when their schemes get them caught. The leader of the martial spirit is brainwashed to hate
violence (English pols who apologize for creating an Empire and conquering and/or are now too milquetoast to fight, like Chamberlain),
while his former fellow cohorts abuse him (internal civil strife), as does his former victims (victim culture).
But there is an upside(?). By bringing him so low, the conditioning is broken, and his old violent martial spirit returns.
Anyway, that was just my symbolic reading, ignoring the other readings I've had of the film.
Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse "Cuties" last
year.
Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can't speak for Burgess but I've
seen enough of Kubrick's work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best.
I've always known this movie was trash and avoided it like the plague. What demented person's have been "urging" the author
to review it? Do they need somebody else's approval before they watch it? I never understood these type of people who make degenerate
movies like this and those by Quentin Terantino into movie classics. Who wants to watch more degeneracy when we already live in
a degenerate society? Just turn on the news and get your thrills.
A must read. Tip: Download his entire website (whitenationalism.com
), ((they)) are trying to scrub it off the web it seems. BTW below : Inner party/ IP–> Chosenites
Some snippets
"The very aversion therapy that the inner party psychiatrist was administering to Alex late in the movie to curb his criminality,
Kubrick was administering to his fellow tribesmen right from the opening scene, to curb their liberal universalist illusions.
The setting is in a future time in which the people speak a language which is a mixture of English and Russian. The protagonist,
Alex, is a high school dropout born and raised in a public housing project. Alex is what you would call a tabula rasa – a blank
slate – from a cultural standpoint. His parents have no culture at all, they are remarkably obedient and dull witted. Both parents
work and both spend all their free time in front of the telly, being passively entertained.
Alex's parents are exactly what the inner party wishes us all to become.
They work, they consume, and they are passive and obedient, with no thoughts of their own.
They are new socialist man – interchangeable parts with no sense of their own group identity or uniqueness – no traditions,
no culture, and no reactionary and troublesome notions to pass on to their children.
But their only son is another story altogether. He very much prefers active entertainment."
snip
"Differences in aesthetic preference and perception provoke and sharpen conflict rather than reduce it. Indeed, this idea
that high art is a universal which can lead humans into a uniform brotherhood of man is absurd. Thus, Kubrick's message that high
art is a differentiating mechanism – fraught with potential for conflict and competition – is broadly consistent with Professor
Geoffrey Miller's thesis in The Mating Mind, that our brains evolved primarily as ornaments of fitness in the highly competitive
sexual selection process.
Siamese twin to the Freudian attack is the Freudian promise, namely that peace and universal harmony can be attained through
sexual liberation and "free love." – if only sex can be stripped of the competitive and aggressive baggage imposed by repressive
society.
Alex's denoument occurs at another home invasion fraught with symbolic content. The home is occupied by a conspicuously IP
looking woman (the cat lady) with her house decorated with a conspicuously IP collection of erotic art objects and paintings.
When Alex enters, she becomes remarkably aggressive and assaultive, swinging a bust of Beethoven (his [European] art) as a
weapon against him, as he grabs one of her large phallic sculptures (her [Jewish] art) and deploys it to defend himself.
As this sexual/artistic combat is danced out to the tune of Rossini's Thieving Magpie, Kubrick explodes the Freudian myth of
peace and harmony through free sex so popular among his own tribesmen, ."
This is a pretty good assessment of Clockwork Orange. I think the movie could be used as a gauge of one's own growth. The first
time I saw it I was in my late teens. It wasn't that impressive but I sat through it and took in its lessons. I have watched it
maybe 3 times since then. The last time I watched it, somewhere in my mid-thirties, I didn't even want to finish it. I found it
that distasteful. In a similar way as a movie called Vulgar that was released about 20 years ago.
Last year's Joker movie was much less stomach turning than either of those movies.
I was around 15 when this movie came out and I never had a desire to see it because of its violence and homo/glitter rock make
up of the protagonist/antagonist played by Malcolm McDowell.
I've seen some of it over the last 50 years and still agree with the article even though I find some of the scenes now humorously
entertaining.
Now lets talk about Kubrick. He has made a number of great movies, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, etc. but where would he
be if not for Jewlywood? Yeah sure he started small but with hymie $ backing $. I put it to you that if he weren't a JOO (but
also being a Jew, lol) he would have been jerking off to boy porn or otherwise in the Bronx until his death. (Wry grin)
To sum up, a society that rejects morality and meaning in favor of utilitarianism (symbolized by the drab, horrible architecture),
hedonism (the ready availability of drugs and the tasteless, obscene decoration), and situational expediency, builds itself a
nightmare world, in which there is no beauty, subtlety, meaning, or decency. Its denizens are hopeless slaves to base instincts
and the fads of the moment.
Does any of that seem to resonate with our current situation?
It doesn't matter if backdrop resonates with our current situation or appears prophetic.
The problem is that Kubrick pandering to the same moral degeneracy that he is also trying to criticize.
Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance
to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground.
Kubrick takes advantage of that same extreme tolerance by selling rape and violence. The first third of the movie depicts Alex
as the protagonist even though he rapes and kills for his own pleasure. It's acknowledged that he has access to a normal life
and rejects it on the basis of it being too conforming. How many movies lure the audience into celebrating a rapist as an individualist?
Later after the treatment fails we are supposed to identify with him as a victim of society. What about the people that he
raped and murdered? Are they not victims? We are supposed to forget about that and view him as morally superior to the system
that tried reprogramming him. Well this is exact same moral relativism that created the dystopia in the first place.
The truth is that Kubrick likes the world of Alex and would prefer living there over some stodgy traditional society. Sure
you might get raped or murdered by an individualist but you were probably some faceless chattering class White that lacked taste
and had it coming anyways.
Kubrick liked to shock people – he studied it, not just the photographic techniques, but also the psychology of inducing maximum
fear and terror in his audience. He hoped this would make his films more memorable, and it obviously did, while arguably better
films, such as
are almost completely forgotten now. Watched about 1/2 hour of Orange on video before turning it off. Can't imagine why anyone
would want to subject themselves to that on the big screen. 2001 is a masterpiece.
I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume.
In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College.
1. One can turn a sociopath into a normal person by making him sick while showing him movies of sex and violence. In other
words, there's no difference between empathy and/or good character and a sour stomach.
2. Freedom of choice is a necessary condition for morality and humanity (the old libertarian apology for moral laxness), which
means that sociopaths are better moral agents and more human than gentlemen, who through habit and moral sentiment are less "free"
to behave dishonorably.
3. A movie that decorates rape, wanton cruelty, cartoonish acting, and crude parody with little sprigs of middle-brow moralizing
is redeemed by it.
The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete
to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement.
Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with
empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises
to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence.
The White Nationalist movement needs to weed out sociopathic types. Let the system have them.
@Priss Factor to the rest
of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader, and his gang are lousy followers, because
sociopaths lack fellow feeling, which makes it impossible for them to feel loyalty and solidarity and difficult for them to understand
one another.
Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was
highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him. I know words
like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don't
fit Hitler.
The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you
look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you'll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher
quality.
No, extreme Jews are supported by rich Jews, whereas 'extreme' whites are rejected by successful whites.
Most Neocons are silly people. But they got backing.
Even is 'extreme' whites were all high-quality, they would be rejected by moneyed whites because Jews control the gods.
@Oscar Peterson imagine a
future with a wife and son. It's an abrupt change in 10 pages and Alex retains the self-pity that makes you wonder whether that
could really happen."
This is the version I read, and it is vital to the story.
ACO was published in 1962, and was astonishingly prescient. The movie inspired 1970's punk attitudes and the enormous cultural
impact which reverberates to this day. The Sex Pistols and 'Anarchy in the UK' were Alex' character for those who couldn't get
enough of him.
Like the protagonist, we can all look at our younger selves and see a different person. Johnny Rotten, like a real life Alex,
eventually got old, and now he waxes nostalgic for old England.
As long as it your socio-path, doing your dirty work, nobody cares about a sociopath. At one time 90% of the US supported the
Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, but now you cant find anyone who will state they did and they were wrong. Kubrick is brilliant because
he exposed our collective schizophrenia by letting us know how much we enjoy it.
Trevor Lynch: "Alex is part of a group of four, and when he starts acting the leader of the other three, he's brutal and high-handed,
which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he's a lousy leader "
Hitler could be treacherous and brutal too. Alex miscalculated, whereas Hitler, in the night of the long knives, didn't miscalculate.
The moral would seem to be that when you betray somebody, don't leave them alive so they can take revenge. Thus, you could say
that Alex's mistake was that he wasn't sociopathic enough . But then, not everyone can be a Hitler.
Trevor Lynch: "I know words like "sociopath" or "madman" are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things
in the real world, and they don't fit Hitler. "
Their meaning is in their social significance. They mean "I don't like you", and mark someone as outgroup. But there is no
objective definition of mental health, only various types of animal behavior. Either the behavior helps the animal survive, or
it doesn't. Raised in brutality, one becomes brutal. Raised in a technological society, we get the kind of "normal" white people
who celebrate their own racial destruction. In such an environment, "normality" is overrated. By feeding into this mentality,
your review is counterproductive.
Trevor Lynch: "The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument
to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. "
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.
Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.
There are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs to protect the flock.
In a well-run society, the sheepdogs cull the wolves. Healthy people don't need sociopaths. They need us.
The story of the Rohm purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm, but Rohm betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe
the worst of Rohm until it was almost too late.
There is no question that large corporations absolutely dominate our society today. They
control what we eat, they control what we watch on television, they own most of the stores that
we shop at, they provide the energy that our nation depends upon, and they make almost all of
the products that we use. Tens of millions of Americans make a living by serving these colossal
firms, and at this point some of the biggest corporations are larger than many small countries.
But of course the corporations aren't the top of the food chain. They have owners, and there
are 3 giant financial companies that the global elite use to control 88 percent of the
corporations that are currently listed on the S&P 500.
According to Wikipedia
, BlackRock had $8.67 trillion in assets under management as of January 2021
BlackRock, Inc. is an American multinational investment management corporation based in
New York City. Founded in 1988, initially as a risk management and fixed income institutional
asset manager, BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, with $8.67 trillion in assets
under management as of January 2021.[citation needed][6] BlackRock operates globally with 70
offices in 30 countries and clients in 100 countries.[7]
Vanguard is nearly as big. According to Wikipedia , Vanguard had $6.2
trillion in assets under management as of January 2021
The Vanguard Group, Inc. is an American registered investment advisor based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania with about $6.2 trillion in global assets under management, as of January 31,
2020.[5] It is the largest provider of mutual funds and the second-largest provider of
exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the world after BlackRock's iShares.[6] In addition to mutual
funds and ETFs, Vanguard offers brokerage services, variable and fixed annuities, educational
account services, financial planning, asset management, and trust services. Several mutual
funds managed by Vanguard are ranked at the top of the list of US mutual funds by assets
under management.[7]
... ... ...
Being the largest owner of a publicly traded company doesn't mean that you can do whatever
you want, but it does give you enormous power.
BlackRock and Vanguard were among the major shareholders whose votes helped to install two
new members on ExxonMobil's board of directors, dealing the oil giant a major defeat in the
election of board members at this year's annual (virtual) shareholders meeting.
The two fund giants, which together own approximately 14% of ExxonMobil shares, according
to reports, supported portions of a dissident slate of board nominees brought by a Engine No.
1, an activist, purpose-driven investment firm that sees ExxonMobil's response to the global
climate crisis as far too weak to help achieve net zero emissions by 2050, putting
shareholder value at risk. Engine No. 1 put forth a slate of four nominees, all with
experience in the oil and gas or renewable energy industry.
ExxonMobil did not want these new board members, but now they have been forced to take
them.
y_arrow
Dragonlord 16 minutes ago (Edited)
If you add Fidelity and BNY Mellon , its even greater.
Rainman 19 minutes ago
It's a stronger and better republic since Glass-Steagall got flushed out 2 decades ago
< snark maximo >
If you buy food or gas like everyone else, you already have a profound understanding of how
inflation can consume your budget.
The latest official inflation tally showed a jaw-dropping 3.4 per cent increase in the cost
of living in April compared with a year earlier.
That's not to say runaway inflation is inevitable. The Bank of Canada has vowed to use its
monetary bag of tricks to keep it under control. Also, if you draw income from a defined
benefit pension (DB), Canada Pension Plan (CPP) or Old Age Security (OAS), benefits are
automatically tied to inflation.
Canadians who invest through a defined contribution pension (DC), or through a self-directed
registered retirement savings plan (RRSP) or tax-free savings account aren't so lucky. But
there are steps you can take in your investment portfolio to hedge against a rapid increase in
the cost of living. The objective of a hedge is to add protection without sacrificing return
potential. Here are four ways to put that protection in your portfolio.
1. Commodity equities
Equity markets generally advance with inflation (to a point), so it's good to stay invested
and diversified across sector and geographic lines. But some equities actually contribute more
to - and benefit more from - inflation. Commodities like crude oil, lumber, grain and metals
have taken the lead. That means bigger profits for commodity producers.
You can invest in specific commodities on the futures market through exchange-traded funds
(ETFs), or purchase shares in commodity-producing companies directly or through ETFs and mutual
funds.
2. Real estate
Real estate is another equity asset class already contributing to - and benefitting from -
inflation. Home owners are reaping rewards from soaring residential real estate prices but
there are many ways to diversify real estate holdings into other real estate subsectors through
real estate investment trusts. REITs are companies that own and operate residential, commercial
and industrial real estate that generate income from rents and capital gains through price
appreciation.
3. Short-term fixed income
Proper portfolio diversification includes safe fixed income, such as government bonds.
Dedicating a significant portion to fixed income in a portfolio will cushion it from volatility
on the equity side. How much of your portfolio should be dedicated to fixed income depends on
your tolerance for risk and how soon you need the cash.
It's hard to make that argument right now when yields are near rock-bottom lows, so it's
best to bite the bullet for now and keep your fixed income in short-term maturities to take
advantage of higher yields if inflation pushes interest rates up. A typical one-year guaranteed
investment certificate (GIC), for example, pays about one per cent (well below the current
inflation rate).
You can also hedge fixed income with inflation-adjusted products such as annuities or real
return bonds, but the added cost of that protection could eat into overall returns if inflation
does not become a problem.
4. Fixed-rate mortgage
Variable-rate mortgages are now available at about one per cent. While it might be tempting
for homeowners to borrow money for (close to) nothing, a rapid rise in mortgage rates could
translate into hundreds of dollars added to a monthly household budget or tens of thousands of
dollars over the course of the mortgage.
Five-year fixed rates are available at two per cent. That means you will pay two per cent no
matter what inflation does to mortgage rates in the next five years.
If you aren't already locked in, think about locking in now.
Usual WSL take -- partially false reasoning mostly along EIA talking points. The real problem
is that there is no cheap way to increase oil output Iran or no Iran. It would be funny to read
WSJ coverage in February -May of 2020 in view of current events and the price level. They
completely discredited themselves.
Brent crude rose 93 cents, or 1.3%, to $70.25 a barrel, the highest close since May 2019.
West Texas Intermediate futures gained $1.40, or 2.1%, to $67.72 a barrel. The U.S. gauge
settled at its highest level since October 2018.
... ... ...
The OPEC cartel and its allies agreed Tuesday to press ahead with earlier plans to increase
output by 450,000 barrels a day starting in July. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia will continue to
unwind its unilateral cuts of one million barrels a day that it put in place earlier this
year.
"Demand growth is outpacing supply gains even with the agreed month-by-month OPEC+
production increases taken into account," said Ann-Louise Hittle, vice president of Macro Oils
at consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. "Sticking to increases planned at the April meeting is what
the market needs," she added.
... ... ...
Both oil prices and future OPEC+ policy could be affected if as much as 1.5 million barrels
a day of Iranian oil, currently restricted by U.S. sanctions, return to the market, according
to Robert McNally, a former adviser in the George W. Bush administration and president of
consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group.
Scorpion 16 April, 2021 I am not surprised either that ARK bought COIN. She is a gambler not an
investor. Most of her investment is in overvalued, overhyped stocks they can't just keep going
up.
Lou 18 May, 2021 Until recently she was loaded up with Tesla - as much as 10% of the ARKK
portfolio - which accounted for a good part of its stellar performance (note that she had TSLA
in some of the other ARK funds. Not sure any of these other choices are going to give her ETFs
the ride TSLA gave them. Reply 2 Rene 7 May, 2021 Any one that invest in Bitcoin ,dogecoin,
Coin etc, must have his brain fall of pot or must have so much money like the Tesla Ceo, that
they can gamble for ever in a Casino, with that kind of money, i too will invest in Tin air,
and artificial money because Y cannot invest money sufficient to go broke in 10 life times.
that is very easy I don't need to expect any return in my investment.
Theo the Cat 19 May, 2021 I would never buy ARKK's stocks, but I am definitely watching and
eating popcorn. Alex 27 April, 2021 ARK is losing steam. People start to realize ARK can't
survive in a bear market
Theo the Cat 19 April, 2021 Ark is gonna turn into Titanic.
Rock 25 May, 2021 no one cares what ARK invests in... unless you want to lose money Reply 2
Cybercraig 25 April, 2021 I may end up selling ARK.G for a loss to balance next year's taxes.
Yech! Reply 5 4 Mighty Lion 19 May, 2021 Why is the reporting about ARK so sexist? Every single
article I've ever seen starts "Cathie Wood's ARK ETFs ... (such and such) ..." If it was
managed by a man, they would just say "ARK ETFs ... (etc). Reply 2 FlorinS 4 hours ago How can
we trust Cathie Wood ? Only few days ago she predicted that Bitcoin may reach $500,000.
Tesla completely transformed the automotive landscape when it introduced the Roadster, pioneering the mass-market electric car and
reinventing
the car as we know
. It sold the first widely-available EV, and it did it with a product that you could easily live with every
day. The company has done more to further the electric game than anyone else and deserves total credit for making EVs a part of the
discussion when it comes to the future of the automobile.
Tesla
has
changed the world. It's also doomed.
The last mainstream automaker to be launched from scratch in the United States was Saturn, a heavily subsidized child of the GM
family. Even with those deep pockets, it failed. History is littered with dead automotive brands. The list of deceased automakers is
also replete with visionary leaders who pioneered new tech and aimed to dominate the luxury market.
The automobile game is tough. The dirty secret is
that the big brands only make around 6% margin on every car they sell
This is all to say: we've been here before. Hudson, Tucker, DeLorean (
twice!
),
Packard, and more. The stories here are all different in their specifics, with some succumbing to shady government dealing, others
losing to price wars. While the immediate causes of their failures might be unique, the fact that they failed certainly is not.
The consumer automobile game is devilishly tough. The dirty secret of the car making world is that the big brands only make around
6% margin on every car they sell. That's a pathetic amount of profit when compared to other well-known brands like Nike, Apple, or
Disney. Shoes, upscale electronics, and entertainment (as well as scores of other industries) all offer double the profit margins,
faster production times, less regulation, and fewer unionized workforces. Building cars is dumb. Car companies make billions of
dollars in profits because they sell so many cars, not because each car is so profitable. And therein lies the rub for Tesla.
Why Tesla is doomed
The only way to be successful at car manufacturing is to do it at a very large scale. You have to sell hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of cars per year to be stable. In 2018,
Tesla
shifted a total of 245,240 cars
. The
Tesla
Model 3
also became the best-selling luxury automobile in United States; last year was fantastic for Tesla. It also took the
company to the very brink of imploding.
Scaling up production lines and capacity is the activity that is killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can
save it. The company is at the low point of a "production valley" where becoming capable of building 300,000 cars has made them
wildly unprofitable, but the only way to get to profit is to build even more capacity to enable it to make 700,000 – 1,000,000 cars.
Tesla could potentially have, or raise, the billions needed to do this. It could, that is, if the company could concentrate on doing
one thing at a time.
Tesla's worst enemy is Elon Musk. The serial entrepreneur has an affliction that many serial entrepreneurs have: Shiny Thing
Syndrome. Mr. Musk loves to chase after new challenges and novel projects. Tesla is currently producing 3 different cars, wall
chargers, charging stations, electric semi-trucks, photovoltaic roofs, and spearheading autonomous technology. Throw in the odd
flamethrower
,
underground
tunnels
, and a new
insurance
product
(not to mention
Space
X
), and you see a leader not focused on doing the hard work of pushing his company through a crisis of scale, but a man obsessed
with moon-shots and new projects.
Scaling up production is the activity that is
killing Tesla, but scaling up further is the only thing that can save it
It should be noted that Musk has never operated any business at this scale before. Running a nimble online service such as Paypal is
a very different thing than running a multinational car manufacturer -- especially one that is exclusively pursuing new technologies.
Quite frankly, Musk is not qualified to be CEO of Tesla any longer, and the mismatch of his skills to the company's needs could not
be worse timed for Tesla.
In the next 12 months, practically all other major global auto manufacturers have plans to release their own electric cars. Tesla
ate their lunch last year when it became the best-selling luxury car, but at that time, it was the only EV game in town. More
worryingly, the most common Tesla owner complaints happen to be the areas that traditional car companies excel at:
Fit
and finish
,
service
infrastructure
, and execution on timelines. When Porsche announced its
Taycan
electric sedan
, its #1 source of reservations was from current Tesla owners. This is a surefire sign that the Tesla customer
base is eager to upgrade to something better.
China, the world's largest car market, and the savior of many global brands, cannot save Tesla. Indeed, the current trade war
between the U.S. and China is
hurting
Tesla more
than any other car company. The current price for a Tesla Model 3 in China is approximately $73,000, with roughly
$30,000 of that price being the result of China's import tariffs. In January, Elon Musk broke ground on a Gigafactory in China, and
the total investment in the project is expected to exceed $4 billion,
according
to Goldman Sachs
. That is an amount of money Tesla, quite frankly, doesn't have to spend. After a disastrous first quarter 2019,
the company quickly raised $2.35 billion in stock and debt. Even with this recent cash infusion, Musk told employees the company
would be
out
of cash in 10 months
if spending continued at current levels.
The end of Tesla
Tesla will not go bankrupt. It cannot go bankrupt. At the moment, the company is still well-placed to raise another funding round
and could likely even do as many as three more funding events before investors stop lining up. Failure for Tesla won't happen
tomorrow, but it is coming. More and more evangelists are changing their tunes as competition in EVs gets fiercer. Wall street is
losing patience with broken promises and erratic CEO behavior. And the everyday consumer is finding more electric car options that
tempt their dollar now that Tesla is not the only game in town. No, Tesla's end will not happen tomorrow, nor will it be a dramatic
collapse.
Telsa is too valuable a brand to disappear in a cloud of Chapter 11 smoke. Again, history bears this out. The vast majority of
automotive brands from years past were acquired or absorbed into larger brands, where some succeeded brilliantly (Dodge) and others
slowly morphed into something unrecognizable (Hudson). Arguably, the Tesla brand is the most valuable piece of Tesla's balance sheet
as other manufacturers have caught up with their hard technology (batteries, chargers), and are rapidly chasing down their soft
technology (
Autopilot
).
The Tesla brand is global in reach, and still viewed favorably overall by the public.
The endgame for Tesla is an acquisition. It is the way of the automotive jungle -- the circle of corporate life, as it were. The
unknowable part at the moment is exactly who will acquire Tesla, as the list is quite long. Another car company is the reflexive
bet, but Silicon Valley and Chinese auto manufacturers are all likely bidders as well. Apple
already
offered to buy Tesla
back in 2013 for more than the company is worth at the time of this story. The field of suitors is wide
open, and the eventual winner could well come as a surprise to the everyday public.
Regardless of who steps up to the plate, it will be very surprising if the transaction is labelled as an acquisition. No -- this will
be a "merger" or "partnership" to protect egos and that all-important Tesla brand (again, the most valuable asset on their books).
Any upcoming news of a partnership with a Toyota or a Mercedes should not be seen as a life preserver thrown out in good faith, but
a wholesale pirate sacking of the company. Musk will quietly slip away to chase his shiny things, popping in for product launches
and tweetstorms, but the adults will be put in charge and set a profitable course. What happens after that, no one can know.
Before the pitchforks come out, make no mistake: The world is a better place for Tesla having existed. Electric cars are no longer
made out of old Porsche 914s by a guy in a shed. We are moving toward an electric future, all thanks to underdog Tesla. The world,
and Americans especially, are enamored with an underdog story. But more often than not, the underdog loses. That's why they are
underdogs. In the best of worlds, Tesla can influence Mercedes or a Chinese company from the inside to really nail electric cars and
make them the most affordable option for consumers. I hope that comes to pass for all our sakes.
Money quote from comments: "When news of this proposed standard came out, I read the actual
standard because I wanted to see if it really was that bad. Things were reported like, "Saying
an answer is 'wrong' is racist. There is no right and wrong in math, just shades of truth."
These kinds of things are worrisome. So I read a good chunk of the proposal, and I couldn't
find anything like that. Instead, I found their point was that anyone has the capability of
learning math, and so we should be teaching it to everyone. If people aren't learning it, then
that's a problem with our teaching methods.
Not sure Google and Apple will be happy. Clearly programming languages are racists as almost
all of them were created by white guys and they disproportionally punish poor coders...
A plan to reimagine math instruction for 6 million California students has become
ensnared in equity and fairness issues -- with critics saying proposed guidelines will hold
back gifted students and supporters saying it will, over time, give all kindergartners through
12th-graders a better chance to excel. From a report: The proposed new guidelines aim to
accelerate achievement while making mathematical understanding more accessible and valuable to
as many students as possible, including those shut out from high-level math in the past because
they had been "tracked" in lower level classes. The guidelines call on educators generally to
keep all students in the same courses until their junior year in high school, when they can
choose advanced subjects, including calculus, statistics and other forms of data
science.
Although still a draft, the Mathematics Framework achieved a milestone Wednesday, earning
approval from the state's Instructional Quality Commission. The members of that body moved the
framework along, approving numerous recommendations that a writing team is expected to
incorporate. The commission told writers to remove a document that had become a point of
contention for critics. It described its goals as calling out systemic racism in mathematics,
while helping educators create more inclusive, successful classrooms. Critics said it
needlessly injected race into the study of math. The state Board of Education is scheduled to
have the final say in November.
When news of this proposed standard came out, I read the actual standard because I wanted to
see if it really was that bad. Things were reported like, "Saying an answer is 'wrong' is
racist. There is no right and wrong in math, just shades of truth." These kinds of things are
worrisome.
So I read a good chunk of the proposal, and I couldn't find anything like that. Instead, I
found their point was that anyone has the capability of learning math, and so we should be
teaching it to everyone. If people aren't learning it, then that's a problem with our teaching
methods.
I also found that instead of getting rid of calculus, they are suggesting that you learn
calculus as a Junior or Senior in high school. This seems fine to me.
Does the curriculum for grades 1-10 have the appropriate foundational education for kids in
grades 11-12 to actually succeed in a calculus class? Because if not, then the notion that any
significant portion of juniors and seniors will be able take a calculus class is just a
fantasy. Re:
That is the goal, but I am not enough of an expert to know whether they reached their goal
or not. Re:
Reading (mostly skimming) through chapter 8 (about grades 9-12), a couple things stick
out:
First off, they define three different possible "pathways" for grades 9-10, which seems
completely in opposition to goal of a "common ninth- and tenth- grade experience." It sounds
like they envision that some high schools will only provide a single pathway while others will
provide multiple ones -- but it seems incredibly obvious that that's going to put students on
different tracks.
in 40 years since I did it. (I have been helping my kids.)
Which is a problem, because the world has changed with the advent of computers.
So they work on quite difficult symbolic integrations. But absolutely nothing on numerical
methods (and getting the rounding errors correct) which is far more useful in the modern
world.
For non-specialist students, there is almost nothing on how to really build a spreadsheet
model. That again is a far more useful skill than any calculus or more advanced algebra.
And then Re: I can't believe this
white supremacy I doubt they could get AP Calculus to work. It's going to have to be an
easier version of pre Calculus. Because of how they schedule the classes today, some kids take
summer courses so that they can get the prerequisites in time. Keeping everyone at the same
slow pace is painful for the stronger students. I'm wondering if they are having trouble
finding teachers who are qualified to teach math. Kumon The ones
whose parents can send them to Kumon or Russian Math after school, will have the capacity.
Those who cant even if they were smart enough for the accelerated program under current system
wont. With any law follow the money- see who will make money from this. Re:I can't believe
this white supremacy (
Score: 4 , Insightful) by CrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 ) on Monday May 31,
2021 @04:14PM ( #61440460 )
Which planet did you go to school on?
Here on Earth, here's how "everyone learns calculus in 11th grade" works:
The entire class has to stop and wait for the kids who are genuinely overwhelmed - be it
because they're smart-but-poor-and-hungry or, you know, because they're just fucking
dumb , both types exist, it doesn't matter - to catch up, because the teacher's job
rests on whether 79% or 80% of their students score a passing grade on the statewide
achiev^H^H^H^H^H^H (whoops, can't have achievements, that's ableist) "performance" tests. The
teacher, being a rational creature who understands how to make sure their family's bread
remains buttered, spends the bulk of their time helping along little Jethro and Barbie.
The bright kids are left bored out of their minds, and the "solution" presented by these
absolute shitstains is to suggest the bright kids do after-school activities if they want to
actually learn. Like, that's great for the 1% who genuinely love math the way some kids
love music or acting or sports, but what about the 25% or so who are really gifted at math and
would like to do more with it, but aren't so passionate about it that they want to give up more
of their precious dwindling free time to pursue it? What about the 50% who aren't necessarily
great at math but could certainly learn a lot more if the class wasn't being stopped every two
minutes to re-re-remind little Goobclot that "x" was actually a number, not just a letter?
Look, I absolutely agree that it's bad to write kids off as dumb. But Harrison
Bergeron is not included in the "Utopian Literature of the 20th Century" curriculum for a
reason. There's a flipside, and none of these "one size fits all" proposals does anything to
convince me that the proponents have actually seriously considered the other side of the coin.
Reply to This Parent Share FlagRe:I can't believe this
white supremacy (
Score: 2 ) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Monday May 31,
2021 @06:26PM ( #61440894 )
My local school district is removing all AP math courses because they believe a disparity in
race in the students represents racism, and/or they just don't want to have to look at the
situation. I know the precursors to this sort of racist policy when I see it, and documents
that espouse a trifecta of equity, inclusivity, and diversity are fully intended to pull crabs
back down into the boiling bucket. Re:final countdown (
Score: 2 ) by gweihir ( 88907
) on Monday May 31, 2021 @05:31PM ( #61440734 )
Next step is mandatory lobotomies for smarter kids or something like it. Because they
obviously violate the dumber ones by setting an example the dumber ones can never hope to
reach. See also "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut.
Reply to This Parent Share
If non-OPEC+ output grows slowly or not at all, oil prices are likely to rise. Eventually
the price may rise to a level that entices non-OPEC+ producers to invest in new oil production.
My guess is that a $75 or $80/bo Brent oil price might change things, we may know by November
2021 whether my guess is correct.
REPLYLIKBEZ
05/30/2021 at 5:53 pm
Dennis,
You assume that oil price is independent of the general condition of the USA economy and is
determined by supply and demand. I think this is a fallacy.
Oil is the strategic resource and all dirty tricks with "paper oil" and the power of Wall
Street financial behemoths will be used to keep price low. Rise of oil prices is an invitation
to the recession which Biden administration is determined to avoid.
The only established fact now that the rise of oil output probably will never happen and the
countries need to adapt. The USA put all eggs into EV backets and is toying with wind and
solar; which means that it probably will be burned because the increase of the number of EV on
the roads above single digits will destroy the stability of the USA electrical network.
In 2020, there were 286.9 million cars in the US. Of them the plug-in are less then 1.4
million. Forty-five models were sold in 2019 (the last "normal" year), but the all-electric
Tesla Model 3 was the most popular by far, with over 154,000 vehicles sold -- or 47% of total
plug-in electric sales in 2019.
So currently EV are less then 0.5% of the total car fleet despite all the noise.
Consequences of reaching 10% are tremendous both for electrical grid and for consumers (lion
share of those cars are luxury personal cars, exemplified by Tesla and are badly suited (even
dangerous; somebody here proposed Norway as a counterexample, but that's plainly stupid as they
have their share of problems (dead Tesla in airports car lots after a week or less, strangled
vehicles on country roads, etc) and is a tiny country with climate determined by Golfstream
).
EV in northern states (think not only border with Canada like Chicago and Alaska but even
NY, PA and NJ ) or a state with very hot summer (think Texas, Florida) and generally outside
California (or any similar region without harsh winter and/or very hot summer) are very
problematic.
Building of new nuclear stations is politically incorrect and that will have consequences of
EV deployments. Burning natural gas to produce electrical energy, while gas can be used as a
car fuel directly is plain vanilla stupid. But this is the path the USA had taken.
As neoliberal elite lost legitimacy political stability in the USA is also an interesting
question to ponder. The rise of gas price might serve as a yet another tipping point.
Shares of Flywire, a company that helps organizations accept foreign-currency payments,
debuted on the Nasdaq on Wednesday at $34 apiece, up from their $24 IPO price. They rose about
4% on their first day of trading, giving the Boston-based fintech a roughly $3.5 billion
valuation by day's end. As a private company, Flywire was last valued at $1 billion after a
round of funding in early 2020, according to a PitchBook estimate.
Founded in 2009 under the name peerTransfer by Spanish serial entrepreneur Iker Marcaide,
Flywire originally aimed to make it easier for international students to pay U.S. tuition
without incurring foreign currency fees that could range from 3% to 5%. Flywire has since
expanded its services, enabling some 2,250 clients including universities, hospitals, travel
providers and businesses to accept payments in more than 130 currencies. It acquired Palo Alto
healthcare payments startup Simplee in February 2020. Despite the turmoil of last year, Flywire
processed $7.5 billion in payment volume and signed up 400 new customers while retaining 97% of
existing customers.
I accept the reality except that FED said this inflation is "transitory."
The Fed description is accurate... it's just whether the transition is to
lower inflation or to runaway inflation.
Jim McCreary
The biggest single factor that will drive long-term inflation is the absence of downward
price pressure from new Chinese market entrants. Cutthroat pricing from China is the ONLY
reason the West has been able to get away with Money-Printing Gone Wild for the past 20 years
without triggering runaway inflation.
There are no new Chinese entrants because the Chinese are now all in in the world economy.
The existing Chinese competitors are seeing their costs go UP, not down, because they have
fully employed the Chinese population, and have to pay up in order to get and keep
workers.
So, without any more downward price pressure from China, this latest round of
Money-Printing Gone Wild is showing up as price inflation, and will continue to do so.
Batten down the hatches! Stagflation and then runaway inflation are coming!
Executives at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP have voiced worries that workers who stay remote
could wind up as second-class corporate citizens, falling behind in
promotions and pay , so the company plans to track rates of advancement for office-based and
remote staff in an effort to make sure nobody lags behind.
Ford Motor Co. is
pushing ahead with digital efforts to help bring office workers back to its Dearborn, Mich.,
corporate headquarters, while eyeing a future where many of them continue to work from home,
company officials say.
For now, the auto maker is aiming for a gradual return of some employees to the sprawling
campus beginning in July, with "significantly reduced capacity" to retain social distancing, a
spokeswoman said.
Boston Dynamics, a robotics company known for its four-legged robot "dog," this week
announced a new product, a computer-vision enabled mobile warehouse robot named "Stretch."
Developed in response to growing demand for automation in warehouses, the robot can reach up
to 10 feet inside of a truck to pick up and unload boxes up to 50 pounds each. The robot has a
mobile base that can maneuver in any direction and navigate obstacles and ramps, as well as a
robotic arm and a gripper. The company estimates that there are more than 500 billion boxes
annually that get shipped around the world, and many of those are currently moved manually.
"It's a pretty arduous job, so the idea with Stretch is that it does the manual labor part
of that job," said Robert Playter, chief executive of the Waltham, Mass.-based company.
The pandemic has accelerated [automation of] e-commerce and logistics operations even more
over the past year, he said.
... ... ...
... the robot was made to recognize boxes of different sizes, textures and colors. For
example, it can recognize both shrink-wrapped cases and cardboard boxes.
Eventually, Stretch could move through an aisle of a warehouse, picking up different
products and placing them on a pallet, Mr. Playter said.
"This time is different" may be the most dangerous words in business: billions of dollars
have been lost betting that history won't repeat itself. And yet now, in the oil world, it
looks like this time really will be.
For the first time in decades, oil companies aren't rushing to increase production to
chase rising oil prices as Brent crude approaches $70. Even in the Permian, the prolific shale
basin at the center of the U.S. energy boom, drillers are resisting their traditional
boom-and-bust cycle of spending.
The oil industry is on the ropes, constrained by Wall Street investors demanding that
companies spend less on drilling and instead return more money to shareholders, and climate
change activists pushing against fossil fuels. Exxon Mobil Corp. is paradigmatic of the
trend, after its humiliating defeat at the hands of a tiny activist elbowing itself onto the
board.
And what they don't realize is that the two largest producers in OPEC+, Russia and Saudi
Arabia, are on the ropes also. Russia has admitted it but Saudi is still trying to deny the
fact.
"This time is different" may be the most dangerous words in business: billions of dollars
have been lost betting that history won't repeat itself. And yet now, in the oil world, it
looks like this time really will be.
For the first time in decades, oil companies aren't rushing to increase production to chase
rising oil prices as Brent crude approaches $70. Even in the Permian, the prolific shale basin
at the center of the U.S. energy boom, drillers are resisting their traditional boom-and-bust
cycle of spending.
The oil industry is on the ropes, constrained by Wall Street investors demanding that
companies spend less on drilling and instead return more money to shareholders, and climate
change activists pushing against fossil fuels. Exxon Mobil Corp. is paradigmatic of the trend,
after its humiliating defeat at the hands of a tiny activist elbowing itself onto the
board.
The dramatic events in the industry last week only add to what is emerging as an opportunity
for the producers of OPEC+, giving the coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia more room for
maneuver to bring back their own production. As non-OPEC output fails to rebound as fast as
many expected -- or feared based on past experience -- the cartel is likely to continue adding
more supply when it meets on June 1.
'Criminalization'
Shareholders are asking Exxon to drill less and focus on returning money to investors. "They
have been throwing money down the drill hole like crazy," Christopher Ailman, chief investment
officer for CalSTRS. "We really saw that company just heading down the hole, not surviving into
the future, unless they change and adapt. And now they have to."
Exxon is unlikely to be alone. Royal Dutch Shell Plc lost a landmark legal battle last week
when a Dutch court told it to cut emissions significantly by 2030 -- something that would
require less oil production. Many in the industry fear a wave of lawsuits elsewhere, with
western oil majors more immediate targets than the state-owned oil companies that make up much
of OPEC production.
"We see a shift from stigmatization toward criminalization of investing in higher oil
production," said Bob McNally, president of consultant Rapidan Energy Group and a former White
House official.
While it's true that non-OPEC+ output is creeping back from the crash of 2020 -- and the
ultra-depressed levels of April and May last year -- it's far from a full recovery. Overall,
non-OPEC+ output will grow this year by 620,000 barrels a day, less than half the 1.3 million
barrels a day it fell in 2020. The supply growth forecast through the rest of this year
"comes nowhere close to matching" the expected increase in demand, according to the
International Energy Agency.
Beyond 2021, oil output is likely to rise in a handful of nations, including the U.S.,
Brazil, Canada and new oil-producer Guyana. But production will decline elsewhere, from the
U.K. to Colombia, Malaysia and Argentina.
As non-OPEC+ production increases less than global oil demand, the cartel will be in control
of the market, executives and traders said. It's a major break with the past, when oil
companies responded to higher prices by rushing to invest again, boosting non-OPEC output and
leaving the ministers led by Saudi Arabia's Abdulaziz bin Salman with a much more difficult
balancing act.
Drilling Down
So far, the lack of non-OPEC+ oil production growth isn't registering much in the market.
After all, the coronavirus pandemic continues to constrain global oil demand. It may be more
noticeable later this year and into 2022 . By then, vaccination campaigns against Covid-19
are likely to be bearing fruit, and the world will need more oil. The expected return of Iran
into the market will provide some of that, but there will likely be a need for more.
When that happens, it will be largely up to OPEC to plug the gap. One signal of how the
recovery will be different this time is the U.S. drilling count: It is gradually increasing,
but the recovery is slower than it was after the last big oil price crash in 2008-09. Shale
companies are sticking to their commitment to return more money to shareholders via dividends.
While before the pandemic shale companies re-used 70-90% of their cash flow into further
drilling, they are now keeping that metric at around 50%.
The result is that U.S. crude production has flat-lined at around 11 million barrels a day
since July 2020. Outside the U.S. and Canada, the outlook is even more somber: at the end of
April, the ex-North America oil rig count stood at 523, lower than it was a year ago, and
nearly 40% below the same month two years earlier, according to data from Baker Hughes Co.
When Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz predicted earlier this year that "'drill, baby,
drill' is gone for ever," it sounded like a bold call. As ministers meet this week, they may
dare to hope he's right.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Subscribe
now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.
The "Everything Bubble" has jumped from hyperbole to literal truth in just a couple of
years, as more and more assets enter "crazy expensive/extremely reckless" territory. The latest
addition to the list is collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), which are created when a bank
lends money to a less-than-creditworthy company and then bundles that loan with a bunch of
similar loans into bonds for sale to yield-starved pension funds and bond funds.
There's a legitimate place in the market for this kind of security, as long as everyone
understands the risks. But in financial bubbles, banks' insatiable hunger for fees combines
with bond buyers' desperate need for income to cloud everyone's judgment. Lending standards
slip, bond quality declines, credit rating agencies look the other way to keep the deals
flowing, and buyers keep buying because they have no choice.
Record year
So far this year, issuance of new CLOs is on pace to easily exceed 2018's record.
Part of this surge is, like so much else, catch-up from last year's nationwide lockdown. But
most is just your typical out-of-control financing fueled by way too much new currency being
dumped into the banking system.
So how can bonds made up of below-investment-grade paper be investment grade? Through the
magic of securitization. As the Wall
Street Journal recently quoted CitiGroup:
Because CLOs' loan holdings are diversified, the bonds can achieve higher credit ratings
than the underlying loans, making them popular among institutions restricted to
investment-grade debt, such as banks and insurers.
Meanwhile, the combination of a recovering economy and lots of lenders willing to finance
pretty much anything is improving the prospects of financially challenged companies. Fewer of
them are defaulting, which increases the confidence of the people buying CLO bonds. Moody's
Investors Service now expects the trailing 12-month default rate on CLOs to fall to 3.9% by the
year-end, from 7.5% in March. And a growing number of firms are now being reviewed by rating
agencies to have their CLOs upgraded.
Meanwhile, spreads relative to risk-free paper are shrinking:
Sounds promising, right? And, alas, also familiar. Here's how CDOs, the previous bubble's
version of CLOs, worked just before the bottom fell out in 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3hG4X5iTK8M
Perpetual motion machine
Once they really get going, asset-backed securities like CDOs and CLOs take on a kind of
perpetual-motion-machine vibe in which easy money begets even easier money. To the extremely
credulous, such a system looks capable of spinning right along forever. Unfortunately, this
perception tends to become widespread just as some crucial cog in the machine is about to
break.
Which cog will it be? Candidates abound. Interest rates might rise, stocks might tank, the
government might realize its policies are stoking instability and try to "taper." Some crazy
geopolitical thing might happen (DO NOT look closely at Palestine, Ukraine, or Taiwan). It
doesn't matter which breaks first, as long as one eventually does.
Then the perpetual motion machine shifts into reverse, with rising defaults causing lower
CLO bond ratings causing mass sales by panicked institutions. And so on, until whoever had the
guts to short this market cashes out with epic gains. 11,429 31 NEVER
Detective Miller 2 hours ago
When there's nothing left there's always war.
Misesmissesme 2 hours ago
The institutions buying these instruments have no risk. They know they'll be bailed out
because they're too big to fail. Risk is all on the little guy who'll have to pay for the
bailouts.
NotApplicable PREMIUM 36 minutes ago
Powell and his magic checkbook.
Justus D. Barnes 2 hours ago (Edited)
Which war? Biblical or one of the escalating hot spots?
What if the Fed fought inflation my lowering the cost of electricity? Instead of
subsidies just increase the supply? They are printing billions why not see to it that we
double our energy production with nuclear power plants? If the cost of electricity was
halved that would instantly boost everyone's disposable income while making our
manufacturing more competitive.
Angelo Misterioso 56 minutes ago remove link
This is about the 5's derivation of this concept - going all the way back through, CDO
Squared, CRE CDO's, CDO's and CBO's before that... the hi grade CDO's were 200 to 1
levered...
just pure greed by the street and the regulators were the C students in math
class...
radical-extremist 1 hour ago
When homeowners in Stockton California began to discover the magical mystery of
Adjustable Rate Mortgages and couldn't afford to pay another $600 a month for their "dream
home" - the bottom began to fall out.
When unprofitable ghost companies, of which there are thousands, start defaulting on
their cheap loans - that's the sign. Which companies, where? No one's sure.
el_buffer 2 hours ago
I need to get my money out of this country before they rape me for yet another friggin
bailout.
Tanner798 1 hour ago
Keep in mind: most of the leveraged loans these CLOs are made up of are all floating
rate. If the Fed increases interest rates to combat inflation, the companies borrowing from
leveraged loans will no longer be able to afford their interest payments. The only reason
why the default rate is so low is due to the originators rolling these companies into
larger leveraged loans so they don't default. Rating agencies look the other way and
deteriorate the covanents to allow this to happen.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 1 hour ago
Which state pension funds fare buying CLO's? My guess is the blue states.
Interesting Times In The UK 52 minutes ago
The Big Short is an excellent film, just as pertinent today ... as it was 13 years
ago.
Can't wait to watch the sequel ..
Portal 2 hours ago
Rampant speculation always precedes a collapse.
ThanksIwillHaveAnother 41 minutes ago (Edited)
I love how Wall Street constantly invents new words. In this case these are Junk
Bonds.
Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd's insistence, he will back down on
the JCPOA.
Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That's ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The
basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about
sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once
again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just
lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza
to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and Silent
generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get
gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South
Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East.
What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent between
exhausted participants.
But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil
markets it will cut down on Russia's dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price
setter in oil today, as the producer of the marginal barrel, is because of Trump taking Iranian
and Venezuelan oil off the market.
With these negotiations ongoing and likely to conclude soon I'm sure the thinking is that
this will help save Iranian moderates in the upcoming elections. But with Iran's Guardian
Council paving the way for Ebrahim Raeisi to win the election that is also very unlikely(
H/T to Pepe
Escobar's latest on this ) :
So Raeisi now seems to be nearly a done deal: a relatively faceless bureaucrat without the
profile of an IRGC hardliner, well known for his anti-corruption fight and care about the
poor and downtrodden. On foreign policy, the crucial fact is that he will arguably follow
crucial IRGC dictates.
Raeisi is already spinning that he "negotiated quietly" to secure the qualification of
more candidates, "to make the election scene more competitive and participatory". The problem
is no candidate has the power to sway the opaque decisions of the 12-member Guardian Council,
composed exclusively by clerics: only Ayatollah Khamenei.
I have no doubt that Iran is, as Escobar suggests, in post-JCPOA mode now and will walk away
from Geneva without a deal if need be, but Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil
and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran's nuclear ambitions because they've
gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.
Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the
Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put
off for a year because of Trump's killing Soleimani.
The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the
House of Saud's future in its hands.
Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that 'peace' work by Trump will be undone
quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone,
Israel just got
defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of
Jared Kushner's idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the
situation.
The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire
situation into perspective:
The Goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces,
and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by
Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone,"
but this time in Lebanon.
Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East
and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas
or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional
coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
The Outcomes:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports,
they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally
"plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on local flashpoints.
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country,
including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now,
which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
(2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility
left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace. This
is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's no way for
Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
Trump's hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are
real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in
the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his
Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.
But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They
still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They
still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It's clear they don't listen to
him because the policy never seems to change.
So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil
prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe.
With a free-floated ruble the Russians don't care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in
food and raw material production.
None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas
with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall's State Duma elections.
Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best
return in that sector.
This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will
only get worse when the Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the
German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will grand coalition as the
junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.
Don't miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden
administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S. -- no Keystone
Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges's Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc. --
while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.
This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President. This is part of why he hated
the JCPOA. Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his
mind.
Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.
Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production
until they are thrown out of office, either by the overwhelming shame of the election fraud
lawsuits which recall Senators from Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, the mid-term elections which
brings a more pro-Trump GOP to power or by military force. That last bit I put a very low
probability on.
Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of
John Kerry's mouth.
The Brent/WTI spread will likely collapse and go negative for the first time in years as
Iran's full oil production comes online over the next two years while U.S. production falls.
We'll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is
getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.
Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not
just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman
Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
If I'm the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one
other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and
angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the assault on the country with no
lack of geopolitical skill.
Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos , have left Israel out to twist in
the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We'll see if they get their wish. I think the
win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.
The oil wars aren't over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main
battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.
About time that fcking Project for the New American Century(aka Greater Israel from the
Nile to the Euphates) got derailed .
Fcking useless neocon sh its gutted and bankrupted the U.S. for their fcked up ziosh it
garbage.
Sheldon Adelson belongs in the Aus witz Mengele suite in hell. He was the biggest
cheerleader for the last 20 years of this hell on earth that was created in the middle
east.
Woodenman 2 hours ago remove link
Trump got it *** backwards , he should have defunded Israel and fast tracked Iran to be
a nuclear power, Iran is an oil producer, what does Israel do for us?
Would I care that Israel cannot sleep at night knowing Iran has the bomb, not at
all.
AGuy 37 minutes ago
" what does Israel do for us? "
Keeps the ME unstable so the US has the excuse to keep a lot of military resources in
the ME, in the name of being the worlds policemen. Plus the US needs to protect the Petro
dollar, but at this point I don't think that will matter soon considering the amount of
money printing & spending the US is doing at the momement.
wellwaddyaknow 2 hours ago (Edited)
Soleimani was very good at destroying ISIS trash.
And which countries backed ISIS?
JR Wirth 2 hours ago
NeoCon tears as the world attempts to move on from deranged foreign policy. Will the US
throw a fit and drag the world into war? Let's call Tel Aviv and find out.
Der Steppenwolf 2 hours ago remove link
Iran already sells huge amounts of oil to China and likely many others, there just isn't
going to be a significant increase in Iranian oil hitting the market as a result of any
deal. Moreover, this relatively small increase will occur over time. Even if Iran
eventually increases production the 2.5-3 million bpd the author cites, world consumption
in 2021 is forecast to increase about 6 million bpd over 2020. Considering these facts any
changes in Iranian oil production should do little to affect the overall
price.
lay_arrow
AGuy 42 minutes ago
" Iran has huge potential to increase production "
I doubt that very much. Iran has very old oil fields which have been producing since the
1920s. Global Oil production peaked in 2018 & is now in permanent decline. Iran could
increase NatGas production, but Oil production is in permanent decline.
Apollo 32 minutes ago
God, I hope half of the above comes true. Bibi needs to be court martialed and Israel
needs to go back into smaller and more peaceful version of itself (if that is even
possible) . USA can just bugger off home, and try to deal with transgendered army,
president's dementia and critical race theory nonsense first.
What the world needs is less wars, less central bankers screwing the game and less
stealing of other people's natural resources. Instead it just more plain old hard work,
honest trading and no bs diplomacy.
dead hobo 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Amazingly perfect analysis.
Israel will survive. I wish them well.
So many US wars are oil based. Lies abound to cover this up. Neocon Economics turns
every war opportunity into a profit center. No Profit = No War potential. Whenever you see
a Neocon pumping a war somewhere, you need to look for who will make scads of money from
it.
Trump isn't an angel. He's the guy who destroyed Establishment Republicanism. That begat
populism. I detested him working his book when he pumped QE and ZIRP. I considered it a
temporary price to pay to remove Establishment Republicans from the world. Yes, the US also
needed a good Front Door with a lock. He also did good there. Trump playing the Imperialism
Game clumsily worked in the favor of Peaceful Coexistence. Probably by mistake. Ok by me if
everyone else declares peace anyway.
The US economy can still outpower anyone even if it is forced to play fair.
This brings us to the Deep State. Who exactly are they?
Are they Neocons who want war profits by making it look like others are the war mongers?
Are they anti-peace as long as it doesn't start a full blown war - providing a profit can
be made from it by their oligarch bosses?
Or is the Deep State the Davos oriented oligarchs who wants the 99% to whistle while
they work to support uncountable billions of dollars flowing into the asset piles of the
1%?
Why did the Deep State allow the BLM / Antifa / Democrat cabal take over? Are they
stupid? Or did they think Covid-19 along with these freaks would work in their favor
somehow?
Is the Deep State only common ordinary Imperialism? Is it only oil, and natural gas and
who gets to control the markets? Ukraine has a lot of natural resources. Is that a
coincidence?
What is it about Peaceful Coexistence that makes them go crazy?
What does The Deep State really want?
AGuy 49 minutes ago
" The only difference will be the wars will be fought for lithium and other rare metals.
"
Unlikely Oil will remain the King for causing wars. electricification of transportation
is doomed to fail. First average Americans cannot afford EV. heck they are struggling with
cheaper ICE vehicles. Auto loan duration have ballooned & most Americans are rolling
over debt from their older vehicle when they buy a new one. Second the grid is struggling.
Most of the older power plants are getting replaced by NatGas fired plants & at some
point we are going to see NatGas prices shoot up. Much of the US grid was built in the
1930s & 1940s and will need trillions just to maintain it and replace equipment &
power lines operating beyond their expected operating lifetime.
The US economy is slowly collapsing: Mountains of debt, demographics, dumbed down
education, and worthless degrees for Millennials, failing infrastructure (ie I-40 bridge).
We are on borrowed time.
AJAX-2 1 hour ago remove link
The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to prop
up their derivative portfolios. As a result, they are at odds with the Davos Crowd and
their desire for cheap/plentiful oil for Europe. We shall see who prevails.
AGuy 1 hour ago
" The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to
prop up their derivative portfolios. "
Nope:
Higher oil prices leads to higher defaults, which is likely to trigger derivative
losses. Banker shady deals come under congressional\agency scrutiny usually ending with
billion dollar fines, and bad press. A lot of banks probably will get nationalized when the
next banking crisis happens & all those bankers will lose out on the financial scams
they play.
European Monarchist 46 minutes ago remove link
Currently:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all
reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah
were literally "plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on
local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large
chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the
country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is
backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in
charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no
credibility left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace.
This is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's
no way for Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
ut218 2 hours ago remove link
Solarcycle 25 had a bad start. By 2028 people will realize we are in a period of global
cooling. oil prices will soar
Itinerant 18 minutes ago
There won't be major investments of European majors in Iran's oil industry.
For Iran, Western partners have proved too fickle
For Western corporations, the risk is too great for long term investment.
China will be reaping most of the investement opportunities.
2 play_arrow
Marrubio 1 hour ago
.... the NWO & Davos idiotards ,they have been trying since March for oil not to
exceed the $ 70 barrier and they are not succeeding. Week after week they try to lower the
price, frightening with the covid, the production of Iran or whatever, and the following
week the oil rises again. The only thing left for them is mass slaughter ... but now people
know that what is going to kill them is in the "vaccine". Of course they will be stupid
enough to do it; if they have shown anything it is that they are profoundly idiots. They
will not be successful in getting cheap oil, simply because PeakOil is running since 2018
and since then oil production decreases at 5% per year: -5% per year, I am telling to the
NWO deep idiotards.
European Monarchist 55 minutes ago (Edited)
Interesting, but it remains to be seen where this is going, short term and long.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate
just lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to
bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and
Silent generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then
get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North
South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle
East. What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent
between exhausted participants.
play_arrow
Einstein101 55 minutes ago remove link
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their
country, including every single city in Syria).
Really? Hell no! The Syrians and the mighty Russians and the Hezbollah for many months
now are not able to overcome lowly terrorists militia in northern Syria's Idlib. Plus,
the Israelis has been launching hundreds of airstrikes over Syria while the Russian made
Syrian anti air defense can do nothing about it.
Looks like this guys somewhat understands the problems with neoliberalism, but still is captured by neoliberal ideology.
Notable quotes:
"... That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent. ..."
"... Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent. ..."
"... Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick. ..."
"... Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between 1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007. ..."
The logic of the meritocracy is leading us to ruin, because we arc collectively primed to ignore the voices of the millions getting
pushed into economic distress by the grinding wheels of automation and innovation. We figure they're complaining or suffering because
they're losers.
We need to break free of this logic of the marketplace before it's too late.
[Neoliberalism] had decimated the economies and cultures of these regions and were set to do the same to many others.
In response, American lives and families are falling apart. Ram- pant financial stress is the new normal. We are in the third
or fourth inning of the greatest economic shift in the history of mankind, and no one seems to be talking about it or doing anything
in response.
The Great Displacement didn't arrive overnight. It has been building for decades as the economy and labor market changed in response
to improving technology, financialization, changing corporate norms, and globalization. In the 1970s, when my parents worked at GE
and Blue Cross Blue Shield in upstate New York, their companies provided generous pensions and expected them to stay for decades.
Community banks were boring businesses that lent money to local companies for a modest return. Over 20 percent of workers were unionized.
Some economic problems existed -- growth was uneven and infla- tion periodically high. But income inequality was low, jobs provided
benefits, and Main Street businesses were the drivers of the economy. There were only three television networks, and in my house
we watched them on a TV with an antenna that we fiddled with to make the picture clearer.
That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were
gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which
itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent.
Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working
multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American
born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent.
Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s
and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business
schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick.
Hostile takeovers, shareholder lawsuits, and later activist hedge funds served as prompts to ensure that managers were committed
to profitability at all costs. On the flip side, CF.Os were granted stock options for the first time that wedded their individual
gain to the company's share price. The ratio of CF.O to worker pay rose from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 271 to 1 in 2016. Benefits were streamlined
and reduced and the relationship between company and employee weakened to become more transactional.
Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment
banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between
1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main
Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon
of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007.
It's hard to be in the year 2018 and not hear about the endless studies alarming the general public about coming labor automation.
But what Yang provides in this book is two key things: automation has already been ravaging the country which has led to the great
political polarization of today, and second, an actual vision into what happens when people lose jobs, and it definitely is a
lightning strike of "oh crap"
I found this book relatively impressive and frightening. Yang, a former lawyer, entrepreneur, and non-profit leader, writes
showing with inarguable data that when companies automate work and use new software, communities die, drug use increases, suicide
increases, and crime skyrockets. The new jobs created go to big cities, the surviving talent leaves, and the remaining people
lose hope and descend into madness. (as a student of psychology, this is not surprising)
He starts by painting the picture of the average American and how fragile they are economically. He deconstructs the labor
predictions and how technology is going to ravage it. He discusses the future of work. He explains what has happened in technology
and why it's suddenly a huge threat. He shows what this means: economic inequality rises, the people have less power, the voice
of democracy is diminished, no one owns stocks, people get poorer etc. He shows that talent is leaving small towns, money is concentrating
to big cities faster. He shows what happens when those other cities die (bad things), and then how the people react when they
have no income (really bad things). He shows how retraining doesn't work and college is failing us. We don't invest in vocational
skills, and our youth is underemployed pushed into freelance work making minimal pay. He shows how no one trusts the institutions
anymore.
Then he discusses solutions with a focus on Universal Basic Income. I was a skeptic of the idea until I read this book. You
literally walk away with this burning desire to prevent a Mad Max esque civil war, and its hard to argue with him. We don't have
much time and our bloated micromanaged welfare programs cannot sustain.
The author is a very fuzzy way comes to the idea that neoliberalism is in essence a Trotskyism for the rich and that
neoliberals want to use strong state to enforce the type of markets they want from above. That included free movement of
capital goods and people across national borders. All this talk about "small government" is just a smoke screen for naive fools.
"... The second explanation was that neoliberal globalization made a small number of people very rich, and it was in the interest of those people to promote a self-serving ideology using their substantial means by funding think tanks and academic departments, lobbying congress, fighting what the Heritage Foundation calls "the war of ideas." Neoliberalism, then, was a restoration of class power after the odd, anomalous interval of the mid-century welfare state. ..."
"... Here one is free to choose but only within a limited range of options left after responding to the global forces of the market. ..."
"... Neoliberal globalism can be thought of in its own terms as a negative theology, contending that the world economy is sublime and ineffable with a small number of people having special insight and ability to craft institutions that will, as I put it, encase the sublime world economy. ..."
"... One of the big goals of my book is to show neoliberalism is one form of regulation among many rather than the big Other of regulation as such. ..."
"... I build here on the work of other historians and show how the demands in the United Nations by African, Asian, and Latin American nations for things like the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, i.e. the right to nationalize foreign-owned companies, often dismissed as merely rhetorical, were actually existentially frightening to global businesspeople. ..."
"... They drafted neoliberal intellectuals to do things like craft agreements that gave foreign corporations more rights than domestic actors and tried to figure out how to lock in what I call the "human right of capital flight" into binding international codes. I show how we can see the development of the WTO as largely a response to the fear of a planned -- and equal -- planet that many saw in the aspirations of the decolonizing world. ..."
"... The neoliberal insight of the 1930s was that the market would not take care of itself: what Wilhelm Röpke called a market police was an ongoing need in a world where people, whether out of atavistic drives or admirable humanitarian motives, kept trying to make the earth a more equal and just place. ..."
"... The culmination of these processes by the 1990s is a world economy that is less like a laissez-faire marketplace and more like a fortress, as ever more of the world's resources and ideas are regulated through transnational legal instruments. ..."
Hardcover: 400 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press (March 16, 2018)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0674979524
ISBN-13: 978-0674979529
From introduction
...The second explanation was that neoliberal globalization made a small number of people very rich, and it was in the interest of
those people to promote a self-serving ideology using their substantial means by funding think tanks and academic departments, lobbying
congress, fighting what the Heritage Foundation calls "the war of ideas." Neoliberalism, then, was a restoration of class power after
the odd, anomalous interval of the mid-century welfare state.
There is truth to both of these explanations. Both presuppose a kind of materialist explanation of history with which I have no
problem. In my book, though, I take another approach. What I found is that we could not understand the inner logic of something like
the WTO without considering the whole history of the twentieth century. What I also discovered is that some of the members of the
neoliberal movement from the 1930s onward, including Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, did not use either of the explanations
I just mentioned. They actually didn't say that economic growth excuses everything. One of the peculiar things about Hayek, in particular,
is that he didn't believe in using aggregates like GDP -- the very measurements that we need to even say what growth is.
What I found is that neoliberalism as a philosophy is less a doctrine of economics than a doctrine of ordering -- of creating
the institutions that provide for the reproduction of the totality [of financial elite control of the state]. At the core of the strain I describe is not the idea that we
can quantify, count, price, buy and sell every last aspect of human existence. Actually, here it gets quite mystical. The Austrian
and German School of neoliberals in particular believe in a kind of invisible world economy that cannot be captured in numbers
and figures but always escapes human comprehension.
After all, if you can see something, you can plan it. Because of the very limits to our knowledge, we have to default to ironclad
rules and not try to pursue something as radical as social justice, redistribution, or collective transformation. In a globalized
world, we must give ourselves over to the forces of the market, or the whole thing will stop working.
So this is quite a different version of neoliberal thought than the one we usually have, premised on the abstract of individual
liberty or the freedom to choose. Here one is free to choose but only within a limited range of options left after responding to
the global forces of the market.
One of the core arguments of my book is that we can only understand the internal coherence of neoliberalism if we see it as a
doctrine as concerned with the whole as the individual. Neoliberal globalism can be thought of in its own terms as a negative theology,
contending that the world economy is sublime and ineffable with a small number of people having special insight and ability to craft
institutions that will, as I put it, encase the sublime world economy.
To me, the metaphor of encasement makes much more sense than the usual idea of markets set free, liberated or unfettered. How
can it be that in an era of proliferating third party arbitration courts, international investment law, trade treaties and regulation
that we talk about "unfettered markets"? One of the big goals of my book is to show neoliberalism is one form of regulation among
many rather than the big Other of regulation as such.
What I explore in Globalists is how we can think of the WTO as the latest in a long series of institutional fixes proposed
for the problem of emergent nationalism and what neoliberals see as the confusion between sovereignty -- ruling a country -- and
ownership -- owning the property within it.
I build here on the work of other historians and show how the demands in the United Nations
by African, Asian, and Latin American nations for things like the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, i.e. the right to
nationalize foreign-owned companies, often dismissed as merely rhetorical, were actually existentially frightening to global businesspeople.
They drafted neoliberal intellectuals to do things like craft agreements that gave foreign corporations more rights than domestic
actors and tried to figure out how to lock in what I call the "human right of capital flight" into binding international codes. I
show how we can see the development of the WTO as largely a response to the fear of a planned -- and equal -- planet that many saw
in the aspirations of the decolonizing world.
Perhaps the lasting image of globalization that the book leaves is that world capitalism has produced a doubled world -- a world
of imperium (the world of states) and a world of dominium (the world of property). The best way to understand neoliberal globalism
as a project is that it sees its task as the never-ending maintenance of this division. The neoliberal insight of the 1930s was that
the market would not take care of itself: what Wilhelm Röpke called a market police was an ongoing need in a world where people,
whether out of atavistic drives or admirable humanitarian motives, kept trying to make the earth a more equal and just place.
The culmination of these processes by the 1990s is a world economy that is less like a laissez-faire marketplace and more like
a fortress, as ever more of the world's resources and ideas are regulated through transnational legal instruments. The book acts
as a kind of field guide to these institutions and, in the process, hopefully recasts the 20th century that produced them.
This is a rather
interesting look at the political and economic ideas of a circle of important economists, including Hayek and von Mises, over
the course of the last century. He shows rather convincingly that conventional narratives concerning their idea are wrong. That
they didn't believe in a weak state, didn't believe in the laissez-faire capitalism or believe in the power of the market. That
they saw mass democracy as a threat to vested economic interests.
The core beliefs of these people was in a world where money, labor and products could flow across borders without any limit.
Their vision was to remove these subjects (tariffs, immigration and controls on the movement of money) from the control of the
democracy-based nation-state and instead vesting them in international organizations. International organizations which were by
their nature undemocratic and beyond the influence of democracy. That rather than rejecting government power, what they rejected
was national government power. They wanted weak national governments but at the same time strong undemocratic international organizations
which would gain the powers taken from the state.
The other thing that characterized many of these people was a rather general rejection of economics. While some of them are
(at least in theory) economists, they rejected the basic ideas of economic analysis and economic policy. The economy, to them,
was a mystical thing beyond any human understanding or ability to influence in a positive way. Their only real belief was in "bigness".
The larger the market for labor and goods, the more economically prosperous everyone would become. A unregulated "global" market
with specialization across borders and free migration of labor being the ultimate system.
The author shows how, over a period extending from the 1920s to the 1990s, these ideas evolved from marginal academic ideas
to being dominant ideas internationally. Ideas that are reflected today in the structure of the European Union, the WTO (World
Trade Organization) and the policies of most national governments. These ideas, which the author calls "neoliberalism", have today
become almost assumptions beyond challenge. And even more strangely, the dominating ideas of the political left in most of the
west.
The author makes the point, though in a weak way, that the "fathers" of neoliberalism saw themselves as "restoring" a lost
golden age. That golden age being (roughly) the age of the original industrial revolution (the second half of the 1800s). And
to the extent that they have been successful they have done that. But at the same time, they have brought back all the political
and economic questions of that era as well.
In reading it, I started to wonder about the differences between modern neoliberalism and the liberal political movement during
the industrial revolution. I really began to wonder about the actual motives of "reform" liberals in that era. Were they genuinely
interested in reforms during that era or were all the reforms just cynical politics designed to enhance business power at the
expense of other vested interests. Was, in particular, the liberal interest in political reform and franchise expansion a genuine
move toward political democracy or simply a temporary ploy to increase their political power. If one assumes that the true principles
of classic liberalism were always free trade, free migration of labor and removing the power to governments to impact business,
perhaps its collapse around the time of the first world war is easier to understand.
He also makes a good point about the EEC and the organizations that came before the EU. Those organizations were as much about
protecting trade between Europe and former European colonial possessions as they were anything to do with trade within Europe.
To me at least, the analysis of the author was rather original. In particular, he did an excellent job of showing how the ideas
of Hayek and von Mises have been distorted and misunderstood in the mainstream. He was able to show what their ideas were and
how they relate to contemporary problems of government and democracy.
But there are some strong negatives in the book. The author offers up a complete virtue signaling chapter to prove how the
neoliberals are racists. He brings up things, like the John Birch Society, that have nothing to do with the book. He unleashes
a whole lot of venom directed at American conservatives and republicans mostly set against a 1960s backdrop. He does all this
in a bad purpose: to claim that the Kennedy Administration was somehow a continuation of the new deal rather than a step toward
neoliberalism. His blindness and modern political partisanship extended backward into history does substantial damage to his argument
in the book. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on the political issues of South Africa which also adds nothing to the
argument of the book. His whole chapter on racism is an elaborate strawman all held together by Ropke. He also spends a large
amount of time grinding some sort of Ax with regard to the National Review and William F. Buckley.
He keeps resorting to the simple formula of finding something racist said or written by Ropke....and then inferring that anyone
who quoted or had anything to do with Ropke shared his ideas and was also a racist. The whole point of the exercise seems to be
to avoid any analysis of how the democratic party (and the political left) drifted over the decades from the politics of the New
Deal to neoliberal Clintonism.
Then after that, he diverts further off the path by spending many pages on the greatness of the "global south", the G77 and
the New International Economic Order (NIEO) promoted by the UN in the 1970s. And whatever many faults of neoliberalism, Quinn
Slobodian ends up standing for a worse set of ideas: International Price controls, economic "reparations", nationalization, international
trade subsidies and a five-year plan for the world (socialist style economic planning at a global level). In attaching himself
to these particular ideas, he kills his own book. The premise of the book and his argument was very strong at first. But by around
p. 220, its become a throwback political tract in favor of the garbage economic and political ideas of the so-called third world
circa 1974 complete with 70's style extensive quotations from "Senegalese jurists"
Once the political agenda comes out, he just can't help himself. He opens the conclusion to the book taking another cheap shot
for no clear reason at William F. Buckley. He spends alot of time on the Seattle anti-WTO protests from the 1990s. But he has
NOTHING to say about BIll Clinton or Tony Blair or EU expansion or Obama or even the 2008 economic crisis for that matter. Inexplicably
for a book written in 2018, the content of the book seems to end in the year 2000.
I'm giving it three stars for the first 150 pages which was decent work. The second half rates zero stars. Though it could
have been far better if he had written his history of neoliberalism in the context of the counter-narrative of Keynesian economics
and its decline. It would have been better yet if the author had the courage to talk about the transformation of the parties of
the left and their complicity in the rise of neoliberalism. The author also tends to waste lots of pages repeating himself or
worse telling you what he is going to say next. One would have expected a better standard of editing by the Harvard Press.
Read less 69 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
Anybody interested in global trade, business, human rights or democracy today
should read this book.
The book follow the Austrians from the beginning in the Habsburgischer empire to the beginning rebellion against the WTO. However,
most importantly it follows the thinking and the thoughts behind the building of a global empire of capitalism with free trade,
capital and rights. All the way to the new "human right" to trade. It narrows down what neoliberal thought really consist of and
indirectly make a differentiation to the neoclassical economic tradition.
What I found most interesting is the turn from economics to law - and the conceptual distinctions between the genes, tradition,
reason, which are translated into a quest for a rational and reason based protection of dominium (the rule of property) against
the overreach of imperium (the rule of states/people). This distinction speaks directly to the issues that EU is currently facing.
"... From the 1980s to 2008, neoliberal politics and policies succeeded in expanding inequality around the world. The political climate Ayn Rand celebrated-the reign of brutal capitalism-intensified. Though Ayn Rand's popularity took off in the 1940s, her reputation took a dive during the 1960s and '70s. Then after her death in 1982, during the neoliberal administrations of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, her star rose once more. (See chapter 4 for a full discussion of the rise of neoliberalism.) ..."
"... During the global economic crisis of 2008 it seemed that the neoliberal order might collapse. It lived on, however, in zombie form as discredited political policies and financial practices were restored. ..."
"... We are in the midst of a major global, political, economic, social, and cultural transition - but we don't yet know which way we're headed. The incoherence of the Trump administration is symptomatic of the confusion as politicians and business elites jockey with the Breitbart alt-right forces while conservative evangelical Christians pull strings. The unifying threads are meanness and greed, and the spirit of the whole hodgepodge is Ayn Rand. ..."
"... The current Trump administration is stuffed to the gills with Rand acolytes. Trump himself identifies with Fountainhead character Howard Roark; former secretary of state Rex Tillerson listed Adas Shrugged as his favorite book in a Scouting magazine feature; his replacement Mike Pompeo has been inspired by Rand since his youth. Ayn Rand's influence is ascendant across broad swaths of our dominant political culture - including among public figures who see her as a key to the Zeitgeist, without having read a worth of her writing.'' ..."
"... Rand biographer Jennifer Burns asserts simply that Ayn Rand's fiction is "the gateway drug" to right-wing politics in the United States - although her influence extends well beyond the right wing ..."
"... The resulting Randian sense of life might be called "optimistic cruelty." Optimistic cruelty is the sense of life for the age of greed. ..."
"... The Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged fabricate history and romanticize violence and domination in ways that reflect, reshape, and reproduce narratives of European superiority' and American virtue. ..."
"... It is not an accident that the novels' fans, though gender mixed, are overwhelmingly white Americans of the professional, managerial, creative, and business classes." ..."
"... Does the pervasive cruelty of today's ruling classes shock you? Or, at least give you pause from time to time? Are you surprised by the fact that our elected leaders seem to despise people who struggle, people whose lives are not cushioned and shaped by inherited wealth, people who must work hard at many jobs in order to scrape by? If these or any of a number of other questions about the social proclivities of our contemporary ruling class detain you for just two seconds, this is the book for you. ..."
"... As Duggan makes clear, Rand's influence is not just that she offered a programmatic for unregulated capitalism, but that she offered an emotional template for "optimistic cruelty" that has extended far beyond its libertarian confines. Mean Girl is a fun, worthwhile read! ..."
"... Her work circulated endlessly in those circles of the Goldwater-ite right. I have changed over many years, and my own life experiences have led me to reject the casual cruelty and vicious supremacist bent of Rand's beliefs. ..."
"... In fact, though her views are deeply-seated, Rand is, at heart, a confidence artist, appealing only to narrow self-interest at the expense of the well-being of whole societies. ..."
Mean Girls, which was based on interviews with high school girls conducted by Rosalind Wiseman for her 2002 book Queen Bees and
War/tubes, reflects the emotional atmosphere of the age of the Plastics (as the most popular girls at Actional North Shore High are
called), as well as the era of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, whose motto is "Greed is Good."1 The culture of greed is the hallmark
of the neoliberal era, the period beginning in the 1970s when the protections of the U.S. and European welfare states, and the autonomy
of postcolonial states around the world, came under attack. Advocates of neoliberalism worked to reshape global capitalism by freeing
transnational corporations from restrictive forms of state regulation, stripping away government efforts to redistribute wealth and
provide public services, and emphasizing individual responsibility over social concern.
From the 1980s to 2008, neoliberal politics and policies succeeded in expanding inequality around the world. The political
climate Ayn Rand celebrated-the reign of brutal capitalism-intensified. Though Ayn Rand's popularity took off in the 1940s, her reputation
took a dive during the 1960s and '70s. Then after her death in 1982, during the neoliberal administrations of Ronald Reagan in the
United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, her star rose once more. (See chapter 4 for a full discussion of the rise
of neoliberalism.)
During the global economic crisis of 2008 it seemed that the neoliberal order might collapse. It lived on, however, in zombie
form as discredited political policies and financial practices were restored. But neoliberal capitalism has always been contested,
and competing and conflicting political ideas and organizations proliferated and intensified after 2008 as well.
Protest politics blossomed on the left with Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline
at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in the United States, and with the Arab Spring, and other mobilizations around the world.
Anti-neoliberal electoral efforts, like the Bernie Sanders campaign for the U.S. presidency, generated excitement as well.
But protest and organizing also expanded on the political right, with reactionary populist, racial nationalist, and protofascist
gains in such countries as India, the Philippines, Russia, Hungary, and the United States rapidly proliferating. Between these far-right
formations on the one side and persistent zombie neoliberalism on the other, operating sometimes at odds and sometimes in cahoots,
the Season of Mean is truly upon us.
We are in the midst of a major global, political, economic, social, and cultural transition - but we don't yet know which
way we're headed. The incoherence of the Trump administration is symptomatic of the confusion as politicians and business elites
jockey with the Breitbart alt-right forces while conservative evangelical Christians pull strings. The unifying threads are meanness
and greed, and the spirit of the whole hodgepodge is Ayn Rand.
Rand's ideas are not the key to her influence. Her writing does support the corrosive capitalism at the heart of neoliberalism,
though few movers and shakers actually read any of her nonfiction. Her two blockbuster novels, 'The Fountainpen and Atlas Shrugged,
are at the heart of her incalculable impact. Many politicians and government officials going back decades have cited Rand as a formative
influence-particularly finance guru and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who was a member of Rand's inner circle,
and Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president most identified with the national embrace of neoliberal policies.
Major figures in business and finance are or have been Rand fans: Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Peter Thiel (Paypal), Steve Jobs (Apple),
John Mackey (Whole Foods), Mark Cuban (NBA), John Allison (BB&T Banking Corporation), Travis Kalanik (Uber), Jelf Bezos (Amazon),
ad infinitum.
There are also large clusters of enthusiasts for Rand's novels in the entertainment industry, from the 1940s to the present-from
Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, and Raquel Welch to Jerry Lewis, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Rob Lowe, Jim Carrey, Sandra Bullock,
Sharon Stone, Ashley Judd, Eva Mendes, and many more.
The current Trump administration is stuffed to the gills with Rand acolytes. Trump himself identifies with Fountainhead character
Howard Roark; former secretary of state Rex Tillerson listed Adas Shrugged as his favorite book in a Scouting magazine feature; his
replacement Mike Pompeo has been inspired by Rand since his youth. Ayn Rand's influence is ascendant across broad swaths of our dominant
political culture - including among public figures who see her as a key to the Zeitgeist, without having read a worth of her writing.''
But beyond the famous or powerful fans, the novels have had a wide popular impact as bestsellers since publication. Along
with Rand's nonfiction, they form the core texts for a political/ philosophical movement: Objectivism. There are several U.S.- based
Objectivist organizations and innumerable clubs, reading groups, and social circles. A 1991 survey by the Library of Congress and
the Book of the Month Club found that only the Bible had influenced readers more than Atlas Shrugged, while a 1998 Modern Library
poll listed The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as the two most revered novels in English.
Atlas Shrugged in particular skyrocketed in popularity in the wake of the 2008 financial crash. The U.S. Tea Party movement, founded
in 2009, featured numerous Ayn Rand-based signs and slogans, especially the opening line of Atlas Shrugged: "Who is John Galt?" Republican
pundit David Frum claimed that the Tea Party was reinventing the GOP as "the party of Ayn Rand." During 2009 as well, sales of Atlas
Shrugged tripled, and GQ_magazine called Rand the year's most influential author. A 2010 Zogby poll found that 29 percent of respondents
had read Atlas Shrugged, and half of those readers said it had affected their political and ethical thinking.
In 2018, a business school teacher writing in Forbes magazine recommended repeat readings: "Recent events - the bizarro circus
that is the 2016 election, the disintegration of Venezuela, and so on make me wonder if a lot of this could have been avoided bad
we taken Atlas Shrugged's message to heart. It is a book that is worth re-reading every few years."3
Rand biographer Jennifer Burns asserts simply that Ayn Rand's fiction is "the gateway drug" to right-wing politics in the
United States - although her influence extends well beyond the right wing.4
But how can the work of this one novelist (also an essayist, playwright, and philosopher), however influential, be a significant
source of insight into the rise of a culture of greed? In a word: sex. Ayn Rand made acquisitive capitalists sexy. She launched thousands
of teenage libidos into the world of reactionary politics on a wave of quivering excitement. This sexiness extends beyond romance
to infuse the creative aspirations, inventiveness, and determination of her heroes with erotic energy, embedded in what Rand called
her "sense of life." Analogous to what Raymond Williams has called a "structure of feeling," Rand's sense of life combines the libido-infused
desire for heroic individual achievement with contempt for social inferiors and indifference to their plight.5
Lauren Berlant has called the structure of feeling, or emotional situation, of those who struggle for a good life under neoliberal
conditions "cruel optimism"-the complex of feelings necessary to keep plugging away hopefully despite setbacks and losses.'' Rand's
contrasting sense of life applies to those whose fantasies of success and domination include no doubt or guilt. The feelings of aspiration
and glee that enliven Rand's novels combine with contempt for and indifference to others. The resulting Randian sense of life
might be called "optimistic cruelty." Optimistic cruelty is the sense of life for the age of greed.
Ayn Rand's optimistic cruelty appeals broadly and deeply through its circulation of familiar narratives: the story of "civilizational"
progress, die belief in American exceptionalism, and a commitment to capitalist freedom.
Her novels engage fantasies of European imperial domination conceived as technological and cultural advancement, rather than as
violent conquest. America is imagined as a clean slate for pure capitalist freedom, with no indigenous people, no slaves, no exploited
immigrants or workers in sight. The Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged fabricate history and romanticize violence and
domination in ways that reflect, reshape, and reproduce narratives of European superiority' and American virtue.
Their logic also depends on a hierarchy of value based on radicalized beauty and physical capacity - perceived ugliness or disability'
are equated with pronounced worthlessness and incompetence.
Through the forms of romance and melodrama, Rand novels extrapolate the story of racial capitalism as a story of righteous passion
and noble virtue. They retell The Birth of a Ntation through the lens of industrial capitalism (see chapter 2). They solicit positive
identification with winners, with dominant historical forces. It is not an accident that the novels' fans, though gender mixed,
are overwhelmingly white Americans of the professional, managerial, creative, and business classes."
Ayn Rand is a singular influence on American political thought, and this book brilliantly unfolds how Rand gave voice to the
ethos that shapes contemporary conservatism. Duggan -- whose equally insightful earlier book Twilight of Equality offered an analysis
of neoliberalism and showed how it is both a distortion and continuation of classical liberalism -- here extends the analysis
of American market mania by showing how an anti-welfare state ethos took root as a "structure of feeling" in American culture,
elevating the individual over the collective and promoting a culture of inequality as itself a moral virtue.
Although reviled by the right-wing press (she should wear this as a badge of honor), Duggan is the most astute guide one could
hope for through this devastating history of our recent past, and the book helps explain how we ended up where we are, where far-right,
racist nationalism colludes (paradoxically) with libertarianism, an ideology of extreme individualism and (unlikely bed fellows,
one might have thought) Silicon Valley entrepreneurship.
This short, accessible book is essential reading for everyone who wants to understand the contemporary United States.
Does the pervasive cruelty of today's ruling classes shock you? Or, at least give you pause from time to time? Are you
surprised by the fact that our elected leaders seem to despise people who struggle, people whose lives are not cushioned and shaped
by inherited wealth, people who must work hard at many jobs in order to scrape by? If these or any of a number of other questions
about the social proclivities of our contemporary ruling class detain you for just two seconds, this is the book for you.
Writing with wit, rigor, and vigor, Lisa Duggan explains how Ayn Rand, the "mean girl," has captured the minds and snatched
the bodies of so very many, and has rendered them immune to feelings of shared humanity with those whose fortunes are not as rosy
as their own. An indispensable work, a short read that leaves a long memory.
Mean Girl offers not only a biographical account of Rand (including the fact that she modeled one of her key heroes on a serial
killer), but describes Rand's influence on neoliberal thinking more generally.
As Duggan makes clear, Rand's influence is not just that she offered a programmatic for unregulated capitalism, but that
she offered an emotional template for "optimistic cruelty" that has extended far beyond its libertarian confines. Mean Girl is
a fun, worthwhile read!
Sister, June 3, 2019
Superb poitical and cultural exploration of Rand's influence
Lisa Duggan's concise but substantive look at the political and cultural influence of Ayn Rand is stunning. I feel like I've
been waiting most of a lifetime for a book that is as wonderfully readable as it is insightful. Many who write about Rand reduce
her to a caricature hero or demon without taking her, and the history and choices that produced her seriously as a subject of
cultural inquiry. I am one of those people who first encountered Rand's books - novels, but also some nonfiction and her play,
"The Night of January 16th," in which audience members were selected as jurors – as a teenager.
Under the thrall of some right-wing locals, I was so drawn to Rand's larger-than-life themes, the crude polarization of "individualism"
and "conformity," the admonition to selfishness as a moral virtue, her reductive dismissal of the public good as "collectivism."
Her work circulated endlessly in those circles of the Goldwater-ite right. I have changed over many years, and my own life
experiences have led me to reject the casual cruelty and vicious supremacist bent of Rand's beliefs.
But over those many years, the coterie of Rand true believers has kept the faith and expanded. One of the things I value about
Duggan's compelling account is her willingness to take seriously the far reach of Rand's indifference to human suffering even
as she strips away the veneer that suggests Rand's beliefs were deep.
In fact, though her views are deeply-seated, Rand is, at heart, a confidence artist, appealing only to narrow self-interest
at the expense of the well-being of whole societies.
I learned that the hard way, but I learned it. Now I am recommending Duggan's wise book to others who seek to understand today's
cultural and political moment in the United States and the rise of an ethic of indifference to anybody but the already affluent.
Duggan is comfortable with complexity; most Randian champions or detractors are not.
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
This is a very short book, almost an essay -- 136 pages. It was published in October 2004, four years before financial crisis of
2008, which put the first nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. It addresses the cultural politics of neo-liberalism ("the
Great Deception")
Notable quotes:
"... By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics. ..."
"... Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have functioned ..."
"... The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND Money--summarize her argument. ..."
"... Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination, privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes. ..."
"... "There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture wars are provisional--and fading...." ..."
"... For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. ..."
By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and
particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics.
The Twilight of Equality? searches out these links through an analysis of the politics of the 1990s, the decade when
neoliberalism-free market economics-became gospel.
After a brilliant historical examination of how racial and gender inequities were woven into the very theoretical underpinnings
of the neoliberal model of the state, Duggan shows how these inequities play out today. In a series of political case studies,
Duggan reveals how neoliberal goals have been pursued, demonstrating that progressive arguments that separate identity politics and
economic policy, cultural politics and affairs of state, can only fail.
Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have
functioned but, more importantly, it shows a way to revitalize and unify progressive politics in the U.S. today.
Mona Cohen 5.0 out of 5 stars A Critique of Neoliberalism and the Divided Resistance to It July 3, 2006
Lisa Duggan is intensely interested in American politics, and has found political life in the United States to have been "such
a wild ride, offering moments of of dizzying hope along with long stretches of political depression." She is grateful for "many
ideas about political depression, and how to survive it," and she has written a excellent short book that helps make sense of
many widely divergent political trends.
Her book is well-summarized by its concluding paragraph, which I am breaking up into additional paragraphs for greater
clarity:
"Now at this moment of danger and opportunity, the progressive left is mobilizing against neoliberalism and possible new or
continuing wars.
"These mobilizations might become sites for factional struggles over the disciplining of troops, in the name of unity at a
time of crisis and necessity. But such efforts will fail; the troops will not be disciplined, and the disciplinarians will be
left to their bitterness.
"Or, we might find ways of think, speaking, writing and acting that are engaged and curious about "other people's" struggles
for social justice, that are respectfully affiliative and dialogic rather than pedagogical, that that look for the hopeful spots
to expand upon, and that revel in the pleasure of political life.
"For it is pleasure AND collective caretaking, love AND the egalitarian circulation of money--allied to clear and hard-headed
political analysis offered generously--that will create the space for a progressive politics that might both imagine and
create...something worth living for."
The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND
Money--summarize her argument.
She expected upon her high school graduation in 1972, she writes, that "active and expanding social movements seemed capable
of ameliorating conditions of injustice and inequality, poverty, war and imperialism....I had no idea I was not perched at a
great beginning, but rather at a denouement, as the possibilities for progressive social change encountered daunting historical
setbacks beginning in 1972...."
Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination,
privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities
while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade.
Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to
downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the
upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes.
Her belief is that all groups threatened by the neoliberal paradigm should unite against it, but such unity is threatened by
endless differences of perspectives. By minutely analyzing many of the differences, and expanding understanding of diverse
perspectives, she tries to remove them as obstacles towards people and organizations working together to achieve both unique and
common aims.
This is good book for those interested in the history and current significance of numerous progressive ideological arguments.
It is a good book for organizers of umbrella organizations and elected officials who work with diverse social movements. By
articulating points of difference, the author depersonalizes them and aids in overcoming them.
Those who are interested in electoral strategies, however, will be disappointed. The interrelationship between neoliberalism
as a governing ideology and neoliberalism as a political strategy is not discussed here. It is my view that greater and more
focused and inclusive political organizing has the potential to win over a good number of the those who see support of
neoliberalism's policy initiatives as a base-broadening tactic more than as a sacred cause.
"There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she
writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture
wars are provisional--and fading...."
Reading this book adds to one's understanding of labels, and political and intellectual distinctions. It has too much jargon
for my taste, but not so much as to be impenetrable. It is an excellent summarization and synthesis of the goals, ideologies, and
histories of numerous social movements, both famous and obscure.
Duggan
articulately connects social and economic issues to each other, arguing that neoliberal
politics have divided the two when in actuality, they cannot be separated from one another.
In the introduction, Duggan argues that politics have become neoliberal - while politics
operate under the guise of promoting social change or social stability, in reality, she argues,
politicians have failed to make the connection between economic and social/cultural issues. She
uses historical background to prove the claim that economic and social issues can be separated
from each other is false.
For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that
economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has
only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues.
After the introduction, Duggan focuses on a specific topic in each chapter: downsizing
democracy, the incredible shrinking public, equality, and love and money. In the first chapter
(downsizing democracy), she argues that through violent imperial assertion in the Middle East,
budget cuts in social services, and disillusionments in political divides, "capitalists could
actually bring down capitalism" (p. 2).
Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that
proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. Duggan provides historical background
that help the reader connect early nineteenth century U.S. legislation (regarding voting rights
and slavery) to perpetuated institutional prejudices.
NORDSTREAM. Washington has lifted sanctions on German companies involved with the pipeline
but imposed
new ones on Russian entities . What are we to make of this? A realisation that Berlin is
determined on completion combined with face-saving meaningless toughness. Amusingly Biden's now
being called " Putin's $5
million man " (because of the supposed payout by the pipeline to the supposed Russian
supposed hackers). Nordstream was a " key Putin goal ",
giving
power to Putin , what does he have
on him ? Hilarious, isn't it? Biden loved it then: here he is calling Trump Putin's puppy
.
I saw this today and while I can't say it is surprising, I am sorry that we are officially
at the end of the "engagement" period with China. I hate to see our major challenges in the
world increase.
I was wondering if you think we will officially recategorize our relationship with Russia,
too? If so, would you expect us to also label that "competitive?" How do you think this change
in our China stance will affect Russia?
Thanks.
"The U.S. is entering a period of intense competition with China as the government running
the world's second-biggest economy becomes ever more tightly controlled by President Xi
Jinping, the White House's top official for Asia said. "The period that was broadly described
as engagement has come to an end," Kurt Campbell, the U.S. coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs
on the National Security Council, said Wednesday at an event hosted by Stanford University.
U.S. policy toward China will now operate under a "new set of strategic parameters," Campbell
said, adding that "the dominant paradigm is going to be competition." (via Bloomberg News)
Reply
Dollar short and a day late. The US has lost the competition.
The USA was mighty because of tremendous manufacturing capacity, great inventiveness and
the ability to harness that, political stability and the "American Dream" had sufficient
reality. What's left of that? And the same applies to the West in general.
As to Moscow, why would it ever trust Washington?
CLOs have become a $760 billion market, accounting for 70% of new leveraged loan purchases
last year, according to Citi.
... Just six nonfinancial, junk-rated companies defaulted during the first quarter of this
year, according to Moody's Investors Service -- the lowest level since 2018. The ratings agency
expects the trailing 12-month default rate to fall to 3.9% by the end of December, from 7.5% in
March.
... The combination has analysts and investors expecting a banner year for CLO issuance.
Bank of America
projects sales to total around $360 billion this year, including refinancings, while Citibank
expects around $290 billion. Both figures would surpass 2018's all-time high.
... Critics say CLOs allow companies to borrow more than they can support, exposing
investors to losses in a downturn. A wave of leveraged loan downgrades
hit CLO managers last year , causing some portfolios to surpass limits on low-rated
holdings or breach collateral tests.
... Some CLO tranches haven't traded consistently, wrote KKR analysts in a recent note, a
sign that there could be some fragility lurking underneath the market's surface.
"Despite the high volume of activity, we do not believe that liquidity across the [CLO]
market has been uniform and as robust as it may seem," they wrote.
The U.S. is woefully unprepared to handle "the electrification of everything," as Amy Myers
Jaffe, a research professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School, describes the drive to
electrify transportation and buildings and parts of industry in The Wall Street
Journal .
Increased electrification in all sectors will need huge investments in the electric grid, in
battery storage to back up renewable power generation, in charging points for EVs, and in
technologies such as green hydrogen to help those technologies to reach maturity and cost
efficiency enough to start replacing fossil fuels.
"The true equation is 'democracy' = government by world financiers."
– J.R.R. Tolkien
"Welcome to an Orwellian Brave New World!
Orwell's (1984) words were prescient. Huxley (Brave New World) was a school teacher of
Orwell's at Eton College. They both attended elite symposiums in the 1920s and 30s where all
of this was discussed in complete seriousness sort of like early versions of Bilderberger
meetings. So the accuracy of their books was no accident they actually KNEW what was being
planned. Huxley just emphasized the more SOCIALIST elements while Orwell emphasized the more
FASCIST elements they were both right, because both aspects were always part of the plan.
It's obvious that the Rulers always intended to use both approaches as part of their CONTROL
structure.
Looking at their personal lives and backgrounds, it appears that Orwell was trying to warn
us. Huxley was much more of a British upper crust blue blood. He seemed to be in agreement
with what the Rulers were planning, and along with his brother Julian he was actually helping
them. They both knew what was coming.
Were they used as textbooks by the Rulers? It's just that the general public aren't as
worried about controlling the masses as the Rulers' are."
"Armaments, universal debt, and planned obsolescence -- those are the three pillars of
Western prosperity. If war, waste, and moneylenders were abolished, you'd collapse."
– Aldous Huxley
Ouch, Huxley chops at the roots. This quote is profound. If you were to connect dots what
do you see?
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
The The Hill piece linked in the week in review here confirms our suspicions Ukraine has
become a financial black hole for the West, and the USA is trying to get rid of it by
throwing it to the EU's arms:
Instead of expending diplomatic capital on a campaign to stop Nord Stream 2, the Biden
administration should work with its European partners to prepare Ukraine to withstand the
pipeline's completion. The deadline for action is 2024, when Kyiv's current gas contract
and President Biden's term effectively end. By that time, Washington and Brussels should
formulate and implement an economic package that, first and foremost, covers Ukraine's
inevitable budget shortfall from the loss of transit fees to keep the Ukrainian state
running. This package should, however, also invest in the country's sustainable growth.
That would entail material and technical support for Kyiv's ongoing anti-corruption
campaign, whose success is a prerequisite for attracting long-term investment. One idea
worth considering is a loan to cover revenue shortfalls, whose repayment would be
incrementally forgiven in exchange for concrete progress on reforms by Kyiv.
That won't happen. The easiest way you can infer that is that the USA and Germany don't
even have the resources to invest in green energy in their own territories, let alone on
third-parties' territories. Hell, the USA doesn't even have the resources to rebuild Puerto
Rico.
This is not the 1950s. The American Empire's bottomless pocket is no more.
Glenn Greenwald writes that President Trump acted more hostile to Russia than President
Biden does, even while the media claimed that Trump was 'a Russian agent'. It is probably a
fair point to make but in his piece Greenwald himself falls for anti-Russian propaganda
nonsense.
Greenwald seems to presume that it is the right or the job of a U.S. president to 'permit'
pipelines between two foreign country? That is of course completely false. The U.S. has no
right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular businesses between foreign partners. Such
interference is in fact illegal under international law. Biden, as well as Trump, should be
criticized for even thinking about 'permitting' it.
On to Greenwald's main point:
When it came to actual vital Russian interests" as opposed to the symbolic gestures hyped
by the liberal cable and op-ed page circus" Trump and his administration were confronting
and undermining the Kremlin in ways Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, had, to his credit,
steadfastly refused to do.
Indeed, the foreign policy trait relentlessly attributed to Trump in support of the
media's Cold War conspiracy theory" namely, an aversion to confronting Putin" was, in
reality, an overarching and explicit belief of President Obama's foreign policy, not
President Trump's.
Obama waged a massive undercover war to overthrow the Syrian government, an old Russian
ally. He arranged a fascist coup in the Ukraine and he sent the anti-Russian academic Michael
McFaul as ambassador to Russia where McFaul immediately started to prepare a color revolution
against President Putin. It was the Obama administration which launched the 'Russiagate'
campaign against Trump which further infested U.S. policies with anti-Russian sentiment.
Seen from the Russian side Obama certainly showed absolutely no 'aversion to confronting
Putin'.
While Trump ripped up arms treaties with Russia and gave a few useless weapons to the
Ukraine, making sure they would not reach the front lines, he otherwise took, thankfully, few
other damaging steps.
Well, the fact that the pipeline has not been finished for years, despite being near
completion, tells us that it's not actually true that the "pipeline would have been finished
with or without US sanctions." Certainly, it seems that Trump's pressure did work to severely
slow down if not completely stop the completion of the project and presumably Biden could
have continued that pressure. Btw, didn't the front-running Green party head come out against
the pipeline, showing that there's not unanimous support in Germany for its completion?
But more importantly, Greenwald's main point is that Trump's actions had nothing to do
with the Russian Puppet narrative against him. That both Biden and previously Obama were less
"anti-Russian" in practice and yet were thought to be "tough" on Russia, while Trump
(providing lethal arms to Ukraine and stopping NS2) was a "puppet" ... narrative building by
the Deep State. Greenwald's larger point is in fact accurate.
I think Greenwald was thrown off by what seems a sudden reversal and positive step by
Biden administration.
Personally I think Biden Administration was stunned at almost having instigated WW3 within
100 days of taking office. They looked fairly like amateur idiots even to the unwashed such
as myself. Then they realized that it would be difficult and given their evident ineptness
they chose the well proven political tactic of taking the loss and making it a win. Voila
they are genious - why didnt Trump think of that?
We in the US must accept that our government is craven incompetents and have to hope that
they might accidentally do something good by virtue of being so incompetent.
Greenwald makes an error but it is understandable. NS2 pipeline wont deliver enough gas to
truly make a significant difference to Germany. Where it makes a difference is to Ukraine,
which will struggle to steal as much gas from Russia as it has in the past. Gas transit rates
will fall, and if Ukraine doesnt like it RF will still be able to supply Germany without
Ukraine stealing gas which was meant for Germany.
But who will make good any shortfall in Ukraine's budget?
The early closure of the Netherlands Groningen natural gas field, due to land subsidence,
was a big hit to European energy security - especially with the move from coal/nuclear to
natural gas. B is very right in stating that Europe desperately needs Russian gas to fill a
yawning future hole between supply and demand. Russia is also developing their Arctic gas
reserves, which can be provided as LNG to Europe (as well as Asia). Very bad for the
Ukrainians, but they (or the US and the Nazis) picked their bed and can deal with the
consequences.
The Russians opened the Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China, and have agreements to
start development on additional pipelines. China is rapidly expanding natural gas usage so no
demand problem there.
Seems like the Biden administration took their "hardass" shot in the past months and it
blew up in their face. Now they have to take a step back and play a bit better with their
so-called allies. Probably won't last long, the US elite have extreme learning difficulties
when it comes to the reality of their decline from the Unipolar moment.
This is somewhat OT to the subject, but it's clear to me a greater understanding of the
Russian POV is needed. Although the transcript is currently incomplete, this meeting of the Russian
Pobeda (Victory) Organising Committee provides an excellent insight into the Russian
mind, and IMO this excerpt says a great deal:
"Regrettably, the ranks of the great generation of victors are thinning out. But this is
only increasing our responsibility for preserving their legacy, especially now that we are
witnessing increasingly frequent attempts to slander and distort history and to revise the
role played by the Red Army in the routing of Nazism and the liberation of European nations
from the Nazi plague.
"We understand the reasons for this, and attempts to hamper the development of this
country, regardless of its name, be it the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union or Russia, were
made in different times and historical epochs and under different political systems. These
approaches and principles remain the same. There is one principle or rather, one reason
for containing Russia: the stronger and more independent Russia becomes, the more
consistently it defends its national interests, the greater the striving of foreign forces to
weaken it, to discredit the values uniting our society and sometimes to slander and distort
what people hold dear, the things that are instilled in the younger generations of Russians
and which help them acquire a strong character and their own opinions .
"This is why all kinds of Russophobic individuals and unscrupulous politicians are trying
to attack Russian history, to promote the ideas of revising the results of World War II and
to exonerate Nazi criminals." [My Emphasis]
"Very soon, we will be celebrating 20 years of our core bilateral document, the Treaty of
Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. Since the signing of this treaty, Russia
and China have achieved great success in strengthening our multidimensional cooperation and
mutual trust across all areas without exception: politics, international affairs, trade and
the economy, cultural and humanitarian exchanges. It can be said that Russia-China relations
have reached their highest level in history."
And those relations will certainly reach much greater heights regardless the nature of
Russian-EU relations.
I'm puzzled by b's arithmetic on the gas flow rates
Apart from Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, there are also old Soviet pipelines that go
through Belarus and Ukraine, as well as the recently completed Turk Stream, part of which is
used to export gas to Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia (and soon Hungary, Bosnia and
Austria).
@11
My two cents on that is that the old surface Power-structure of Germany has been crumbling
rapidly for around the last decade. Merkel has left the christian conservative party in
shambles and there's no one with enough gravitas around to fill the giant sized shoes she's
left vacant, same thing with the social democrats who've been in a freefall from 35% to now
barely 15% for the last 15 years. Environmentalism coated Neoliberalism seems to be the maxim
of the hour in the leftists and centrists spheres, and almost everyone, but foremost the
Green Party, is trying to ride that wave to the finish line. Don't expect peoples first
policies, climate change will dominate the election, and we'll likely be wrapped up in more
deindustrialization coupled with an ever more chaotic energy policy. If anything the average
persons cost of living in terms of rent, energy, food and transportation will continue to
rise, while jobs in traditional industry sectors will continue to fall off. I haven't heard a
coherent plan on how the German economy is supposed to work like 10 years from now, and there
likely is none, all I expect is more taxes and the possibility of plundering social security
trust funds to address whatever critical infrastructure issue will face us next.
@14
Green-Party was about to oust the Conservatives in a major federal state election. People got
really riled up by nuclear, especially since there already was an ongoing controversy around
long term waste storage. It was one of Merkels signature opportunistic moves that aimed to
size the moment in absence of long term planing. It didn't work btw, Greens still ousted
them, but once you make a big move like that there's not going back without losing face, but
it does seem like exiting nuclear proved to be a popular strategy with the electorate in the
long run. I'm sure that are more complex/intricate theories around, but I can't speak on
that
Thanks b. The Empire of the Deranged is in a steady downward slide. By its own hand,
through financial engineering (stock buy back schemes fueled by bailout's of bankrupt
corporations plus derivatives etc. etc.) Add to this, restrictions on the use of swift. The
US devalues its own currency. Other countries are not so interested in purchasing US debt to
offset rising US deficit. Include all of that with our foreign policymaking which angers even
our allies like Germany, as you point out with NS2. The Leaders think they can snap their
fingers and bring the world to heel. That ship sailed a long time ago. The multi-polar world
is a reality that the paper tiger struggles with. To Glen Greenwald's Brazil, US influence
evaporates should Lula get elected as the next President. The tiger is toothless Glen, no
need to give it more authority than it has.
With the US pressuring Germany to end NS-2 in favor of importing much more expensive
fracked US gas, we see that the US thinks there is nothing wrong with asking it's vassal
states to cut their own throats (forego steps to retain their economic competitiveness) to
please their patron. The idiocy of Cold War 2 is costing US allies a lot and seems inimical
to the very idea of US allies even regarding their own national interests. One would hope
this is leading to either a re-evaluation of these alliances or a revolt of the satraps.
thanks b... Agree that "the U.S. has no right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular
businesses between foreign partners." Every journalists needs to be making this key point.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Vladimir Putin in his Munich (2007) speech announced Russia's pivot away from the Dollar
Empire and unwillingness to be a vassal. The Dollar Empire challenged Russia through Georgia
in 2008. Obama & Clinton fooled Russia through their reset announcement and got a go
ahead to attack Libya. The relationship was calm in 2012. Obama fooled Medvedev by saying,
"he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection, in
early 2012. However, Vladimir Putin was back in 2013 and the Dollar Empire realized it has
been outplayed. It moved aggressively after the two outside Russian military bases in Syria
and Ukraine. Russia captured Crimea in 2014, and Putin declared Russia's willingness to go to
war in Syria (2015). The Imperial Council
of the United States was surprised by Russia's move into Syria and wasn't ready for a
war. In the meantime, China was developing strong. Here comes Trump in 2017. It seems like
the Imperial Council and its Intelligence Community came with a new ploy to associate Trump
with Russia, so they can bully China and bend it over on trade. China stood up to Empire's
challenge and developed its independence plan! In the meantime Trump increased sanctions on
Russia using the Congress as a pretext while strengthening Ukraine. The sanctions on the Nord
Stream 2 brought halt to work in December 2019. Did Trump FOOL Putin/Russia by stating, "he
will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection? The
reasoning behind this question is that Russia didn't start work on the pipeline until the
election was over in December 2020. One year wait to start work on the pipeline.
MISSING DIMENSIONS
Why isn't Greenwald speaking against the dollar monetary imperialism and enslavement? Very
rarely one come across a journalist that shines light on reality and exposes truth. It seems
like Empire's MSM and journalists are making a big deal of this minuscule Nord Stream 2
sanction waiving. Why? It is just propaganda and perception management to create distrust in
the China-Russia relationship? No one is mentioning Russia's redlines or its ability to
retaliate to additional sanctions. Andrei Martyanow gets it right!
Please analyze every geopolitical
development from the MONETARY lens too. Russia as part of its De-Dollarization plan is
offering energy deals in national currencies to win nations in Eurasia, including Japan. In
which currency is the U$A offering its LNG ? US$? Also, it seems like Russia's transit
payments to Ukraine are in the US$. In addition to providing an alternate route, the Nord
Stream 2 increases Russia's leverage with Ukraine. Imagine if those transit payments were in
Rubles to Ukraine, Russia's leverage will be immense.
China, Russia, Germany, Japan... (Non-$ Bloc) are standing up to dollar's monetary
imperialism, and seeking more trade in their respective national currencies. The EU and
Germany will pay for its energy in Euros and reduce threats to their economies. Why don't
journalists address the monetary or currency dimensions?
RUSSIAN SUCCESSES?
Successfully completing the Nord Stream 2 and supplying gas to Europe in Euros will be a huge
victory for Russia and Germany. It has yet to implement its agreements (Minsk, Astana,
JCPOA...). All its conflicts are frozen and unresolved. Please share agreements that Russia
has successfully delivered on in the 21st Century, particularly when the Dollar Empire is
involved. Will the Empire surprise Russia by attacking on multiple fronts?
To say that there is a shift in US geopolitical policies, is an understatement. In short,
IMO, Biden is going back to Obama's plan and his pivot to Asia. Therefore, it is China,
China, China. Nothing else matters that much right now.
1. Nordstream 2 settled"¦..check
2. Germany and Europeans happy"¦..check
3. Settling ME problems with going back to JCPOA, promoting KSA and Iran peace, pulling out
of Afghanistan (not ME)"¦..check
4. Putting Israel in its place (via a shift in media coverage and taking away support slowly
and congress expressions of outrage) "¦..check
5. Abstention form UN resolution punishing Israel"¦"¦.coming up
6. Taking Europeans to the South East China confrontation"¦..coming up
7. Prying away Iran and Russia away from China"¦"¦wishful thinking,
hopefully.
8. Ousting Netanyahoo"¦"¦coming up
Although, Biden is a zionist, Netanyahu and his antics are not convenient at this time and
Israel takes a back seat to grand chessboard strategy.
Greenwald's and b's commentaries are a bit of a sideshow, in my opinion. Best concentrate
on the outcome and the bigger picture instead of this he said she said.
What happened this year is that the winter was cold, gas storage in Europe was nearly
depleted, and Europe needed huge amounts of russian gas.
The other problem is that LNG is more expensive in Asia, causing LNG producers and
shippers to prefer the asian market.
There are many more issues as well - such as the hit on US producers by the Covid crisis,
Germany moving the carbon goal posts from 2050 to 2045, green energy problems this winter in
Germany, explosions on pipelines in Ukraine, and so on.
It is also true that Russia is readying Power of Siberia 2 and 3 pipelines to China, as
well as actively developing its own LNG exports.
The disputed claim by Greenwald is that, "Nord Stream 2... is designed to double Russian
sales capacity to an EU addicted to cheap Russian natural gas, producing massive revenue for
the Russian economy and giving Moscow greater leverage when dealing with its European
neighbors." This is very different from the statement that NS2 together with NS1 is twice the
capacity of NS1 on its own.
There are several, to my mind, wrongful assumptions in Greenwald's claim.
The first, that the EU wants to increase its purchases of Russian gas, but is prevented
from doing so solely due to the lack of infrastructure which, presumably, is operating at
full capacity. From this assumption, it then follows that Russia is expecting massive
revenues from an increase in transit capacity, since customers are already standing by.
Finally, as a result of supplying significantly more gas to Europe and earning substantially
more money from it, Moscow can be expected to take advantage of its position as an energy
supplier to pressure Europe over political matters.
While it's true that European gas-needs are growing, it's more of a long-term projected
development and not some energy crisis straining the current configuration. A more topical
and urgent crisis is the situation in Ukraine and the state of disrepair of the gas transit
infrastructure in that country, which not long ago accounted for 80% of Russian gas supplied
to Europe. IIRC, official estimates gave these pipelines a few short years before becoming
unusable without major repair efforts -- something like 5 years -- and coupled with the state
of the country itself, it's not impossible that the pipelines outlive the state.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that Ukraine and/or the gas infrastructure on that
territory ceases to function tomorrow, halting all gas transits to Europe in the blink of an
eye, which isn't as far-fetched as you might think, the result would be an energy crisis.
Already, this crisis would not be of catastrophic proportions as it would have been a mere
decade ago, due to alternative transit routes established to lessen reliance on Ukrainian
pipelines. NS2 is designed to eliminate reliance on Ukrainian pipelines completely, if one
disregards various political commitments made by Russia on Europe's behalf to retain part of
its gas export through Ukraine, which I'm sure would fall to the wayside the moment European
capitals started going dark. Of course, cutting off transit states also has the added benefit
of making the gas cheaper and thus the contract becomes more lucrative, but that's more of a
bonus.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that all the pipelines to Europe are working at
full capacity, and Europe desperately needs more gas -- say, 25 years from now when no new
green alternatives have presented themselves and no new pipelines have been built because the
war of sanctions continues -- there's always LNG, which Russia can supply at a competitive
price, and the port infrastructure for that is already available, provided the EU is willing
to resolve its energy problems collectively.
From this it follows that, no, Russia isn't expecting massive revenues to come flooding in
at the completion of NS2. They're presumably expecting massive revenues from new energy
projects in Asia, but they're at worst expecting to retain the current revenue in the
European market, and at best see it grow in connection with European economy. Certainly, they
wouldn't like to lose the European market, especially due to unpredictable incidents abroad
that are outside of their control, but Europe is arguably much more vulnerable and has more
to lose from such an eventuality.
Lastly, since we are no longer expecting an immediate increase in European reliance on
Russian energy following NS2, how does it translate to Russian leverage over European
politics? Russia is already Europe's main supplier of, not only gas, but crude oil which
accounts for 2/3 of Europe's energy supply (gas is 24%). If Russia wants to leverage its
position as the main energy supplier to Europe, it does not need NS2 to do so, and shutting
down NS2 will not prevent it from doing so.
When considering a fund's volatility, an investor may find it difficult to decide which fund
will provide the optimal risk-reward combination. Many websites provide various volatility
measures for mutual funds free of charge; however, it can be hard to know not only what the
figures mean but also how to analyze them.
Furthermore, the relationship between these figures is not always obvious. Read on to learn
about the four most common volatility measures and how they are
applied in the type of risk analysis based on modern portfolio theory.
The relationship between portfolio returns and risk can be represented by the efficient
frontier, a curve that is a part of modern portfolio theory.
Another way to measure risk is standard deviation, which reports a fund's volatility,
indicating the tendency of the returns to rise or fall drastically in a short period of
time.
Beta, another useful statistical measure, compares the volatility (or risk) of a fund to
its index or benchmark.
The R-squared of a fund shows investors if the beta of a mutual fund is measured against
an appropriate benchmark.
Alpha measures how much, if any, extra risk helped the fund outperform its corresponding
benchmark.
Optimal Portfolio Theory and Mutual Funds
One examination of the relationship between portfolio returns and risk is the efficient
frontier , a curve that is a part of the modern portfolio theory. The curve forms from a
graph plotting return and risk indicated by volatility, which is represented by the standard
deviation . According to the modern portfolio theory, funds lying on the curve are yielding
the maximum return possible, given the amount of volatility.
As standard deviation increases, so does the return. Once expected returns of a portfolio
reach a certain level, an investor must take on a large amount of volatility for a small
increase in return. Obviously, portfolios with a risk/return relationship plotted
far below the curve are not optimal since the investor is taking on a large amount of
instability for a small return. To determine if the proposed fund has an optimal return for the
amount of volatility acquired, an investor needs to do an analysis of the fund's standard
deviation.
Modern portfolio theory and volatility are not the only means investors use to analyze the
risk caused by many different factors in the market. And things like risk tolerance and investment
strategy affect how an investor views his or her exposure to risk. Here are four other
measures.
https://637ee757112ba46fe0c09f00b0574098.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
1. Standard Deviation
As with many statistical measures, the calculation for standard deviation can be
intimidating, but because the number is extremely useful for those who know how to use it,
there are many free mutual fund screening services that
provide the standard deviations of funds.
The standard deviation essentially reports a fund's volatility, which indicates the tendency
of the returns to rise or fall drastically in a short period of time. A volatile security is
also considered a higher risk because its performance may change quickly in either direction at
any moment. The standard deviation of a fund measures this risk by measuring the degree to
which the fund fluctuates in relation to its mean return .
A fund with a consistent four-year return of 3%, for example, would have a mean, or average,
of 3%. The standard deviation for this fund would then be zero because the fund's return in any
given year does not differ from its four-year mean of 3%. On the other hand, a fund that in
each of the last four years returned -5%, 17%, 2%, and 30% would have a mean return of 11%.
This fund would also exhibit a high standard deviation because each year, the return of the
fund differs from the mean return. This fund is, therefore, riskier because it fluctuates
widely between negative and positive returns within a short period.
Remember, because volatility is only one indicator of the risk affecting a security, a
stable past performance of a fund is not necessarily a guarantee of future stability. Since
unforeseen market factors can influence the volatility, a fund with a standard deviation close
or equal to zero this year may behave differently the following year.
To determine how well a fund is maximizing the return received for its volatility, you can
compare the fund to another with a similar investment strategy and similar returns. The fund
with the lower standard deviation would be more optimal because it is maximizing the return
received for the amount of risk acquired. Consider the following graph:
With the S&P
500 Fund B, the investor would be acquiring a larger amount of volatility risk than
necessary to achieve the same returns as Fund A. Fund A would provide the investor with the
optimal risk/return relationship.
2. Beta
While standard deviation determines the volatility of a fund according to the disparity of
its returns over a period of time, beta , another useful statistical measure,
compares the volatility (or risk) of a fund to its index or benchmark . A fund with a beta very
close to one means the fund's performance closely matches the index or benchmark. A beta
greater than one indicates greater volatility than the overall market, and a beta less than one
indicates less volatility than the benchmark.
If, for example, a fund has a beta of 1.05 in relation to the S&P 500, the fund has been
moving 5% more than the index. Therefore, if the S&P 500 increased by 15%, the fund would
be expected to increase by 15.75%. On the other hand, a fund with a beta of 2.4 would be
expected to move 2.4 times more than its corresponding index. So if the S&P 500 moved 10%,
the fund would be expected to rise 24%, and if the S&P 500 declined 10%, the fund would be
expected to lose 24%.
Investors expecting the market to be bullish may choose funds exhibiting
high betas, which increase investors' chances of beating the market. If an investor expects the
market to be bearish in the near future, the funds
with betas less than one are a good choice because they would be expected to decline less in
value than the index. For example, if a fund had a beta of 0.5, and the S&P 500 declined by
6%, the fund would be expected to decline only 3%.
Beta by itself is limited and can be skewed due to factors other than the market risk affecting the fund's
volatility.
3. R-Squared
The R-squared of a fund shows investors if
the beta of a mutual fund is measured against an appropriate benchmark. Measuring the
correlation of a fund's movements to that of an index , R-squared describes the level of
association between the fund's volatility and market risk, or, more specifically, the degree to
which a fund's volatility is a result of the day-to-day fluctuations experienced by the overall
market.
R-squared values range between 0 and 100, where 0 represents the least correlation, and 100
represents full correlation. If a fund's beta has an R-squared value close to 100, the beta of
the fund should be trusted. On the other hand, an R-squared value close to 0 indicates the beta
is not particularly useful because the fund is being compared against an inappropriate
benchmark.
If, for example, a bond fund was judged against the
S&P 500, the R-squared value would be very low. A bond index such as the Bloomberg Barclays
US Aggregate Bond Index would be a much more appropriate benchmark for a bond fund so that the
resulting R-squared value would be higher. Obviously, the risks apparent in the stock market
are different than those associated with the bond market . Therefore, if the beta
for a bond were calculated using a stock index, the beta would not be trustworthy.
An inappropriate benchmark will skew more than just beta. Alpha is calculated using beta, so if the
R-squared value of a fund is low, it is also wise not to trust the figure given for alpha.
We'll go through an example in the next section.
4. Alpha
Up to this point, we have learned how to examine figures measuring risk posed by volatility,
but how do we measure the extra return rewarded to you for taking on the risk posed by factors
other than market volatility? Enter alpha, which measures how much if any of this extra risk
helped the fund outperform its corresponding
benchmark. Using beta, alpha's computation compares the fund's performance to that of the
benchmark's risk-adjusted returns and
establishes if the fund outperformed the market, given the same amount of risk.
For example, if a fund has an alpha of one, it means that the fund outperformed the
benchmark by 1%. Negative alphas are bad in that they indicate the fund underperformed for the
amount of extra, fund-specific risk the fund's investors undertook.
The Bottom Line
This explanation of these four statistical measures provides you with the basic knowledge
for using them to apply the premise of the optimal portfolio theory, which uses volatility to
establish risk and offers a guideline for determining how much of a fund's volatility carries a
higher potential for return. These figures can be difficult to understand, so if you use them,
it is important to know what they mean.
These calculations only work within one type of risk analysis . If you are
deciding on buying mutual funds, it is important to be aware of factors other than volatility
that affect and indicate the risk posed by mutual funds.
Industrial production rose 0.7% in April over the previous month, less than expected,
partly because manufacturing output growth slowed as auto companies struggled to get
parts for new cars.
While industrial production was up 16.5 percent from its level in April 2020 (the trough of
the pandemic), it was still 2.7 percent below its pre-pandemic (February 2020) level.
Capacity utilization for the industrial sector rose to 74.9 percent, but some 4.7
percentage points below its long-run (1972–2020) average.
Retail sales also stalled in April and, excluding food and fuel, sales fell 1.5%.
Taiwan is now becoming an obstacle to the American Empire's own imperial agenda.
For now, the solution being found is to force Samsung (South
Korea) to build a chip factory in the USA. But South Korea can only pay for others' sins
up to a point. There will come a time the USA will have to choose which one to lose: the
entire Korean Peninsula or Taiwan. My bet is they'll throw Taiwan under the bus long before
South Korea even starts to crack.
"She's done as a member of leadership. I don't understand what she's doing," one former
House GOP lawmaker told The Hill of Cheney's ongoing attacks on former President Trump. " It's
like political self-immolation. You can't cancel Trump from the Republican Party; all she's
done is cancel herself. "
Cheney has repeatedly attacked Trump for 'inciting' the Jan. 6 'insurrection' despite
telling supporters to protest peacefully and then go home following the breach of the
Capitol.
GOP leaders hope that purging Cheney from the leadership ranks will move Republicans
beyond their civil war over Trump" one that's raged publicly since the Jan. 6 attack on the
Capitol" and allow the party to unite behind a midterm campaign message that President Biden
and the Democrats are too liberal for the country. - The
Hill
"There are still a few members that are talking about things that happened in the past, not
really focused on what we need to do to move forward and win the majority back next year,"
according to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the minority whip. "We're going to have to be unified
if we defeat the socialist agenda you're seeing in Washington."
A victory by Stefanik would mark a symbolic shift back towards Trump by leading Republicans
- as the former president remains highly engaged this election cycle and has threatened to
politically obliterate any remaining GOP opposition.
"By ousting her, what we're saying is: We are repudiating your repudiation of the Trump
policies and the Trump agenda and her attacks on the president," according to Rep. Andy Biggs
(R-AZ), adding " President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. And when she's out
there attacking him, she's attacking the leader of the Republican Party ."
Cheney has already survived one challenge to her leadership post, in February, after she
infuriated conservatives by voting to impeach Trump for inciting the Capitol rampage on Jan.
6. With the backing of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), she easily kept
her seat as conference chair, 145 to 61 by secret ballot.
With McCarthy and Scalise fed up with Cheney and now backing Stefanik, the 36-year-old New
Yorker is expected to prevail in Wednesday's contest" a would-be victory for leaders who have
failed to unite the conference behind a post-Trump strategy in the early months of the Biden
administration. - The
Hill
... ... ...
Cheney isn't the only House Republican facing backlash for taking on Trump. Earlier in the
week, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), one of seven Republican senators who voted this year to
convict Trump, was booed and called a traitor at the Utah GOP state convention, where he
narrowly beat back an effort to censure him.
On Friday, the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee voted to censure Rep. Anthony
Gonzalez (R-Ohio), Cheney and the eight other House Republicans who backed Trump's
impeachment in January. The Ohio GOP also formally called for Gonzalez's resignation.
... ... ...
Catullus 51 minutes ago
I don't care if Trump runs again just as long as these gross establishment Republicans
are thrown out on their asses
JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 39 minutes ago (Edited)
Romney is a real traitorous worm. Did you hear him say Biden is a good man with good
intentions when the Utah crowd was booing his worthless hide? And we need to make sure the
Bush dynasty remains out of power.
Anath 51 minutes ago remove link
the cheney family is pure evil. that is all.
chinese.sniffles 52 minutes ago
Why Would Wyoming choose Chenney, after all that evil that **** brought upon America. If
there was no ****, Obama would never get elected.
chunga 47 minutes ago remove link
Cynics suspect primaries are also rigged.
Basecamp3 PREMIUM 50 minutes ago
Comstock is a traitor that never read the Navarro Report which goes into detail of
how the election was stolen. Also, ousting Cheney has zero risk. She is stupid, weak, and
her own constituents hate her.
overbet 50 minutes ago
which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters,
particularly educated suburbanites who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.
The female republicans I know are smarter than that. All of them
Grave Dancer 22 38 minutes ago remove link
Liz's sociopath dad **** got hundreds of thousands killed based on a total fraud lie of
a war. And Liz has a problem with Trump because he tweets some unfiltered stuff once in a
while? Freaking kidding me? ay_arrow
GhostOLaz 37 minutes ago
Don't blame Liz, she has a legacy of treason to protect, Daddy removed the only secular
anti Communist govt in the middle East which protected Christains and religious
minorities...
gaaasp 20 minutes ago (Edited)
Women could wear pants and not be burkahed up in Syria and Libya and Iraq before
Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump sent troops.
chunga 49 minutes ago
I don't want to give up on the process but the GOP has a lot of work to do.
nmewn 39 minutes ago
The thing about "us" is, when we find them we jettison them. Cantor was another one. She
voted to impeach an outgoing President who's trial she knew would be held AFTER he was out
of office and again just an average American citizen holding no federal office at all.
She is either incompetent, stupid (or both) or a cancer the GOP can live with excised
from the body.
Make_Mine_A_Double 40 minutes ago
Peggy Noonan really came out the closet in this weekend's WSJ with editorial of Liz
Chaney against the House of Cowards.
They are 2 of the same. We've had these demsheviks in the ranks for decades. Noonan
takes it in the anoose at dem cocktail parties and is Team Mascot for the RINOs.
Tucker finally exposed that filth Luntz. McCathry is actually living with him in one of
his apartments - I assume it's not platonic in nature.
This is why Trump could never even the bottom of the swamp....g.d. RINOs need to purged
with the extreme prejudice.
the Mysterians 40 minutes ago
War pig.
in deditionem acceptos 48 minutes ago
Liz will survive the vote. Too much graff from the MIC to get her out. McCarthey could
of got her out in Feb if he wanted. Wonder what honey pot he's dipping into?
A Girl In Flyover Country 43 minutes ago
She won't survive the Wyoming voters, though.
Cogito_ergosum 52 minutes ago (Edited)
She is protecting her dad who was part of the inside gang that carried out the...
demolition of the twin towers on 911...
Flying Monkees 37 minutes ago (Edited)
BS. The tribe's fingerprints were all over 9/11 as documented in extensive detail by
Christopher Bollyn.
JoeyChernenko PREMIUM 53 minutes ago
Don't any of these evil families ever just fade into oblivion? Bush, Cheney, Clinton,
Obama, etc.
beavertails 50 minutes ago
Extending and pretending there are choices when there aren't any. The MIC got this. The
"Prez" is just show to sell ads and steal, I mean raise fiat from the gullible.
The French version of Michael Lewis' book The Big Short is intitled Le casse du
siècle , which literally means the "heist of the century." This idea is
interesting, as going short can be regarded as finding the weak points of the financial system
and hacking into it.
However, that game is not easy.
Firstly, because "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path," as
Morpheus said to Neo. Indeed, even if many people seem to understand problems and to see the
answers, most of them will never dare to act. It is true for investors aware of heavy
speculation on capital markets, but also for so-called political leaders noting that the
trajectory of public debt is unsustainable. Many know what is going wrong, but how many of them
will try to do something about it?
The second difficulty is that the greatest trick Wall Street ever pulled was convincing the
world that an asset would never go down. Which means that even if one is willing to take a
stand against the financial system, there is still a high probability that he or she will ake
the wrong bet because of that misperception of risk.
There are a lot of things that can be learnt from past crises, and especially from the
events of 2007-2008. Today, most people in finance (apart from TikTok investors?) know that
investors like Dr Michael Burry or Steve Eisman made huge profits thanks to credit default
swaps on mortgage-backed securities or on collateralized debt obligations. But does it mean
that such a trade could easily be replicated?
The answer is "no" as going short on housing securitized debt before 2007 required to agree
to keep paying a premium while waiting for an event that never happened before. In fact,
everyone laughed at CDS buyers, as betting against the US residential market was seen as the
stupidest thing ever. In other words, it is not something that the average Joe would do, and
people should bear in mind that Burry even had to prevent Scion Capital's investors from taking
their money back as his scenario was regarded as pure madness.
The second problem was that investors willing to short the housing bubble had to properly
identify the source of hidden risks in the system. This problem could be summarized by what I
call "the Hubler paradox" (see The Great
Wall and the Big Short ).
Howie Hubler was a trader at Morgan Stanley, famous for making the second largest trading
loss in history. And it was all the more ironical as his analysis on RMBS securities was 90%
right. As he realized that many households would default on their mortgage everywhere in the
country, he decided to short risky BB tranches of CDOs while buying AAA tranches which were
supposed to be "risk-free."
The problem is that financial crises occur because risk was underestimated. Said
differently, they occur because of excessive concentration on assets bearing hidden risks. That
is what happened with AAA securities of RMBS or CDOs. The fact that many people suddenly
realized that those tranches were riskier than previously thought put the whole system in a
corner, with too many persons willing the leave the room at the same time using a small exit
door. The outcome was a massive spike of credit default swaps.
Meanwhile, part of the risk of BB tranches was already priced in. That does not mean that
their valuation did not drop after 2007, but the overall impact was less severe than for
so-called AAA securities.
Note that the mortgage delinquency rate peak was around 10% in 2009, meaning that most loans
were not affected by payment issues. Somehow the crisis may have never happened if upper
tranches had been rated AA instead of AAA.
How can we explain such a collective failure? We do know the answer thanks to decades of
academic research: herding behavior and positive feedback loops leading to severe imbalances on
capital markets, such as over concentration and increasing short volatility positions.
To summarize, opportunistic players had better focus on hidden sources of risks rather than
obvious sources of risks. Betting against obvious sources of risks can be profitable, but
assets embedding hidden sources of risks offer the best risk-to-return profile (i.e. the most
convex behavior).
Red Queens Narratives
A simple look at social media shows you that today almost everyone is able to identify
sources of risk in the system. And some people are even willing to bet against things like
Tesla, Peloton, ARK, bitcoin, dogecoin or whatsoever. Those are probably smart moves. But they
are also obvious sources of risk. They are at best the BB tranches of current capital markets.
So, what is the equivalent of AAA tranches?
I already answered that question in a previous post (see To
Be Passive Is to Let Others Decide for You ). Today, I believe that the biggest risk is the
excessive concentration on US equities, and especially on exchange-traded funds tracking large
cap indices.
For the past years, most fund managers have increased their exposure to the S&P 500 or
to the Nasdaq, mainly by being overweight on mega caps like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet
or Facebook. Worse, many participants have gone passive, buying tons of shares of large cap
ETFs such as SPY or QQQ.
In 2021, Apple or Amazon are regarded as risk-free names. Indeed, everyone knows that those
companies are unlikely to go bankrupt anytime soon. And since everyone loves them, then what
could possibly go wrong? Well, that is precisely what the story of securitized debt obligations
taught us. Once again, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he
didn't exist."
During the mid-2000's, most households did not default on their mortgage. However, some
defaults occur and one of the biggest crises ever occurred because most investors thought that
AAA tranches were risk-free.
Even if FAANGs are unlikely to fail, misperception of risk is tricky and dangerous.
Valuations are so stretched that there is no margin safety in case of serious bad news.
Besides, what will happen if everyone suddenly realizes that the time has come to reduce the
exposure to US mega caps? Will the market be able to absorb selling flows from ETFs and active
fund whatever their size?
Of course, people will answer that such a scenario is highly unlikely. That there will
always be a bid if people start to sell. To address that objection, I have already mentioned
that interesting Twitter thread on the absence of liquidity in the market when people start to
panic (see @FadingRallies ).
However, anyone willing to short SPY or QQQ must be ready to pay premium and/or to face
margin calls as long as it takes before something ugly occurs. And yes, it may seem crazy. But
somehow, such trade could be worth it.
Betting on a 25% drop of Apple's shares before July 16th would cost you a premium of 0.25%
of the share price. Meanwhile, the same bet on Tesla would cost 1.58% of the share price.
Despite that difference, most people would prefer to go short on Tesla rather than on Apple.
Probably, because there are obviously more fundamental reasons to bet against Tesla. And
perhaps also because investment professionals are fed up with Elon Musk while being indifferent
to Tim Cook. But we must never forget that "it's not personal, it's strictly business." What is
more, obvious risks lead to more expensive protections, and thus less convexity (i.e.
suboptimal strategies).
This entire post is not an investment recommendation. But it is interesting to bear in mind
that most people naturally underestimate the occurrence of extreme events. From a statistical
perspective, participants believe in Gaussian distributions, while asset prices are distributed
following power-tailed functions. The subprime crisis was an event that was supposed to happen
once in the universe lifetime according to securitization specialists, while it only took a few
years before the whole thing blew up.
Therefore, everyone is free to believe that US large caps will never crash. After all, this
is what it takes for a new "heist of the century," or at least of the past fifteen years. Once
you realize that, it will probably be too late to act.
Remember what Verbal Kint added about the devil at the end of The Usual Suspects ?
For April 2021 the official Current Unadjusted U-6 unemployment rate was 9.9% down from 10.9%
in March, and 11.6% in February, January was 12.0%. It was also 11.6% October "" December 2020.
But It was 18.3% in June, 20.7% in May, and 22.4% in April. It is still well above the 8.9% of
March 2020 when unemployment rates started jumping drastically due to massive shutdowns due to
the Coronavirus.
Initial Jobless Claims tumbled (positively) to their lowest since the pandemic lockdowns
began, adding just 406k Americans last week (well below the 425k expected). This is still
double the pre-pandemic norms
y_arrow 1
Truthtellers 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Companies laid off an additional 400K people last week and they actually think we are
dumb enough to believe there is a labor shortage? That line of crap is obviously just a
ploy to get employee's to accept lower salaries.
I'll believe there is a labor shortage after 16 million jobs have been added and the
weekly initial claims number is zero.
Until then, I guess if you have a "labor shortage" you better get that pay up.
AJAX-2 13 hours ago (Edited)
Another 400K+ applying for 1st time unemployment benefits and yet they piss on my leg,
tell me it's raining, while proclaiming there is a labor shortage. Bu!!****.
PerilouseTimes 9 hours ago
Close to a million people a week were signing up for unemployment for a year and
unemployment has been extended. Wouldn't that mean at least 40 million Americans are on
unemployment not to mention all the people on welfare and disability? I think the number is
closer to 100 million Americans on the government dole and that doesn't count all the
worthless government jobs out there.
Normal 12 hours ago remove link
I'm on unemployment except California seems to have quit paying people on unemployment.
I tried every-which-way to contact them but there is no way in hell to get through to a
live person. I went and typed in how to speak with a real person at the EDD, and hundreds
of people have posted that they haven't been paid in 12 weeks. I spoke with their Cal-Jobs
representative and she said that many people haven't been paid since March of last year. I
think they are forcing the so-called unemployed to their Cal-Jobs site by not paying
them.
ay_arrow
NEOSERF 13 hours ago
Worst month during the GFC appears to be about 650K...we are only 50% below that....with
21 states preparing to end the extension, things will be fantastic in these numbers shortly
if not the real world...waiting for all the cold/flu season coughing and cold weather in
November...
Archegos' prime brokers initially attempted to try and avoid a market panic by coordinating
their sales of the massive blocks of shares their had accumulated on behalf of Archegos via a
complicated series of swap arrangements. But when Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley broke ranks
and opted to be the first out the door, Credit Suisse, which had the biggest exposure to
Archegos, was ultimately left with more than half of the $10 billion+ in losses that banks were
stuck with (while Hwang reportedly lost his entire 11-figure fortune).
Right now, it's not exactly clear what laws prosecutors suspect Archegos and the prime
brokers of breaking.
While authorities haven't accused Archegos or its banks of breaking any laws in their
dealings, the episode has drawn public criticism from regulators, as well as some inquiries
behind the scenes from watchdogs around the world. The implosion shows Wall Street has grown
too complacent about potential threats building up in the economy, Michael Hsu, the new
acting chief of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said last week.
But the DoJ isn't the only agency poking around: Investigations are ongoing across the
globe.
The Securities and Exchange Commission launched a preliminary investigation into Hwang in
March, a person familiar with the matter said at the time. The agency has since explored how
to increase transparency for the types of derivative bets that sank the firm.
And in the U.K., the Prudential Regulation Authority has been asking firms including
Credit Suisse, Nomura and UBS Group AG to hand over information related to their lending to
Archegos, people familiar with the matter have said.
While investigators will undoubtedly focus on what happened, some believe that the real
concerns lie in current vulnerabilities in the world of equity finance. The team at Risky
Finance recently calculated that some $3 trillion in hidden Archegos-style exposure is out
there in the market, just waiting to explode if stocks sell off.
...
It should serve as a warning. 14 years ago, obscure corners of banking businesses became
hotbeds of regulatory arbitrage, speculation and leverage. The contagion of US subprime brought
the financial system to its knees. Now, after years of low or negative interest rates, equity
finance may have become a similar hotbed.
That means there there was no industrial recovery at all: stagnation continues unabated.
Claims that the the U.S. economy surges in this sense are fraudulent.
But the fact is that stock market casino is now is completely detached from real economy and
lives with its own life and dynamics. Of cource, this will not end well, but nobody knows when
the bubble will burst or will be deflated by FED.
I can understand the frustrations and rage of certain folks.
If you're a worker on an oil rig, a truck driver, a policeman, or some such jobs, there's
bound to be moments when you're angry as hell. So, even though such people say crazy things
once a while, I can understand where they're coming from. They need to blow off steam.
But the professor class? These lowlife parasites sit on their asses and talk shi*. They
produce nothing and make a living by spreading nonsense. And yet, they act like they are
soooooooooo angry with the way of the world. If they really care about the world, why hide in
their academic enclaves?
Academia needs a cultural revolution, a real kind, not the bogus 'woke' kind made up of
teachers' pets.
It's Izvestia and it was in Russian, that's why I'm not able to recover it. It was also
machine translated, so I may well have gotten the wrong message.
But yeah, from what I understood, the spirit of the article was that it was just a matter
of time before Russia start to deliver LNG to Western and Northern Europe at much more
competitive prices than the American LNG, through the Arctic route (investment in
icebreakers, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, nuclear reactors etc. etc.).
(Bloomberg) -- Senator Elizabeth Warren ripped the Federal Reserve for its oversight of
Credit Suisse Group AG in the run-up to Archegos Capital Management's implosion, arguing the
regulator badly blundered when it freed the bank from heightened monitoring.
Warren pointed out at a Tuesday Senate hearing that the Fed knew Credit Suisse had problems
estimating its potential trading losses because the agency had flagged the Swiss bank over that
issue in its 2019 stress tests. She questioned why Credit Suisse, under the watch of Fed Vice
Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles, was among foreign banks released last year from
oversight by the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee, which keeps tabs on
lenders that pose the greatest risk to the U.S. financial system.
"So you now agree that you made the wrong decision to weaken supervision?" the Massachusetts
Democrat asked Quarles, who was testifying before the Senate Banking Committee.
"We did not weaken supervision," he responded, saying the shrinking U.S. footprint of Credit
Suisse and other foreign banks prompted the Fed's decision. Quarles further argued that the
billions of dollars in losses that Credit Suisse suffered in relation to Archegos -- trader
Bill Hwang's family office -- weren't a result of faulty Fed oversight.
"The losses you are referring to didn't occur in the United States," he said.
Warren scoffed at the idea that missteps involving overseas lenders don't lead to U.S.
consequences. She reminded Quarles his term as vice chairman ends in five months, and said,
"our financial system will be safer when you are gone."
The MSM always covers for Sleepy Joe! This is the bull sh-t we have to put up with here in
the USA now. It is very sad our News outlets are unable and unwilling to tell the truth and
be journalists like you are here! Thank you Sky News Australia for telling it real!
I'm a trucker in Nebraska. I went to Wendy's they were closed, no staff. Went to Taco Bell
they were closed to restock because only 2 people showed up to work
She does a good job of historical summary and providing options for effecting change that
go beyond my one note drum of ending the global private finance jackboot. She quotes lots of
folks and it is a good read. My only problem with lots of solutions is that they leave the
inherently flawed structure intact....private finance....
I posit to start with making finance a public utility and the rest will flow from that
structural change.
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | May 20 2021 0:32 utc | 52
From the article you linked:
The sort of capitalism on which the United States was originally built has been called
mom-and-pop capitalism. Families owned their own farms and small shops and competed with
each other on a more or less level playing field. It was a form of capitalism that broke
free of the feudalistic model and reflected the groundbreaking values set forth in the
Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights: that all men are created equal and are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the rights to free
speech, a free press, to worship and assemble; and the right not to be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process.
That is a very distorted, romanticized view of colonial and pre-War of Secession
America.
During colonial times, immigrants mostly arrived as de facto serfs in the northern
colonies, while the south had the plantation system we all know about.
This "mom-and-pop capitalism" of the "small farms and small shops" were actually feudalism
with extra steps: remember they were essentially concessions of the Crown to a privateer.
This privateer made pre-arranged contracts with people in the UK, on diverse levels,
depending on how much you paid him: the richer already arrived on American soil with his
piece of land guaranteed, and was essentially your "small farm" owner. There was no
"religious persecution", or "land of opportunity": it was all accorded in London before he
even set sail.
However, those were the minority: the majority were vagrants and convicts who were sent to
the colonies against their will; once they arrived, they had to work for one of those farm
owners. The contracts varied according to the colony, but they were invariably draconian;
they were very long and prohibited from leaving the farm/piece of land. It was servitude in
the strict feudal sense of the word, and it relied heavily on child labor (many convicts in
16th-17th Century UK were children).
So, what Ellen Brown calls "Mom-and-Pop Capitalism" was essentially feudalism with extra
steps. Just to give you a glimpse from Nancy Isenberg's "White Trash":
The colonists were a mixed lot. On the bottom of the heap were men and women of the poor
and criminal classes. Among these unheroic transplants were roguish highwaymen, mean
vagrants, Irish rebels, known whores, and an assortment of convicts shipped to the colonies
for grand larceny or other property crimes, as a reprieve of sorts, to escape the gallows.
Not much better were those who filled the ranks of indentured servants, who ranged in class
position from lowly street urchins to former artisans burdened with overwhelming debts.
They had taken a chance in the colonies, having been impressed into service and then
choosing exile over possible incarceration within the walls of an overcrowded,
disease-ridden English prison. Labor shortages led some ship captains and agents to round
up children from the streets of London and other towns to sell to planters across the ocean
-- this was known as "spiriting." Young children were shipped off for petty crimes. One
such case is that of Elizabeth "Little Bess" Armstrong, sent to Virginia for stealing two
spoons. Large numbers of poor adults and fatherless boys gave up their freedom, selling
themselves into indentured servitude, whereby their passage was paid in return for
contracting to anywhere from four to nine years of labor. Their contracts might be sold,
and often were, upon their arrival. Unable to marry or choose another master, they could be
punished or whipped at will. Owing to the harsh working conditions they had to endure, one
critic compared their lot to "Egyptian bondage."
Discharged soldiers, also of the lower classes, were shipped off to the colonies. For a
variety of reasons, single men and women, and families of the lower gentry, and those of
artisan or yeoman classes joined the mass migratory swarm. Some left their homes to evade
debts that might well have landed them in prison; others (a fair number coming from Germany
and France) viewed the colonies as an asylum from persecution for their religious faith;
just as often, resettlement was their escape from economic restrictions imposed upon their
trades. Still others ventured to America to leave tarnished reputations and economic
failures behind.
Each owner adapted the situation to their taste and the immediate necessity. Some concrete
examples:
Pennsylvania's class structure had some unusual quirks. At the top were the proprietors,
members of William Penn's family, who owned vast tracts of land and collected quitrents.
Next came the wealthy Quaker landowners and merchants, bound together by family and
religious ties. In the eighteenth century, the Society of Friends disowned any member who
married outside the sect, which inflicted real economic hardship by depriving the expelled
of important commercial resources, loans, and land sales.
For Carolina:
Class structure preoccupied Locke the constitutionalist. He endowed the nobility of the New
World with such unusual titles as landgraves and caciques. The first of these was derived
from the German word for prince; the latter was Spanish for an American Indian chieftain.
Both described a hereditary peerage separate from the English system, and an imperial
shadow elite whose power rested in colonial estates or through commercial trade. A court of
heraldry was added to this strange brew: in overseeing marriages and maintaining pedigree,
it provided further evidence of the intention to fix (and police) class identity.
Pretentious institutions such as these hardly suited the swampy backwater of Carolina, but
in the desire to impose order on an unsettled land, every detail mattered -- down to
assigning overblown names to ambitious men in the most rustic outpost of the British
Empire.6
Yet even the faux nobility was not as strange as another feature of the Locke-endorsed
Constitutions. That dubious honor belongs to the nobility and manor lord's unique servant
class, ranked above slaves but below freemen. These were the "Leet-men," who were
encouraged to marry and have children but were tied to the land and to their lord. They
could be leased and hired out to others, but they could not leave their lord's service.
Theirs, too, was a hereditary station: "All the children of Leet-men shall be Leet-men, so
to all generations," the Constitutions stated. The heirs of estates inherited not just
land, buildings, and belongings, but the hapless Leet-men as well.
More than some anachronistic remnant of the feudal age, Leet-men represented Locke's
awkward solution to rural poverty. Locke did not call them villains, though they possessed
many of the attributes of serfs. He instead chose the word "Leet-men," which in England at
this time meant something very different: unemployed men entitled to poor relief. Locke,
like many successful Britons, felt contempt for the vagrant poor in England. He disparaged
them for their "idle and loose way of breeding up," and their lack of morality and
industry. There were poor families already in Carolina, as Locke knew, who stood in the way
of the colony's growth and collective wealth. In other words, Locke's Leet-men would not be
charity cases, pitied or despised, but a permanent and potentially productive peasant class
-- yet definitely an underclass.
As a curiosity: here's how the original American lords regarded the average Russian:
A Massachusetts orator put it simply: "I am a freeman, and the son of a freeman, born and
reared on free soil." Poor southern whites were born in slave states, reared on unfree
soil, and, according to a growing number of public commentators, they suffered from a
degenerate pedigree. They did not act like freemen. In Helper's view, their ignorance
and docility had made them worse than Russian serfs , when they compliantly voted the
"slaveocrats" into office time and again.
That's the beloved Russian Empire those "evil Bolsheviks" destroyed, according to the
widows of the Tsar and Orthodox fanatics that infest today's Russian Federation. But of
course, serfs had it good in the Empire; it was all about those French-speaking aristocrats
in those beautiful halls from Tolstoy's fairy tales.
May beyes, but may there is will the Last Hurrah move up...
Even if the S&P 500 stays flat for the rest of 2021, this year would mark its third
consecutive year of double-digit gains. The index has only one such three-year period since
the dot-com bubble burst in 2000.
This week, LPL Research analyst Jeff Buchbinder said investors should expect stock market
gains to
slow significantly in the second half of 2021 as inflationary pressures and rising interest
rates weigh on investor sentiment.
"... A draft report published online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe. ..."
A draft report published
online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came
to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter
Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe.
As part of its "vision" for future ties with Moscow, the paper concludes that the EU should put forward a number of incentives
designed to persuade Russians that a turn to the West would be beneficial, including visa liberalization and "free trade investment."
[...]
At the same time, the committee puts forward a number of extreme steps that it says the bloc should take. It insists that
Brussels "must be prepared not to recognize the parliament of Russia and to ask for Russia's suspension from international
organizations with parliamentary assemblies if the 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia are recognized as fraudulent."
The success or failure of this operation will depend entirely on the Russian people. Will it fall for the Western European
honey trap once again?
After Putin is gone, bets are off. Also, the EU continues to suffer from refugee waves from Syria and Libya, and its economy
continues to deteriorate (recession confirmed for Q1 2021). The whole system is so exhausted that they don't talk about even of
the absorption of Moldova anymore (the Moldovan president had to bring that up to the Kremlin; good they remembered them).
This looks like Biden had some surge of sanity, but it's not: I read an article on Izvestia some days ago and it seems Russia
won the war for the Arctic and has expelled the USA from that sea. That, combined with the fact that Russia has been ramping up
investment on the sector, results in the fact that, soon enough, Russia will also have the infrastructure to deliver cheaper LNG
by ship to Europe, too.
That means the USA has given up on the NordStream II in order to hurt the Russian LNG investments. Yes, people, that's the
insanity of the situation: the USG is completely lost. It still has its ace in the hole, though: the Green Party is set to win
the next German general elections, and they're rabid Atlanticists. Like, this would cost Germany dearly and they wouldn't last
two years in government, but at least Russian gas to Europe through a non-Ukrainian route would be stopped.
Speaking of the Ukraine, this whole situation makes us reflect: it is patent at this point in time that the EU is a subsidiary
of NATO - it expands eastwards after those countries become NATO members. They're the "socioeconomic" version of NATO. This has
created a huge problem for the EU, though, because the Ukraine is a massive financial black hole to the American economy (through
the IMF) and the USA is pressuring the EU to make it a member quick, so that this black hole goes to European (i.e. German) hands.
The thing is Germany obviously doesn't want that, because it needs the Euro to keep at where it is or stronger (you can only enter
the EU by entering the EZ nowadays). The Ukraine is salivating to become an EZ member - that's the whole point of the Maidan coup
in the first place - so Ukraine entering the EU without entering the EZ is out of the table. The EU must've told the USA that
no, the Ukraine must first become a NATO member, then they'll make it an EZ-EU member. The Ukraine is the proverbial hot potato.
All of that coupled with the hard economic fact that, without the Russian gas transit exclusivity, you can't leverage Ukraine's
debt, because, after Maidan, all of the public goods and infrastructure were privatized to American capitalists. That means we
have the absurd situation where Germany has to give up cheaper gas for itself (which would be essential for its economic recovery)
in order to make the Ukraine happy so that it enters the EU, so that it becomes a financial black hole... to the German economy!
Germany has to pay the Ukraine for the privilege of having to pay it even more, for eternity.
The price of nation-building has become more and more expensive to the capitalist world. Turns out those Third World shitholes
have learned something after all those decades.
Taiwan is also suffering from a significant brain drain to the Mainland. They're trying to solve the problem by demonizing
those people by calling them "traitors".
More Hacks, More Baseless Accusations Against Russia
In January police in various countries took down the Emotet bot-network that was at that
time the basic platform for some 25% of all cybercrimes.
Based on hearsay Wikipedia and other had falsely attributed Emotet to Russian actors.
The real people behind it were actually
Ukrainians :
The operating center of Emotet was found in the Ukraine. Today the Ukrainian national police
took control of it during a raid (video). The police found dozens of
computers, some hundred hard drives, about 50 kilogram of gold bars (current price
~$60,000/kg) and large amounts of money in multiple currencies.
Now the U.S. is accusing Russia of somehow having part in another cybercrime :
President Joe Biden said Monday that a Russia-based group was behind the ransomware attack
that forced the shutdown of the largest oil pipeline in the eastern United States.
The FBI identified the group behind the hack of Colonial Pipeline as DarkSide, a shadowy
operation that surfaced last year and attempts to lock up corporate computer systems and
force companies to pay to unfreeze them.
"So far there is no evidence ... from our intelligence people that Russia is involved,
although there is evidence that actors, ransomware is in Russia," Biden told reporters.
"They have some responsibility to deal with this," he said.
Three days after being forced to halt operations, Colonial said Monday it was moving
toward a partial reopening of its 5,500 miles (8,850 kilometers) of pipeline" the largest
fuel network between Texas and New York.
Biden however is badly informed. There is no evidence that DarkSide has anything to do with
Russia. It is, like Emotet, a commercial
'ransomware-as-a-service' criminal entity that wants to make money and does not care about
geopolitics.
Yes, a version of the DarkNet software does exclude itself from running on system with
specific
language settings :
The DarkSide malware is even built to conduct language checks on targets and to shut down if
it detects Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Armenian, Georgian, Kazakh, Turkmen, Romanian, and
other languages ...
That is a quite long list of east European languages and Russian is only one of it. Why the
authors of DarkNet do not want their software to run on machines with those language settings
is unknown. But why would a Russian actor protect machines with Ukrainian or Romanian language
settings? Both countries are hostile towards Russia. To claim that this somehow points to
Russian actors is therefore baseless.
The Kremlin has once again pointed out the importance of cooperation between Moscow and
Washington in tackling cyberthreats amid a cyber-attack on Colonial Pipeline, a US company.
"Russia has nothing to do with these hacker attacks, nor with the previous hacker attacks,"
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Preskov assured reporters on Tuesday.
"We categorically reject any accusation against us, and we can only regret that the US is
refusing to cooperate with us in any way to counter cyber-threats. We believe that such
cooperation - both international and bilateral - could indeed contribute to the common
struggle against this scourge [known as] cyber-crime," Peskov said.
The U.S. seems notoriously bad at attributing computer hacks. It claims that the recent
SolarWinds attack which intruded several government branches was also done by Russia. But that
attack
required deep insider knowledge and access to SolarWinds' computers
and processes :
The recently discovered deep intrusion into U.S. companies and government networks used a
manipulated version of the SolarWinds Orion network management software. The Washington borg
immediately attributed the hack to Russia. Then President Trump attributed it to China. But
none of those claims were backed up by facts or known evidence.
The hack was extremely complex, well managed and resourced, and likely required insider
knowledge. To this IT professional it 'felt' neither Russian nor Chinese. It is far more
likely, as Whitney Webb finds, that
Israel was behind it .
Indeed - the programmers of an Israeli company, recently bought up by SolarWinds, had all
the necessary access for such a hack. However the U.S. sanctioned Russia over the SolarWinds
hack without providing any evidence of its involvement.
If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may
come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S.
systems. The U.S. should fear that day.
Posted by b on May 11, 2021 at 17:31 UTC |
Permalink
Thanks b. I don't think Russia is going to escalate destructive attacks any time soon.
There's no upside.
They might even be reluctant to reveal their capabilities in the Ukraine.
For the moment, mockery is the best remedy while they up their game.
@ b who ended with
"
If the U.S. continues to blame Russia without any evidence for each and every hack there may
come a time when Russia stops caring and really starts to hack into or destroy important U.S.
systems.
"
How can you write such assertions that vary from the approach that both Russia and China
are taking?....strong defense but no offense.
Now if empire tried to hack into a Russian or Chinese system/network then appropriate
takedowns of malicious systems/networks would seem logical....and I expect they know
how...but will not do it on the basis of another avenue of empire lies and deceit.
You should have titled the post "Killing Two Birds With One Stone".
This pipeline is huge, running from Texas through the Southeast and all the way up to New
England. It's condition is beyond awful with multiple leaks along the route some of which
lose more than a million gallons per month and much more than can be determined since some of
the gasoline / jet fuel went into the aquifers. These faults have been well known for decades
and although some of the areas are heavily populated no remediation was done. The local
outcry recently caught the attention of the press when kids reported a gasoline smell along
the pipeline route to the police. The locals demanded the pipeline be closed for repairs and
sought answers from state officials and Federal authorities as to why this situation was
allowed. To blame the Russians for the closure of the pipeline which results in a surge in
prices and limited availability of gas for the summer is an absolute stroke of genius.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/ncdeq-colonial-pipeline-spill-huntersville/275-70e16fb6-c945-4634-b933-3975d0573f2e
It is odd that certain elements of the us intelligence community, along with negative
factions within the us political establishment, continue to absolutely refuse to enter into
verifiable and mutually binding international agreements on cyber security with exactly the
nation states that they accuse (without evidence) of malicious activity in the same sphere,
while at the same time operating in this field in an openly declared hostile manner under the
secrecy deemed necessary for 'national security'.
Probably it was not a false flag. First of all the state of IT security at Colonial Pipeline
was so dismal that it was strange that this did not happened before. And there might be
some truth that they try to exploit this hack to thier advantage as maintenance of the
pipeline is also is dismal shape.
Notable quotes:
"... "As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one stone. ..."
"... I have become so used to false flags, I am going to be shocked when a real intrusion happens! ..."
"... an in depth article researching solarwinds hack - looks like it was Israel, not a great leap to see that colonial was a false flag https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/01/investigative-reports/another-mega-group-spy-scandal-samanage-sabotage-and-the-solarwinds-hack/ ..."
"... Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27 Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651 million.' ..."
"... 'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.' ..."
The Colonial Pipeline Co.,ransomware attack was a false flag. They wanted to blame Russian
hackers so they could derail Nordstream II
It is common knowledge that the only real hackers that are able of such sabotage is CIA
and Israeli. It's the same attack types they do to Iranian infrastructure on a regular
basis.
The Russians are not that stupid to do something they know will be blamed on them and is
of no political use to them. And could derail Nordstream2.
As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went. CEO is ultra corrupt. They
never ever invested in their infrastructure so when it went down they came up with a
profitable excuse. Just look at their financials/balance sheet over the years. No real
investment in updating and maintaining infrastructure. Great false flag. Corruption and
profiteering.
"As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right
about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one
stone.
I'm not familiar with your handle - hello. IMO, it would be counterproductive for Russia
to initiate such a hack. What really affects and debilitates US oil and gas interests is low
prices, both at the pump and on the stock exchange. The hack helped jack up prices (which
were already being jacked-up despite demand still lagging behind supply) which only HELPS
those energy interests. It has long been known, the math isn't complicated, what level crude
must trade at for US domestic oil & gas operations to be profitable. Remember that just
as the pandemic was emerging Russia and Saudi Arabia once again sent the global crude market
into the depths of despair.
I do agree the hack can be interpreted in light of the desperation of US energy interests
to try to kill NS2. I have not yet read the recent articles discussing Biden's recent moves
in that regard. If these moves are a recognition that US LNG to Europe (and elsewhere) are
diametrically opposed to climate responsibility, I'd welcome those moves. As is usually the
case though, environmental responsibility is probably the least likely reason.
Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27
Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake
in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651
million.'
also
'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the
most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.'
Over the last decade or so, Sci-Hub, often referred to as "The Pirate Bay of Science,"
has been giving free access to a huge database of scientific papers that would otherwise be
locked behind a paywall.
Unsurprisingly, the website has been the target of multiple lawsuits, as well as an
investigation from the United States Department of Justice. The site's Twitter account was
also
recently suspended under Twitter's counterfeit policy, and its founder, Alexandra
Elbakyan, reported that the FBI
gained access to her Apple accounts .
Now, Redditors from a subreddit called DataHoarder, which is aimed at archiving
knowledge in the digital space, have come together to try to save the numerous papers
available on the website. In a
post on May 13 , the moderators of r/DataHoarder, stated that "it's time we sent Elsevier
and the USDOJ a clearer message about the fate of Sci-Hub and open science.
We are the library, we do not get silenced, we do not shut down our computers, and we
are many." This will be no easy task. Sci-Hub is home to over 85 million papers, totaling a
staggering 77TB of data . The group of Redditors is currently recruiting for its archiving
efforts and its stated goal is to have approximately 8,500 individuals torrenting the papers
in order to download the entire library. Once that task is complete, the Redditors aim to
release all of the downloaded data via a new "uncensorable" open-source website.
"... "Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions, and deliver a plagiarism-free paper." ..."
"... ... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them. ..."
"... About 200 students were caught cheating -- one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the 2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school. ..."
"... Surprised that the use of apps like Photomath and mathway weren't mentioned. Students can just take a photo of a math problem, specify the directions and copy the steps. ..."
"... I've taugh at the high school and college level. I recently taught engineering at a NC high school. Within a couple months of Zoom teaching, I realized that cheating was rampant. I had numerous blatant examples of straight copy-and-paste cheating. ..."
"... The colleges have been cheating students for decades selling worthless programs and false information to students at exorbitant rates. So who is surprised that the students learned to cheat themselves. ..."
"... What the article needs to cover is the enormous amount of cheating done on SATs, GREs, LSATs, etc. to get into prestigious universities -- especially by prospective students who'll be here on an F1 visa. ..."
"... Such cheating is legendary among some cultures but the PC crowd won't want to hear about that, will they. We need their electronics and their widgets and such best not to rock that boat. P ..."
A year of
remote learning has spurred an eruption of cheating among students, from grade school to college. With many students isolated
at home over the past year""and with a mass of online services at their disposal""academic dishonesty has never been so easy.
Websites that allow students to submit questions for expert answers have gained millions of new users over the past year. A newer
breed of site allows students to put up their own classwork for auction.
"Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions,
and deliver a plagiarism-free paper."
... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions
for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them.
About 200 students were caught cheating""one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the
2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school.
Texas A&M University had a 50% increase in cheating allegations in the fall from a year earlier, with one incident involving 193
students self-reporting academic misconduct to receive lighter punishment after faculty members caught on, a university official
said. The University of Pennsylvania saw cheating case investigations grow 71% in the 2019-20 academic year, school data shows.
Dozens of cadets at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point were caught cheating on an online calculus exam last year, sharing answers with each other
from home. The school said in April it was ending a policy that protected cadets who admitted honor code violations from being kicked
out.
... ... ...
In February, auction website homeworkforyou.com featured one student post looking for someone willing to do weekly school assignments,
exams and a project for a business class at York College in Queens, N.Y., over a two-month span. The winning bidder would also need
to pose as the student and respond to classmates in a group assignment. The student specified that an "A" was the desired outcome,
and that the "willing to pay" fee was $465.
By the next day, 29 bids had come in. The average was $479.41.
... Other popular websites that students use to get help""by submitting a question for an expert to quickly answer, or by searching
a database of previous answers""include Chegg and Brainly,
which said they have seen a big increase in users during the pandemic.
Mr. Piwnik said world-wide users grew to 350 million monthly in 2020, from about 200 million in 2019. The basic service is free,
while a $24 annual subscription is ad-free and gives access to premium features.
Chegg, a publicly held company based in Santa Clara, Calif., prides itself on a willingness to help institutions determine the
identities of those who cheat. It allows educators to report copyright information found on the site. The company saw total net revenue
of $644.3 million in 2020, a 57% increase year over year. Subscribers hit a record 6.6 million, up 67%.
A year of
remote learning has spurred an eruption of cheating among students, from grade school to college. With many students isolated
at home over the past year and with a mass of online services at their disposal academic dishonesty has never been so easy.
Websites that allow students to submit questions for expert answers have gained millions of new users over the past year. A newer
breed of site allows students to put up their own classwork for auction.
"Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions,
and deliver a plagiarism-free paper."
... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions
for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them.
About 200 students were caught cheating -- one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the
2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school.
Texas A&M University had a 50% increase in cheating allegations in the fall from a year earlier, with one incident involving 193
students self-reporting academic misconduct to receive lighter punishment after faculty members caught on, a university official
said. The University of Pennsylvania saw cheating case investigations grow 71% in the 2019-20 academic year, school data shows.
Dozens of cadets at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point were caught cheating on an online calculus exam last year, sharing answers with each other
from home. The school said in April it was ending a policy that protected cadets who admitted honor code violations from being kicked
out.
... ... ...
In February, auction website homeworkforyou.com featured one student post looking for someone willing to do weekly school assignments,
exams and a project for a business class at York College in Queens, N.Y., over a two-month span. The winning bidder would also need
to pose as the student and respond to classmates in a group assignment. The student specified that an "A" was the desired outcome,
and that the "willing to pay" fee was $465.
By the next day, 29 bids had come in. The average was $479.41.
... Other popular websites that students use to get help "by submitting a question for an expert to quickly answer, or by searching
a database of previous answers" include Chegg and Brainly,
which said they have seen a big increase in users during the pandemic.
Mr. Piwnik said world-wide users grew to 350 million monthly in 2020, from about 200 million in 2019. The basic service is free,
while a $24 annual subscription is ad-free and gives access to premium features.
Chegg, a publicly held company based in Santa Clara, Calif., prides itself on a willingness to help institutions determine the
identities of those who cheat. It allows educators to report copyright information found on the site. The company saw total net revenue
of $644.3 million in 2020, a 57% increase year over year. Subscribers hit a record 6.6 million, up 67%.
Colleges administrators and professors ban speakers with opinions that differ from their narratives, pull books they don't like
and can claim to be 'racist', and hire based solely on ethnic background.
But. the are SHOCKED when student cheat the system.
S 18 minutes ago
Surprised that the use of apps like Photomath and mathway weren't mentioned. Students can just take a photo of a math
problem, specify the directions and copy the steps.
Unfortunately for the students, the apps will solve problems in peculiar ways that stand out to the teacher. I've never had
so many students cheat of quizzes or tests. With most of them fully virtual even still, or home often because of hybrid, it's
almost impossible to get fairly produced student work. E
SUBSCRIBER 40 minutes ago
Lazy, lazy test makers. Write new questions (and please check them through a simple search first to make sure the answer
isn't readily available), timed testing, and assume the test takers all have full access to the internet. Stop assuming the
test taking conditions haven't changed. They have.
SUBSCRIBER 44 minutes ago
Back in the 1980's when I went to College there was a big uproar over Cliff Notes. Students copying word for word... But it
was known you could buy test questions, hire note takers for class, buy essays. The Frat boys had a well developed system! J
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
The cheating isn't limited to students.
Look at how our Congressional representatives behave in office!
Look at how career bureaucrats behave!
is it any wonder that cheating is so rampant? honesty and integrity are for suckers.
why worry about your conscience? there is no Deity, there is no higher moral law. All ethics are relative. As long as I get
ahead, what's the big deal?
There's no afterlife anyway, so what do I have to worry about? G
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Maybe they're studying to be our future national-level political leaders. G
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Call me old-fashioned, naive or worse but I always saw homework or studying for an exam as the mental counterpart to
physical exercise.
Sure, you can cheat.
But you cheat yourself in the long term when you don't develop the intellectual "muscles" that you need to compete and
succeed in adult life.
And you or your parents paid good money to get that degree and you bypassed four or more years of earning potential by
attending school.
Sounds like a pretty poor tradeoff to me. B
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
I've taugh at the high school and college level. I recently taught engineering at a NC high school. Within a couple
months of Zoom teaching, I realized that cheating was rampant. I had numerous blatant examples of straight copy-and-paste
cheating.
I confronted each student and most of them either played dumb, or denied it. I separately showed them each the website and
documents they stole from and told them this was their one and only freebie. A few parents confronted me but after showing
them the evidence they either dropped it or confronted their own child. A few parents thanked me for holding their kid
accountable, but most just complained or dropped it altogether.
After a couple more months of it continuing, and not getting enough support from the administrators, I quit, without yet
having secured a new job. I'll say this, it's worse than you think, and your child likely does it too, or knows of those who
do. It's become acceptable to them bc of pressure to get into college. M
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
It is not new. Twenty-five years ago, my wife, a ranked academic, was given a paper supposedly written by one of her
students. She recognized it because she typed it after I wrote it ten years before.
When she confronted the student he admitted to buying it from a paper mill. Apparently the prof I wrote it for sold
his "collection" on retirement. Sadly, even then, the student got little more than a slap on the wrist once outed.
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The colleges have been cheating students for decades selling worthless programs and false information to students at
exorbitant rates. So who is surprised that the students learned to cheat themselves. M
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
This is just a manifestation of the bankruptcy of our education system. Let's face it, for most students from
kindergarteners to PhD post grads, it is not about gaining knowledge, learning how to think or even mastering skills. It is
about checking blocks to build a resume. What does a diploma really mean? A checked block.
The system has known and participated in this for decades. What does it really matter how that block got checked?
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
What the article needs to cover is the enormous amount of cheating done on SATs, GREs, LSATs, etc. to get into
prestigious universities -- especially by prospective students who'll be here on an F1 visa.
Such cheating is legendary among some cultures but the PC crowd won't want to hear about that, will they. We need
their electronics and their widgets and such best not to rock that boat. P
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I'm a lecturer at a Canadian university and am quite troubled by the use of textbook publisher's test banks in exam prep.
Students easily find the keys on line. Some students have stopped attending class. They know what will be on the exam. Of
course they learn nothing. Admin, faculty and students love the easy inflated grades. Academic wheels turn but there is no
learning. It's not a student problem, it's a bone lazy faculty problem. I write my own exams but many refuse. E
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Wonderful. Just what I want. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, urban planners, nurses, mechanics, dentists, and
other professionals who need to cheat to graduate.
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Hey you forgot another sizable group that will provide US with 'professionals' of questionable quality the AA crowd
that gets placed into universities based upon what?
How can one ignore all the noise in the media to focus on the crux of the situation,
implications, and the future outcomes?
One can only understand the impact of events better and envision the future by exploring
plausible scenarios and identifying signals which over time will enable one to size up the
probabilities of outcomes.
INTERNATIONAL -- MONETARY IMPERIALISM
Geopolitical relationships are frosty & flammable. All the narratives can be summed up
into a few SCENARIOS:
DECOUPLING. Two spheres of influence & supply chains. China & Russia led and
the Five Eyes led. Germany/EU?
WAR. The dollar empire launching a war against China &/or Russia. Iran?
The probabilities of these scenarios will be defined by the following SIGNALS:
NS2. Is Nord Stream 2 completed by September? If yes, a major geopolitical
victory for Russia. If the U$A can thwart this project then it still has the power and will
to shape Europe. If, on the other hand, Germany & Russia resists U$A's pressure and
complete the pipeline to operate, that would be an act of defiance unprecedented in postwar
history. This is the biggest clash between Russia and the United States since the end of
World War II. Let's see if European countries are less subservient to Washington.
De-DOLLARIZATION. China, Russia and other nations moving away from the US$ and trading
in their respective national currencies.
SANCTIONS. More sanctions from the dollar empire against China, Russia, Iran,
Germany... Counter sanctions, retaliations... impact on the global economy...
Any new scenarios & signals? What probabilities would one assign to various scenarios?
What will be the construct of scenarios and signals at the national level?
The Dollar Empire likes to initiate a conflict during Olympics when they are held in its
adversaries:
"... With its narrow focus on inflation expectations, the Fed seems to be fighting the last battle. Just because the Fed hasn't faced big trade-offs in recent decades doesn't mean trade-offs aren't coming or that they no longer exist. ..."
"... The long-term risks from asset bubbles and fiscal dominance dwarf the short-term risk of putting the brakes on a booming economy in 2022. ..."
Clinging to an emergency policy after the emergency has passed, Chairman Powell courts
asset bubbles.
...With its narrow focus on inflation expectations, the Fed seems to be fighting the
last battle. Just because the Fed hasn't faced big trade-offs in recent decades doesn't mean
trade-offs aren't coming or that they no longer exist.
Chairman Jerome Powell needs to recognize the likelihood of future political pressures on
the Fed and stop enabling fiscal and market excesses.
The long-term risks from asset bubbles and fiscal dominance dwarf the short-term risk of
putting the brakes on a booming economy in 2022.
Mr. Broda is a partner at Duquesne Family Office LLC, where Mr. Druckenmiller is
chairman and CEO.
Stefan Hofrichter, head of global economics and strategy at German fund management giant Allianz Global Investors, put
together a 10-point checklist for bubbles that he says was inspired by Charles Kindleberger, the author of the 1978 classic,
"Manias, Panics, and Crashes." In the table below, you can see what that list is, as well as the color-coded rating he
assigned to them.
At the end of April, the S&P 500
SPX,
0.20%
traded
at a cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio of 37, a level not seen since the dot-com bubble of 1998, and the Nasdaq
Composite
COMP,
0.59%
was
at an even more-staggering 55. (European, Japanese and Asian equities, by contrast, are trading at or below their long-term
valuation multiples.) And he doesn't agree that the valuations are justified by low bond yields. "Low real yields have
historically typically implied rather low multiples, since low yields point to a slow-growth environment and a higher risk
of recession," says Hofrichter. "Monetary policy over the decades has lifted investors' risk appetite to extremes, powering
the run-up in equities," he says.
Also on the bubble list is that multiple asset classes are overvalued, noting that the term premium for longer-dated
sovereign bonds remains around 100 basis points below the long-term average. Another sign of bubbles is that they tend to
occur alongside the perception of a new era, which clearly is the case now with artificial intelligence. Ultra-easy
monetary policy, the advent of new financial instruments like special-purpose acquisition companies and cryptocurrencies,
and what he calls "overtrading" -- exponential price movements and signs of above-average risk taking -- also are
illustrative of bubbles.
So with all these bubble signs, isn't it a time to sell? "History has shown that bubbles only burst once central banks
start to hike rates or take other steps to rein in their 'easy money' policies." Until the Fed starts tapering its bond
purchases, "we think there is a reasonable chance that U.S. equities will continue bubbling up further. As a result, we
stay nervously 'risk on' for now, gravitating towards risk assets. And we have a bias for value stocks, which are trading
at a multidecade discount to growth stocks," he says.
Tim Duy, chief U.S. economist at SGH Macro Advisors, analyzed the wave of comments from Federal Reserve officials,
including Vice Chair Richard Clarida. "Notice how slowly the Fed is moving in the tapering direction, mixing in talking
about tapering with policy still being in a good place and not seeing substantial progress 'just yet.' This is by design.
It's enough that if you are watching for it and you know what to look for, you see the subtle shift but not enough to be
any kind of game-changer," he said. Duy expects the formal pivot toward tapering to be announced at the Jackson Hole, Wyo.
conference in August, with the actual reductions starting in the first quarter of 2022, or possibly the final quarter of
2021.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Randal Quarles has two speeches, the first on insurance regulation and the second on the
economic outlook.
The chief executives of Wall Street banks -- including Bank of America
BAC,
0.37%
,
Goldman
Sachs
GS,
1.01%
and
JPMorgan Chase
JPM,
0.35%
--
will testify in front of the Senate Banking Committee on the topic of oversight.
What the News Means for You and Your Money
Understand how today's business practices, market dynamics, tax policies and more impact you with real-time
news and analysis from MarketWatch.
SUBSCRIBE NOW: 50% OFF 1 YEAR
Amazon
AMZN,
0.48%
struck
a deal to buy studio MGM for $8.45 billion, with Amazon saying the purchase rationale was the "treasure trove of IP in the
deep catalog that we plan to reimagine."
Dick's Sporting Goods
DKS,
14.98%
jumped
8% after hiking its earnings outlook. Zscaler
ZS,
12.18%
rose
11%, after the cybersecurity company's quarterly results and higher full-year outlook breezed past Wall Street
expectations. Retailer Nordstrom
JWN,
-5.54%
fell
5%, after reporting a wider loss than forecast.
After the close, graphics chip maker Nvidia
NVDA,
0.24%
,
database
software maker Snowflake
SNOW,
2.21%
and
identity management company Okta
OKTA,
1.07%
release
their latest numbers.
Need to Know starts early and is updated until the opening bell, but
sign
up here
to get it delivered once to your email box. The emailed version will be sent out at about 7:30 a.m. Eastern.
Federal Reserve officials seem to be having some success in calming investor fears over inflation --- a chart from
Deutsche Bank illustrates why that was a tall task.
More On MarketWatch
Steven Goldstein is based in London and responsible for MarketWatch's coverage of financial markets in Europe, with a
particular focus on global macro and commodities. Previously, he was Washington bureau chief, directing MarketWatch's
economic, political and regulatory coverage. Follow Steve on Twitter: @MKTWgoldstein.
After Russiagate the credibility of CIA is below zero. So this looks like a part of
propaganda compaign against China.
"Yet somehow Tony Fauci didn't know this Can we really believe that? No, of course, we
can't," Carlson continued, adding "right around the time those Chinese researchers became the
world's first COVID patients, the government of Thailand contacted the CDC and Tony Fauci's
office to say its intelligence service had picked up 'biological anomalies' around the lab in
Wuhan. In other words, there had been a leak."
ay_arrow
AUS-AUD 8 hours ago (Edited)
If fauci funded the wuhan lab then the US funded the wuhan lab.
popeye 6 hours ago
There has been no new credible information released in the past two months pertaining to
the origin of SARS-Cov-2. US Intelligence is not a credible source (lying & deception
are the tradecraft of espionage). All I see is media narrative spin based on conjecture
that you can guarantee has political origins.
Yet Americans, who complain incessantly about the dishonesty of their media, credulously
swallow the narrative fed to them without analysis or critique. Stupid. You think you are
independent rebels, when you are in reality manipulated sheep, and oh so easily
manipulated.
Lets be clear - ZH is now a part of the narrative machine.
SurfingUSA 4 hours ago (Edited)
Can't make inferences????
The Wuhan lab is just the fall guy here.
The virus,
the lab (or Army games) release,
the election impact ...
ALL either Made in the (((USA))) or close to it.
Justin Timberbieber 8 hours ago
Yep, just the CCP. No western involvement whatsoever.
E5 8 hours ago
Until you trace the scientists back to UNC. Then you see that the actual virus they
accelerated came from the US.
Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago
AND Canada
Ted K. 6 hours ago
The Winnipeg lab of the fully infiltrated Canada is indeed a piece of the puzzle.
Herdee 5 hours ago
And Ft. Detrick
RedNemesis 6 hours ago (Edited)
Okay. They accelerated and released a virus obtained from the US. So is the US
responsible for a country turning yellow cake uranium mined in Nevada into a nuclear
weapon?
truth or go home 5 hours ago
Yes, if the US gives them the recipe and then pays them to develop it.
And if the US did that to get around a law that makes it illegal to do makes it even
worse - which is exactly what happened.
SteveNYC 7 hours ago
I'm going with the "populism" route. Stopping populist governments in their tracks has
always proven reason enough for panic and overkill from TPTB:
- USA
- Brazil
- India
<< Primary targets.
Heimdall - Torwart von Assguard 6 hours ago
Poland
Hungary
Venezuela
Brazil
popeye 6 hours ago
Most Americans have never left their country, many have never left their state, and few
seem to have an education. You can't expect them to know much about anything outside the
US. Basically a flat earth mentality - "the world consists only of what I can see".
junction 8 hours ago
The only certainty is that all the major facts are lies.
Jolt 5 hours ago
You're on the right track, "junction", but be aware that the virus is just an ordinary
flu/corona virus that isn't deadly for the vast majority of humans. The real culprit, the
biggest tool for creating the worldwide "emergency" is the PCR test, which is 100%
fraudulent. This is by design, thanks to the pharmaceuticals.
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 8 hours ago remove link
No Tucker, if you just want to blame the whole thing on China you are missing the
punchline: Fauci
tion PREMIUM 8 hours ago (Edited) remove link
It's all an assortment of narratives and partial truths. Tucker points the finger at
China without mentioning how Fauci was funding Gain of Function work at the Wuhan lab. Here
is just one example of people from that lab using an HIV splice to increase
transmissibility of a pathogen to humans.
In this study, we investigated the receptor usage of the SL-CoV S by combining a human
immunodeficiency virus-based pseudovirus system with cell lines expressing the ACE2
molecules of human, civet, or horseshoe bat. In addition to full-length S of SL-CoV and
SARS-CoV, a series of S chimeras was constructed by inserting different sequences of the
SARS-CoV S into the SL-CoV S backbone. Several important observations were made from this
study. First, the SL-CoV S was unable to use any of the three ACE2 molecules as its
receptor. Second, the SARS-CoV S failed to enter cells expressing the bat ACE2. Third,
the chimeric S covering the previously defined receptor-binding domain gained its ability
to enter cells via human ACE2, albeit with different efficiencies for different
constructs. Fourth, a minimal insert region (amino acids 310 to 518) was found to be
sufficient to convert the SL-CoV S from non-ACE2 binding to human ACE2 binding ,
indicating that the SL-CoV S is largely compatible with SARS-CoV S protein both in
structure and in function.
Journal of Virology, February 2008
And by the way let's not pretend that dear Donald aka President Kushner's FIL didn't
also know about Fauci's questionable involvement with unethical gain of function research
at this lab before appointing him and the PEPFAR mafia to head the Covid taskforce, putting
the foxes in charge of guarding the hen house so to speak.
TheAlmightyCorndawg 8 hours ago
Which is precisely why Tucker is Operation Mockingbird.
Billy the Poet 7 hours ago (Edited)
Then show me solid evidence that what you say is true. You do have film of Tucker
working with the CIA, right?
2+2 ≠ 5 8 hours ago remove link
Huh?
Tucker has NEVER "supported the election hoax".
In fact, Tucker is one of the very few on MSM to continually call for proper voting
audits of the 2020 election, and he repeatedly highlights the obvious fraud that took
place.
ay_arrow
GoodyGumdrops 8 hours ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Election fraud has been happening in the US
for decades.
The only thing new this time around is they decided to mock the American people openly,
so that they can never claim ignorance again about the corruption.
The plandemic is the real worldwide atrocity being played out right now before our
eyes.
asteroids 8 hours ago
The heads of the NIH and the CDC have been caught lying. Therefore both agencies have NO
credibility and have lost the trust of the people. ...
Flying Monkees 8 hours ago
Imagine being a total POS like Fauci who would destroy the freedom and liberties of his
fellow Americans just so he can line his own pockets...
Grantham thinks we are in a big, multi-asset market bubble and there is going to be a monstrous crash. Grantham lays out his
overvaluation argument in a video I made with him in February. There are two issues I wish I had pushed him harder on then: the
difficulty of getting out of the market without missing years of gains, and why, if he has mastered the art of identifying and
dodging bubbles, the equity funds at GMO (the asset manager he founded more than 40 years ago, where he still serves as a
strategist) have not beaten their benchmarks convincingly.
expand_more
remove
Zola.22
A popover with more user information
34 MINUTES AGO
if you try to time the market, you must be skillful or lucky at least two times -- when you exit,
and when you re-enter. The risk of missing out on the early bull runs is also very great, so that
you might miss out on the best part of the gains.
As for me, I am sticking with my game plan, which has two guiding principles: (1) "it is better to
buy a wonderful company at fair prices, than a fair company at wonderful prices" (Buffet); and (2)
invest in stocks only what will not cost you sleep at nights during times of market turbulence, but
keep that much invested at all times (the Economist).
A popover with more user information
42 MINUTES AGO
Wasn't the whole point of QE to (1) increase bank reserves, thereby encouraging banks to make loans; and (2) reduce
interest rates, thereby encouraging borrowers to take loans to fund profitable investments and private consumption?
Before the pandemic, isn't it true that banks that received QE reserves largely did not use them to support increased
lending? If so, pre-pandemic QE would have meant the following outcomes: banks' balance sheets remained almost the same
(they swapped securities for reserves); central banks had larger balance sheets (they have acquired more assets and
issued more bank reserves); and no one else became any the richer or poorer. What effects did this scenario have?
In this round of QE, however, I understand that US banks have made additional loans because of their QE reserves, and
also the Fed has purchased securities from non-bank sellers. That must mean that the Fed has a larger balance sheet
(more securities, more bank reserves issued, and less funds because of purchases from non-bank sellers); banks have
larger balance sheets (more reserves, more loans owed to them, and more deposits owed to depositors); their borrowers
have loans that they can use to invest or consume and corresponding obligations; and non-bank sellers have bank deposits
that they can use to invest. This round of QE has thus increased M2 (more deposits owed or used by non-bank sellers and
borrowers) and bank debt owed by borrowers.
A popover with more user information
2 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
Grantham's claim that you could have pulled out of the market in 1928 is very misleading. To make money you would have had
to remain in cash for a DECADE. Many folks lost their shirt by 'correctly' anticipating the initial crash, but then jumped
back into a bear market that went even further south.
(From JK Galbraith's history of the 1929 crash, which is an astonishingly entertaining read and perhaps highly timely)
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
QE is a market-distorting mechanism, used by Central Banks to "manage" interest rates (straightforward) and Money Supply
(harder).
Managing Money Supply is difficult because of the number of variables that impact how much new money is created when the
Central Bank buys govt. debt securities and issues reserves in exchange.
If the govt. debt securities are purchased from a lending bank, creating more reserves that can be used to make loans, the
crucial question is whether the bank will actually increase its credit portfolio, or whether it is more concerned about
maintaining its reserve ratio? If it does increase lending, then which sectors of the economy will it lend to - consumer,
manufacturing, technology, real estate or financial (i.e. hedge funds)? Is there demand for new loans? The limitations on
QE through lending banks were laid bare in the 2010 - 2016 timeframe, when European banks were more focused on repairing
their balance sheets and reserve ratios, than extending new credit.
By contrast, when a Central Bank purchases govt. debt securities from a non-bank holder, there is a dual-impact that causes
the substitution of govt. securities in favor of other asset classes. First, the reduction in yields makes other asset
classes more attractive and second, the shrinking pool of govt. debt securities forces re-allocation of capital into other
asset classes. Which of these two variables has a greater impact is hard to say, as it depends on the asset re-allocation
decisions of tens of thousands of portfolio managers, working within the framework of investment parameters for hundreds of
thousands of investment funds.
Ultimately, the asset re-alloction away from govt. debt securities will inflate the value of asset classes all the way down
the risk spectrum, creating a bubble of value inflation in each successive risk-asset class until a new equilibrium is
established. This triggers the so-called "wealth effect", where investors borrow against, or liquidate, unexpected
investment gains, creating an increase in aggregate demand.
QE's impact on Money Supply is (relatively) easy to understand, but devilishly hard to quantify.
A popover with more user information
5 HOURS AGO
Risk adjusted returns. How many individuals are invested in bonds? Not very many because there is essentially no return.
This means there is a very high concentration in the riskiest assets.
Also Mr. Armstrong individual investors have finite lives. If I am 70 and we experience a market that has no return for 12
years (1999-2011) and there is a 20-40% drawdown within that and I do not have any surplus income to reinvest in the market
as it goes down should I just always stay 100% invested. Money managers have to take all of this into consideration and
determine their allocations accordingly. Arm chair quarterbacking is quite easy.
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Joeyjoejoe
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
reply
In
reply to
Opinionated
You are wrong on bonds. Bonds have been great risk adjusted payers.
If you bought 30yr treasuries in 2000, you made almost 8% per annum for 2 decades with zero
risk.
Not bad. The S&P would only be slightly better.
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
ALOM
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Joeyjoejoe
The riskless return on 30 years bought in 2000 is 6,5 %, not 8 %.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A popover with more user information
5 HOURS AGO
The nature of the goal you are pursuing is critical to how you assess Grantham's arguments. If your goal is to beat the
performance of a benchmark index over a give period of time, then you very likely reject them.
However, if you seek to achieve long-term accumulation or (even more so), decumulation goals, then you are likely to agree
with Grantham's fundamental point that avoiding losses is more important than taking a lot of risk in overvalued markets to
eek out the last few points of return.
The math is clear: You start with 100. The market loses 25%, and you are at 75. To return to 100 you need a return of 33%.
remove
dingo-x
A popover with more user information
5 HOURS AGO
I like the article and it makes sense. Problem is that you could find someone with Jeremy's view (but
not commanding the same respect, I agree) each year for the past 10 years. I know people who have yet
to enter the market since 2009 and have yet to buy a house, waiting for the dip. And they kind of
missed the dip last year with equities and it didn't quite amount to a dip with house prices.
A popover with more user information
5 HOURS AGO
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but
QE = money printing. Shouldn't take fancy empirical studies or mathematical models to figure out that
money printing depresses the value of cash and inflates the value of assets relative to cash.
I'm also very skeptical of the claim that QE puts too much money in "public" hands. What is meant by
the public? Sure, there were government handouts and unemployment benefits, that I would consider
public. But there were also equally if not larger massive government bailouts to large multinational
corporations and legislative pork to bureaucratic government entities. I don't really consider those
"public".
thumb_up
Recommend
1
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Kaze iron big drum
A popover with more user information
6 HOURS AGO
So in other words, QE does cause inflation, but because the money only lands in the hands of the rich,
it is just assets the rich hold that have seen inflation?
thumb_up
Recommend
4
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Student of ideas
A popover with more user information
6 HOURS AGO
On QE it matters whether the bonds are purchased from banks or from non banks. If they were on the
balance sheet of JPM and are not replaced then there is no effect on broad money measures like M2. JPM
has simply exchanged a long maturity asset (bonds) for a short maturity asset (reserves at the Fed).
Both are government liabilities. If Pimco sells bonds to the Fed it gets a new deposit at JPM which
JPM balances by making a new reserve at the Fed. M2 is the sum of cash and bank deposits so it has
risen. Monetarist theory suggests that Pimco may use that deposit to buy something else, driving up
asset prices. In the first case JPM may not do anything else.
thumb_up
Recommend
3
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Anders K
A popover with more user information
6 HOURS AGO
QE certainly leads to a "hot potato" effect, but you can't just talk about "the public". QE cash ends
up with asset managers, but not households. So the inflation it leads to is with financial asset
prices, not goods and services. The BoE has written papers in the past about the linkage of the former
to the latter (a "wealth effect") but I think they've retreated from that now.
thumb_up
Recommend
3
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
up_trader
A popover with more user information
6 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Anders
K
The majority of money at Asset Managers belongs eventually to households though. Either the
PM at the AM will have to rebalance the portfolio - by buying more other bonds (bidding up th
prices) or the client can withdraw some cash and spend it on goods.
A popover with more user information
7 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
Over the past 15 months thought I was a financial genius, until I realized that everything has gone
up. I guess its better to be lucky rather than smart.
On the other hand I am worried. Common sense tells me that the higher the market goes, the bigger the
eventual crash that will be. But there appears to be a disconnect between Fed (and other Central
Banks) outlook and the high levels of both the real estate and stock markets.
In that respect I agree with Larry Summers. There is too much money sloshing around in the system and
the Fed and other Central Banks should tap the breaks. You only need to look at the ridiculous prices
that Real Estate and Stocks have achieved to realize that the market is telegraphing two possible
scenarios: either the economy is going to grow at an an astounding rate going forward, or there's a
good possibility that inflation will be a big problem in the not to distant future.
I don't know which will happen (I suspect the latter) but sooner or later the market is going to turn
from euphoria to hysteria.
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
James Peach
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
ldkt
You forgot one other possibility; that the market is pricing in low inflation, secular
stagnation, and persistently low discount rates. The reason why the CAPE index is high
relative to "historic averages" does not need to be to do with euphoria, hysteria or bubbles
and could instead be everything to do with fundamentals. These fundamentals may turn out to
be wrong, but I think it would be wrong to call this a bubble even in retrospect.
thumb_up
Recommend
4
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Mr Pensive
A popover with more user information
1 HOUR AGO
reply
In
reply to
James
Peach
Maybe "the market" doesn't folollow an economic logic but individual investors just
rely on gut feeling?
Retail investors just join the party,thinking stocks can only go up. Most asset
managers I talk to just tell me that debt is so high that CBs cannot raise policy
rates ever again. Should long-term rates (=market rates) rise regardless, then CBs
would control the yield curve. With interest rates on bonds thus capped at negative
real rates,equities markets might never fall again.
Sure consumer inflation might rise at some point, possibly even to compensate for
the vagaries of the printing press. But the not so independent central bankers may
still prefer letting inflation rip over bringing about a colossal recession.
Maybe that's why asset prices will keep rising.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Moneybags
A popover with more user information
7 HOURS AGO
The market is in a funny place as long as dividends are exceeding bond yields (before buybacks) That
said, owning real assets in a time of excessive money printing and rising inflation is a better place
than following a purist's inclination to sell up and own cash.
The whole talk about bubbles should be addressed to the Fed in the first instance.
thumb_up
Recommend
1
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
timlshort
A popover with more user information
7 HOURS AGO
On QE, isn't it the case that Pimco's clients only have cash to the extent that the Treasuries were
purchased from Pimco and not from the Fed? And wouldn't that not be the case as much if there had
been significant new issuance from the Fed? And has there not in fact been such significant new
issuance?
I thought the whole point of QE is that it is "sterilised" in this way so as not to spike CPI. Which
would certainly appear to have worked. Which then leads on to: if the above is the correct
explanation of QE, why has CPI been flat on its back until v recently?
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
duvinrouge
A popover with more user information
7 HOURS AGO
The difficulty in identify bubbles is because economists today make no distinction between values &
prices.
The classical economists like Ricardo had a labour theory of value to explain prices.
Individual commodities were assumed to have a natural price based upon their actual labour time,
direct & indirect, that went into their production. Market prices driven by supply & demand oscillated
around these natural prices.
But Ricardo accepted Say's Law & rejected the general glut theory supported by the likes of Malthus,
who greatly influenced Keynes.
For Ricardo there could only be over & under production at commodity/industry level.
The general glut theorists understood that the circulation of capital could be disrupted; that supply
did not automatically create its own demand.
Ricardo understood there were problems with his labour theory of value though.
It meant that there couldn't be an exchange of equivalents for profits to be made; workers must be
paid less than the value they created (hence the Ricardian socialist school).
It also couldn't explain why the price of fine wine aged in oak would sell at a higher price than wine
that hadn't been matured.
The LTV had to be corrected or rejected.
The neo-classicals embraced marginalism & prices are supposedly explained by prices.
Problem is there's no way to identify bubbles.
Rather awkwardly for the capitalists Marx solved the problem with the classical LTV.
He explained that as well as commodities having labour values based upon their concrete labour time,
the tendency for the rate of profit to equalise gives commodities 'prices of production'.
That only in aggregate do market prices equal aggregate prices of production which equal their labour
value equivalents, & that this is only across the business cycle.
It will only be by chance that a commodity sells for its labour value equivalent, supply & demand
market prices will oscillate around their 'prices of production'.
They go to market to see how much of society's finite labour time they can claim.
None of this explains asset price bubbles though, but it provides the foundation.
By accepting the role of the market in forming 'natural prices' that are not tied to an individual
commodity's labour time, we can see that a credit system, by separating the act of purchase from
paying, permits leverage, & so aggregate market prices inflating above their value equivalent.
A credit/debt fuelled asset price bubble.
Historically the credit system could only leverage so far as the value of the national currency was
tied to a fixed weight of gold (which takes a set amount of labour time to produce).
Too much token or credit money resulted in gold flight.
Central banks had to intervene to maintain the value of their money, & so pop the bubbles.
Since 1971 they haven't had to do this.
Rather they have been complicit in their creation & now do all they can to stop them deflating.
In otherwords, they continue to push market prices above their values.
The big question is how long they can deny the law of value?
thumb_up
Recommend
4
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
plutus
A popover with more user information
3 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
duvinrouge
It's plagiarism if you don't cite your source:
The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy
Book by Mariana Mazzucato
thumb_up
Recommend
1
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Trutheludes
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
On Jeremy Grantham
Often successful genius is a flash in the pan.
Intelligence is a function of times; times pass, and it joins mediocrity. Jeremy Grantham has had his
day and should call it a day.
Success is random but passes on as planned intelligence. Spectacular failures too happen in spite of
intelligent planning – funds run by Nobel Laureates failed, for example.
In fact, most great men in history were geniuses and failed eventually.
Truth is, myriad forces at work are just too formidable for human intelligence to comprehend and
control.
Remain humble and aim small. You will be successful. Buy index ETFs, don't quit; markets might fall
but will rise again. And when you will look back years later, you will see a rising trajectory, albeit
broken at several places.
.
On QE
"In Pimco's clients' balance sheet, a deposit of $100 is substituted for the Treasuries -- with which
they can buy riskier assets."
But was not that $100 already there, with which they bought Treasuries in the first place? They bought
Treasuries and then sold them; they paid $100 and got them back. Where is the new money – except for
small buying/selling profit?
So, I am sorry QE does not add to money with the public. Fed has only bought Treasuries in a
circuitous way and monetized the government deficits by proxy.
Fed buying Treasuries lowers the rates, which might not happen because investors would demand higher
yields. Fed's acceptance of paltry yields pushes the interest rates down.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Trutheludes
A popover with more user information
7 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Trutheludes
PS. By the way Robert, I read reviews of Mandelbrot's The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal
View of Risk, Ruin and Reward. It is a very formidable and humbling book. It is on my buy list.
Thanks for recommending it.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
James Peach
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Trutheludes
A bank making a profit does not lead to new money, except where it distributes retained
earnings to shareholders in the form of new deposits.
On your point about QE, I think you're right, the new deposits were already created when the
bank bought the treasuries, which predates the FED's QE operation. But the second question
is: would the bank have purchased these USTs if it did not anticipate a QE operation. If the
answer to that question is no, then you can make a reasonable argument that the QE operation
did lead to an increase in broad money/M2.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Enter the Winter
A popover with more user information
3 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
James
Peach
Without clear specification of counterfactuals, none of this talk about whether a
particular operation "does" or "does not" "create money" means anything to me at
all.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
high rate tax payer
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
selling out and then repurchasing also has transactional costs which are not insignificant once you
count in capital gains tax on the gains.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Danmalin
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
What is the purpose of QE?
According to the ECB website it is 'to put downward pressure on the term structure of interest rates'.
The BoE website states that 'the aim of QE is simple: by creating this 'new' money, we aim to boost
spending and investment in the economy'.
thumb_up
Recommend
6
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
FKN
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
There is almost no industry with as much transparency on performance and comparability than asset
management. There is also no industry with as much evidence of LACK of skill in delivering performance
that exceeds benchmarks:
Yet the industry thrives and practitioners make vast fortunes in the process of destroying value.
GMO is a case in point. The performance on the US equity factsheet that you highlight shows that the
portfolio has underperformed 9 out of the last 10 years.
The benchmark free allocation fund that you highlight has returned 4.2% (!) per year over the last
years and is basically a macro hedge fund with 17% in equity long/short strategies, 43% in
"alternative" strategies and its largest position is 20% EM; i.e. it is not representative of an asset
allocation fund at all. Their Global Asset Allocation Strategy has underperformed 9 out of the last
years with the only annual period of outperformance being in 2011.
Yet year in, year out Jeremy Grantham and many like him, get to expound their views as if they are
gurus to be listened to and emulated and cash their multi-million dollar paychecks.
Every investor should thank their lucky stars for John Bogle and Vanguard for changing the whole
nature of the business by not only educating and offering investors the passive alternative but in the
process lowering active fees across the industry.
I think journalists who give active managers, selling unrealisable dreams, the forum, do their readers
a huge disservice.
thumb_up
Recommend
3
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
French canard
A popover with more user information
5 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
FKN
Maybe the real treasure was the fees they collected on the way.
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
A thought...
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
Dr Lacy Hunt is ex deputy chair of the Texas Fed and an expert on Federal Reserve policy. He has
written extensively on the difference between QE and "true MMT" ( which is effectively helicopter
money) which in turn requires making Fed reserves legal tender and that in turn requires a change to
the Fed Reserve Act.
His argument, explained in detail midway through the Q1 2020 quarterly report, appears to conflict
with the "QE puts money in the public's pockets " argument the FT appears to be making?
I would welcome your comment on Hunt's line of reasoning? Clearly M2 has indeed increased dramatically
but has been offset by falling velocity.
https://hoisington.com/pdf/HIM2021Q1NP.pdf
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Occam
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
It isn't, however, difficult to identify a badly overpriced market. It is extremely easy in
retrospect and it is easy in real time. If you graph them, they look like Himalayan peaks coming
out of the plateau.
if I look at the first chart I see an unmistakable himalayan peak emerging in 2014. Yet selling out in
2014 and sitting at the sidelines for now 7 years and counting wasn't the best move. Case in point:
it's not that easy to time the market.
thumb_up
Recommend
3
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Danmalin
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
RE QE: shocking, in a way, that it is unclear how a policy avidly pursued by the major Central Banks
actually works, or indeed is supposed to work. It is not sold as a policy designed to bid up existing
assets but Central Banks can't determine what assets the private sector chooses to buy. or force them
to invest in the creation of new assets.
On the Money supply it is more useful to look at the asset side of the Balance sheet. In the EA we
can see that most of the growth in bank assets is via the purchase of Government bonds,while the
growth in spending to the private sector has been modest and is slowing. So QE is not monetary
financing but pretty close to it as its main function is to help reduce the cost of servicing Govt
debt.
thumb_up
Recommend
1
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Datcreamcheese
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
(Edited)
Reflecting on the prior two cycles for what's to come is a losing strategy (especially mean
reversion). Study the 1950s and the Bretton Woods Accord - shifting monetary policy frameworks will
break down a lot of correlations from the prior cycles.
As for QE:
the treasury is
auctioning debt almost daily..bid to cover ratios on 42-week bills consistently exceed 3. The Fed is
literally buying treasury securities at their theoretical peak. This isn't QE anymore - this is debt
monetization. Treasury is using these funds to pump the "lower end" of the income distribution in the
form of direct deposits, enhanced unemployment and tax breaks.
Is this inflationary? Not yet. Household savings are incredibly high. The supply side is the problem.
But what did anyone expect to happen when decoupling from China?
What happens to the DXY when the FED stops its asset purchases? Historically - higher yields equals
higher dollar. Will this hold given the extraordinary debasement?
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Candidate
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
QE was intended to work bottom down from Central Banks, Banks, Corporations and finally end up in
consumer's hands.
If central banks bought bonds from commercial banks, funds available for lending increased for the
latter.
Now, commercial banks lent to corporations with the intention to increase capital spending in an easy
financial conditions environment.
Subsequently corporations drove the funds to buybacks and dividends therefore inflating stock prices.
thumb_up
Recommend
1
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
JM2845
A popover with more user information
9 HOURS AGO
If you're going to use this logic to promote sloshiness, you need to consider what happens when the
treasury issues bills or bonds. A second after JPM sells treasuries to the Fed, 2 seconds after it
bought them from Pimco, it buys $100 worth of treasury bills issued by the US treasury. If you apply
this framework, you should look at all operations that change banking sector liquidity, not just the
parts that suit your argument.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
ArioMike
A popover with more user information
9 HOURS AGO
Delighted you keep talking to Jeremy, Robert.
I don't like whiskey (or whisky), and my bed is one I cannot hide under. But over December and January
in my largest retirement fund, where I have SAA discretion (I view it as strategic
risk
allocation,
rather than asset) I sold lots of equity and am now over 50% cash and linkers. It can be done.
I have never done/supported TAA over my investment career, and view my decision as an asset owner one,
not an investment manager one.
Which leads me to offer an answer to the two issues you wish you had pressed him on. It has
historically been good practice for asset owner clients to mandate close to zero cash in a mandate.
Most managers are rubbish at market timing (see my TAA comment above), and it is foolish to give them
rope to hang the client's portfolio with. And it is hard for asset owners to have the skills (and
organisational flexibility) to tilt towards (say) value when they think "value risk" vs "growth risk"
is underpriced.
Very few investment managers are incented to make the big calls we are talking about. The asset owners
with the necessary time horizon are the only ones who can do it. (Or they need to identify the skill
of the few JGs that exist and appoint them for long enough to harvest the fruits of those skills). And
in fact these guys are not investment managers (who manage portfolios), rather they are strategic risk
managers.
Happy to elaborate offline, Robert. Quite a few of your FT colleagues know who I am...
PS The world is in a BNPL Ponzi scheme, debt is the politician's friend, and there are few guardrails
there. Central banks are probably fighting the last war (inflation), and not rearming to prevent the
next one (correlated, big, risk crystallizations). Think Archegos and friends...The best global Risk
Mitigation effort is the Paris Agreement, and implementation there is not exactly in high gear.
thumb_up
Recommend
4
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Marc
A popover with more user information
9 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
ArioMike
I tend to agree with Jeremy as well but my move has been more along the lines of 15% cash and
"safe" stocks. So, for example, I would be curious to know why you wouldn't think that a name
say like Nestle, which gives you a 2.5% dividend yield in a country with negative rates
wouldn't"t be more appealing than holding cash? Even during the GFC, when it had a run of 50%
in the previous 2 years to its peak, it only went down c20% and was back near its previous
peak within 2 years. It also feels like this time around, with no visibility on yields
anywhere already being programmed into the medium term, a turn to these kind of value stocks
with sustainable dividends will be more immediate and that these types of stocks may suffer
even less than after the GFC.
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Incedo
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Marc
I have a similar strategy, in that I have created a cash pool which is sufficiently
large to cover my outgoings over the next 5 years, though I am reluctant to invest
in a single dividend yielding stock. Warren Buffet provides a strong rationale for
why an index is preferable to single stocks (
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/warren-buffett-most-people-shouldnt-pick-single-stocks.html
).
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
memento_mori
A popover with more user information
4 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
Incedo
Why does Buffet himself holds individual stocks rather than indexes ?
thumb_up
Recommend
2
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
READ MORE OF THIS CONVERSATION >
remove
F2020
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
ArioMike
You are prudent and of course also technically correct. Also, agree it is a giant ponzi
scheme.
However, curious to know your thoughts as to why you believe the Fed would allow the S&P to
fall by a large margin (say >20%), triggering contagions?
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
A dialog showing a permalink to the comment
flag
Report
remove
Reading Panda
A popover with more user information
8 HOURS AGO
reply
In
reply to
ArioMike
I have found much comfort in your comment as I thought that I am so dumb for holding 70% in
cash, no literally, cash. And the point about getting "shot", well, I made an email and told
them I will underperform but their capital is safe.
thumb_up
Recommend
reply
Reply
share
Share
Doyle Lonnegan to Johnny "Hooker" Kelly in the movie The Sting: "Your boss is quite the
card player Mr. Kelly. How does he do it?"
Kelly to Lonnegan: "He cheats."
philipat 2 days ago
It's appropriate that the entirely useless ex-PM Cameron got taken by this guy and tried
to use his influence to access free money for him from The Treasury as an "advisor"..He
didn't get any.
The Fed never had control, just s bunch of shysters running a long term hybrid ponzi
scheme.
Lordflin 54 minutes ago (Edited)
The Fed is losing control...
I suppose that is true... as the function has been to drain the people's wealth into the
coffers of the few...
The Real Satoshi 29 minutes ago remove link
Sad that Greg Hunter got kicked off youtube.
gregga777 12 minutes ago (Edited)
He is in great company, though. Anyone who offends the Marxist narratives (Politically
Correct, Multicultural, Affirmative Action, Diversity, Feminist, LGBTQQ, etc.) gets kicked
off YouTube.
pmc 36 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
...As Kissinger said "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little
longer."
A growing economy has helped lift oil prices 31% this year.
Jesse Felder was cited in MarketWatch's
Call
of the Day
for his opinion that energy is the neglected sector of the stock market even though it has been outperforming other
sectors since last fall. (You can read Felder's entire posting
here
.)
He pointed out that energy stocks make up a smaller percentage of the S&P 500
SPX,
1.31%
than
they did 20 years ago. Looking at numbers provided by FactSet, it appears Felder expressed this phenomenon mildly. As of the
close on May 19, the S&P 500 energy sector made up 2.85% of the index's market capitalization, down from 6.95% 20 years earlier.
The collapse in crude oil prices from the summer of 2014 through February 2016 was enough to push some energy companies out of the
S&P 500 -- their market values had declined too much to remain in the benchmark large-cap index. And the worst point of the COVID-19
crisis for financial markets even led to forward-month oil futures contracts falling below zero in April 2020. (The price of West
Texas crude oil per continuous forward contract
CL00,
-1.93%
was
up 31% for 2021 to $63.35 on May 19, according to FactSet.)
The S&P 500 now includes only 23 energy stocks. Our look at the sector will be broadened to the 63 energy companies in the S&P
Composite 1500 Index
SP1500,
1.19%
,
which
is made up of the S&P 500, the S&P 400 Mid Cap Index
MID,
0.52%
and
the S&P Small Cap 600 Index
SML,
0.25%
.
Here's how the 11 sectors of the S&P 1500 have performed this year through May 19 and also since the end of 2019 and since the end
of 2015:
Trump represented a FACTION
of the establishment. Which one? He did their bidding and in the process alienated other
factions. The other factions worked together to get him replaced. There are factions within
neocons, neoliberals and establishment. It is a nuanced and complex structure, not
monolithic. It is misleading to state, "he publicly broke away from the American oligarchy's
class interests".
Trump's biggest MISTAKE was that he didn't build a good sounding board of advisors. He
surrounded himself with his family members and believed his orders will be implemented like a
corporate president. Jared Kushner is a Bilderberg. So Trump was connected to the global
syndicate and part of the swamp.
The unipolar order ended in 2014/15 and the multipolar order is establishing. The U$A or
NATO can't launch a foreign war like they did in Libya. Russia and China have warned the
Financial Empire and defined the redlines. This is the reason behind Trump not launching a
new major foreign war. Will Biden launch a new war? However, Trump did launch hybrid wars in
Venezuela, Bolivia, Belarus,... Trump didn't break from FOREIGN adventures.
During Trump's term:
– How many bombs were dropped?
– How much new DEBT was created?
– How much did the money supply increase by?
– What happened to the trade deficit?
The account of the 3 months of the Biden team is this: bad employment numbers, retail
spending flattening, inflation galloping in many sectors, a border crisis, rockets and
explosions in the Middle East, and, above all else, a week of shocking gas shortages all over
the Eastern seaboard. So really, this poor performance can only be better. But could it have
been worse? hardly. They bungled everything they touched, and did not touch that needs to be
addressed. Namely, lockdowns, masks, distancing: scores of published scientific studies
informs that these are completely futile. They should be lifted. And the Fauci-CDC-SAGE (UK)
- official pro-pseudoscience cabal should be fired everywhere. Real science and undistorted
statistics should inform people, so they understands that they were duped for a year by the
media controlled by Democrats-liberals. Even the WSJ infects people with numerous,
ill-written articles on Covid, which is a shame from this medium.
The market is getting wobbly. The high flyers (Tesla, Bitcoin, Lumber) are down Bigly, the
VIX is increasing, Tech is weak, commoditires are showing signs of weakness while PMs are
showing strength. Every day that exit door looks a little smaller.
Silenus 2 hours ago (Edited)
The stock markets have kept reaching all time highs even though economic activity is well
below where it was in 2019. There is large-scale unemployment, supply chain problems, worker
unrest etc. In other words, there is no reason that stock markets should be at all time
highs.
The only reason for these valuations is hopium combined with easy money policy, i.e.
speculation.
A crash is definitely possible, and if not a crash, then long-term, grinding
stagnation.
Weihan 2 hours ago remove link
Optimism, pessimism, schmepticism. WHO CARES?! None of this matters because there are NO
markets! There is only central bank manipulation and corruption. Whatever outcome they want,
they will get.
Rentier88 2 hours ago (Edited)
"Peak Wall Street Optimism Is Now Behind Us: It's All Downhill From Here"
Never underestimate all the stupid people who speculate (since it isn't investing) these
days, robinhood fools come to mind.
CthulhuNoLivesMatter 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
You are supposed to invest in things you understand and have confidence in.
Where should I invest my money according to the ZH posters?
drjd 4 hours ago
Yourself.
CthulhuNoLivesMatter 3 hours ago
I'm working on myself right now. Doing intermittent fasting. Also been doing some self
work involving applying stoic philosophy to my life.
If anything, the relative performance of the U.S. stock market's various style and sectors
suggests the bull market will stay alive and well for at least a few more months. This cheery
forecast is at odds with the widespread opinion that value stocks' relative strength is an
early warning signal of market weakness.
'Everybody wants to have asset prices forever going up and the cost of financing to be next to nothing,' Kerry Killinger says.
Like many other banks, Washington Mutual rode the wave of low-interest rates to grow its mortgage business during the housing boom
of the early 2000s. During Kerry Killinger's time as CEO, WaMu grew to have more than $300 billion in assets.
But when the subprime bubble burst, the bank's fortunes quickly turned. In September 2008, at the height of the financial crisis,
Killinger was forced out by the company's board, and ultimately the bank was seized by federal regulators. It still stands as the
largest bank failure in U.S. history.
In their new book, "Nothing Is Too Big to Fail: How the Last Financial Crisis Informs Today," Kerry Killinger and his wife Linda,
who previously served as the vice chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, explore WaMu's failure, the government's
response to the last crisis and where there is growing risk in today's econom
...
In
the book, the Killingers raise concerns about asset bubbles they believe are forming in a wide range of asset classes, including
stocks, art and luxury items -- and housing. MarketWatch spoke with Kerry and Linda Killinger about the book, the Federal Reserve and
how to avoid another global financial crisis like the 2008 meltdown.
...
Linda Killinger:
I wanted to write a book about this because it was such an unusual, crazy experience. Back in the '80s I
was a partner in an international accounting firm, and the regulators would call me in to do plans for banks that were failing in
that time. I noticed that the regulators would do everything they could to help a bank get liquidity, or to help save a bank that
had not been consumed in crime or problems. But in this crisis of 2008, it just seemed like nobody wanted to help community banks.
In fact, they just did the opposite. They really went after them. I thought it was important to write about the difference and how
important it is to help community banks in a crisis like this.
Kerry Killinger:
My focus was more on public policy -- about being sure we learned all the lessons we possibly can. I've
become very concerned that some of the policies currently being adopted by the Federal Reserve and the regulators in government may
be leading us to a new financial crisis.
'Some of the policies currently being adopted by the Federal Reserve and the regulators in government may be leading us to a
new financial crisis.'
-- Kerry Killinger
MW
: In your book, you explain that you see another bubble forming in residential real-estate -- just one of the many asset
bubbles you warn about. What do you believe caused the last housing bubble that led to the Great Recession and how does it compare
to what's going on now?
What the News Means for You and Your Money
Understand how today's business practices, market dynamics, tax policies and more impact you with real-time news and
analysis from MarketWatch.
SUBSCRIBE NOW: 50% OFF 1 YEAR
Kerry Killinger:
We've lived through a lot of housing cycles in our careers, and including the big bubble that that was
created in the early 2000s. The housing bubble was primarily caused in the early 2000s by the Fed keeping the fed funds rate below
the rate of inflation for several years. They did that in 2000 through 2003, and that lowered mortgage payments so low and led to
housing prices increasing because housing affordability was good with very low mortgage payments. That caused housing prices to rise
much more quickly than the rate of inflation.
From 2000 to 2006 nationally housing prices rose about 83%. Over that same period, the rate of inflation was up about 20%. So a huge
increase faster than the rate of inflation, and over the long run, housing prices ought to rise at about the rate of inflation,
which was about 2% a year or so. Clearly it was a speculative period where prices were rising too quickly, and speculators and
investors increasingly jumped on board.
To help fuel it, underwriting standards were reduced by Fannie and Freddie, the FHA, VA, Wall Street, bank portfolio lenders, and
all that. Then on top of that we had this growth of subprime lending. Keeping rates so low for so long was the most important
driving force in my opinion.
[Today] the similarities are that the Fed has pursued this policy of ultra-low interest rates with the fed funds rates.
Increasingly, the Fed is keeping mortgage rates at an artificially low level for 30-year fixed rates by purchasing assets in their
own portfolio, including mortgage-backed securities and an increasing array of guarantees that the Fed has done as part of its
policies to fight an economic downturn.
Those actions have led to what I'm calling ultra-low mortgage payments, and that naturally led to a surge in housing prices. Since
2015 housing prices nationally were up about 36% -- more than three times the rate of inflation over that period.
Another similarity is we're seeing speculators and investors jumping in. This go-around it's large entities wanting to buy tracts of
homes to use as rental housing. So the non-owner-occupied part of the market, which is the investor side, has gone up from 31.9% to
34.4% in the past year. We're getting a repeat of speculation coming in at this stage with investors coming in in a major way.
Now, subprime lending is not the same factor it was the last go-around fortunately, but we do know that there's an increasing amount
of subprime lending going on by the FHA, VA and some of the government enterprises. On the good news side, I think underwriting
standards have remained better, much better, than they were in the last go-around. But my caution is underwriting standards are all
based on housing prices that are, I believe, inflated because of these ultra-low-interest mortgage rates.
MW:
You wrote about how, in your view, the Fed's response last time around exacerbated the financial crisis. And just now,
you spoke about how the Fed is contributing to the rise in home prices. So what role do you think the Fed should play in addressing
the bubble that you argue is forming now?
Kerry Killinger:
This go around I think the Fed has learned that it needs to provide plenty of liquidity to keep from
having a crisis. My concern is I think the Fed has gotten hooked on these expansive policies of ultra-low interest rates, asset
guarantees, asset purchases and flooding the system with liquidity for a long period of time. And those policies are very
appropriate for helping get an economy out of a recession in order to get things stabilized, but their use over extended periods of
time always leads to an escalation in inflation and the creation of asset bubbles.
'The Fed has gotten hooked on these expansive policies of ultra-low interest rates, asset guarantees, asset purchases and
flooding the system with liquidity for a long period of time.'
-- Kerry Killinger
They are caught in a conundrum now. The policies that were appropriate to help get us beyond COVID-19 -- the longer they keep using
those same policies, I think they just keep inflating these bubbles. And it will be very difficult to manage them down in an orderly
manner. All assets go through these kinds of ups and downs -- the key is how do we manage them in a way that doesn't cause immediate
implosion, like they did in 2008? The longer they allow these bubbles to keep growing, the bigger challenge they're going to have
at some point in the future.
MW:
You're both strong proponents of community banks and have argued that they should play an important role in the
mortgage industry. But following the Great Recession, many banks have reduced or eliminated their mortgage businesses, citing the
steep cost of regulation, and non-bank mortgage companies have risen up to fill that void. Should the federal government make it
easier for community banks to lend mortgages, and how should it go about doing so?
Linda Killinger:
Well, it depends. I think, if it looks like a bank, it smells like a bank and does mortgages like a bank,
it should be regulated like a bank. Unless there's some incredible service that they provide that banks don't provide -- otherwise,
they're doing the same thing as community banks but they're not being regulated.
The problem with that is things are going pretty well right now because they're selling mostly to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and
Freddie's guidelines are pretty good right now, but at any point in time [non-banks] could couple up with unregulated hedge funds or
other entities from Wall Street and start securitizing loans themselves, lowering standards and trying to attract more people.
Especially if the Congress and the new president want to have more affordable housing, it depends on what they do when they want to
push for more. There needs to be more affordable housing, but it shouldn't be handled in the way that it was last time. Last time
they had Fannie Mae in the 90s saying well 33% of your loan should be [low- and middle-income (LMI)] loans, and by 2008 it was 60%
should be LMI. So there's a tremendous pressure on Fannie and Freddie from Congress and the other regulators to really crank out
more LMI lending. We really have to be careful about how we do that in the future. Community banks should be involved because they
know how to do it right.
MW:
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, federal lawmakers and regulators were quick to roll out forbearance options to
homeowners who suddenly lost income as a result of the economic shock. A year later, many homeowners are still not making their
monthly mortgage payments and are in forbearance. With the foreclosure moratorium still in place, homeowners aren't yet at risk of
losing their homes, but that possibility lingers. What should we be doing right now to stave off another foreclosure crisis?
Linda Killinger:
During the crisis in 2007, when it started to collapse, Kerry put together a $3 billion fund [at WaMu] to
help subprime borrowers stay in their homes. He lowered the payments, and he lowered the amount that was owed, so it was manageable
and they could stay in their home. I think that's a responsibility of banks to do that. It's going to be hard when the forbearance
goes away -- unless banks and organizations are willing to really write down the principal or lower the payments just to help people
a little bit more.
Kerry Killinger:
Over the long run you are far better off to do everything you can to keep somebody in a home, if they can
possibly afford it. And the last route you want to have to go through is foreclosure, because the costs are painful for everybody
involved. We always used to try to do anything possible to keep people into the homes as long as we possibly can, and I think that
is a very positive thing what the government and everyone did when COVID hit. Some of those solutions are very appropriate for the
short term when you've got a crisis going on, but I think over time they need to be brought back to a more normal environment in
which you will always have a small percentage of homes that will have to go through foreclosure. They were just the wrong home for
the wrong people at the wrong time.
People don't even think about that anymore, but home prices will fall again in some markets for some reason. Given the rapid
escalation we have seen in the last five years, especially in the last 12 months, these are unsustainable price increases that will
be subject to some kind of correction when interest rates start to return to more normal levels. Probably one of the more
controversial things I'll say here is if you assume that we're going to have about a 2% inflation rate and a GDP growing over the
long term at about 2% to 2.5%, then mortgage interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages should be more in the 4.5% to 5% range.
MW:
Do you think consumers are willing to stomach mortgage rates at that level, after so many years in which mortgage rates
have remained so low?
Kerry Killinger:
Look, all of us want to have the good times roll. Everybody wants to have asset prices forever going up
and the cost of financing to be next to nothing. That's something that a lot of people wish for. We're just putting the warnings out
that seldom do things go up forever. Right now you have borrowing costs substantially below the rate of inflation and way below
historic norms, and that's unlikely to last forever.
I don't know if it's a matter of whether the consumers like it or not, but equilibrium would be closer to 4.5% to 5% on long-term
mortgages. I just put out there that if that happens, for whatever reason, the affordability of housing will become much more
stressed and mortgage payments will grow. That will have a tendency to put downward pressure on home prices. I don't think we're
likely to repeat the problems that hit in 2008 because I think the Fed is smart enough now not to pull liquidity to a point that
causes a downward spiral. But you could certainly see a period over several years of some downward pressure on prices as
affordability becomes more difficult because of rising monthly mortgage payments.
'Right now you have borrowing costs substantially below the rate of inflation and way below historic norms, and that's
unlikely to last forever.'
-- Kerry Killinger
MW:
What else about the market and the economy right now is a source of concern to you?
Kerry Killinger:
I do think that the economy is both stabilized and now back into a strong growth mode, and I think we're
going to see very strong economic activity for the balance of this year and into next year. Inflation is picking up and will be
higher than what many think at this point. Businesses are telling me that they are having more price increases today than they have
had in the last decade. So I think the concern about inflation is real.
And these growing asset bubbles just continue to escalate to the point to where the assets are selling well above reasonable
estimates of intrinsic value. That always presents a certain amount of risk. And finally, we're seeing more and more speculative
products and speculators in the market -- not necessarily just in housing.
Look at certain parts of the stock market
DJIA,
-0.36%
SPX,
-0.40%
.
Look
at bitcoin
BTCUSD,
-4.31%
.
Look
at SPACs. Look at NFTs. I can just go through a litany of assets that have risen in price very, very dramatically. Whenever you have
a combination of rapidly rising price and increasing speculative activity, you have to raise the red flags. Are bubbles being
created here?
Linda Killinger:
Yes, and are pension plans buying some of those bubble products?
Kerry Killinger:
A fair bit of that build-up of buyers for those single-family homes are pension plans doing it directly to
have that asset category. Because with the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, they can't afford to put into riskless
assets like Treasury securities. They have to keep searching out yields. One of them is increasingly into residential real estate.
The OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report said the
world oil supply fell by 150,000 barrels per day in April.
World oil supply
Preliminary data indicates that global liquids production in April decreased by 0.15 mb/d to
average
93.06 mb/d compared with the previous month, and was lower by 6.45 mb/d y-o-y.
World oil supply rose 330 kb/d to 93.4 mb/d in April and will increase further in May as
the OPEC+ alliance continues to ease output cuts. Based on the current agreement, global oil
production is set to grow by 3.8 mb/d from April to December. For 2021 as a whole, world oil
production expands by 1.4 mb/d year-on-year versus a collapse of 6.6 mb/d in 2020. Canada leads
non-OPEC+ with growth of 340 kb/d while the US is set to contract by a further 160
kb/d.
That's a difference of just under half a million barrels per day, (480,000 bpd). That's a
huge difference. Which one should we believe? Which organization has the most credibility?
Investors Double Down on Stocks, Pushing Margin Debt to Record : Chasing bigger gains, some
have exposed themselves to potentially devastating losses through riskier plays, such as
concentrated positions
and trading options.
In my youth I worked as a very junior financial reporter and I have a continuing interest.
While markets are crashing around the world there is a commodities boom, particularly in
copper and critical minerals needed for green energy like cobalt, manganese, tin and rare
earths.
China was an exporter but is now the worlds biggest importer. These resources are actually
finite.
The markets are agog at the price of iron ore. While the US wastes trillions of borrowed
money and blood in the desert sands of the Middle East on behalf of the bandit state, China
builds and produces goods for export.
The US has lost the trade war, but no one ever wins a trade war. It's the last man
standing. Uncle Shmuel is looking punch drunk. While the tribal cabal running the US is drunk
with power.
Because the US has gone bankrupt and owes China the national debt the elite cabal seem
hell bent on war with China as an exit to the financial quagmire they have created.
We live in a world of half-truth where words are very carefully chosen. Companies hire
public relations firms to give just the right "spin" to what they are saying. CEO make
statements that suggest that everything is going well. Newspapers would like their advertisers
to be happy. Still is at the limit of Moore's law and fither shriking of dier is
impossible due to physical limits. One of the key challenges of CPU engineering is the design
of transistors gates. As device dimension shrinks, controlling the current flow in the thin
channel becomes more difficult. So callled 8mn process (not that this is a marketing not
technological term) is possible and now used in production, 5mn is problematic but used for
example by Apple in A14 CPU ( iPhone 12) / According to some sources, the A14 processor has the
transistor density of 134 million transistors per mm2. 3mn is probably the current
technological limit (TSMC is on track for production first 3 nm chips at the end of 2022
Anton Shilov, Anandtech April 26, 2021 ). It is unclear, if 2mn process will be
technologically viable or not. So the only way for CPU manufactures to increase the processing
power of CPUs is to increase the number of cores.
I We live in a finite world; we are rapidly approaching limits of many kinds. Which creates
problem, in some ways, somewhat similar to the world of the 1920s.
Once upon a time last year, there was the EV startup hype-boom that found its way to the
SPAC hype-boom, and the two combined and generated miraculously swift and spectacular results;
and their collapse has been equally swift and spectacular.
And they're joined by the IPO hype-boom stocks, including the spectacularly hyped highflyers
that got shot down, such as Zoom (-49% from peak), Coinbase (-29%), or Airbnb (-35%), and
they're in turn joined by the ARK Innovation ETF (-34%). This whole thing has come unglued.
The EV SPAC boom-and-bust is reflected in the WOLF STREET EV SPAC Index, which has collapsed
by 57% since its peak on February 17. The index tracks seven EV-related companies that have
gone public via a merger with a SPAC: Nikola, QuantumScape (batteries for EVs), Canoo,
Lordstown Motors, Romeo Power (batteries for EVs), XL Fleet (EV drive systems for fleets), and
Lucid Motors. Since February 17, these seven stocks combined have shed $35 billion in value,
which they should have never had in the first place. Easy come, easy go, except when it's your
money (data via YCharts ):
...Ms. Wood's "disruptive innovation" jargon may be somewhat novel. What her investors are
experiencing isn't. Fund managers like Gerald Tsai in the 1960s who rode Polaroid and Xerox to
stardom or various dot-com visionaries in the late 1990s wound up doing poorly for clients who
discovered them after they became hotshots. The culprit is unrealistic expectations and
reversion to the mean for the bubbly sectors that got them there. Analyst Meb Faber points out
that not one of the five Morningstar "fund managers of the decade" through 2010 even managed to
beat the market in the next 10 years. The best of the bunch, Bruce Berkowitz's Fairholme Fund,
became the worst.
Paul alleged that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had used a middle-man to funnel
money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance - which worked with the lab on
bat coronavirus projects.
Paul specifically referenced so-called "gain-of-function" research which in this case has
been focused on how to make animal viruses more transmissible to humans - specifically bat
coronaviruses .
"Government scientists like yourself who favor gain of function research," Paul
began...
...only to have Fauci interject "I don't favor gain of function research in China," adding
"You are saying things that are not correct."
Paul pushed back - continuing:
"[Those who favor gain of function] say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not
designed by man."
"I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done," Fauci shot back, adding
that he's in favor of further investigation, but that the NIH had nothing to do with the
origins of COVID-19.
"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology," he added.
"No matter how many times you say it, it didn't happen."
More from Sen. Paul via Twitter:
Senator Rand Paul @RandPaul ·
May 11, 2021 Dr Fauci dissembled or tried to hide his long time support for
'gain-of-function' research which creates super-viruses that jump from animals to humans.
ohm 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
You can't sit on your thumbs and run year long investigations and background checks
while thousands are dying .
But that's just the point, thousands were not dying . Instead of seeking out opposing
viewpoints, he relied on the bogus Ferguson model that predicted 2 million deaths presented
by Fauci and Birx. Plenty of qualified opposing voices were out there - John Ionnides of
Stanford for instance. Trump needs to own up to his mistakes and vow not to repeat them.
nodhannum 3 hours ago
How many renminbi do they pay you comrade...as in be "han" or be gone. I've been to a
number of seminars given by Fauci back in his HIV days but he is a lying sob now. It's
getting hard for the fellow to cover hisw *** now even with the Maserati marxists in power
here.
"We are not prepared for a pandemic," Biden tweeted on Oct. 25, 2019, saying the country
needs leadership that "mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our
shores."
this_circus_is_no_fun 4 hours ago
At first Fauxi denied the allegation. Then, after Paul cornered him with facts, Fauxi said
something like "this is why we did that". So, he admitted that he did what he was denying
just a few seconds before . He is literally incapable of telling the truth. I guess he's not
called Fauxi for nothing.
adonisdemilo 5 hours ago
Fauci has known from day one what's going on and going wrong. He's up to his neck in it
and taking a good look at his body language under questions from Rand Paul, HE'S CONTINUING
TO LIE.
chinese.sniffles 5 hours ago
Dr. Fauci:
Have you or your team send or granted permission for work projects to Wuhan or China?
What were those projects?
Why did you send them?
Why did you not do these projects in the USA?
Were any of these projects illegal in the USA?
etc. simple line of questioning, let him perjure himself.
thezone 5 hours ago
Fauci (the politician) knew to not write a check out to the lab directly. It was great to
hear Dr Paul bring up EcoHealth. A shell company to facilitate.
surfer4444 5 hours ago
Exactly, blame it on the sub contractor....an old game and the elite are using it well
radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link
Fauci knows full well the story in the Democrat State News media will be about how he was
ATTACKED by Rand Paul, and not about him lying under oath about funding the Wuhan Lab.
chiquita 5 hours ago
This information has been out for a while if you follow War Room, Steve Hilton, and some
other sources. Peter Navarro has been hammering at Fauci relentlessly for the last few months
and now the MSM is going after Navarro, trying to discredit him. Gee, I wonder why when it
looks like the truth about Fauci is falling apart.
What a mess_man 4 hours ago (Edited)
Tucker blew this wide open last night. Of course lots of us here knew all this many months
ago. Fauci is lying through his teeth here, and both he and Daszak are deep in the Chicom's
pockets. As Tucker said, in a functioning world there would be a criminal investigation.
Instead Biden and Co. kiss his *ss and make him our foremost authority on Covid and vaccines.
Clown world for sure.
Meatballs 3 hours ago (Edited)
Actually, Saagar beat Tucker to the punch. Either way, the unraveling has begun.
Don't let the bioweapon profiteer, Daszak, off the hook.
Both greedy psychopaths should hang for their crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, we have no business sharing infectious disease technology with China, even if
they could run a lab properly.
Itinerant 4 hours ago
This story is about 14 months old, though not for the MSM.
Actual documentation of the grants from the NIH via the Eco Alliance have been circulating
in the public domain for all that time. In it they exactly describe the gain-of-function
research that is being outsourced to China, the viruses involved, the methods, the type of
experiments, and the aims of the research ... exactly and technically.
There is no room for caveats, or 'allege' or interpretation or anything like that.
The evidence is rock hard and crystal clear.
toady 4 hours ago
Yet there are no prosecutions.
dogbert8 5 hours ago remove link
Finally, the unmasking (pun intended) of Fauci has started.
bsdetector 5 hours ago
Just listened to the questions and answers. Fauci qualifies his answers with information
that was not sought in the questions. His answers change the character of his denials... "we
did not fund GOF research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
OK Dr. Fauci, please identify the viruses that you did fund for GOF research at the
Institute.
Jack Mayorhaufer 5 hours ago
master gaslighters once they reach certain status and paygrade on the Hill
novictim 2 hours ago remove link
"I don't know how many times I can say it? We did not fund gain of function research to be
done in the Wuhan Institute of Virology ...(under his breath) because we funded Eco Health
Alliance/Peter Daszak which granted the research funding to do gain of function research in
the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
CleeTorres 2 hours ago
A simple internet search shows Fauci is lying about funding for this research. But he
knows the media won't do their jobs.
Onthebeach6 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Let me assist Dr Fauci with the truth.
Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan
Dr Christina Lin
April 2020
"A U.S. NIH-funded $3.7 million project was approved by Trump's Covid-19 advisor Dr.
Anthony Fauci in 2015, after the Obama White House imposed a ban on 'monster-germ' research.
In October 2014, the federal government declared a moratorium on gain-of-function research to
weaponize viruses related to influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). As a result, the research was outsourced to China's Wuhan
Institute of Virology, which is currently at the center of scrutiny for the Covid-19
pandemic."
Fauci looks very nervous . Perhaps why he has been so adamant about constantly moving the
goalposts? If you were guilty of something wouldn't you keep changing the focus and appear to
be very helpful and concerned?
Max21c 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Which people in & around the National Security Council, CIA, and Pentagon are involved
in this attempt to gain access, penetrate and spy on the PLA Biological Weapons/Warfare
programs via funding mechanisms route? Which people had contact with this institute and
programs and what if anything did the spy games produce?
When are they in Washington going to establish civilian rule over the US military and CIA
and National Security Council?
When are they going to knock off these silly spy games and spy world operations off and
stop this nonsense which produces zero positive results?
What did the gangsters on the Intelligence/Spy Committees in Congress know? What did the
gangsters atop the Pentagon, CIA, National Security Council know?
Which Washingtonian assholes are going to go to prison for this boomerang disaster?
How many other groups similar to "EcoHealth Alliance" operate as part of the US/UK
intelligence "community" and what other stupid stuff are the idiots mixed up in?
TheRapture 3 hours ago remove link
There is a great deal of evidence (NIH, State Dept grants to offshore USA bioweapons
research, Bat Lady was the protege of Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC who has been doing coronavirus
bioweapon research for more then twenty years, initial and simultaneous infections in Wuhan
at different locations suggesting an intentional release, etc., etc., etc.) And of course,
Trump had motive, opportunity and means to stage a false flag to destroy China's economy and
damage China's political relations with other countries.
It is likely the USA, no doubt using a CIA proxy, released SARS-CoV-2 in simultaneously in
multiple locations in Wuhan. The evidence is substantial. But most Americans can't bring
themselves to stare down that particular rabbit hole.
WorkingClassMan 3 hours ago
I'd rather an honest CCP commie ruling the roost than those traitors anyway.
"If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the
traitor have it."
― Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, For My Legionaries
sarret PREMIUM 3 hours ago
Fauci is such a liar, pulling school kid mentality out of a hat to answer serious
questions. Likely in his mind he knows it all to be true but since the correct name is
中国科学院武汉病毒研究所
then unless you say that name, or the exact name of the exact subsidiary that was funding or
was being funded, then it is not correct and therefore he can answer the question incorrectly
without calling himself a liar internally and without saying what the error was in the
question that led him to be able to this.
In all respects he just disregards the spirit of the question when he knows full well that
he is in the wrong, but denies it every single time based on some concocted fabrication in
his mind that the question is not precise enough to nail him to the cross.
Completely disingenuous, can't trust a word he says.
Fish Gone Bad 4 hours ago
Lawyer speak:
We have not funded gain of function research on this virus
They funded all kinds of gain of function on all kinds of permutations of the virus, just
not THIS virus.
radical-extremist 5 hours ago remove link
Fauci is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men in San Francisco by covering
up Bath Houses as the origin of the spread of AIDS...for Mayor Diane Feinstein's political
career. No one dares talk about this today.
the Mysterians 5 hours ago
"I did not have sex with that woman!"
Flying Monkees 5 hours ago (Edited)
What could possibly be the reason for gain-of-function research if not bio-warfare?
These evil, irresponsible, arrogant a-holes need to pay.
Posa 5 hours ago
The Eco-Alliance grant from Fauci's NIAID states
We will use S [ie the Spike Protein that makes the SC-2 virus highly infectious] protein
sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and
analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S
protein sequences predict spillover potential.
That has been interpreted as a commitment to Gain of Function research on the Spike
Protein which is the key to turning SARS into a virulently transmissible pathogen.
surfer4444 5 hours ago remove link
Exactly...im just baffled how this PoS can blatantly lie to a Senate committee and get
away with it...there is zero accountability in our government...end times
Posa 5 hours ago
Fauci can lie because his audience is a convention of lazy, cowardly , illiterate dunces.
If Rand Paul were serious he would have had the damn grant in front of him and read the same
quotes as I provided in this post. PAul would have held these hearings last year when his
Party controlled the Senate.
Posa 4 hours ago
NOTE: This post was censored by The Hill. Typical free speech in America.
George Bayou 5 hours ago
"11 labs in the US create these super-viruses in the US and one of them collaborated with
Wuhan Virology Inst -- Fauci has supported NIH funds for all these labs!"
Why is this a-hole still working?
notfeelinthebern 4 hours ago (Edited)
Yap, yap,. yap. Another dog and pony show and the show is painfully old. They parade
personage after personage before congress and ask lots of questions. The swamp rats in the
hot seat lie by omission and with sleight of hand answers and when done with the act walk
away with smug faces....The show must go on.
George Bayou 5 hours ago
Here's an interesting article on Dr. Baric and what he was doing, mutating virus using
serial passaging so that the virus are able to infect a completely different species:
Take, for instance, this paper from 1995:
"High Recombination and Mutation Rates in Mouse Hepatitis Viruses Suggest That
Coronaviruses May Be Potentially Important Emerging Viruses." It was written by Dr. Ralph
Baric and his bench scientist, Boyd Yount, at the University of North Carolina. Baric, a
gravelly voiced former swim champion, described in this early paper how his lab was able to
train a coronavirus, MHV, which causes hepatitis in mice, to jump species, so that it could
reliably infect BHK (baby-hamster kidney) cell cultures. They did it using serial
passaging: repeatedly dosing a mixed solution of mouse cells and hamster cells with
mouse-hepatitis virus, while each time decreasing the number of mouse cells and upping the
concentration of hamster cells. At first, predictably, the mouse-hepatitis virus couldn't
do much with the hamster cells, which were left almost free of infection, floating in their
world of fetal-calf serum. But by the end of the experiment, after dozens of passages
through cell cultures, the virus had mutated: It had mastered the trick of parasitizing an
unfamiliar rodent. A scourge of mice was transformed into a scourge of hamsters. And there
was more: "It is clear that MHV can rapidly alter its species specificity and infect rats
and primates," Baric said. "The resulting virus variants are associated with demyelinating
diseases in these alternative species." (A demyelinating disease is a disease that damages
nerve sheaths.) With steady prodding from laboratory science, along with some rhetorical
exaggeration, a lowly mouse ailment was morphed into an emergent threat that might
potentially cause nerve damage in primates.
GeneKelly 5 hours ago remove link
"We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of
Virology,"
Sociopaths can lie without registering on a detector by simply defining terms differently
in their cerebral cortex and then answering -- from their perspective truthfully -- "no"
because the question doesn't match their internal definition.
So Fauci wasn't funding "gain of function". He was actually funding "increasing the
virulence of pathogens" or "enhancing the pathogens' ability to infect different
species".
Rand and others will have to ask the question a hundred ways to force Fauci to spill the
beans.
DeeDeeTwo 1 hour ago remove link
Tucker finally called Fauci a "criminal" at least twice and said, "In any functioning
society Fauci would be investigated."
Txjac 5 hours ago
Fauci also owns the patents on the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines
Everybody All American 5 hours ago remove link
How is it that only one Congressman dare questions Dr. Fauci? One tough questioner. These
cowards all need to hang for the crimes they are allowing. If they think we are just going to
sit back and watch this man for much longer lead us they are sadly mistaken.
Downhill from here 5 hours ago
Being an MD, Paul has some credibility on the topic. At least educationally and by
training, Fauci and Paul are peers.. More than likely other R's are letting him take
point.
replaceme 5 hours ago (Edited)
I forgot, that's the same dr daszak that sent the letter to the lancet saying that covid
didn't come from Wuhan, and that he had no reason to falsely say this. THAT Dr daszak. Got
it.
"We [NIH/Fauci] did not fund gain of function research to be done in Wuhan." What the
weasel didn't say is that the NIH did in deed fund Dr Baric who was working in collaboration
with Wuhan with gain of function experiments on the SARS virus. Baric worked with Ft Dettrick
and Univ NC researchers who in turn were collaborating with Canada and Wuhan.
Fauci can parse words but he's a traitor and ought to be held responsible along with all
others involved with this.
scraping_by 5 hours ago (Edited) remove link
One amendment to the story --
Carlson was quoting a story by Nicholas Wade, former science editor to the NYT. Published
in Medium. So it's not just a talking head repeating newsroom copy, as in CNN.
zorrosgato 14 minutes ago remove link
Fauci is part of a flawed system and don't be fooled in believing he is part of any
solution. His endorsing of impractical mask mandates along with mandatory vaccinations of the
population, using unproven genetically engineered drugs is proof enough.
Yields on the US 10 year formed a bullish hammer within consolidation on Friday. Suggests
that yields are headed to 2% or above. It suggests that the move higher is now. Higher yields
will lead to stronger dollar. Might be the beginning of where price inflation becomes a drag on
economy as yields rise on debt. And as long as price inflation continues yields will rise.
Might put a cap on oil price in near future. Maybe we get another $5-$15 rise in oil price
before credit blows up due to rise in yields.
As the cost of credit rises due to price inflation. If you borrowed money at rock bottom
interest rates and you now have to rollover debt at a higher interest rate that is a problem
for corporate USA.
Anyone that doesn't believe that there will be a huge price to pay for the policy response
of Covid-19 is kidding themselves.
Even just on a relative basis. When you expand monetary and fiscal policy by that much in
one year. Things tighten on a relative basis as what comes next in the years after is less
support.
"If everyone sees it, is it still a bubble?" That was a great question I got over the
weekend. As a "contrarian" investor, it is usually when "everyone" is talking about an event;
it doesn't happen.
"To appreciate how widespread current concern about a bubble is, consider the accompanying
chart of data from Google Trends. It plots the relative frequency of Google searches based on
the term 'stock market bubble.' Notice that this frequency has recently jumped to a
far-higher level than at any other point over the last five years."
What Is A Bubble?
"My confidence is rising quite rapidly that this is, in fact, becoming the fourth 'real
McCoy' bubble of my investment career. The great bubbles can go on a long time and inflict a
lot of pain, but at least I think we know now that we're in one." – Jeremy Grantham
What is the definition of a bubble? According to Investopedia:
"A bubble is a market cycle that is characterized by the rapid escalation of market value,
particularly in the price of assets. Typically, what creates a bubble is a surge in asset
prices driven by exuberant market behavior. During a bubble, assets typically trade at a
price that greatly exceeds the asset's intrinsic value. Rather, the price does not align with
the fundamentals of the asset. "
This definition is suitable for our discussion; there are three components of a "bubble."
The first two,
price and valuation, are readily dismissed during the inflation phase. Jeremy Grantham once
produced the following chart of 40-years of price bubbles in the markets. During the inflation
phase, each was readily dismissed under the guise "this time is different."
We are interested in the "third" component of "bubbles," which is investor
psychology.
"It's the swings of psychology that get people into the biggest trouble. Especially since
investors' emotions invariably swing in the wrong direction at the wrong time. When things
are going well people become greedy and enthusiastic. When times are troubled, people become
fearful and reticent. That's just the wrong thing to do. It's important to control fear and
greed."
Currently, it's difficult for investors to become any more enthusiastic about market
returns. ( The RIAPro Fear/Greed Index
compiles measures of equity allocation and market sentiment. The index level is not a component
of the measure that runs from 0 to 100. The current reading is 99.9, which is a historical
record.)
Such is an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, there is a rising recognition of a
"bubble," but investors are unwilling to reduce "equity risk" for "fear of missing out or
F.O.M.O." Such was a point noted explicitly by Mark:
"Rather than responding by taking some chips off the table, however, many began freely
admitting a bubble formed. They no longer tried to justify higher prices on fundamentals.
Rather, they justified it instead in terms of the market's momentum. Prices should keep going
up as FOMO seduces more investors to jump on the bandwagon."
I know. The discussion of "valuations" is an old-fashioned idea relegated to investors of an
older era. Such was evident in the pushback on Charlie Munger's comments about Bitcoin
recently:
" While Munger has never been a bitcoin advocate, his dislike crystalized into something
close to hatred. Looking back over the past 52 weeks, the reason for Munger's anger becomes
apparent with Berkshire rising only 50.5% against bitcoin's more than 500% gain." –
Coindesk
In 1999, when Buffett spoke out against "Dot.com" stocks, he got dismissed with a similar
ire of "investing with Warren Buffett is like driving 'Dad's old Pontiac.'"
Today, young investors are not interested in the "pearls of wisdom" from experienced
investors. Today, they are "out of touch," with the market's "new reality."
"The big benefit of TikTok is it allows users to dole out and obtain information in short,
easily digestible video bites, also called TikToks. And that can make unfamiliar, complex
topics, such as personal finance and investing, more palatable to a younger audience.
That advice runs the gamut, from general information about home buying or retirement
savings to specific stock picks and investment ideas. Rob Shields, a 22-year-old, self-taught
options trader who has more than 163,000 followers on TikTok, posts TikToks under the
username stock_genius on topics such as popular stocks to watch, how to find good stocks, and
basic trading strategies." – WSJ:
Of course, the problem with information doled out by 22-year olds is they were 10-year olds
during the last "bear market." Given the lack of experience of investing during such a market,
as opposed to Warren Buffett who has survived several, is the eventual destruction of
capital.
Plenty Of Analogies
"There is no shortage of current analogies, of course. Take Dogecoin, created as a joke
with no fundamental value. As a
recent Wall Street Journal article outlined , the Dogecoin 'serves no purpose and, unlike
Bitcoin, faces no limit on the number of coins that exist.'
Yet investors flock to it, for no other apparent reason than its sharp rise. Billy Markus,
the co-creator of dogecoin, said to the Wall Street Journal, 'This is absurd. I haven't seen
anything like it. It's one of those things that once it starts going up, it might keep going
up.'" – Mark Hulbert
That exuberance shows up with professionals as well. As of the end of April, the National
Association Of Investment Managers asset allocation was 103%.
As Dana Lyons noted previously:
" Regardless of the investment acumen of any group (we think it is very high among NAAIM
members), once the collective investment opinion or posture becomes too one-sided, it can be
an indication that some market action may be necessary to correct such consensus. "
Give Me More
Of course, margin debt, which is the epitome of " speculative appetite," soared in recent
months.
As stated, "bubbles are about psychology," which the annual rate of change of leverage
shows.
Another form of leverage that doesn't show up in margin debt is ETF's structured to multiply
market returns. These funds have seen record inflows in recent months.
With margin debt reaching levels not seen since the peak of the last cyclical bull market
cycle, it should raise some concerns about sustainability. It is NOT the level of leverage that
is the problem as leverage increases buying power as markets are rising. The unwinding of this
leverage is critically dangerous in the market as the acceleration of "margin calls" leads to a
vicious downward spiral.
Importantly, this chart does not mean that a massive market correction is imminent. I t does
suggest that leverage, and speculative risk-taking, are likely much further advanced than
currently recognized.
Pushing Extremes
Prices are ultimately affected by physics. Moving averages, trend lines, etc., all exert a
gravitational pull on prices in both the short and long term. Like a rubber band, when prices
get stretched too far in one direction, they have always eventually "reverted to the mean" in
the most brutal of manners.
The chart below shows the long-term chart of the S&P 500 broken down by several
measures: 2 and 3-standard deviations, valuations, relative strength, and deviations from the
3-year moving average. It is worth noting that both standard deviations and distance from the
3-year moving average are at a record.
During the last 120-years, overvaluation and extreme deviations NEVER got resolved by
markets going sideways.
The only missing ingredient for such a correction currently is simply a catalyst to put
"fear" into an overly complacent marketplace. Anything from economic disruption, a
credit-related crisis, or an unexpected exogenous shock could start the "panic for the
exits."
Conclusion
There is more than adequate evidence a "bubble" exists in markets once again. However, as
Mark noted in his commentary:
'I have no idea whether the stock market is actually forming a bubble that's about to
break. But I do know that many bulls are fooling themselves when they think a bubble can't
happen when there is such widespread concern. In fact, one of the distinguishing
characteristics of a bubble is just that."
However, he concludes with the most important statement:
"It's important for all of us to be aware of this bubble psychology, but especially if
you're a retiree or a near-retiree. That's because, in that case, your investment horizon is
far shorter than for those who are younger. Therefore, you are less able to recover from the
deflation of a market bubble."
Read that statement again.
Millennials are quick to dismiss the "Boomers" in the financial markets today for "not
getting it."
No, we get it. We have just been around long enough to know how these things eventually
end.
History repeats and the repetition is coming with some minor variations.
Notable quotes:
"... "Corporate bond rates have been rising steadily since May. Yellen is not doing what Greenspan did in 2004." ..."
"... There isn't much of a difference between signaling tighter money to a market that is skeptical of Fed forecasts and actually tightening. ..."
"... While at 5.0 percent, the unemployment rate is not extraordinarily high, most other measures of the labor market are near recession levels. The percentage of the workforce that is involuntarily working part-time is near the highs reached following the 2001 recession. The average and median duration of unemployment spells are also near recession highs. And the percentage of workers who feel confident enough to quit their jobs without another job lined up remains near the low points reached in 2002. ..."
"... While wage growth has edged up somewhat in recent months by some measures, it is still well below a rate that is consistent with the Fed's inflation target. Hourly wages have risen at a 2.7 percent rate over the last year. If there is just 1.5 percent productivity growth, this would be consistent with a rate of inflation of 1.2 percent. ..."
"... One positive point in today's action is the Fed's commitment in its statement to allow future rate hikes to be guided by the data, rather than locking in a path towards "normalization" as was effectively done in 2004. ..."
Washington, D.C.- Dean Baker, economist and a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) issued the
following statement in response to the Federal Reserve's decision regarding interest rates:
"The Fed's decision to raise interest rates today is an unfortunate move in the wrong direction. In setting interest rate policy
the Fed must decide whether the economy is at risk of having too few or too many jobs, with the latter being determined by the
extent to which its current rate of job creation may lead to inflation. It is difficult to see how the evidence would lead the
Fed to conclude that the greater risk at the moment is too many jobs.
"While at 5.0 percent, the unemployment rate is not extraordinarily high, most other measures of the labor market are near
recession levels. The percentage of the workforce that is involuntarily working part-time is near the highs reached following
the 2001 recession. The average and median duration of unemployment spells are also near recession highs. And the percentage of
workers who feel confident enough to quit their jobs without another job lined up remains near the low points reached in 2002.
"If we look at employment rates rather than unemployment, the percentage of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) with jobs is still
down by almost three full percentage points from the pre-recession peak and by more than four full percentage points from the
peak hit in 2000. This does not look like a strong labor market.
"On the other side, there is virtually no basis for concerns about the risk of inflation in the current data. The most recent
data show that the core personal consumption expenditure deflator targeted by the Fed increased at just a 1.2 percent annual rate
over the last three months, down slightly from the 1.3 percent rate over the last year. This means that the Fed should be concerned
about being below its inflation target, not above it.
"While wage growth has edged up somewhat in recent months by some measures, it is still well below a rate that is consistent
with the Fed's inflation target. Hourly wages have risen at a 2.7 percent rate over the last year. If there is just 1.5 percent
productivity growth, this would be consistent with a rate of inflation of 1.2 percent.
"Furthermore, it is important to recognize that workers took a large hit to their wages in the downturn, with a shift of more
than four percentage points of national income from wages to profits. In principle, workers can restore their share of national
income (the equivalent of an 8 percent wage gain), but the Fed would have to be prepared to allow wage growth to substantially
outpace prices for a period of time. If the Fed acts to prevent workers from getting this bargaining power, it will effectively
lock in place this upward redistribution. Needless to say, workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution can expect
to see the biggest hit in this scenario.
"One positive point in today's action is the Fed's commitment in its statement to allow future rate hikes to be guided
by the data, rather than locking in a path towards "normalization" as was effectively done in 2004. If it is the case that
the economy is not strong enough to justify rate hikes, then the hike today may be the last one for some period of time. It will
be important for the Fed to carefully assess the data as it makes its decision on interest rates at future meetings.
"Recent economic data suggest that today's move was a mistake. Hopefully the Fed will not compound this mistake with more unwarranted
rate hikes in the future."
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K....
I like Dean Baker. Unlike the Fed, Dean Baker is a class warrior on the side of the wage class. He makes the point about the
path to normalization being critical that I have been discussing for quite a while. Let's hope this Fed knows better than Greenspan/Bernanke
in 2004-2006. THANKS!
likbez said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Very true !
pgl said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Longer-term bond rates barely moved, showing that there was very little news." This interest rate rose from 4.45% to 5.46%
already. So the damage was already done:
"... This interest rate rose from 4.45% to 5.46% already..."
Exactly! Corporate bond rates have been rising steadily since May. Yellen is not doing what Greenspan did in 2004. Yellen's
Fed waited until the bond rate lifted off on its own (and maybe with some help from policy communications) before they raised
the FFR.
So far, there is no sign of their making a fatal error. They are not fighting class warfare for wage class either, but they
seem intent on not screwing the pooch in the way that Greenspan and Bernanke did. No double dip thank you and hold the nuts.
"Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is characterized by persistent and excessive worry
about a number of different things. People with GAD may anticipate disaster and may be overly
concerned [...]. Individuals with GAD find it difficult to control their worry. They may
worry more than seems warranted about actual events or may expect the worst even when there
is no apparent reason for concern."
Seems like the perfect profile for an [CIA] operative. ;)
"... As the world has become more complex, people have relied more and more on stereotypes and simplifications to help them interpret and filter events around them. Propaganda manipulates this desire for simplicity – handing people easy answers rather than winning them over with rational arguments. Society then rallies around these stereotypes and squashes dissents with 'herd mentality', an irrational set of psychological behaviors where individuals are swept along with a group, overriding their own rational assessments ..."
Below is a repeat of a Glenn Diesen quote from karlof1 comment # 57
" "As the world has become more complex, people have relied more and more on stereotypes and
simplifications to help them interpret and filter events around them. Propaganda manipulates
this desire for simplicity – handing people easy answers rather than winning them over
with rational arguments. Society then rallies around these stereotypes and squashes dissents
with 'herd mentality', an irrational set of psychological behaviors where individuals are
swept along with a group, overriding their own rational assessments." "
Think about the vaccine situation and what just happened to the medical profession in the
West....they got railroaded into agreeing that there was not an off the shelf "ivermectin" to
the virus and guaranteed future income to Big Pharma is more important.
Hey docs!!! Do no harm! Your complicity in this war crime against humanity is noted. What
are the responsible and humanistic actions to take now and why does the public not see
evidence that you are organizing to do them?
Until the reality of the CIA--to undermine peaceful relations and promote wars required
for Military Keynesianism--is taught in grade school, it will always find recruits. As with
the FBI, government sponsored propaganda was and remains required to manufacture the reasons
for their existence. Nations that promote an equitable polity have no need for a secret
police force, but do need some force to counter attempts from the outside to foment
destabilization. For example, today's Russia is freer than at any previous time in its
history as only extremist ideologies are banned while Communism--still deemed extremist by
the West--is relegated to a normal ideology with status as a normative political party.
Indeed, I'd argue that Russia remains the only genuine Liberal Western nation, which is a
reality Russophobes are unable to accept or even contemplate. The same also applies to the
concept of Communism thanks to the unwillingness to even attempt to understand Marx. And as
Western thought gets subsumed by Wokeness, the ideological divide between Neoliberal nations
and all others will continue to grow.
"... The CPI is calculated by analyzing the price of a "basket of goods." The makeup of that basket has a big impact on the final CPI number. According to WolfStreet , 10.9% of the CPI is based on durable goods (computers, automobiles, appliances, etc.). Nondurable goods (primarily food and energy) make up 26.6% of CPI. Services account for the remaining 62.5% of the basket. This includes rent, healthcare, cellphone service etc.) ..."
"... The things the government includes and excludes from the basket can make a profound difference in that final CPI number. Back in 1998, the government significantly revised the CPI metrics. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) admitted the changes were "sweeping." ..."
"... In 1998, the BLS followed the recommendations of the Boskin Commission. It was appointed by the Senate in 1995. Initially called the "Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index," its job was to study possible bias in the computation of the CPI. Unsurprisingly, it determined that the index overstated inflation " by about 1.1% per year in 1996 and about 1.3% prior to 1996. The 1998 changes to CPI were meant to address this "issue." ..."
"... As Peter pointed out, there is a lot of geometric weighting, substitution and hedonics built into the calculation. The government can basically create an index that outputs whatever it wants. ..."
"... Peter said there is a bit of irony in government officials and central bankers constantly complaining about "not enough inflation." ..."
"... They're the ones that are cooking the books to pretend that inflation is lower than it really is. Because what they're really trying to do is get the go-ahead to produce more inflation, which is printing money." ..."
"... And there are other things that hide inflation. For instance, shrinking packaging so there is less product sold at the same price, or substituting lower quality ingredients, or requiring consumers to assemble items themselves. ..."
"... They find different ways to lower the quality and not increase the price, and I'm sure that the government is not picking up on any of that. If the quality improves, yeah, yeah, they calculate that. But they probably ignore all the circumstances where the quality is diminished." ..."
"... The bottom line is we can't trust CPI to tell us the truth about inflation. ..."
And we're seeing rising prices all over the place, from the grocery store to the gas station. Even
the government numbers flash
warning signs . But as Peter Schiff explains in this clip from an interview with Jay Martin, it's probably even worse than we
realize because the government cooks the numbers when it calculates CPI.
The monthly rises in CPI
through the first quarter show an upward trend. The CPI in January was up 0.3%. It was up 0.4% in February. And now it's up 0.6%
in March. That totals a 1.013% increase in Q1 alone. The question is does this really reflect the truth about inflation? Peter doesn't
think it does.
The government always makes changes to their methods of measuring things, whether it's GDP, or inflation, or unemployment.
And they always tweak the numbers to produce a better result as a report card. "
Imagine if students in a school had the ability to change the metrics by which they were graded or the methodology the teacher
used to calculate their grades.
Would it surprise anybody that all of a sudden they started getting more As and Bs and fewer Cs and Ds? The government always
wants to make the good stuff better, like economic growth, and the bad stuff better, like unemployment or inflation. So, they
want to find ways to make those numbers little and the good numbers big."
The CPI is calculated by analyzing
the price of a "basket of goods." The makeup of that basket has a big impact on the final CPI number. According to WolfStreet , 10.9%
of the CPI is based on durable goods (computers, automobiles, appliances, etc.). Nondurable goods (primarily food and energy) make
up 26.6% of CPI. Services account for the remaining 62.5% of the basket. This includes rent, healthcare, cellphone service etc.)
The things the government includes and excludes from the basket can make a profound difference in that final CPI number. Back in 1998, the government significantly revised the CPI metrics. Even
the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) admitted the changes were "sweeping."
According to the BLS, periodic changes to the CPI calculation are necessary because "consumers change their preferences or new
products and services emerge. During these occasions, the Bureau reexamines the CPI item structure, which is the classification scheme
of the CPI market basket. The item structure is a central feature of the CPI program and many CPI processes depend on it."
In 1998, the BLS followed the recommendations of the Boskin Commission. It was appointed by the Senate in 1995. Initially called
the "Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index," its job was to study possible bias in the computation of the CPI. Unsurprisingly,
it determined that the index overstated inflation " by about 1.1% per year in 1996 and about 1.3% prior to 1996. The 1998 changes
to CPI were meant to address this "issue."
As Peter pointed out, there is a lot of geometric weighting, substitution and hedonics built into the calculation. The government
can basically create an index that outputs whatever it wants.
I think this period of "˜Oh wow! We have low inflation!' It's not a coincidence that it followed this major revision into how
we calculate it."
Peter said there is a bit of irony in government officials and central bankers constantly complaining about "not enough inflation."
They're the ones that are cooking the books to pretend that inflation is lower than it really is. Because what they're really
trying to do is get the go-ahead to produce more inflation, which is printing money."
Peter said the CPI will never reveal the true extent of rising prices.
And there are other things that hide inflation. For instance, shrinking packaging so there is less product sold at the same price,
or substituting lower quality ingredients, or requiring consumers to assemble items themselves.
They find different ways to lower the quality and not increase the price, and I'm sure that the government is not picking up
on any of that. If the quality improves, yeah, yeah, they calculate that. But they probably ignore all the circumstances where
the quality is diminished."
The bottom line is we can't trust CPI to tell us the truth about inflation.
If anyone in the Congressional committees that oversee the Fed had an operating brain cell, they should flay the Fed for its indefensible
posture of ignorance and powerlessness. I have to confess to being too annoyed to read the underlying document, its semi-annual report
on financial stability and am so instead relying on what I take to be a fair-minded recap in the Financial Times,
Fed warns of hidden leverage lurking in
financial system .
What I find most disturbing is the rank dishonesty of the Fed, in what looks to be deliberate mischaracterization of the Archegos
implosion, made worse by the central bank’s “And how can you expect us to know what’s going on?†anticipatory blame avoidance.
To put this another way, the Fed is trying to pre-sell a “whocoulddanode?†defense when that sort of guilty faced, foot-shuffling
act is unacceptable after the Fed was caught out being way behind the curve in the runup to the global financial crisis.
Archegos was not a systematic event. Not even close. One hedge fund with so few investors that it ran on a “friends and familyâ€
basis (tarted up as “family officeâ€) blew up. It did not bring down any other players. It did briefly roil markets in the stocks
Archegos held. Banks collectively lost a
bout $10 billion . By comparison, Paribas paid $8.9 billion in economic sanctions fines to the Department of Justice in 2014,
which in current dollar terms is $10.0 billion. No one suggested the Paribas fine was systemic or even a health-threatening blow.
The troubling issue was how did this one hedge fund get to be so leveraged? Here is where the Fed misdirects Congress and the
general public:
The US Federal Reserve has warned that existing measures of hedge fund leverage “may not be capturing important risksâ€,
pointing to the collapse of Archegos Capital as an example of hidden vulnerabilities in the global financial system….
Hwang’s high-wire act was hard to monitor because family offices face limited disclosure requirements and because he used
derivatives known as equity total return swaps. These instruments enabled Archegos to profit from rises in individual stocks with
payments equal to only a fraction of the size of the underlying positions.
First, the hand-wringing about Archegos being a hedge fund able to do sneaky things in dark alleys is all wet. Do you seriously
think regulators have all that much visibility into the much bigger (but also known to be tightly run) Citadel? How about the personal
portfolios of very large investors? And what about multinational corporations that run their Treasury operations as profit centers,
or Apple, which runs an internal hedge fund out of Nevada?
In other words, if the Fed thinks the problem is particular player, “hedge funds†is far too narrow a frame. “Leveraged financial
speculators†is closer to the mark.
And they are secretive about their holdings. Any large trader will spread his business among multiple execution firms because
the firms can and will trade against him if they know his positions.
Second, the problem is not the opaqueness of the hedge fund’s activity, even though if you read the Financial Times’ account,
you would think that that is the the Fed’s big worry. It’s the ability to achieve high levels of leverage. And that’s the fault
of the regulatory regime.
In passing, in the section excerpted above, the report mentions total return swaps. A short definition from Wikipedia:
Hedge funds use Total Return Swaps to obtain leverage on the Reference Assets: they can receive the return of the asset, typically
from a bank (which has a funding cost advantage), without having to put out the cash to buy the Asset. They usually post a smaller
amount of collateral upfront, thus obtaining leverage.
Due to the hour and the state of Google, I can’t find data on the size of the total return swap market, but at the time Archegos
blow, it was under $300 billion, which means too small to wreck the financial system (well, unless perhaps they blew up Deutsche
Bank).
Perhaps more important, regulators had decided they didn’t like them but from what I can infer, have also been slow to shut
down the market. That’s a mistake since it’s clear the purpose of total returns swaps is pure speculation, and any additional
price discovery benefit is too marginal to allow the use of so much leverage.
More generally, the Fed and financial regulators seem unwilling to do two essential things. The first is to say “no†to certain
activities. Andrew Haldane, in a paper I have mentioned repeatedly, explained that the only answer to the level of societal harm
posed by financial crises is prohibition, as in not allowing certain activities. From his seminal speech, The $100 Billion Question,
cited
in a 2010 post :
More support comes from Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England, who in
a March 2010 paper compared the banking industry to the auto
industry, in that they both produced pollutants: for cars, exhaust fumes; for bank, systemic risk. While economists were claiming
that the losses to the US government on various rescues would be $100 billion (ahem, must have left out Freddie and Fannie in
that tally), it ignores the broader costs (unemployment, business failures, reduced government services, particularly at the state
and municipal level). His calculation of the world wide costs:
….these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five times annual GDP. Put in money terms,
that is an output loss equivalent to between $60 trillion and $200 trillion for the world economy and between £1.8 trillion
and £7.4 trillion for the UK. As Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed, to call these numbers “astronomicalâ€
would be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. “Economical†might be
a better description.
It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming that a crisis occurs every 20 years,
the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs would be in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation
of the largest global banks is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output costs of financial crises
would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs, with the levy playing the role of the meteorite.
Yves here. So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added from a societal standpoint. It is purely
extractive. Even though we have described its activities as looting (as in paying themselves so much that they bankrupt the
business), the wider consequences are vastly worse than in textbook looting.
Back to the current post. The original sin of the Fed, at least with respect to crises in the modern era, is the decision by Alan
Greenspan to do nothing about derivatives. I recall in the mid 1900s gasping out loud when I read that he intended to take a “let
a thousand flowers bloom†approach. By then, I had had one of the top derivatives firms as a client and had an appreciation as to
how dangerous they could be.
There is a role for derivatives in highly liquid markets for hedging. Banks generally have the underlying volumes of cash transactions
to manage FX futures and options on an OTC basis. But all things being equal, it’s preferable to have a central exchange (more
stable market structure) or else highly distributed position-taking. Anything in the middle is more prone to meltdowns.
But an even bigger issue is aside from well-established categories of pretty simple derivatives, there’s no justification for
allowing financial intermediaries to offer much in the way of OTC derivatives. The overwhelming uses of high margin OTC derivatives
are for accounting gimmickry, tax avoidance, or achieving high levels of leverage on the cheap (which means having the bank or lender
as bagholder). None of these are positive from a societal standpoint.
So all of the Fed’s mealy-mouthing about hidden leverage is utter rubbish. Yes, asset valuations are strained due to super cheap
money and too much speculative froth. But as we saw in the collapse of the monster dot-com bubble, the mere collapse of speculative
bubbles, even really big ones, does not do systemic damage (although they can set off recessions as the speculators lick their wounds
and the folks with bezzle-based revenues take hits). What does systemic damage is high levels of leverage, particularly leverage
on leverage, which was what turned the housing crash from an S&L crisis x 1.5X level event to a global financial crisis.
For the Fed at this juncture to profess to be so stupid about the fundamental problem as cover for their unwillingness to take
on Big Finance is depressing, although in another way, not exactly surprising.
The problem with Archegos was that (i) it was not registered as Private Fund and hence did not have to report data to the SEC
and (ii) rules around TRS have not been finalized. For example, it is unclear to me if TRS have to be reported to swap repositories
(supervised by CFTC/SEC) or not at the current juncture. If TRSs were to be reported then a supervisor could have seen that by
analyzing the data.
While I appreciate your point, a Form ADV is filed only annually and a Form PF, quarterly. The Form ADV deadline for filing
the Dec 31 report is March 31. Forms PF are due within 60 days of the quarter end. Then the SEC has to compile the data.
This is too far in arrears to be useful in identifying regulatory risks.
It would also not capture a risk the SEC might legitimately be concerned about, which is size of position relative to typical
trading volumes. That is what brought down LTCM and later Amaranth Capital. LTCM took a monster position in of all things interest
rate swaps, a classic “short volâ€. But then the swap spreads widened and some traders figured out there was a whale in trouble
and sold into the short, increasing LTCM’s distress.
The SEC is in the liquid markets business. I doubt it has any basis for judging liquidity risk in OTC markets. So even if it
had the info on an LTCM-type situation, it would be very unlikely to recognize it, even assuming it was timely (60 days in arrears
might as well be a year stale from a trading risk perspective).
“But an even bigger issue is aside from well-established categories of pretty simple derivatives, there’s no justification
for allowing financial intermediaries to offer much in the way of OTC derivatives. The overwhelming uses of high margin OTC derivatives
are for accounting gimmickry, tax avoidance, or achieving high levels of leverage on the cheap (which means having the bank or
lender as bagholder). None of these are positive from a societal standpoint.â€
TRS is for regulatory arbitrage or leverage. Margins on TRS are tiny. Its a loss leader of a product, designed to keep you
in the frame for higher value deals. It does have the advantage that you might see when “a whale†is exiting a big position,
but clearly thats not foolproof, eh CS?
We are witnessing the slow moral bankruptcy of the nation.
I have no doubt that the Fed corruption of money will be identified as the main culprit by future historians.
How did the Fed manage to become such a powerful monster in our society?
If they can impeach a President in one week, they could impeach the entire FOMC before lunch (i.e., pass a veto-proof law to
abolish it or redefine so-called mandate)
But, why would they? They are all multi-millionaires and direct beneficiaries of the monetary policy.
How do banks really work?
Our knowledge of banking has been going backwards since 1856.
Credit creation theory -> fractional reserve theory -> financial intermediation theory
“A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence†Richard A. Werner http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477
Nearly all today’s policymakers think banks are financial intermediaries.
The financial system looks a lot safer than it is when you think banks are financial intermediaries.
Credit Suisse pumped loads of money into Archegos, but they couldn’t get it back again and the loss crystallised.
Banks can pump out a lot of loans in the good times as the money comes out of nothing.
When the bad times come, the losses crystallise in the system.
Why did the US financial system to collapse in 1929?
If someone can’t repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use bank loans to
inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
As the real estate and stock market collapsed the banks became insolvent as their assets didn’t cover their liabilities.
They could no longer repossess and sell those assets to cover the outstanding loans and they do need to get most of the money
they lend out back again to balance their books.
The banks become insolvent and collapsed, along with the US economy.
When banks have been lending to inflate asset prices the financial system is in a precarious state and can easily collapse.
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in Japan in 1991?
Japanese real estate.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They killed growth for the next 30 years by leaving the debt in place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk
What was the ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that collapsed in 2008? “It’s nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime
loans, and dispersed throughout the world†All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
They avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They left Western economies struggling by leaving the debt in place, just like Japan.
It’s not as bad as Japan as we didn’t let asset prices crash in the West, but it is this problem has made our economies so
sluggish since 2008.
“The Great Crash 1929†John Kenneth Galbraith “By early 1929, loans from these non-banking sources were approximately equal to those from the banks. Later they became
much greater. The Federal Reserve Authorities took it for granted that they had no influence over these fundsâ€
He’s talking about “shadow bankingâ€.
They couldn’t control the lending from shadow banks in the 1920s either.
Japan ventured into shadow banking in the 1980s.
Jusen were nonbank institutions formed in the 1970s by consortia of banks to make household mortgages since banks had mortgage
limitations. The shadow banks were just an intermediary put in place to get around regulations.
This is how shadow banks pose a threat to the financial system.
They are just intermediaries put in place to get around regulations.
The banks need to get the money they loan out back again, and whether they use shadow banks as an intermediary or not, doesn’t
make a lot of difference.
The dangers are the same.
I just remembered something else from “The Great Crash 1929†John Kenneth Galbraith
They thought leverage was great before 1929; they saw what happened when it worked in reverse after 1929.
Leverage acts like a multiplier.
It multiplies profits on the way up.
It multiplies losses on the way down.
“ Our knowledge of banking has been going backwards since 1856.â€
Well, yeah, or is it being driven in reverse gear? Just asking.
I mean Ricardo, Mills, Marx, Minsky, Keynes and many others all seem to understand banking in particular, and economics in
general, very well, but they have gone into the memory hole alone with large portions of Adam Smith’s mangled, Bowdlerized,
expurgated work.
Taking introductory courses in economics is like studying fantasy. Not because of the lies as such as all the blasted omissions
that have been created since the early twentieth century.
Yves, pieces like this are one of the reasons I come to NC daily. I want to post a longer response on this subject of deliberate
opacity as I have been mulling this over for nearly 20 years â€" since Enron’s SPE abuse and then Lehman’s Repo 105 fraud.
But for now I’ll content myself with a big thank you and a hearty vote for more of your stringent analysis and (a)stringent
prose. I hope your health issues permit your writing and tormenting the Davos/FIRE set of neoliberal Vandals who’ve destroyed
our stability while enriching themselves as never before.
Hear hear. I agree heartily with P, above. Enron comes to mind regularly these days. Seems like we’ve seen this untethered
derivatives movie before, too, and it’s a horror show. Yves, I feel like a dufus when it comes to global and national economics,
but I certainly learn it here. (Which why I love this site.)
Thank you.
Borrowing short to lend long is inherently risky and government should in no way privilege or bear that risk.
Yet government does so since we have only a SINGLE payment system (besides mere physical currency, coins and paper CB or Treasury
Notes) that must work through private banks or not at all. So the banks hold the economy hostage.
We could fix that by providing an ADDITIONAL, inherently risk-free payment system via debit accounts for all at the Central
Bank (or Treasury) and by abolishing all other privileges, explicit and implicit, for private depository institutions.
Then whether the banks were “prudent†or not would be irrelevant to the general welfare.
The alternative to genuine reform is merely to kick-the-can down the road a bit further via regulation and/or even more privileges
for private banks to make them more stable â€" as if systematic injustice should or even can be truly stable.
“The Fed and financial regulators seem unwilling to do two essential things. The first is to say “no†to certain activities.â€
paragraphs go on to support this point.
I need to apologize for my lack of reading comprehension but I’m not understanding what the second thing (that the regulators
are unwilling to do) is?
Is it about the OTC derivatives or tamping down on leverage in general?
New markets for debt must be found. And if that means fraud (or too much risk) so be it. Usually, the Federal Reserve waits
for the muppets to show up en masse before taking the punch bowl away. Problem is, the muppets have been gun shy since they got
burned back in the Global financial crisis. So what’s a poor Federal Reserve to do but to keep the party going?
By the way, that’s why I think there’s all the gnashing of teeth over the risk of inflation. It’s not because the talking
heads are worried about the consequences to main street. It’s because they’re worried it will bring the party to an end after
all the muppets start becoming playahs again.
Not only is this not true, the evidence shows that bubbles are called in advance. In 1999,
the Wall Street Journal had 286 articles on bubbles. Here are a few of the titles,
"When the Bubble Bursts..."
"The Bubble Won't Burst"
"Bursting Mr. Geenspan's Bubble"
"Fed `Bubble' Policy: Watch, Don't Pop'"
"Fed Governor Meyer Counters Suggestions Of a Market Bubble"
Dogecoin is now valued at more than Ford.
Economics?
Lunacy is more like it.
This is just more proof that the dollars are becoming more worthless.
Whistling past the graveyard.
⏤But Yellen said yesterday: "I don't think there is going to be an inflationary problem.
Biden has proposed further substantial spending packages we would love to be enacted into
law."
There is no alternative to the thrust-lifting energy jet fuel provides.
Daily demand is about 6 million barrels a day, a third in the USA.
Price rise is nearing a third in just the last three months.
There is no stopping an airline's largest revenue, the cargo jet planes carry; passengers
above are incidental.
SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the
1990s: We don't have profits, probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's what matters.
Like thumb_up 3 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
D
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the 1990s: We don't have
profits, probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's what matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the 1990s: We don't have
profits, probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's what matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the 1990s: We don't
have profits, probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's what matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the 1990s: We
don't have profits, probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's what
matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of the
1990s: We don't have profits, probably never will, but we have clicks.
And that's what matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of
the 1990s: We don't have profits, probably never will, but we
have clicks. And that's what matters.
Some of this, especially the cryptocurrency talk,
reminds me of the 1990s: We don't have profits,
probably never will, but we have clicks. And that's
what matters.
Some of this, especially the
cryptocurrency talk, reminds me of
the 1990s: We don't have profits,
probably never will, but we have
clicks. And that's what matters.
Some of this,
especially the
cryptocurrency talk,
reminds me of the
1990s: We don't have
profits, probably
never will, but we
have clicks. And
that's what matters.
Some
of
this,
especially
the
cryptocurrency
talk,
reminds
me of
the
1990s:
We
don't
have
profits,
probably
never
will,
but
we
have
clicks.
And
that's
what
matters.
Some
of
this,
especially
the
cryptocurrency
talk,
reminds
me
of
the
1990s:
We
don't
have
profits,
probably
never
will,
but
we
have
clicks.
And
that's
what
matters.
Some
of
this,
especially
the
cryptocurrency
talk,
reminds
me
of
the
1990s:
We
don't
have
profits,
probably
never
will,
but
we
have
clicks.
And
that's
what
matters.
Some
of
this,
especially
the
cryptocurrency
talk,
reminds
me
of
the
1990s:
We
don't
have
profits,
probably
never
will,
but
we
have
clicks.
And
that's
what
matters.
"It's not the return on my money I'm concerned with, it's the return of my money that I'm
concerned with." Will Rogers, circa 1930. How easily we all forget.
V
"It's not the return on my money I'm concerned with, it's the return of my money that I'm
concerned with." Will Rogers, circa 1930. How easily we all forget.
V
"It's not the return on my money I'm concerned with, it's the return of my money that
I'm concerned with." Will Rogers, circa 1930. How easily we all forget.
V
"It's not the return on my money I'm concerned with, it's the return of my money
that I'm concerned with." Will Rogers, circa 1930. How easily we all forget.
V
"It's not the return on my money I'm concerned with, it's the return of
my money that I'm concerned with." Will Rogers, circa 1930. How easily we
all forget.
V
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will eventually birst.
Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with cryptocurrencies as
the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index now trades at about 22 times the
coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only exceeded at the peak of the dot-com
boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the Federal Reserve
is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present. Stock
valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on record. Individual
investors are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital commerce to
fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a result, the
10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real yields are deeply negative
-- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're headed for
sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot readings
on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely low, how do
they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation and bond yields rise
one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious correction in asset
prices."
C
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will eventually birst.
Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with cryptocurrencies
as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index now trades at about 22 times
the coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only exceeded at the peak of the
dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the Federal Reserve
is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present. Stock
valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on record. Individual
investors are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital commerce to
fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a result, the
10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real yields are deeply negative
-- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're headed for
sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot readings
on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely low, how do
they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation and bond yields rise
one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious correction in asset
prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy".
Describing the election / selection process of political leadership in America (more than one
hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude of the salary [provided by office] to the
great multitude who in every country either fail in life, or shrink from the conflicts which
the competitive system makes necessary, is very attractive; it soon converted the civil
service into what has been called "spoils"; that is, booty won by victories at the polls".
Roll forward one hundred years and we can only be in a worse spot: bigger, more complex
problems are being addressed by even less qualified individuals. The result is that when I go
to the grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what I used to pay 2 years ago. And that is the
only inflation measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will eventually birst.
Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with cryptocurrencies
as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index now trades at about 22 times
the coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only exceeded at the peak of the
dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the Federal Reserve
is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present. Stock
valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on record. Individual
investors are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital commerce to
fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a result, the
10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real yields are deeply negative
-- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're headed for
sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot readings
on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely low, how do
they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation and bond yields rise
one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious correction in asset
prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy".
Describing the election / selection process of political leadership in America (more than
one hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude of the salary [provided by office]
to the great multitude who in every country either fail in life, or shrink from the
conflicts which the competitive system makes necessary, is very attractive; it soon
converted the civil service into what has been called "spoils"; that is, booty won by
victories at the polls". Roll forward one hundred years and we can only be in a worse spot:
bigger, more complex problems are being addressed by even less qualified individuals. The
result is that when I go to the grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what I used to pay 2
years ago. And that is the only inflation measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will eventually
birst. Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with cryptocurrencies
as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index now trades at about 22 times
the coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only exceeded at the peak of the
dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the Federal
Reserve is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it
burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present. Stock
valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on record.
Individual investors are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital commerce to
fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a result,
the 10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real yields are deeply
negative -- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're headed for
sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot readings
on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely low, how do
they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation and bond yields
rise one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious correction in asset
prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen Tendencies of
Democracy". Describing the election / selection process of political leadership in
America (more than one hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude of the salary
[provided by office] to the great multitude who in every country either fail in life,
or shrink from the conflicts which the competitive system makes necessary, is very
attractive; it soon converted the civil service into what has been called "spoils";
that is, booty won by victories at the polls". Roll forward one hundred years and we
can only be in a worse spot: bigger, more complex problems are being addressed by even
less qualified individuals. The result is that when I go to the grocery store now, I am
paying 1.5x what I used to pay 2 years ago. And that is the only inflation measure I
trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will eventually
birst. Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with
cryptocurrencies as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index now
trades at about 22 times the coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only
exceeded at the peak of the dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the Federal
Reserve is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it
burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present. Stock
valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to
their pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on
record. Individual investors are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital commerce to
fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a
result, the 10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real yields
are deeply negative -- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're headed for
sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot
readings on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely low, how
do they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat inflation and bond
yields rise one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious
correction in asset prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen Tendencies of
Democracy". Describing the election / selection process of political leadership
in America (more than one hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude of
the salary [provided by office] to the great multitude who in every country
either fail in life, or shrink from the conflicts which the competitive system
makes necessary, is very attractive; it soon converted the civil service into
what has been called "spoils"; that is, booty won by victories at the polls".
Roll forward one hundred years and we can only be in a worse spot: bigger, more
complex problems are being addressed by even less qualified individuals. The
result is that when I go to the grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what I used
to pay 2 years ago. And that is the only inflation measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which will
eventually birst. Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the
floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania with
cryptocurrencies as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock index
now trades at about 22 times the coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a
level only exceeded at the peak of the dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the
Federal Reserve is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when
could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the present.
Stock valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices
are back to their pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the
lowest rates on record. Individual investors are pouring money into green energy
and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital
commerce to fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983. .
..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds. As a
result, the 10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation -- that is, real
yields are deeply negative -- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think we're
headed for sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll have several
quarters of hot readings on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay extremely
low, how do they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to combat
inflation and bond yields rise one to 1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You
could get a serious correction in asset prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen
Tendencies of Democracy". Describing the election / selection process of
political leadership in America (more than one hundred years ago), I was
struck by "the certitude of the salary [provided by office] to the great
multitude who in every country either fail in life, or shrink from the
conflicts which the competitive system makes necessary, is very
attractive; it soon converted the civil service into what has been called
"spoils"; that is, booty won by victories at the polls". Roll forward one
hundred years and we can only be in a worse spot: bigger, more complex
problems are being addressed by even less qualified individuals. The
result is that when I go to the grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what
I used to pay 2 years ago. And that is the only inflation measure I
trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble which
will eventually birst. Because after it burst there will be a lot of blood
on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial mania
with cryptocurrencies as the poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500
stock index now trades at about 22 times the coming year's profits,
according to FactSet, a level only exceeded at the peak of the dot-com boom
in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over Wall
Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus led by
the Federal Reserve is fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new
bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar about the
present. Stock valuations are their richest since the dot-com bubble in
2000. Home prices are back to their pre-financial crisis peak. Risky
companies can borrow at the lowest rates on record. Individual investors
are pouring money into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances in digital
commerce to fiscally greased growth that will likely be the strongest since
1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of dollars of
bonds. As a result, the 10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation
-- that is, real yields are deeply negative -- for only the second time in
40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think
we're headed for sustained high inflation it's completely possible we'll
have several quarters of hot readings on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates stay
extremely low, how do they reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary
policy to combat inflation and bond yields rise one to 1.5 percentage
points, he asked. " You could get a serious correction in asset
prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early 1900s,
"Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy". Describing the election /
selection process of political leadership in America (more than
one hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude of the
salary [provided by office] to the great multitude who in every
country either fail in life, or shrink from the conflicts which
the competitive system makes necessary, is very attractive; it
soon converted the civil service into what has been called
"spoils"; that is, booty won by victories at the polls". Roll
forward one hundred years and we can only be in a worse spot:
bigger, more complex problems are being addressed by even less
qualified individuals. The result is that when I go to the
grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what I used to pay 2 years
ago. And that is the only inflation measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another dot-com bubble
which will eventually birst. Because after it burst there will be
a lot of blood on the floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a crazy financial
mania with cryptocurrencies as the poster child of this mania.
"The S&P 500 stock index now trades at about 22 times the
coming year's profits, according to FactSet, a level only
exceeded at the peak of the dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management" is all over
Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and monetary
stimulus led by the Federal Reserve is fueling a new investor
euphoria. Is this a new bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty familiar
about the present. Stock valuations are their richest since the
dot-com bubble in 2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky companies can borrow at the
lowest rates on record. Individual investors are pouring money
into green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from the advances
in digital commerce to fiscally greased growth that will likely
be the strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of billions of
dollars of bonds. As a result, the 10-year Treasury bond yield is
well below inflation -- that is, real yields are deeply negative
-- for only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein... "while I
don't think we're headed for sustained high inflation it's
completely possible we'll have several quarters of hot readings
on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if interest rates
stay extremely low, how do they reprice if the Fed has to tighten
monetary policy to combat inflation and bond yields rise one to
1.5 percentage points, he asked. " You could get a serious
correction in asset prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late 1800 early
1900s, "Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy".
Describing the election / selection process of
political leadership in America (more than one
hundred years ago), I was struck by "the certitude
of the salary [provided by office] to the great
multitude who in every country either fail in life,
or shrink from the conflicts which the competitive
system makes necessary, is very attractive; it soon
converted the civil service into what has been
called "spoils"; that is, booty won by victories at
the polls". Roll forward one hundred years and we
can only be in a worse spot: bigger, more complex
problems are being addressed by even less qualified
individuals. The result is that when I go to the
grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x what I used to
pay 2 years ago. And that is the only inflation
measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this is another
dot-com bubble which will eventually birst. Because
after it burst there will be a lot of blood on the
floor.
But the current situation can be defined as a
crazy financial mania with cryptocurrencies as the
poster child of this mania. "The S&P 500 stock
index now trades at about 22 times the coming year's
profits, according to FactSet, a level only exceeded
at the peak of the dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term Capital Management"
is all over Wall Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented fiscal and
monetary stimulus led by the Federal Reserve is
fueling a new investor euphoria. Is this a new
bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles, there is plenty
familiar about the present. Stock valuations are
their richest since the dot-com bubble in 2000. Home
prices are back to their pre-financial crisis peak.
Risky companies can borrow at the lowest rates on
record. Individual investors are pouring money into
green energy and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate explanations, from
the advances in digital commerce to fiscally greased
growth that will likely be the strongest since 1983.
. ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying hundreds of
billions of dollars of bonds. As a result, the
10-year Treasury bond yield is well below inflation
-- that is, real yields are deeply negative -- for
only the second time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist Jeremy Stein...
"while I don't think we're headed for sustained high
inflation it's completely possible we'll have several
quarters of hot readings on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only justified if
interest rates stay extremely low, how do they
reprice if the Fed has to tighten monetary policy to
combat inflation and bond yields rise one to 1.5
percentage points, he asked. " You could get a
serious correction in asset prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book from the late
1800 early 1900s, "Unforeseen
Tendencies of Democracy". Describing
the election / selection process of
political leadership in America (more
than one hundred years ago), I was
struck by "the certitude of the
salary [provided by office] to the
great multitude who in every country
either fail in life, or shrink from
the conflicts which the competitive
system makes necessary, is very
attractive; it soon converted the
civil service into what has been
called "spoils"; that is, booty won
by victories at the polls". Roll
forward one hundred years and we can
only be in a worse spot: bigger, more
complex problems are being addressed
by even less qualified individuals.
The result is that when I go to the
grocery store now, I am paying 1.5x
what I used to pay 2 years ago. And
that is the only inflation measure I
trust.
Everybody is afiad to say that this
is another dot-com bubble which will
eventually birst. Because after it
burst there will be a lot of blood on
the floor.
But the current situation can be
defined as a crazy financial mania with
cryptocurrencies as the poster child of
this mania. "The S&P 500 stock
index now trades at about 22 times the
coming year's profits, according to
FactSet, a level only exceeded at the
peak of the dot-com boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of "Long-Term
Capital Management" is all over Wall
Street.
May 8, 2021
An unprecedented
fiscal and monetary stimulus led by the
Federal Reserve is fueling a new
investor euphoria. Is this a new
bubble? And when could it burst?
To veterans of financial bubbles,
there is plenty familiar about the
present. Stock valuations are their
richest since the dot-com bubble in
2000. Home prices are back to their
pre-financial crisis peak. Risky
companies can borrow at the lowest
rates on record. Individual investors
are pouring money into green energy and
cryptocurrency.
This boom has some legitimate
explanations, from the advances in
digital commerce to fiscally greased
growth that will likely be the
strongest since 1983. . ..
the Federal Reserve.... is buying
hundreds of billions of dollars of
bonds. As a result, the 10-year
Treasury bond yield is well below
inflation -- that is, real yields are
deeply negative -- for only the second
time in 40 years.
....Harvard University economist
Jeremy Stein... "while I don't think
we're headed for sustained high
inflation it's completely possible
we'll have several quarters of hot
readings on inflation."
Since stocks' valuations are only
justified if interest rates stay
extremely low, how do they reprice if
the Fed has to tighten monetary policy
to combat inflation and bond yields
rise one to 1.5 percentage points, he
asked. " You could get a serious
correction in asset prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was reading a book
from the late 1800
early 1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies of
Democracy".
Describing the
election / selection
process of political
leadership in America
(more than one
hundred years ago), I
was struck by "the
certitude of the
salary [provided by
office] to the great
multitude who in
every country either
fail in life, or
shrink from the
conflicts which the
competitive system
makes necessary, is
very attractive; it
soon converted the
civil service into
what has been called
"spoils"; that is,
booty won by
victories at the
polls". Roll forward
one hundred years and
we can only be in a
worse spot: bigger,
more complex problems
are being addressed
by even less
qualified
individuals. The
result is that when I
go to the grocery
store now, I am
paying 1.5x what I
used to pay 2 years
ago. And that is the
only inflation
measure I trust.
Everybody is afiad
to say that this is
another dot-com bubble
which will eventually
birst. Because after it
burst there will be a
lot of blood on the
floor.
But the current
situation can be
defined as a crazy
financial mania with
cryptocurrencies as the
poster child of this
mania. "The S&P 500
stock index now trades
at about 22 times the
coming year's profits,
according to FactSet, a
level only exceeded at
the peak of the dot-com
boom in 2000."
And the shadlow of
"Long-Term Capital
Management" is all over
Wall Street.
May 8,
2021
An
unprecedented fiscal
and monetary stimulus
led by the Federal
Reserve is fueling a
new investor euphoria.
Is this a new bubble?
And when could it
burst?
To veterans of
financial bubbles,
there is plenty
familiar about the
present. Stock
valuations are their
richest since the
dot-com bubble in 2000.
Home prices are back to
their pre-financial
crisis peak. Risky
companies can borrow at
the lowest rates on
record. Individual
investors are pouring
money into green energy
and cryptocurrency.
This boom has some
legitimate
explanations, from the
advances in digital
commerce to fiscally
greased growth that
will likely be the
strongest since 1983. .
..
the Federal
Reserve.... is buying
hundreds of billions of
dollars of bonds. As a
result, the 10-year
Treasury bond yield is
well below inflation --
that is, real yields
are deeply negative --
for only the second
time in 40 years.
....Harvard
University economist
Jeremy Stein... "while
I don't think we're
headed for sustained
high inflation it's
completely possible
we'll have several
quarters of hot
readings on
inflation."
Since stocks'
valuations are only
justified if interest
rates stay extremely
low, how do they
reprice if the Fed has
to tighten monetary
policy to combat
inflation and bond
yields rise one to 1.5
percentage points, he
asked. " You could
get a serious
correction in asset
prices."
C Cam Dipalo
I was
reading
a
book
from
the
late
1800
early
1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies
of
Democracy".
Describing
the
election
/
selection
process
of
political
leadership
in
America
(more
than
one
hundred
years
ago),
I was
struck
by
"the
certitude
of
the
salary
[provided
by
office]
to
the
great
multitude
who
in
every
country
either
fail
in
life,
or
shrink
from
the
conflicts
which
the
competitive
system
makes
necessary,
is
very
attractive;
it
soon
converted
the
civil
service
into
what
has
been
called
"spoils";
that
is,
booty
won
by
victories
at
the
polls".
Roll
forward
one
hundred
years
and
we
can
only
be in
a
worse
spot:
bigger,
more
complex
problems
are
being
addressed
by
even
less
qualified
individuals.
The
result
is
that
when
I go
to
the
grocery
store
now,
I am
paying
1.5x
what
I
used
to
pay 2
years
ago.
And
that
is
the
only
inflation
measure
I
trust.
Everybody
is
afiad
to
say
that
this
is
another
dot-com
bubble
which
will
eventually
birst.
Because
after
it
burst
there
will
be a
lot
of
blood
on
the
floor.
But
the
current
situation
can
be
defined
as a
crazy
financial
mania
with
cryptocurrencies
as
the
poster
child
of
this
mania.
"The
S&P
500
stock
index
now
trades
at
about
22
times
the
coming
year's
profits,
according
to
FactSet,
a
level
only
exceeded
at
the
peak
of
the
dot-com
boom
in
2000."
And
the
shadlow
of
"Long-Term
Capital
Management"
is
all
over
Wall
Street.
May
8,
2021
An
unprecedented
fiscal
and
monetary
stimulus
led
by
the
Federal
Reserve
is
fueling
a new
investor
euphoria.
Is
this
a new
bubble?
And
when
could
it
burst?
To
veterans
of
financial
bubbles,
there
is
plenty
familiar
about
the
present.
Stock
valuations
are
their
richest
since
the
dot-com
bubble
in
2000.
Home
prices
are
back
to
their
pre-financial
crisis
peak.
Risky
companies
can
borrow
at
the
lowest
rates
on
record.
Individual
investors
are
pouring
money
into
green
energy
and
cryptocurrency.
This
boom
has
some
legitimate
explanations,
from
the
advances
in
digital
commerce
to
fiscally
greased
growth
that
will
likely
be
the
strongest
since
1983.
.
..
the
Federal
Reserve....
is
buying
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
of
bonds.
As a
result,
the
10-year
Treasury
bond
yield
is
well
below
inflation
--
that
is,
real
yields
are
deeply
negative
--
for
only
the
second
time
in 40
years.
....Harvard
University
economist
Jeremy
Stein...
"while
I
don't
think
we're
headed
for
sustained
high
inflation
it's
completely
possible
we'll
have
several
quarters
of
hot
readings
on
inflation."
Since
stocks'
valuations
are
only
justified
if
interest
rates
stay
extremely
low,
how
do
they
reprice
if
the
Fed
has
to
tighten
monetary
policy
to
combat
inflation
and
bond
yields
rise
one
to
1.5
percentage
points,
he
asked.
"
You
could
get a
serious
correction
in
asset
prices."
C
Cam
Dipalo
I
was
reading
a
book
from
the
late
1800
early
1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies
of
Democracy".
Describing
the
election
/
selection
process
of
political
leadership
in
America
(more
than
one
hundred
years
ago),
I
was
struck
by
"the
certitude
of
the
salary
[provided
by
office]
to
the
great
multitude
who
in
every
country
either
fail
in
life,
or
shrink
from
the
conflicts
which
the
competitive
system
makes
necessary,
is
very
attractive;
it
soon
converted
the
civil
service
into
what
has
been
called
"spoils";
that
is,
booty
won
by
victories
at
the
polls".
Roll
forward
one
hundred
years
and
we
can
only
be
in
a
worse
spot:
bigger,
more
complex
problems
are
being
addressed
by
even
less
qualified
individuals.
The
result
is
that
when
I
go
to
the
grocery
store
now,
I
am
paying
1.5x
what
I
used
to
pay
2
years
ago.
And
that
is
the
only
inflation
measure
I
trust.
Everybody
is
afiad
to
say
that
this
is
another
dot-com
bubble
which
will
eventually
birst.
Because
after
it
burst
there
will
be
a
lot
of
blood
on
the
floor.
But
the
current
situation
can
be
defined
as
a
crazy
financial
mania
with
cryptocurrencies
as
the
poster
child
of
this
mania.
"The
S&P
500
stock
index
now
trades
at
about
22
times
the
coming
year's
profits,
according
to
FactSet,
a
level
only
exceeded
at
the
peak
of
the
dot-com
boom
in
2000."
And
the
shadlow
of
"Long-Term
Capital
Management"
is
all
over
Wall
Street.
May
8,
2021
An
unprecedented
fiscal
and
monetary
stimulus
led
by
the
Federal
Reserve
is
fueling
a
new
investor
euphoria.
Is
this
a
new
bubble?
And
when
could
it
burst?
To
veterans
of
financial
bubbles,
there
is
plenty
familiar
about
the
present.
Stock
valuations
are
their
richest
since
the
dot-com
bubble
in
2000.
Home
prices
are
back
to
their
pre-financial
crisis
peak.
Risky
companies
can
borrow
at
the
lowest
rates
on
record.
Individual
investors
are
pouring
money
into
green
energy
and
cryptocurrency.
This
boom
has
some
legitimate
explanations,
from
the
advances
in
digital
commerce
to
fiscally
greased
growth
that
will
likely
be
the
strongest
since
1983.
.
..
the
Federal
Reserve....
is
buying
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
of
bonds.
As
a
result,
the
10-year
Treasury
bond
yield
is
well
below
inflation
--
that
is,
real
yields
are
deeply
negative
--
for
only
the
second
time
in
40
years.
....Harvard
University
economist
Jeremy
Stein...
"while
I
don't
think
we're
headed
for
sustained
high
inflation
it's
completely
possible
we'll
have
several
quarters
of
hot
readings
on
inflation."
Since
stocks'
valuations
are
only
justified
if
interest
rates
stay
extremely
low,
how
do
they
reprice
if
the
Fed
has
to
tighten
monetary
policy
to
combat
inflation
and
bond
yields
rise
one
to
1.5
percentage
points,
he
asked.
"
You
could
get
a
serious
correction
in
asset
prices."
C
Cam
Dipalo
I
was
reading
a
book
from
the
late
1800
early
1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies
of
Democracy".
Describing
the
election
/
selection
process
of
political
leadership
in
America
(more
than
one
hundred
years
ago),
I
was
struck
by
"the
certitude
of
the
salary
[provided
by
office]
to
the
great
multitude
who
in
every
country
either
fail
in
life,
or
shrink
from
the
conflicts
which
the
competitive
system
makes
necessary,
is
very
attractive;
it
soon
converted
the
civil
service
into
what
has
been
called
"spoils";
that
is,
booty
won
by
victories
at
the
polls".
Roll
forward
one
hundred
years
and
we
can
only
be
in
a
worse
spot:
bigger,
more
complex
problems
are
being
addressed
by
even
less
qualified
individuals.
The
result
is
that
when
I
go
to
the
grocery
store
now,
I
am
paying
1.5x
what
I
used
to
pay
2
years
ago.
And
that
is
the
only
inflation
measure
I
trust.
Everybody
is
afiad
to
say
that
this
is
another
dot-com
bubble
which
will
eventually
birst.
Because
after
it
burst
there
will
be
a
lot
of
blood
on
the
floor.
But
the
current
situation
can
be
defined
as
a
crazy
financial
mania
with
cryptocurrencies
as
the
poster
child
of
this
mania.
"The
S&P
500
stock
index
now
trades
at
about
22
times
the
coming
year's
profits,
according
to
FactSet,
a
level
only
exceeded
at
the
peak
of
the
dot-com
boom
in
2000."
And
the
shadlow
of
"Long-Term
Capital
Management"
is
all
over
Wall
Street.
May
8,
2021
An
unprecedented
fiscal
and
monetary
stimulus
led
by
the
Federal
Reserve
is
fueling
a
new
investor
euphoria.
Is
this
a
new
bubble?
And
when
could
it
burst?
To
veterans
of
financial
bubbles,
there
is
plenty
familiar
about
the
present.
Stock
valuations
are
their
richest
since
the
dot-com
bubble
in
2000.
Home
prices
are
back
to
their
pre-financial
crisis
peak.
Risky
companies
can
borrow
at
the
lowest
rates
on
record.
Individual
investors
are
pouring
money
into
green
energy
and
cryptocurrency.
This
boom
has
some
legitimate
explanations,
from
the
advances
in
digital
commerce
to
fiscally
greased
growth
that
will
likely
be
the
strongest
since
1983.
.
..
the
Federal
Reserve....
is
buying
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
of
bonds.
As
a
result,
the
10-year
Treasury
bond
yield
is
well
below
inflation
--
that
is,
real
yields
are
deeply
negative
--
for
only
the
second
time
in
40
years.
....Harvard
University
economist
Jeremy
Stein...
"while
I
don't
think
we're
headed
for
sustained
high
inflation
it's
completely
possible
we'll
have
several
quarters
of
hot
readings
on
inflation."
Since
stocks'
valuations
are
only
justified
if
interest
rates
stay
extremely
low,
how
do
they
reprice
if
the
Fed
has
to
tighten
monetary
policy
to
combat
inflation
and
bond
yields
rise
one
to
1.5
percentage
points,
he
asked.
"
You
could
get
a
serious
correction
in
asset
prices."
C
Cam
Dipalo
I
was
reading
a
book
from
the
late
1800
early
1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies
of
Democracy".
Describing
the
election
/
selection
process
of
political
leadership
in
America
(more
than
one
hundred
years
ago),
I
was
struck
by
"the
certitude
of
the
salary
[provided
by
office]
to
the
great
multitude
who
in
every
country
either
fail
in
life,
or
shrink
from
the
conflicts
which
the
competitive
system
makes
necessary,
is
very
attractive;
it
soon
converted
the
civil
service
into
what
has
been
called
"spoils";
that
is,
booty
won
by
victories
at
the
polls".
Roll
forward
one
hundred
years
and
we
can
only
be
in
a
worse
spot:
bigger,
more
complex
problems
are
being
addressed
by
even
less
qualified
individuals.
The
result
is
that
when
I
go
to
the
grocery
store
now,
I
am
paying
1.5x
what
I
used
to
pay
2
years
ago.
And
that
is
the
only
inflation
measure
I
trust.
Everybody
is
afiad
to
say
that
this
is
another
dot-com
bubble
which
will
eventually
birst.
Because
after
it
burst
there
will
be
a
lot
of
blood
on
the
floor.
But
the
current
situation
can
be
defined
as
a
crazy
financial
mania
with
cryptocurrencies
as
the
poster
child
of
this
mania.
"The
S&P
500
stock
index
now
trades
at
about
22
times
the
coming
year's
profits,
according
to
FactSet,
a
level
only
exceeded
at
the
peak
of
the
dot-com
boom
in
2000."
And
the
shadlow
of
"Long-Term
Capital
Management"
is
all
over
Wall
Street.
May
8,
2021
An
unprecedented
fiscal
and
monetary
stimulus
led
by
the
Federal
Reserve
is
fueling
a
new
investor
euphoria.
Is
this
a
new
bubble?
And
when
could
it
burst?
To
veterans
of
financial
bubbles,
there
is
plenty
familiar
about
the
present.
Stock
valuations
are
their
richest
since
the
dot-com
bubble
in
2000.
Home
prices
are
back
to
their
pre-financial
crisis
peak.
Risky
companies
can
borrow
at
the
lowest
rates
on
record.
Individual
investors
are
pouring
money
into
green
energy
and
cryptocurrency.
This
boom
has
some
legitimate
explanations,
from
the
advances
in
digital
commerce
to
fiscally
greased
growth
that
will
likely
be
the
strongest
since
1983.
.
..
the
Federal
Reserve....
is
buying
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
of
bonds.
As
a
result,
the
10-year
Treasury
bond
yield
is
well
below
inflation
--
that
is,
real
yields
are
deeply
negative
--
for
only
the
second
time
in
40
years.
....Harvard
University
economist
Jeremy
Stein...
"while
I
don't
think
we're
headed
for
sustained
high
inflation
it's
completely
possible
we'll
have
several
quarters
of
hot
readings
on
inflation."
Since
stocks'
valuations
are
only
justified
if
interest
rates
stay
extremely
low,
how
do
they
reprice
if
the
Fed
has
to
tighten
monetary
policy
to
combat
inflation
and
bond
yields
rise
one
to
1.5
percentage
points,
he
asked.
"
You
could
get
a
serious
correction
in
asset
prices."
C
Cam
Dipalo
I
was
reading
a
book
from
the
late
1800
early
1900s,
"Unforeseen
Tendencies
of
Democracy".
Describing
the
election
/
selection
process
of
political
leadership
in
America
(more
than
one
hundred
years
ago),
I
was
struck
by
"the
certitude
of
the
salary
[provided
by
office]
to
the
great
multitude
who
in
every
country
either
fail
in
life,
or
shrink
from
the
conflicts
which
the
competitive
system
makes
necessary,
is
very
attractive;
it
soon
converted
the
civil
service
into
what
has
been
called
"spoils";
that
is,
booty
won
by
victories
at
the
polls".
Roll
forward
one
hundred
years
and
we
can
only
be
in
a
worse
spot:
bigger,
more
complex
problems
are
being
addressed
by
even
less
qualified
individuals.
The
result
is
that
when
I
go
to
the
grocery
store
now,
I
am
paying
1.5x
what
I
used
to
pay
2
years
ago.
And
that
is
the
only
inflation
measure
I
trust.
One of the biggest risks to U.S. recovery is the difficulty aroun...
U.S. job growth significantly undershot forecasts in April, suggesting that difficulty
attracting workers is slowing momentum in the labor market and challenging the economic
recovery.
Payrolls rose 266,000 from a month earlier, according to a Labor Department report Friday
that represented one of the largest downside misses on record. Economists in a Bloomberg survey
projected a 1 million hiring surge in April.
The unemployment rate edged up to 6.1 per cent, though the labor-force participation rate
also increased.
... The disappointing payrolls print leaves overall employment more than 8 million short of
its pre-pandemic level and is consistent with recent comments from company officials
highlighting challenges in filling open positions.
... While job gains accelerated in leisure and hospitality, employment at temporary-help
agencies and transportation and warehousing declined sharply.
...
Labor force participation, a measure of the percentage of Americans either working or
looking for work, rose to 61.7 per cent in April from 61.5 per cent, likely supported by
increased vaccinations that helped fuel the reopenings of many retail establishments,
restaurants and leisure-facing businesses.
Average weekly hours increased to match the highest in records dating back to 2006. The gain
in the workweek, increased pay and the improvement in hiring helped boost aggregate weekly
payrolls 1.2 per cent in April after a 1.3 per cent gain a month earlier.
Workforce participation for men age 25 to 54 increased last month, while edging lower for
women.
...retail investors have been net buyers of stocks for 10 straight weeks, hedge funds have
been sellers, client data from BofA Global Research showed, with the four-week average of net
sales of equities by hedge funds hitting their highest levels since the firm began tracking the
data in 2008.
Just yesterday,
we showed that only a few quarters after banks effectively shut down, refusing to give out
C&I, credit card or auto loans and mortgages to virtually anyone as a result of record
Draconian credit standards, credit standards saw a complete U-turn and as of April, lending
standards for credit cards and autos were the loosest on record.
This was not lost on US consumers who after suffering through a miserable 12 months in which
they dutifully repaid their credit card debt like total idiots who acted responsibly (instead
of doing what US corporations are doing and loading up on even more debt to ensure they all get
bailed out during the next crisis), in March aggregate consumer credit surged by $25.8BN,
smashing expectations for the 2nd month in a row (
as a reminder February was the biggest beat on record ) and barely slowing down from last
month's massive $26.1BN increase.
... non-revolving credit - i.e., student and auto loans - continued its relentless ramp
higher, increasing by $19.4BN in March, the most since June of 2020...
Just a Little Froth in the Market 10 minutes ago
"Americans are once again highly confident about the future, and are spending far beyond
their means, as they always tend to do."
Ah no, they are using credit cards because they have no real money. Asinine article.
Archimedes bathwater PREMIUM 7 minutes ago
If Americans use their credit cards for the same stuff as last year, but everything costs
20% more, is that also called an explosion in consumer credit? MOAR WINNING??!
nsurf9 8 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
Well, the average revolving credit card rate is only 16%.
brian91145 12 minutes ago
lol so no one is working and everyone is using credit cards? Sounds like a great
economy!
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book, "Manias, Panics and
Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective because you can
justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a Harvard Business School professor
who has studied bubbles. He says another classic example was a 1920s boom in closed-end funds,
investment portfolios that trade on an exchange. Before the 1929 stock crash, issuance of
closed-end funds soared and the prices on the funds raced ahead of the underlying values of
their investment holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included Robert Knight,
who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and landed in an Antwerp
prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up his own investment Ponzi scheme
that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in borrowing.
"Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations helped fuel
mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector more than doubled from
$8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled from $7.2 trillion to $14.1
trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt in the
financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been rising more slowly
than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to $16.6 trillion, from $13.6
trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of an
unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C
Dogecoin is completely worthless in the grand scheme. Unlimited dogecoins can exist (first
red flag of many). It was created as a joke. Yet people are buying for one reason and one
reason only: They think someone will come behind them and pay even more. Until that stops
happening the sky is the limit. If this is not a sign of the bubble I do not knw what
is...
... ... ...
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book, "Manias, Panics and
Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective because you can
justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a Harvard Business School professor
who has studied bubbles. He says another classic example was a 1920s boom in closed-end funds,
investment portfolios that trade on an exchange. Before the 1929 stock crash, issuance of
closed-end funds soared and the prices on the funds raced ahead of the underlying values of
their investment holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included Robert Knight,
who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and landed in an Antwerp
prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up his own investment Ponzi scheme
that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in borrowing.
"Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations helped fuel
mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector more than doubled from
$8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled from $7.2 trillion to $14.1
trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt in the
financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been rising more slowly
than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to $16.6 trillion, from $13.6
trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of an
unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C curt meinecke
Whenever I got that panicked feeling that I was missing out on crazy returns (dot-com stocks
in the 90s, housing in the 2000s), it always ended with a crash. I got that feeling with
crypto currency. I know to resist the urge. I did.
Dogecoin is completely worthless in the grand scheme. Unlimited dogecoins can exist (first
red flag of many). It was created as a joke. Yet people are buying for one reason and one
reason only: They think someone will come behind them and pay even more. Until that stops
happening the sky is the limit. If this is not a sign of the bubble I do not knw what
is...
... ... ...
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book, "Manias, Panics and
Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective because you can
justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a Harvard Business School professor
who has studied bubbles. He says another classic example was a 1920s boom in closed-end funds,
investment portfolios that trade on an exchange. Before the 1929 stock crash, issuance of
closed-end funds soared and the prices on the funds raced ahead of the underlying values of
their investment holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included Robert Knight,
who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and landed in an Antwerp
prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up his own investment Ponzi scheme
that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in borrowing.
"Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations helped fuel
mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector more than doubled from
$8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled from $7.2 trillion to $14.1
trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt in the
financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been rising more slowly
than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to $16.6 trillion, from $13.6
trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of an
unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C curt meinecke
Whenever I got that panicked feeling that I was missing out on crazy returns (dot-com
stocks in the 90s, housing in the 2000s), it always ended with a crash. I got that feeling
with crypto currency. I know to resist the urge. I did.
Dogecoin is completely worthless in the grand scheme. Unlimited dogecoins can exist
(first red flag of many). It was created as a joke. Yet people are buying for one reason and
one reason only: They think someone will come behind them and pay even more. Until that stops
happening the sky is the limit. If this is not a sign of the bubble I do not knw what
is...
... ... ...
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book, "Manias, Panics
and Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective because you
can justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a Harvard Business School
professor who has studied bubbles. He says another classic example was a 1920s boom in
closed-end funds, investment portfolios that trade on an exchange. Before the 1929 stock
crash, issuance of closed-end funds soared and the prices on the funds raced ahead of the
underlying values of their investment holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included Robert Knight,
who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and landed in an Antwerp
prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up his own investment Ponzi
scheme that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in
borrowing. "Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations helped
fuel mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector more than
doubled from $8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled from $7.2 trillion to
$14.1 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt in the
financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been rising more slowly
than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to $16.6 trillion, from $13.6
trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of an
unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C curt meinecke
Whenever I got that panicked feeling that I was missing out on crazy returns (dot-com
stocks in the 90s, housing in the 2000s), it always ended with a crash. I got that
feeling with crypto currency. I know to resist the urge. I did.
Dogecoin is completely worthless in the grand scheme. Unlimited dogecoins can exist
(first red flag of many). It was created as a joke. Yet people are buying for one reason
and one reason only: They think someone will come behind them and pay even more. Until
that stops happening the sky is the limit. If this is not a sign of the bubble I do not
knw what is...
... ... ...
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book, "Manias,
Panics and Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective because
you can justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a Harvard Business
School professor who has studied bubbles. He says another classic example was a 1920s
boom in closed-end funds, investment portfolios that trade on an exchange. Before the
1929 stock crash, issuance of closed-end funds soared and the prices on the funds raced
ahead of the underlying values of their investment holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included Robert
Knight, who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and landed in an
Antwerp prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up his own investment
Ponzi scheme that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in
borrowing. "Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations helped
fuel mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector more than
doubled from $8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled from $7.2
trillion to $14.1 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt in the
financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been rising more
slowly than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to $16.6 trillion,
from $13.6 trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of an
unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C curt meinecke
Whenever I got that panicked feeling that I was missing out on crazy returns
(dot-com stocks in the 90s, housing in the 2000s), it always ended with a crash.
I got that feeling with crypto currency. I know to resist the urge. I did.
Dogecoin is completely worthless in the grand scheme. Unlimited dogecoins can
exist (first red flag of many). It was created as a joke. Yet people are buying for
one reason and one reason only: They think someone will come behind them and pay
even more. Until that stops happening the sky is the limit. If this is not a sign
of the bubble I do not knw what is...
... ... ...
Charles Kindleberger, the late MIT professor who wrote the popular book,
"Manias, Panics and Crashes," called such speculation and crisis a hardy
perennial.
"Periods of great innovation are interesting from an investor's perspective
because you can justify a wide range of valuations," says Robin Greenwood, a
Harvard Business School professor who has studied bubbles. He says another classic
example was a 1920s boom in closed-end funds, investment portfolios that trade on
an exchange. Before the 1929 stock crash, issuance of closed-end funds soared and
the prices on the funds raced ahead of the underlying values of their investment
holdings.
Swindlers are oftentimes attached to the financial boom, too. That included
Robert Knight, who helped cook the books of the South Sea Company, fled England and
landed in an Antwerp prison for a time. Then there was Bernie Madoff, who cooked up
his own investment Ponzi scheme that crashed in December 2008. He died in jail last
month.
.... The problem might be when investment in the vehicle is fueled by a surge in
borrowing. "Leverage is the killer," Mr. Buiter said.
That was certainly the case for the 2000s, when collateralized debt obligations
helped fuel mortgage borrowing. Between 2000 and 2008, debt in the financial sector
more than doubled from $8.7 trillion to $18 trillion; among households it doubled
from $7.2 trillion to $14.1 trillion, according to Federal Reserve data.
This time the pattern is different. Though government debt is rising fast, debt
in the financial sector remains below its 2008 peak and household debt has been
rising more slowly than in the 2000s. Between 2012 and 2020, household debt rose to
$16.6 trillion, from $13.6 trillion. That is something that gives Mr. Buiter some
peace of mind.
"There are signs, indicators of excess, but they haven't led us down the path of
an unsustainable credit boom yet," Mr. Buiter said.
C curt meinecke
Whenever I got that panicked feeling that I was missing out on crazy
returns (dot-com stocks in the 90s, housing in the 2000s), it always
ended with a crash. I got that feeling with crypto currency. I know to
resist the urge. I did.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
Sound of the Suburbs 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
They do try and just fool the masses.
If that doesn't work, they stick the boot in.
In the beginning ........
Mankind first started to produce a surplus with early agriculture.
It wasn't long before the elites learnt how to read the skies, the sun and the stars, to
predict the coming seasons to the amazed masses and collect tribute.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to
concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate
them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn
the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the
rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods and they were responsible for the bounty
of the earth and the harvests.
As long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
The class structure emerges.
Upper class – Do as little as they can get away with and get most of the rewards
Middle class – Administrative/managerial class who have enough to live a comfortable
life
Working class – Do the work, and live a basic subsistence existence where they get
enough to stay alive and breed
Their techniques have got more sophisticated over time, but this is the underlying
idea.
They have achieved an inversion, and got most of the rewards going to those that don't
really do anything.
As soon as anyone started thinking about this seriously, the upper class would be in
trouble.
The last thing they needed was "The Enlightenment" as people would start thinking about
this seriously.
Any serious attempt to study the capitalist system always reveals the same inconvenient
truth.
Many at the top don't create any wealth.
That's the problem.
Confusing making money and creating wealth is the solution.
The classical economists identified the constructive "earned" income and the parasitic
"unearned" income .
Most of the people at the top lived off the parasitic "unearned" income and they now had a
big problem. This problem was solved with neoclassical economics.
Neoclassical economics is a pseudo economics, which is more about hiding the inconvenient
truths discovered by the classical economists than telling you how the economy works.
Things had already gone horribly wrong by the 1930s.
In the 1920s, the economy had been booming, the stock market had been soaring and nearly
everyone had been making lots of money.
In the 1930s, they were wondering what the hell had just happened as everything had
appeared to be going so well in the 1920s and then it all just fell apart.
They needed a better measure to see what was really going on in the economy and came up
with GDP.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the
economy.
The rentiers are exposed again.
What they need to do is get neoclassical economics back again.
They wrap it in a new ideology, neoliberalism, so no one will notice the return of their
special economics.
@animalogic
respasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us ." is the translation presented in the
Revised Standard Version of the Bible. What is lost in translation is the fact that Jesus
came "to preach the gospel to the poor to preach the acceptable Year of the Lord": He came,
that is, to proclaim a Jubilee Year, a restoration of deror for debtors: He came to institute
a Clean Slate Amnesty (which is what Hebrew דְּרוֹר
connotes in this context).
It is quite possible to have balanced civilizations that lasts for thousands of years;
however it is impossible in the West, since the west is based on faulty assumptions about
reality.
I keep happening on these mentions of manufacturing jobs succumbing to automation, and I
can't think of where these people are getting their information.
I work in manufacturing. Production manufacturing, in fact, involving hundreds, thousands,
tens of thousands of parts produced per week. Automation has come a long way, but it also
hasn't. A layman might marvel at the technologies while taking a tour of the factory, but
upon closer inspection, the returns are greatly diminished in the last two decades. Advances
have afforded greater precision, cheaper technologies, but the only reason China is a giant
of manufacturing is because labor is cheap. They automate less than Western factories, not
more, because humans cost next to nothing, but machines are expensive.
@Rev.
Spooner ion and just start making shit up, then that probably qualifies as a "cult".
Bottom line, it's probably all in the eye of the beholder. If you're a true believer, then
it's a "religion". If you have neither belief in a religious species nor respect for its
adherents, then it's a "cult".
An alternative view might be that "religions" are based around life philosophies that
recognise a larger reality than we can perceive here in the material realm, whereas "cults"
probably not so much. The more enduring religions seem to have quite a legacy of spooky stuff
that so-called "modern science" might have difficulty in resolving (perhaps not so much
nowadays, seeing how "science" has become such an arbitrary discipline subject to social and
political whim).
"... Despite the fact that most moving-average-crossover signals provide some form of maximum loss reduction in comparison to a buy-and-hold strategy, their ability to outperform the underlying market is limited. Furthermore, the recent underperformance of such crossover signals since 2009 is a typical phenomenon rather than a temporarily one. This is because a negative crossover signal does not necessarily predict significant and longer-lasting downturns, or bear markets. Nevertheless, if investors are more focused on maximum draw-down reduction, such crossover signals are worth looking at, though they should definitely not be the sole source of information. ..."
Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not
necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
Moving-average-crossover strategies have worked out very well in recent years. They
prevented their followers from being invested in equities during the tech bubble and the
financial crisis. Nevertheless, most of those strategies have underperformed the broad
equity market since 2009. In this article, I will analyze all possible
moving-average-crossover signals for the S&P 500 since 1928, to see if these strategies
provide any value for investors.
Introduction
Mebane Faber's 2007 paper " A Quantitative Approach to
Tactical Asset Allocation " has become quite popular among the investment community. In
this paper, he demonstrated that a very simple 10-month moving average could be used as an
effective investment strategy. To be more precise, Faber used a 10-month moving average to
determine if an investor should enter or exit a position within a specific asset class.
When the closing price of any given underlying closes above its 10-month moving average (10
months is approximately 200 trading days), the investor should buy, and when the price
closes below the 10-month moving average, the investor should sell. As this strategy has
worked out very well in the past and is very easy to follow, many investors have adopted
similar moving-average-crossover strategies for their personal portfolios. A lot of
articles have been published about how to apply or improve on Faber's ideas.
Another famous moving-average-crossover pattern is called the "golden cross." It occurs
when the 50-day moving average of a specific underlying security crosses above its 200-day
moving average. The claim is that this signifies an improvement in the underlying trend
structure of any given security. Investors should move into cash if the golden cross turns
into a "death cross," in which the 50-day moving average crosses below the 200-day moving
average. Within the last decade, most of those moving-average-crossover strategies have
worked out very well, as shown in the chart below. This was mainly because those moving
average strategies prevented their followers from being invested in equities during the
tech bubble and the financial crisis.
Nevertheless, most of those crossover strategies have underperformed the broad equity
market since 2009, as shown in the chart below, where the payoff from the golden cross
since 2009 is depicted. This was mainly because we have not seen any longer-lasting
downturn since then.
The recent underperformance of such strategies is not a big surprise at all, as all
trend-following strategies are facing the typical "late in, late out" effect. Therefore,
such an approach can only outperform a simple buy-and-hold strategy during longer lasting
bear markets. However, many investors try to avoid the typical late-in-late-out effect by
choosing shorter moving-average combinations, which has, of course, the negative effect of
increased trading activities.
Despite the fact that those moving-average-crossover signals are quite popular, I have
not found any research paper that evaluates all possible moving-average-crossover
combinations to determine whether such strategies provide any additional value for
investors.
Methodology
Let's analyze all possible moving-average-crossover signals for the S&P 500 from
Dec. 31, 1928, until June 11, 2014, to get an unbiased view of the pros and cons of such
crossover signals. In addition, I would like to determine if the recent underperformance of
those crossover signals compared to a simple buy-and-hold strategy is typical or just a
temporary phenomenon. Moreover, I would like to find out if the outcome of a specific
crossover strategy tends to be stable or more random in its nature. For simplicity, I have
assumed a zero nominal rate of return if a specific strategy was invested in cash.
Moreover, in our example there is no allowance for transaction costs or brokerage
fees.
Results
In the following charts I analyze different kind of key metrics (z-axis), and the time
frame for each single moving average is plotted on the x and y axis, respectively. For
example, the key metric for the golden cross strategy (50:200) can be found if you search
the crossing point of the 50 day moving average (x-axis=50) and the 200 day moving average
(y-axis=200). I tested all combinations of lengths (in days) of moving averages crossing
over one another.
All moving crossover strategies provide some form of maximum loss reduction. If we
consider the fact that the biggest decline from the S&P 500 was 86% during the 1930s,
the main advantage of such strategies become quite obvious.
In total, there were only three combinations of days (70/75, 65/80 and 70/80) that faced
a maximum loss exceeding the maximum loss from the S&P 500. All other combinations
faced losses less than a typical buy-and-hold strategy. Especially in the range from 50/240
days to 220/240 days, the maximum loss ranged between -40% and 060%, which is quite an
encouraging ratio if we consider the 86.1% from the S&P 500. Moreover, as we can see
that in that region, this drawdown reduction was or tends to be quite stable over time --
this area can be described as a plateau. If this effect was a random variable within that
specific time range, there would have been many more spikes in that area. Therefore, small
adjustments within the time frames of any moving average are likely to have not a big
impact at all, regarding to this ratio. The case is quite different if we analyze the area
around 1/100 days to 1/200 days. In that area, small adjustments within the time frame of
each moving average could lead to quite different results and are therefore highly likely
to be random.
Another typical relationship is that as the number of trades increases, both moving
averages become shorter. This, of course, is due to transaction costs. For that reason,
most followers of such a strategy prefer a combination of short-term-oriented and
long-term-oriented moving averages to reduce the total number of trades.
If we focus on the annualized performance of those moving-average-crossover signals
since 1929, we can see that all combinations delivered a positive return since then. This
outcome is not a big surprise at all, as the S&P 500 has risen by nearly 8,000% since
then. Therefore, any continuous participation within the market should have led to a
positive performance.
Another interesting point is the historical ability of those crossover signals to
outperform a simple buy-and-hold strategy. In the second graph, we only highlighted those
moving-average-crossover combinations that have been able to outperform a buy-and
hold-strategy. We can see that the best combination (5/186) was able to generate a yearly
outperformance of 1.4% on average, with no transaction costs included. Nevertheless, we can
see a lot of spikes in that graph. Most outcomes are highly likely to be random by their
nature. For example, the 5/175 combination delivered a yearly outperformance of 1.3% on
average, while the 10/175 crossover outperformance was only 0.3% and the 20/175
underperformed the market by almost 0.5% on average.
Therefore, the outperformance of most crossover signals depends on pure luck. The case
is slightly different if we focus on the area between 1:100/ 200:240, as all combinations
in that range managed to outperform the S&P 500. The outperformance was quite stable
over time, as small adjustments within the timeframe of each moving average did not lead to
big differences in terms of outperformance. Nevertheless, the yearly outperformance in that
region was only 0.58% on average. Please bear in mind that I have not included any
transaction costs in our example.
Generating
absolute returns
Outperformance is just one side of the story. Investors might be also interested in
generating absolute rather than relative positive returns. I looked at the ability of any
moving-average-crossover combination to generate absolute positive returns. I analyzed how
many signals of each moving-average-crossover combination were profitable in the past,
expressed in percentage terms. A lot of combinations delivered long signals, which have
been profitable more than 50% of the time. The area around 50/120 days to 200/240 days
tends to be pretty stable, as the percentage of absolute positive signals is slowly
increasing to the top. It looks like some moving-average combinations have the ability to
forecast rising markets.
Unfortunately, this does not hold in most cases, as the percentage of absolute positive
signals strongly depends on the number of days each moving-average combination was invested
in the S&P 500. This becomes quite obvious if we consider that the S&P 500 has
risen slightly less than 8,000% since 1929. Any exposure to the market in that time period
is highly likely to produce a positive return! This effect can be seen on the second graph
below, which shows the average long-signal length of each moving crossover combination,
measured in days. If we compare both graphs, we can see a strong relationship between the
average signal length and the percentage of positive performing signals. Nevertheless, some
combinations tend to be better suitable for catching a positive trend than
others.
As any moving-average combination could only outperform the market during a
longer-lasting downturn, it is also interesting to examine how often a cash signal
(negative crossover signal) was able to outperform the market. In such a case, the S&P
500 must have performed negative during that specific time period. The ratio can be also
seen as the probability that a bearish crossover signal indicates a longer-lasting
downturn. As you can see in the graph below, the S&P 500 performed negative in less
than 50% of all cases after any moving-average-crossover combination flashed a bearish
crossover signal. In addition, the graph is extremely spiked, indicating that this poor
outcome tends to be completely random.
The bottom
line
Despite the fact that most moving-average-crossover signals provide some form of
maximum loss reduction in comparison to a buy-and-hold strategy, their ability to
outperform the underlying market is limited. Furthermore, the recent underperformance of
such crossover signals since 2009 is a typical phenomenon rather than a temporarily one.
This is because a negative crossover signal does not necessarily predict significant and
longer-lasting downturns, or bear markets. Nevertheless, if investors are more focused on
maximum draw-down reduction, such crossover signals are worth looking at, though they
should definitely not be the sole source of information.
Paul Allen is the head of quantitative/technical market analysis ofWallStreetCourier.com, an
independent research- and investment advisor for selected stock market information.
Last Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed how simple questions do not
always get simple answers. When speaking to the media after the latest Federal Open Market
Committee ( FOMC ) meeting,
some difficult questions were asked. So much so, Powell had to repeat one question to himself,
asking:
When will the economy be able to stand on its own feet?
He immediately followed with:
I'm not sure what the exact nature of that question is.
FOX News correspondent Edward Lawrence elaborated, asking when the Fed would lower the
number of treasuries it buys, and when the economy would function "without having that support
from the monetary side."
Powell found ways to avoid answering the idea of a nation which stands without central bank
supports, but he did refer to various "tests" the Fed will do in order to make decisions like
shrinking the balance sheet, explaining:
we've articulated our test for that, as you know, and that is just we'll continue asset
purchases at this pace until we see substantial further progress.
He went on to say that prior to making any decisions, such as buying fewer treasuries, they
will give the public a lot of notice beforehand.
There was also a question related to the Fed's influence in the housing market:
the housing market is strong, prices are up. And yet, the Fed is buying $40 billion per
month in mortgage related assets. Why is that, and are those purchases playing a role at all
in pushing up prices?
Despite amassing nearly $2.2 trillion of mortgage-backed securities
(MBS), Powell defended the central bank on the grounds that:
I mean, we started buying MBS because the mortgage-backed security market was really
experiencing severe dysfunction, and we've sort of articulated, you know, what our exit path
is from that. It's not meant to provide direct assistance to the housing market.
To be clear, the "severe dysfunction" occurred over a decade ago, when the Fed entered the
MBS market. As for the public knowing the exit path or not providing assistance to the housing
market, both ideas are highly debatable, to say the least.
But even more puzzling is when Powell says that during the current COVID crisis:
We bought MBS, too. Again, not intention to send help to the housing market, which was
really not a problem this time at all.
Strange, the Fed would commit to buying $40 billion a month of MBS when, according to the
Chair, there were no problems in the market. He concludes that purchases will go to zero over
time, but the "time is not yet."
The final question asked was in regards to market intervention:
if you get out of the markets, there aren't enough buyers for all of the Treasury debt?
And so, rates would have to go way up. Bottom line question is what do we get for $120
billion a month that we couldn't get for less?
Powell never explained what exactly "we get for $120 billion" a month, but assured us the
Fed was looking to reach its goals, and this was part of its plan. However, he did comment on
purchases, saying:
But if we bought less, you know, no. I mean, I think the effect is proportional to the
amount we buy And we articulated the, you know, the test for withdrawing that accommodation.
And we think, you know. So, we're waiting to see those tests to be fulfilled, both for asset
purchases and for lift off of rates. And, you know, when the tests are fulfilled, we'll go
ahead as, you know, we've done this before.
Between various tests to determine policy, vague responses, and a general avoidance of
answering questions directly, not much was offered other than providing perpetual liquidity
injections under accommodative monetary conditions. It was refreshing to see the mainstream
media ask more questions about the plan ahead; we can only hope the mainstream economic
community will do the same.
Janet Yellen caused market ructions when she noted in public that: "It may be that interest
rates will have to rise somewhat to make sure that our economy doesn't overheat, even though
the additional spending is relatively small relative to the size of the economy."
Firstly, because rates aren't the Treasury Secretary's job to comment on - EVER. Yes, there
is the same need for endless hockey-stick-projection optimism on growth, the same silken spiel,
and the same one-size-fits-all Panglossian policy prescriptions (of various vintages: Slash
taxes! Raise taxes!) in both roles: but there is a separation of powers between the two.
Secondly, because that very same Panglossian policy from the Fed has got global markets to
the point where the mere idea of small increase in US rates is going to bring a whole lot of
precariously-levered objects tumbling down. It's a good job that interest rates never, ever,
ever have to go up again then, isn't?
Naturally, Yellen immediately had to walk back these comments when qualifying that rate
increases " are not something that I am predicting or recommending ." So just what was the
correct verb then? Speculating? Hypothesizing? Imagining? Dreaming? Deluding?
For now, markets can happily seize on all of the usual Fed-driven speculative hypotheticals
to imagine, dream, and delude themselves to greater wealth as usual . US couples everywhere can
keep fantasizing that they too can one day get a billionaire divorce. Yet it's not as if Yellen
doesn't have just *a little* bit of experience in this rate field thing. It's not as if she
might not end up thinking a certain way on autopilot in the new job, and saying the quiet part
out loud – is it?
Of course, the question of who is driving applies to the Fed itself . Yellen added: "If
anyone appreciates the independence of the Federal Reserve I think that person is me." Yet
unlike the BOE, for example, the Fed allows US banks a major role (if not "ownership") in its
12 regional Reserve Banks, alongside balancing presidential appointees. So it a fusion body,
and even if it is independent of the Treasury, that is hardly true of all influence: the reason
for having 12 regional Reserve Banks was originally to water down that of Wall Street. Yet how
is that working out, and where are the union/labour representatives, for example? That's a
structural issue the US press doesn't talk about much even as much of it obsesses about power
structures everywhere else; but, sadly, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists more than compensate,
because that's their defined role.
Meanwhile, we all know the Powell Fed is still firmly in pedal-to-the-metal mode . Yellen
just agreed to stay in the back seat in that regard, even if her proposed fiscal policy is the
equivalent of winding down the window and sticking her head out of it, like a dog having a good
time, which should see any caring central bank driver reduce speed accordingly.
The question remains, however, as to exactly what is driving the massive surge in commodity
prices we are still seeing all round us? Headlines yesterday were that corn hit USD7 a bushel,
the highest since 2013. Today Bloomberg reports "Raw materials surging across tighter markets
and recovery; Consumer prices rising as manufacturers pass on higher costs." Once upon a time,
central banks used to do something when headlines like this were seen. So why no need to brake?
Because this is all transitory, as Powell and Yellen, at the second attempt, just
underlined.
But how so? Is it Covid-19 related? We already hear that semiconductor supply will be
pinched for years. Or perhaps it is all just happening "because markets", as seems to be the
general consensus? Or, just maybe, the Fed, and other major central banks, are also playing a
role via their pedal-to-the-metal liquidity? Another key driver is Wall Street realising
commodities are an inflation hedge too – even as that creates the inflation they are
trying to avoid. (Don't worry: they still get to eat. Others might not though.) Another is
China's voracious commodity appetite. (Don't worry: they still get to eat. Others might not
though.) One thing we can be sure of. Prices seem to be moving significantly higher, and not
just due to the expected base effects.
Ironically, the only way in which Powell --and Yellen-- can be sanguine about this is in the
knowledge that even if prices go up, US wages almost certainly won't. Yes, at the moment we are
anecdotally seeing US labour shortages as millions of previously low-paid workers prefer to
live off of their last stimulus cheque rather than report for the daily drudgery. But have you
heard any anecdotes of wages going up as a result – or rather of businesses closing down,
or automating? As has been repeated here many times, are the structures *really* being put in
place to support sustained higher wages? If not, it's just higher prices - and so lower real
wages.
I am not sure that the 12 regional Reserve Banks and those in DC are aware of what that will
feel like to Joe Public. More so if their logical response is to keep monetary stimulus high,
and so pushing real wages even lower. If mishandled, this could easily drive us off a cliff. As
such, who is really in the driver's seat?
3 play_arrow
Cloud9.5 3 hours ago (Edited)
Who is running the show? The front is the CIA. Who is behind it? A collection of
oligarchs.
Brill 3 hours ago
No mention of Rothschild?
No mention of Rockefeller?
Joe Bribem 2 hours ago
The biggest cockroaches are never mentioned.
Lordflin 3 hours ago remove link
Geopolitics are in the driver's seat...
The economy is along for the ride...
radical-extremist 2 hours ago
If Antifa had any brains (which they don't), they'd be marching and rioting against the
CIA and the Fed - not the Proud Boys, ICE and local police stations. They're fighting to tear
down the SYSTEM, and they don't even know what or where the SYSTEM really is.
PAsucks 2 hours ago
"I am not sure that the 12 regional Reserve Banks and those in DC are aware of what that
will feel like to Joe Public." It's called a lack of empathy, an important trait of
sociopaths. Federal Reserve is an arm of .gov - a criminal organization.
Apollo Capricornus Maximus 2 hours ago
The unelected Council of Foreign Relations kleptocratic oligarchy is in charge of the
kinetic and psychological manipulation of Western finances and zeitgeist. The Federal
Reserve, CIA, National Security state, MSM, Congress all report and obey this criminal cabal
of whom every member should be hung by the American people.
Last Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed how simple questions do not
always get simple answers. When speaking to the media after the latest Federal Open Market
Committee ( FOMC ) meeting,
some difficult questions were asked. So much so, Powell had to repeat one question to himself,
asking:
When will the economy be able to stand on its own feet?
He immediately followed with:
I'm not sure what the exact nature of that question is.
FOX News correspondent Edward Lawrence elaborated, asking when the Fed would lower the
number of treasuries it buys, and when the economy would function "without having that support
from the monetary side."
Powell found ways to avoid answering the idea of a nation which stands without central bank
supports, but he did refer to various "tests" the Fed will do in order to make decisions like
shrinking the balance sheet, explaining:
we've articulated our test for that, as you know, and that is just we'll continue asset
purchases at this pace until we see substantial further progress.
He went on to say that prior to making any decisions, such as buying fewer treasuries, they
will give the public a lot of notice beforehand.
There was also a question related to the Fed's influence in the housing market:
the housing market is strong, prices are up. And yet, the Fed is buying $40 billion per
month in mortgage related assets. Why is that, and are those purchases playing a role at all
in pushing up prices?
Despite amassing nearly $2.2 trillion of mortgage-backed securities
(MBS), Powell defended the central bank on the grounds that:
I mean, we started buying MBS because the mortgage-backed security market was really
experiencing severe dysfunction, and we've sort of articulated, you know, what our exit path
is from that. It's not meant to provide direct assistance to the housing market.
To be clear, the "severe dysfunction" occurred over a decade ago, when the Fed entered the
MBS market. As for the public knowing the exit path or not providing assistance to the housing
market, both ideas are highly debatable, to say the least.
But even more puzzling is when Powell says that during the current COVID crisis:
We bought MBS, too. Again, not intention to send help to the housing market, which was
really not a problem this time at all.
Strange, the Fed would commit to buying $40 billion a month of MBS when, according to the
Chair, there were no problems in the market. He concludes that purchases will go to zero over
time, but the "time is not yet."
The final question asked was in regards to market intervention:
if you get out of the markets, there aren't enough buyers for all of the Treasury debt?
And so, rates would have to go way up. Bottom line question is what do we get for $120
billion a month that we couldn't get for less?
Powell never explained what exactly "we get for $120 billion" a month, but assured us the
Fed was looking to reach its goals, and this was part of its plan. However, he did comment on
purchases, saying:
But if we bought less, you know, no. I mean, I think the effect is proportional to the
amount we buy And we articulated the, you know, the test for withdrawing that accommodation.
And we think, you know. So, we're waiting to see those tests to be fulfilled, both for asset
purchases and for lift off of rates. And, you know, when the tests are fulfilled, we'll go
ahead as, you know, we've done this before.
Between various tests to determine policy, vague responses, and a general avoidance of
answering questions directly, not much was offered other than providing perpetual liquidity
injections under accommodative monetary conditions. It was refreshing to see the mainstream
media ask more questions about the plan ahead; we can only hope the mainstream economic
community will do the same.
ReadyForHillary 1 hour ago
When will the economy be able to stand on its own feet?
He immediately followed with:
I'm not sure what the exact nature of that question is.
HA HA HA HA!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
CovidBannedTard 1 hour ago
C'mon man!!!
Lordflin 1 hour ago
The entire point to the Fed is to fail to answer tough questions...
no cents at all 1 hour ago
Or doublespeak. The fed probably has a talented linguistics department at their employ
Paul Bunyan 1 hour ago (Edited)
What they have always said is moronic. Yet the world is full of morons, so the people
can't see through the lies.
Miniminer1 1 hour ago
Not a confidence builder
SDShack 1 hour ago (Edited)
Good god, how many 'you know' responses did Powell have? Sounds like some brain dead
zoomer...'it's like, you know, complicated, and like, you know, we are working on it.' A
complete 'Emperor has no clothes' moment. And these are supposed to be the smartest people on
the planet. Clueless or just evil liars. Or both.
mtl4 53 minutes ago
I'll take both for $1000 Alex
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 1 hour ago
The Fed intervenes everyday, all day, because they have to. There is no market without the
Fed.
CovidBannedTard 1 hour ago
You know!!!....The Thing!!!
C'mon Man!!
Paul Bunyan 1 hour ago (Edited)
The game is almost over. The dollar has 1-2 years left before a complete monetary reset.
Make sure you get out soon. You won't want to make last minute decisions.
JOHNLGALT. 1 hour ago
My last minute decision is:
1). Do I buy Ounces?
2). Do I buy Kilograms?
🦍🦍🚀🚀🚀😂🤣😎.
Emmet Fitz-Hume 1 hour ago
Powell, Greenspan, et al are just word-salad machines
Why should seniors and retirees be sacrificed with ZIRP in order to advance the interests
of the US Treasury and Corporate borrowers?
I would call it elder abuse. He should be required to address this question. Let's have
the Press do their job
Ben A Drill 41 minutes ago
Why should anyone gamble with their hard earned money to keep up with inflation?
AhabQuixote 50 minutes ago
This is a ponzi scheme in plain sight. It is as if Bernie Madoff told his clients that his
firm is a scam but a scam is the only way the system can function. It will all be fixed at
some point in the future when pigs fly.
nuerocaster 29 minutes ago
You may think that the Mises Institute and Rabo Bank are idiots. But think how hard it is
to present all this as managerial error and make stupendous wealth transference and money
laundering sound like oopsie.
archipusz 1 hour ago
Why even ask.
They are going to print. Congress wants them to print. All the elite benefit from the
printing.
It is not going to stop.
JOHNLGALT. 1 hour ago
WE will stop them!!
We are a community that loves Silver, Period. 72.4k. Silverbacks. 2.2k. Online now Created
29 Jan 2021.
Go SILVERBACKS 🦍🦍🦍🦍.
This is a movement to bring the
🐍🐍🐍BANK$TER$🐍🐍🐍DOWN.
Biden the moron dictator doesn't like to answer questions either
ChromeRobot 47 minutes ago
Basically, if you haven't figured it after 108 years, these clowns don't have the
slightest clue what they're doing or worse....do.
Revolution_starts_now 1 hour ago
Do you prefer GITMO or SuperMax?
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 17 minutes ago
I'll take GITMO. Nonsmoking, non-vaccinated, section please.
CrabbyR 1 hour ago (Edited)
Politicians and banker's first language is bafflegab
Misesmissesme 1 hour ago (Edited)
Answers? We ain't got no answers! We don't need no answers! I don't have to give you any
steenking answers!
Backhandslicer 23 minutes ago
Life support? They have created a monster and the monster is ravaging the country side
Backhandslicer 25 minutes ago
Powell is thinking I'm a currency printing machine and all the chicks dig me I shouldn't
have to answer any questions
Backhandslicer 35 minutes ago
Powell sounds like the absent minded janitor
Backhandslicer 36 minutes ago (Edited)
Eliminate the central bank and use only metals as money with paper currency withdrawable
for any of the metals at any bank or credit union
CosmoJoe 35 minutes ago
Seriously? I haven't carried cash in years. I don't want to. I don't want to carry a bunch
of gold and silver around in a little money sack. It isn't the f&cking middle ages.
zorrosgato 31 minutes ago
A paper currency backed by gold would work fine enough.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE 18 minutes ago
Would cement bricks painted gold work well enough if we never allowed anybody to test gold
samples to verify authenticity?
That's what Fort Knox is, right?
MOU
Backhandslicer 26 minutes ago
Does a 100 dollar bill in your pocket give you a rash?
CosmoJoe 19 minutes ago
I wouldn't know, I don't carry $100 in my pocket.
permanent victim 55 minutes ago
The fed will be all powerful till the world abandons the dollar. Until then they will
print shamelessly
Ben A Drill 48 minutes ago
Understand the free masons and you will see how much evil is in the world.
Realism 1 hour ago
The list of paid liars keeps growing
VWAndy 1 hour ago
Why shouldnt they be hung from lamp posts is a valid question too.
Rainman 1 hour ago
By now we all know the bankster-owned Fed and the US Treasury are one and the same
entity.
Old Hickory twitches in his grave...
dlfield 1 hour ago
A: Why never, because then I would be out of a job.
sarret PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Here's a difficult question Powell. Do you identify more with a disabled penguin or a gay
orangutan? Get it wrong and you will be cancelled ya numpty.
JohnnyCrypto 19 seconds ago
Yeah, MadeofTheta was right!
It's over!
ClamJammer 2 minutes ago
Learned everything he knew about not answering questions from Pompeo........we lie, we
steal, we cheat.........
permanent victim 10 minutes ago
As long as the markets are up I am doing what I am getting paid to do
cowdiddly 14 minutes ago
Ummm....errrr... Questions? We don't need no stinking questions.
IDESofMARCH 16 minutes ago remove link
FED policy picks and chooses which busines fails and which makes all the money.
FED kills Ma and Pa Bus DEAD, Wall Mart, HD, Chain Restaurants and Dollar Stores all
having a good time raising prices.
Banks including Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and UBS are focused on hedge funds with very concentrated
positions, including those that attempt to increase their returns by borrowing a significant
amount of money, fund managers said. Some are running stress tests to see where they could have
shortfalls if some of a fund's positions precipitously drop. Newly empowered credit-risk
departments are reviewing clients with portfolios that are far more diversified than
Archegos's.
Several banks are starting to rework agreements with a number of clients to change the terms
of equities total-return swaps, said prime-brokerage executives and advisers to funds.
Total-return swaps are derivative contracts that helped Archegos anonymously amass huge
positions across multiple lenders, without the knowledge of those lenders and with little money
upfront. Archegos's collapse has sparked calls for tougher regulation of such swaps.
Swaps give their holders exposure to the profits and losses of the securities underlying the
agreements but not ownership. In the case of Archegos, for example, the family office had swap
agreements with multiple banks giving it exposure to ViacomCBS Inc. But the banks actually held
the shares.
As things stand now, some margin requirements are fixed. Going forward, some clients will be
regularly required to post additional collateral based on the changing market value of their
portfolios or factors such as increases in volatility or concentration. Many swaps agreements
already have such a margin requirement, though some larger clients with more negotiating power
don't.
Elizabeth Schubert, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP who advises hedge-fund clients on
negotiating their trading relationships with dealers, said she has seen several banks recently
move to look at a client's cash and swaps positions together when determining the collateral
required.
For dealers, "it gives them more control from a risk-management perspective -- but clients
lose a lot of control and transparency about the margin they have to post," Ms. Schubert said.
She added that fund managers who lived through the failure of Lehman Brothers, which tied up
some funds' assets for years, remain wary about posting more than a minimal amount of
margin.
Several banks, including Morgan Stanley, have spoken with clients about fully or partly
terminating swaps, said people briefed on the conversations. Such moves could help lower the
lenders' exposure to swaps and in instances reduce the leverage a fund is using.
Banks including Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and UBS are focused on hedge funds with very concentrated
positions, including those that attempt to increase their returns by borrowing a significant
amount of money, fund managers said. Some are running stress tests to see where they could have
shortfalls if some of a fund's positions precipitously drop. Newly empowered credit-risk
departments are reviewing clients with portfolios that are far more diversified than
Archegos's.
Several banks are starting to rework agreements with a number of clients to change the terms
of equities total-return swaps, said prime-brokerage executives and advisers to funds.
Total-return swaps are derivative contracts that helped Archegos anonymously amass huge
positions across multiple lenders, without the knowledge of those lenders and with little money
upfront. Archegos's collapse has sparked calls for tougher regulation of such swaps.
Swaps give their holders exposure to the profits and losses of the securities underlying the
agreements but not ownership. In the case of Archegos, for example, the family office had swap
agreements with multiple banks giving it exposure to ViacomCBS Inc. But the banks actually held
the shares.
As things stand now, some margin requirements are fixed. Going forward, some clients will be
regularly required to post additional collateral based on the changing market value of their
portfolios or factors such as increases in volatility or concentration. Many swaps agreements
already have such a margin requirement, though some larger clients with more negotiating power
don't.
Elizabeth Schubert, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP who advises hedge-fund clients on
negotiating their trading relationships with dealers, said she has seen several banks recently
move to look at a client's cash and swaps positions together when determining the collateral
required.
For dealers, "it gives them more control from a risk-management perspective -- but clients
lose a lot of control and transparency about the margin they have to post," Ms. Schubert said.
She added that fund managers who lived through the failure of Lehman Brothers, which tied up
some funds' assets for years, remain wary about posting more than a minimal amount of
margin.
Several banks, including Morgan Stanley, have spoken with clients about fully or partly
terminating swaps, said people briefed on the conversations. Such moves could help lower the
lenders' exposure to swaps and in instances reduce the leverage a fund is using.
Are we suppose to believe that Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, et al, were
really blindly investing billions with a family office? Is it really true that the head of
the office had had his brokerage license taken away by the SEC and only recently restored by
the Trump administration?
Goldman Sachs apparently knew enough to pull their money out in time.
The real issue is whether investment bankers were taking advantage of the less stringent
regulation of a family office in order to manipulate the markets. Manipulation like the
creation of short squeezes on target stocks. Is that even legal?
Banks including Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and UBS are focused on hedge funds with very concentrated
positions, including those that attempt to increase their returns by borrowing a significant
amount of money, fund managers said. Some are running stress tests to see where they could have
shortfalls if some of a fund's positions precipitously drop. Newly empowered credit-risk
departments are reviewing clients with portfolios that are far more diversified than
Archegos's.
Several banks are starting to rework agreements with a number of clients to change the terms
of equities total-return swaps, said prime-brokerage executives and advisers to funds.
Total-return swaps are derivative contracts that helped Archegos anonymously amass huge
positions across multiple lenders, without the knowledge of those lenders and with little money
upfront. Archegos's collapse has sparked calls for tougher regulation of such swaps.
Swaps give their holders exposure to the profits and losses of the securities underlying the
agreements but not ownership. In the case of Archegos, for example, the family office had swap
agreements with multiple banks giving it exposure to ViacomCBS Inc. But the banks actually held
the shares.
As things stand now, some margin requirements are fixed. Going forward, some clients will be
regularly required to post additional collateral based on the changing market value of their
portfolios or factors such as increases in volatility or concentration. Many swaps agreements
already have such a margin requirement, though some larger clients with more negotiating power
don't.
Elizabeth Schubert, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP who advises hedge-fund clients on
negotiating their trading relationships with dealers, said she has seen several banks recently
move to look at a client's cash and swaps positions together when determining the collateral
required.
For dealers, "it gives them more control from a risk-management perspective -- but clients
lose a lot of control and transparency about the margin they have to post," Ms. Schubert said.
She added that fund managers who lived through the failure of Lehman Brothers, which tied up
some funds' assets for years, remain wary about posting more than a minimal amount of
margin.
Several banks, including Morgan Stanley, have spoken with clients about fully or partly
terminating swaps, said people briefed on the conversations. Such moves could help lower the
lenders' exposure to swaps and in instances reduce the leverage a fund is using.
Are we suppose to believe that Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, et al, were
really blindly investing billions with a family office? Is it really true that the head of
the office had had his brokerage license taken away by the SEC and only recently restored
by the Trump administration?
Goldman Sachs apparently knew enough to pull their money out in time.
The real issue is whether investment bankers were taking advantage of the less stringent
regulation of a family office in order to manipulate the markets. Manipulation like the
creation of short squeezes on target stocks. Is that even legal?
Neoliberals policies for minority students in education can be called “the soft bigotry
of low expectations.”
Racists want discrimination based on race; wokesters want discrimination based on race too.
One in the name of bigotry, one in the name of “tolerance.” Does the motive really
matter if the outcome is the same?
Notable quotes:
"... the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is testament to white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination ..."
My uncle did admissions at Cambridge and he actively discriminated against Public School
boys, despite being one himself. He was actually involved in hiring that black woman to be
the Master at Christ's College.
Similarly at Citi it was very obvious any remotely competent black was promoted way beyond
there competency, although that was largely limited to back and middle office roles.
Still the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is
testament to white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination and the free market
at work.
"... Hiring is a lot more complex and constrained, than this writeup suggests. In stacks of resumes that I used to review, I found almost all applicants exaggerate or lie. ..."
"... Employers (or the ones the future worker will work directly "" like local manager) are in the majority of cases DO NOT hire directly. ..."
"... There is either a staffing firm/ recruitment firm between, often also a different websites (for job seekers) which only redirects towards those. ..."
"... The problem with the HR/ recruitment firms/ jobseeker websites themselves. They dictate who will work somewhere. ..."
"... It's a new world of fraud, total fraud. Biden is an absurd fraud. They are all frauds, because actual accomplishments, real work, are so very much more difficult than lies. ..."
"... There's nothing new under the sun. It's always been fraud, flimflam and bamboozle. Somebody once said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. But, then again, he could have just been fooling around. ..."
Hiring is a lot more complex and constrained, than this writeup suggests. In stacks of resumes that I used to review, I found almost all applicants exaggerate or lie. That was very problematic,
because once you hire a person, it's hard to get rid of them, even with "at-will" employment.
There is a major problem with the article/ whole employment process:
Employers (or the ones the future worker will work directly "" like local manager) are in the majority of cases DO NOT
hire directly.(Respect for the ones, who do.)
There is either a staffing firm/ recruitment firm between, often also a different websites (for job seekers) which only
redirects towards those.
Also many company have a HR department, etc... The problem with the HR/ recruitment firms/ jobseeker websites themselves.
They dictate who will work somewhere.
Wish to be workers should meet directly with the ones they supposed to work for.
To see whether racial discrimination exists, researchers send the same CV to employers with the same level of qualifications
but different names attached, to see if the foreign-sounding names lead to a greater degree of rejection. They often find that
to be the case.
Given that British blacks most often bear British sounding names and that foreign whites too bear foreign sounding names, I
don't see how the difference in treatment can be put down to racial bias. Moreover, I don't see anything wrong in giving precedence
to compatriots over foreigners. It is the opposite that is unsound.
As a French national with a foreign sounding name, I never expected to be given precedence over native French candidates and
always counted solely on my competence to get a position. If the world we live in were still normal, that would be the normal
attitude because in a normal world people are allowed to prefer their kin vs folks they don't know from Adam. It is the opposite
that isn't normal.
Discard national preference and you get foreign tribes' nepotism.
researchers send the same CV to employers with the same level of qualifications but different names attached, to see if
the foreign-sounding names lead to a greater degree of rejection. They often find that to be the case.
Because it's a lose-lose to hire a Tyrone or Abdul. Even if they're the most qualified, they're "high-maintenance," arriving
with extra-legal protections and considerations. Down the road they can always hide behind the specter of racism if their performance
is found lacking.
It's a new world of fraud, total fraud. Biden is an absurd fraud. They are all frauds, because actual accomplishments,
real work, are so very much more difficult than lies.
Indians are fantastic fraudsters. Africans are fraud specialists. Many Asians are not so much CV fraudsters as they are test
cheaters.
Agreed as they do it in Swiss. They prefer to employ their folk, if find a suitable person and wait up to 6 months before consider
an outlander. Only then ready to employ someone else.
BUT: Will not employ a dullard just because they share a citizenship/ ancestors. About 20% are foreigners among the employed,
in Geneva probably most of the employed.
And this is strictly the opposite what is common in many place (and self-appointed "nationalists" demand): No matter how incompetent
but employ the dullard native, while send home the competent/ hardworking.
Against meritism/ competition and bad for business.
There are plenty of dishonest Europeans, but honesty as a high value seems Western. Subcons caught in a lie will grin and do
a head waggle something between a nod and a shake. Blacks will insist the lie is true. East Asians will lie until you demonstrate
they cannot get away with it. Latin Americans only lie when they speak.
There's nothing new under the sun. It's always been fraud, flimflam and bamboozle. Somebody once said, you can fool all
of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. But, then again,
he could have just been fooling around.
big institutions are currently selling into strength.
2) May and June (especially the second half of June) tend to be challenging months for the
market. After the first week of May, approximately 80% of S&P 500 companies will have
reported their earnings. The news cycle will then shift away from fundamentals to politics,
interest rates, and any geopolitical concerns. Speaking of interest rates, as the economy
slowly gets back to normal, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 10-year yield return to its
levels from January 2020 (around 1.8%-2.0%). If this happens, it will lead to further
compression in the multiples of growth stocks.
3) The IRS deadline for filing tax returns was extended this year to May 17. We will likely
see tax selling prior to this because 2020 was a strong year for the markets, and many people
will have capital gains taxes to pay by this date. On a related note, the new administration
seems determined to raise taxes, specifically capital gains taxes. I don't believe they will
get any of these new proposals approved, but the continuous headlines could keep some pressure
on the market over the near-term.
4) The S&P 500 ( ^GSPC ) historically averages a 10% return per
year. So far this year, it is up over 11%. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see a normal
correction or some technical digestion before heading higher later in the year. Also, since
1980, the average intra-year correction is -14.3%.
5) A few sentiment measures are showing high levels of bullishness. For example, the latest
NAAIM Exposure
Index , which measures exposure by active investment managers, is at its highest level in
over two months. Any minor pullback would shake out some of this excess bullishness, as
investors are still quick to rush out the door when the market starts to drop.
Art 14 hours ago The major fundamental issue now is the soon-to-be-obvious inflation triggered
by the six trillion dollar man and the always wrong federal reserve policies. Ultimately,
fundamentals decide stock market valuations. Reply 13 2 Allen 1 day ago If Apple's earnings
couldn't lift the market then nothing will. Look the market is near or at all time highs and
valuations are stretched to say the least. The easy money has already been made the current
risk reward is to the downside. The market is way overdue for at least a 10-20% correction
which would be healthy. "As they say... stairs up elevator down." Reply 7 1 EmEs 1334 14 hours
ago Several things wrong with the article. First, some Biden taxes will pass, because budget
reconciliation process works for taxing and spending. Not clear whether they will be
retroactive or when they will take effect, but I'd say next year. People with gains might be
induced to sell this year to take advantage of disappearing low cap gains rates - and selling
puts downward pressure on the market. Very little about that, here. Very little here about
fundamentals, like stretched P/E or CAPE ratios. Very little here about the tremendous amount
of money in the system from the Fed and from the fiscal stimulus bills that are pushing the
market higher, both because of more money chasing assets and because of expectations that the
economy will launch into hyper-drive because of the stimulus. Instead, this guy just thinks
that prices return to a mean of 10% per year - many years it is more and many it is less, so
that is no measure at all. Infantile analysis. But he could be right about the run-up running
out of steam. It certainly would be nice if the froth was skimmed off because I'd like a buying
opportunity and buying any stocks at these prices is pretty crazy. I'd by TAIL. Reply 4
DoublinDown 1 day ago Think you nailed it. Quality growth stocks selling off after great ER's
points to weakness underneath. This doesn't bode well for the overall market in the near term.
Bullying is an epidemic. It is rampant, widespread, pervasive and the effects can be
catastrophic. It occurs in our communities, in our schools – and sadly – even in
our homes. Bullying statistics are staggering, scary and merit serious consideration and
immediate action. Consider the following:
Facts and Statistics
90% of students in grades 4-8 report having been harassed or bullied.
28% of students in grades 6-12 experience bullying. 2
20% of students in grades 9-12 experience bullying. (stopbullying.gov)
In grades 6-12, 9% of students have experienced cyberbulling. 2
Over 160,000 kids refuse to go to school each day for fear of being bullied. (Nation
Education Association)
70.6% of students report having witnessed bullying in their school–and over 71% say
bullying is a problem.
Over 10% of students who dropout of school do so due to being bullied repeatedly.
Each month 282,000 students are physically assaulted in some way in secondary schools
throughout the United States–and the number is growing.
Statistics suggest that revenge [due to bullying] is the number one motivator for school
shootings in the U.S.
86% of students surveyed said, "other kids picking on them, making fun of them or
bullying them" is the number one reason that teenagers turn to lethal violence at
school.
Nearly 75% of school shootings have been linked to harassment and bullying.
87% of students surveyed report that bullying is the primary motivator of school
shootings.
64% of students who are bullied do not report it. (Petrosina, Guckenburg, Devoe and
Hanson 2010)
2 National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice
Statistics
Types of Bullying
When most people think about bullying they envision some kind of physical intimidation.
However, bullying can take on many forms which are just as emotionally and psychologically
damaging as physical intimidation and harassment. There are four general forms of bullying.
These include:
Physical – Physical bullying involves aggressive physical intimidation and is
often characterized by repeated tripping, pushing, hitting, kicking, blocking, or touching
in some other inappropriate way. Even though it's the most obvious form of bullying, it
isn't the most prominent.
Physical bullying is damaging and can be emotionally and psychologically devastating.
When a child fears for their safety, they're not able to focus on life and function
normally. Notwithstanding the trauma that physical bullying causes, most children don't
report it to a teacher or to their parents. Signs of physical bullying may include
unexplained scratches, bruises, and cuts, or unexplainable headaches or stomach aches.
However, the psychological effects of physical bullying may be even more pronounced than
the physical scars. Children who are withdrawn, struggle to focus, or become anti-social
may also be the recipients of physical bullying–even if there aren't any other
outward signs.
If you think your child or student is being bullied physically, talk to them in a casual
manner about what's going on before school, during class, during lunch or recess, and on
the way home from school. Ask them if anyone has been, or is being, mean to them. Keep your
emotions in check, and stay calm and caring in your tone, or your child may shut off and
not tell you what's happening. If you find that physical bullying is occurring, contact the
appropriate school officials, or law enforcement officers – there are anti-bullying
laws at the local, state and federal levels. Do not confront the bully, or the bully's
parents, on your own.
Verbal – Verbal bullying involves putting down others and bullying them using
cruel, demeaning words. Verbal bullying includes name calling, making racist, sexist or
homophobic remarks or jokes, insulting, slurs, sexually suggestive comments, or abusive
language of any kinds. Verbal bullying is one of the most common forms of bullying.
So how do you know when a child is being verbally bullied? They may become moody,
withdrawn, and/or have a change in their appetite. They may be straight forward and tell
you that somebody said something that hurt their feelings, or ask you if something someone
said about them is true.
Verbal bullying can be difficult to address. The best way to deal with verbal bullying
is to build childrens' self confidence. Confident kids are less susceptible to verbal
bullying than those who already struggle with poor self esteem and self image. Students
should be taught in the classroom to treat everyone with respect and that there is never an
excuse for saying something mean or disrespectful to someone else.
Social – Social bullying is a common form of bullying among children and
students. It involves exclusion from groups, spreading malicious rumors and stories about
others, and generally alienating people from social acceptance and interaction. Next to
verbal bullying, social bullying is one of the most common forms of bullying.
Social bullying can be one of the hardest forms of bullying to identify and address
– but it's just as damaging as other forms of bullying, and the effects can last a
long time. Children being bullied socially may experience mood changes, become withdrawn,
and start spending more time alone. Social bullying is more common among girls than
boys.
The best way to identify social bullying is to stay close to your kids and maintain an
open line of communication. Talk to them nightly about how their day went and how things
are going in school. Focus on building their self esteem and get them involved in
extracurricular activities outside of school such as team sports, music, art and other
activities where they develop friendships and interact with others.
Cyberbullying – Cyberbullying is the least common type of bullying, but it can
be just as damaging as other forms of bullying. It includes any type of bullying that
occurs via the Internet or through electronic mediums. The most common types of
cyberbullying include:
Text message bullying
Picture/video clip bullying via mobile phone cameras
Email message bullying
Bullying through instant messaging
Chat-room bullying
Bullying via websites
Children who are being cyberbullied typically spend more time online or texting. They
often frequent social media sites such as facebook, twitter, etc. If a child or student
seems upset, sad or anxious after being online, especially if they're visiting social media
websites, it may be a sign they're being cyberbullied. Kids and students who are
cyberbullied exhibit many of the same characteristics as kids being bullied physically,
verbally or socially. They may become withdrawn, anxious, distant, or want to stay home
from school.
Cyberbullying can occur 24/7, so the best way to combat cyberbullying is to monitor
Internet usage and limit time spent on social media websites. Children need to know that if
they encounter cyberbullying they shouldn't respond, engage, or forward it. Instead, they
need to inform their parents or a teacher so the communication can be printed out and taken
to the proper authorities. When cyberbullying includes threats of violence or sexually
explicit content, law enforcement should be involved.
Where Does Bullying Occur?
The majority of bullying occurs at school, outside on school grounds during recess or after
school, and on the school bus – or anywhere else students interact unsupervised. Bullying
may also occur at home between siblings or in the community where kids congregate.
Cyberbullying takes place online and via digital communication devices.
* Bradshaw, C.P. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences
between students and school staff. 36(3), 361-382.
Anti-bullying Laws and Policies
Currently, there aren't any Federal anti-bullying laws. However, state and local lawmakers
have taken steps to prevent bullying and protect the physical, emotional and psychological well
being of children. To date, 49 states have passed anti-bullying legislation. When bullying
moves into the category of harassment, it then becomes a violation of Federal law. Criminal
code as it relates to bullying by minors varies from state to state. The map below shows the
states that have established anti-bullying laws, anti-bullying policies, and both anti-bullying
laws and policies.
Probably $25 an hour or $50K a year is more realistic. Part time jobs are even better to hem to avoid money crunch and at the
same time continue to look for an IT job. Might be a viable option for younger healthy IT specialists. CDL course from a
reputable truck driving school is around $3500 and they
provide you a truck for the DMV exam, but you can try self-study and might pass written exam from a second try as there is nothing
complex in the test, saving half of those money.
Notable quotes:
"... What's happening, he said, is that drivers are looking at the fact that they can make $70,000 'and stay home a little more.' ..."
"... To put the numbers in perspective, Todd Amen, the president of ATBS, which prepares taxes for mostly independent owner-operators, said in a recent interview with the FreightWaves Drilling Deep podcast that the average tax return his company prepared for drivers' 2020 pay was $67,500. He also said his company prepared numerous 2020 returns with pay in excess of $100,000. ..."
David Parker is the CEO of Covenant Logistics and he was blunt with analysts who follow the
company on its earnings call Tuesday.
'How do we get enough drivers? ' he said in response to a question from Stephens analyst Jack Atkins. 'I don't know.'
Parker then gave an overview of the situation facing Covenant, and by extension other
companies, in trying to recruit drivers. One problem: With rates so high, companies are
encountering the fact that a driver doesn't need to work a full schedule to
pull in a decent salary.
'We're finding out that just to get a driver, let's say the numbers are $85,000 (per year) ,' Parker said,
according to a transcript of the earnings call supplied by SeekingAlpha. '
But a lot of these drivers are happy at $70,000. Now they're not coming to
work for me, unless it's in the ($80,000s), because they're happy making $70,000.'
What's happening, he said, is that drivers are looking at the fact that they can make $70,000 'and stay home a little
more.'
The result is a tightening of capacity. Parker said utilization in the first quarter at Covenant was three or four percentage
points less than it would have as a result of that development. ' It's an interesting dynamic that none of
us have calculated,' he said.
To put the numbers in perspective, Todd Amen, the president of ATBS, which prepares taxes
for mostly independent owner-operators, said in a
recent interview with the FreightWaves Drilling Deep podcast that the average tax return
his company prepared for drivers' 2020 pay was $67,500. He also said his
company prepared numerous 2020 returns with pay in excess of $100,000.
Parker was firm that this was not a situation likely to change soon. 'There's nothing out there that tells me that drivers are
going to readily be available over the medium [term in] one to two years,' he said. 'And that's where I'm at.'
Paul Bunn, the company's COO and senior executive vice president, echoed
what other executives have said recently:
Additional stimulus benefits are making the situation tighter. He said that while offering some hope that as the benefits roll
off, 'that might help a bit.'
But what the government giveth the government can sometimes taketh away. Bunn expressed another familiar sentiment in the
industry today, that an infrastructure bill adding to demand for workers would create more difficulty to put drivers behind the
wheel. Construction, Bunn said, is 'a monster competitor of our industry' and if the bill is approved, 'that's going to be a big
pull.'
Labor is going to be a 'capacity constraint' through the
economy, Bunn said, while conceding that trucking is not unique in that. And because of that
labor squeeze, capacity in many fields is going to be limited. ' The OEMs,
the manufacturers are limited capacity ,' Bunn said. 'They're not ramping up in a major, major way because of labor, because of
commodity pricing, because of the costs.'
All that means is that capacity growth is going to be
'reasonable,' Bunn said. 'It's not going to be crazy, people growing fleets [by] significant amounts.'
'It's all you can do just to hold serve, '
he added.
Leftists reacted with fury after Fox News host Tucker Carlson said people who wear masks
outside should be mocked and that parents who made their kids wear them were engaging in "child
abuse."
Carlson noted that masks were "purely a sign of political obedience like Kim Il-Sung pins in
Pyongyang" and that the only people who voluntarily wear masks outside are "zealots and
neurotics."
He then asserted that the tables should be turned on Biden voters who have been harassing
conservatives for almost a year for not wearing a mask in public.
"The rest of us should be snorting at them first, they're the aggressors – it's our
job to brush them back and restore the society we were born in," said Carlson.
"So the next time you see someone in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not
hesitate. Ask politely but firmly, ' Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there
is no reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable, " he added.
"We should do that and we should keep doing it until wearing a mask outside is roughly as
socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator."
The Fox News host went on to call mask wearing "repulsive" while asserting that forcing
children to wear masks outside should be illegal.
"Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from
your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact
Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives," Carlson said.
"What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt
to prevent it," he added.
As expected, Carlson immediately began trending on Twitter, with hysterical leftists
hyperventilating over Tucker once again challenging their cult. Many called for the Fox News
host to be fired while others ludicrously described him as a "national security threat."
As we
highlighted yesterday , even Dr. Fauci now admits that the risk of vaccinated people
spreading COVID outside is "minuscule," and yet some health professionals are pushing for the
mask mandates to be made permanent.
The transmission of COVID-19 outdoors is almost non-existent, making mask mandates merely a
political tool of population control.
In a recent open letter to the German government and state premiers, five leading members of
the Association for Aerosol Research (GAeF) wrote, "The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
takes place indoors almost without exception. Transmission outdoors is extremely rare and never
leads to cluster infections as can be observed indoors."
Why the us government did not fund this type of mask for all is telling what the overall
strategy is.
Controlling you, your neighbor, and others that think for themselves.
Its not about the virus
Robert Neville 7 hours ago
Actually, M95 masks filter out 95% of particles over 4 microns in diameter in perfect
conditions. In the real world it is much less effective than that. Viruses are generally less
than one micron in size so they are ineffective for most viruses. Also, the masks are so hard
to breath through that some version have an exhale valve so they do nothing to protect others
if you are infected. Most masks don't protect your eyes. The only thing that works is a space
suit that is decontaminated before you remove it. The rest is virtue siganling.
Properly fitted n95's do protect against virus and the science proves it.
Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)
This is an excerpt from the "Stanford Study" from November 2020 (that's been making the
rounds in the alternative media and conservative media space recently) about the uselessness
of masks in preventing "the virus":
A meta -analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical
mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or
influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28] . Using
separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta -analysis found no protective
effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28] . A recent
systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings
(self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks
and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like
illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community
settings [29] .
It's predictable that the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to "fact check" and
disparage the entire paper (do an internet search for 'Stanford Mask Paper' and you'll see
what I'm talking about). Their main criticism is 'that wasn't published by Stanford', while
they totally ignore the claims made in the paper. When you look at the people and
organizations doing the fact checking it really shows that the entire mask issue is a
political/control ploy. Here's the link to the entire paper if anyone is interested:
From comments: " Tucker is right on this one. If you wear a mask outside you truly are a
moron. You may as well add goggles and a butt plug." ... "Don't forget about those solo drivers
with masks on!", "Maskers are stupid scared virtue signalers"
As an anti-mask militant for quite a while now I've been going out of my way to ask people
with masks on outdoors why they're wearing one (I've really tried to be polite but it's
getting increasingly hard to do that). In literally hundreds of instances I haven't gotten a
straight answer yet. It's stunning that people are so gullible but it shows what the power of
propaganda really is. 99% of that is coming from teevee, which truly rots your brain.
Capt Tripps 10 hours ago remove link
They are signaling the submission to a tyrannical state. That submission makes us all less
free.
safelyG 10 hours ago
mister tucker is wrongeddy wrong wrong.
we must all wear multiple masks. indoors. outdoors. at work. at play. while we sleep.
while we bathe. while we eat. while we sing praises unto the most high.
and we must remain 8 feet apart, one from the other. at all times.
and report our whereabouts and our contacts and our body temperature. to the
authorities.
get your vacines!
lovingly,
bill n melinda
radical-extremist 10 hours ago
When Tucker Carlson says to tell people to take off their masks and call CPS on parents
who mask their children he's trolling the Left. And because the Left has no sense of humor or
irony or hypocrisy...they're of course OUTRAGED, which was his point.
Realism 10 hours ago remove link
I like it best when hiking outside, in 75 degree weather with a nice breeze, you see
people put up their mask as they walk by
Pure comedy, it's hard to understand the stupidity if you think you'll get any disease
much less Covid walking by someone
And importantly, would you really be hiking if you had Covid LOL
aztrader 10 hours ago
Mask wears see it as a badge of honor because they "care" about other people. In reality,
it's a badge of Stupidity and ignorance.
Prince Velveeta 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
California is an open-air mental ward. I was just out there and the collective idiocy is
astounding. People jogging with masks on , exaggerating their breathing as they pass you in
some competitive virtue signaling event. I witnessed some idiot jogging up the hill past my
family member's house, with a bandana on his face, being sucked into his mouth as he's
gasping for air.....
I said: Okay, I get it, if you lend them the money, then they can pay. This is like a
Ponzi scheme: you lend the investors enough to pay the interest and keep current. That
was my introduction to how the balance of payments worked between the United States and the
third world and how political the whole credit problem was.
Free markets are only free for parasites and usurers to run their schemes. Lolbertarianism
is an ideology of our (((friends))), and I think its adherents are dupes. I no longer think
they are well meaning dupes either, they have a personality defect, where they lack
empathy.
Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic
Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the
information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no
meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.
Analysis: US
blinks first on Russia-Ukraine tensions
Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The
New York Times on the so-called
“Bountygate†story the outlet broke in June of last year
about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in
Afghanistan.
“One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story
(originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence
officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,†Greenwald
tweeted .
“So media outlets - again - repeated CIA stories with no questioning:
congrats to all.â€
Indeed, NYT’s original
story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only
“officials,†yet this latest article speaks as though it had
been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the
lying, torturing , drug-running , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New
York Times
first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s
assessment,†with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no
mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA
was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.
The Daily Beast , which has itself uncritically published many articles
promoting the CIA “Bountygate†narrative, reports the
following:
It was a blockbuster
story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great
Game†in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central
Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry
from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the
White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had
“low to moderate†confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the
story is, at best, unproven â€" and possibly untrue.
So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of,
because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning.
They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.
In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories
to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy
agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!†and the
news media unquestioningly publish it.
In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “ The CIA and the Media
†reporting that the CIA had
covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had
over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as
Operation Mockingbird . It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to
report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the
agendas of spooks and warmongers.
Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too
propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New
York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news
pundits . The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor ,
and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence
agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets
now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper,
Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha
Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash,
Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known
CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are
CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like
Tucker Carlson.
This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse.
Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the
CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even
any pretence of separation, has been dropped.
This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if
people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear
understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if
their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government
they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most
powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to
the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power
structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in
disguise.
And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements
of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific
things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just
a glance at what the CIA was up to with the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.
There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government
agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil
things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by
mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is
comfortable, and for literally no other reason.
The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements
of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of
psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the
thoughts we think in our own heads.
May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is
to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter , or
throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi , Patreon or Paypal . If you want to read more you can buy
my books . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying
to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
The current market melt-up is taken as nearly risk-free because the Fed has our back , i.e. the Federal Reserve will intervene
long before any market decline does any damage.
It's assumed the Fed or its proxies, i.e. the Plunge Protection Team, will be the buyer in any freefall sell-off: no matter how
many punters are selling, the PPT will keep buying with its presumably unlimited billions.
"They (financial firms) failed to recognize that market liquidity is largely a function of the degree of investors' risk aversion,
the most dominant animal spirit that drives financial markets. But when fear-induced market retrenchment set in, that liquidity
disappeared overnight, as buyers pulled back. In fact, in many markets, at the height of the crisis of 2008, bids virtually disappeared."
For the uninitiated, bids are the price offered to buyers of stocks and ETFs and the ask is the price offered to sellers. When
bids virtually disappear , this means buyers have vanished: everyone willing to buy on the way down (known as catching the falling
knife ) has already bought and been crushed with losses, and so there's nobody left (and no trading bots, either) to buy.
When buyers vanish, the market goes bidless , meaning when you enter your "sell" order at a specific price (limit order), there's
nobody willing to buy your shares at the current price. The shares remains yours all the way down.
If you decide to just get out at any price and place a market order (sell at whatever the bid is offered), your $100 per share
stock might sell for $5 a share. This is known as a flash crash , and astute punters have observed that these are becoming more common.
When markets go bidless, the predictable order flow of low-volume days goes out the window. On a typical low volume day (and all
days are low volume recently), the spread between bid and ask is modest in heavily traded issues and sellers can be confident their
sell order will execute in a few seconds. In a freefall sell-off, sell orders pile up and the bid plummets to levels that were considered
"impossible" in low-volume days.
What Greenspan didn't discuss is the trading bots that do most of the trading have been programmed to be risk averse . In a real
sell-off, why catch the falling knife by hitting the bid on the way down? That's a guaranteed way to either lose money or ending
up a bagholder .
Humans have a default setting for risk aversion: it's called panic. Once the euphoric comnfidence that the Fed will never allow
the market to fall by more than a few percentage points is broken, it's not replaced by rational risk assessment; it's replaced by
full-blown just-get-me-out panic.
The Plunge Protection Team works just fine on low-volume days, but it fails when a tsunami of selling washes away the bid. Though
few seemed to notice, massive selling volume begets more selling as the bots' risk aversion kicks in.
Ironically, the mass migration of retail punters into the market has introduced a heightened potential for panic selling. The
wild swings in Gamestock (GME) earlier in the year were a sneak preview of what can happen as panicked newbies enter market sell
orders.
Euphoric punters forget that many of the players are leveraged, meaning that they're using borrowed money (margin debt) to buy
more stocks. Should the market drop instead of rebounding, their account will fall below minimum requirements and they will have
to add cash or sell stocks. When buy the dip fails, those with margin calls add to the selling.
Other limits can manifest in cryptocurrency trading. When most trades are buys, few notice the fine print on exchange sell orders
in crypto wallets and exchanges. Prices may be guaranteed for a limited time (for example, 10 minutes), and there may not be an option
for limit orders. If the order doesn't execute before the time limit expires, then the order to sell executes at whatever bid is
offered.
There's also no guarantee that your sell order will execute in a timely manner. A reader recently sent me a screenshot of an exchange
of a top 100 (by market cap) cryptocurrency for Bitcoin that took almost 2 hours to execute. (The reader passed on using the Lightning
Network after reading the disclosures.)
Exchanges may limit the number of coins per exchange. In other words, the implicit assumption that punters can unload their entire
position at the current bid may prove unfounded in heavy sell volume days.
The point here is bottlenecks can emerge in heavy sell volume days that traders did not anticipate. The possibility that markets,
brokerage platforms and exchanges could break and simply cease to function isn't on anyone's radar, despite various bits of evidence
that a breakdown isn't as farfetched as punters currently assume.
Ten minutes is more than enough time for supreme, euphoric confidence to crumble into panic , and trading bots can pull their
buy orders in 10 milliseconds.
This is why the big players distribute their shares to overly confident retail punters over many weeks. Big players know there
is no way they can dump their entire position without crushing the bid, so they sell in bits and pieces all the way up the euphoric
melt-up.
The issue isn't just the price you get when you sell--it's being able to get out of your position at all. A strange phenomenon
occurs in freefall sell-offs: the exit door (i.e. the liquidity that allows you to liquidate your entire position at the current
bid) suddenly shrinks from a barndoor to a mouse-sized hole in the baseboard.
Nobody thinks a euphoric rally could ever go bidless, but as Greenspan belatedly admitted, liquidity is not guaranteed . In a
real tsunami of trading-bot selling, the Plunge Protection Team's card table is no match for the sea of selling.
Risk aversion can go from zero to 200 faster than overconfident punters believe possible.
Archegos is a Greek word denoting leadership. The place where the eponymous family office
led UBS, and a growing roll call of investment banks, was into a morass.
"... That is, the premium for commodities that can be delivered now versus later into the future is the highest it has been since at least 2007, signaling just how strong the world's demand is for raw materials and how tight supplies are. ..."
For an idea of exactly how strong the fundamentals are for commodities such as metals, agriculture and oil today, consider this:
These markets are now showing the steepest backwardation in more than 14 years.
That is, the premium for commodities that can be delivered now versus later into the future is the highest it has been since
at least 2007, signaling just how strong the world's demand is for raw materials and how tight supplies are.
In commodities markets, futures are frequently pricier at longer maturities because they reflect the cost of carrying inventories
over time as well as future demand expectations. But urgent demand has flipped about half of major commodity markets tracked by the
Bloomberg Commodity Index including oil, natural gas, copper, soybeans into backwardation.
When the Federal Open Market Committee begins its two-day meeting on Tuesday, it ought to
consider whether its policies aimed to bolster housing may be having negative side effects.
With the market for new and existing homes red hot, the rationale for subsidizing the mortgage
market has largely passed. Indeed, the Fed’s policies may be hurting home
affordability as much as they’re helping.
"... Deluard points out that the level of stock gains we are seeing now is unprecedented, with one exception: the Great Depression. After passing 4,000 points for the first time this month, the S&P 500 is on track to soon double its COVID-19 pandemic low of 2,237 points 14 months ago. ..."
"... individual investors have been throwing money at the market while insiders are getting out. An unprecedented $105 billion flowed into U.S. equity exchange-traded funds in the last eight weeks, Deluard says. Meanwhile, the strategist says equity offerings raised a record $262 billion in the first quarter and Nasdaq insiders sold $41.5 billion in the past three quarters. ..."
"... The strategist also points to inflation as a worrying sign. He believes the argument that COVID-19 is distorting inflation is flawed, and that the current level of inflation, such as in commodity prices, represents more than normalization from the pandemic shock ..."
Our
call
of the day
, from strategist Vincent Deluard at broker StoneX, takes a close look at the big question hovering above these
recent market gains. Are we seeing a new roaring economic cycle that started in March 2020, or “the spectacular apotheosis of a
decade plus-long expansion and overvalued bull market�
The strategist uses “the duck test†â€" which follows from the saying, “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a
duck, then it probably is a duck.†His conclusion isn’t good news for stocks.
Deluard points out that the level of stock gains we are seeing now is unprecedented, with one exception: the Great Depression. After
passing 4,000 points for the first time this month, the S&P 500 is on track to soon double its COVID-19 pandemic low of 2,237 points
14 months ago.
There have been 12 major bear markets in the last century, according to Deluard, and stock prices never doubled in the ensuing rally
after five of them. In the seven cases where stock prices in the post-bear market doubled, it took an average of four years.
“There is only one precedent in history for such a rapid doubling, when U.S. stocks doubled between June and September 1932,â€
Deluard says. “A 40% correction quickly followed, and then another 100% + rally in a confusing sequence of brutal bear markets and
dazzling rebounds which lasted until the battle of Stalingrad turned the fate of World War II.â€
Another troubling sign is that the recent, spectacular rebound in corporate earnings amid the wider economic recovery from the
pandemic hasn’t led to a rise in share buybacks, which are still 30% below pre-pandemic levels, according to Deluard. “As a result,
the total shareholder yield (buybacks & dividend divided by market cap) of U.S. large-caps is at its lowest level in a generation,â€
Deluard says.
Further to that,
individual investors have been throwing money at the market while insiders are getting out. An unprecedented $105
billion flowed into U.S. equity exchange-traded funds in the last eight weeks, Deluard says. Meanwhile, the strategist says equity
offerings raised a record $262 billion in the first quarter and Nasdaq insiders sold $41.5 billion in the past three quarters.
Chart via StoneX.
The strategist also points to inflation as a worrying sign. He believes the argument that COVID-19 is distorting inflation is
flawed, and that the current level of inflation, such as in commodity prices, represents more than normalization from the pandemic
shock
The last point Deluard makes is that banks’ loan-to-deposit ratio has collapsed to 50%, which is half of its pre-2007 levels. This
is a red flag for “trapped kinetic energy†that will be unleashed by steeper yield curves, stronger demand for loans, and other
factors, according to the strategist. Deluard notes that the big four banks would need to issue an additional $2.1 trillion in loans
to return to the pre-pandemic loan-to-deposit ratio average.
“Inflation is the 800-pound gorilla that will kill this aging bull,†Deluard says.
Would you pay more than 100 million dollars for a single deli in rural New Jersey that had
less than $36,000 in sales during the last two years combined? I know that sounds like a
completely ridiculous question, but the stock market apparently thinks that deli is worth that
much. On Thursday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 34,000 for the first time in
history, and investors all over the country cheered. But this financial bubble is not real. It
is a giant mirage that is built on a foundation of fraud.
Einhorn Sees
Broken Markets in N.J. Deli’s $105 Million Valuation
Investors have lost all touch with reality, and in this sort of euphoric environment a small
deli in rural New Jersey can literally be valued
at more than 100 million dollars …
The Paulsboro, New Jersey-based Your Hometown Deli is the sole location for Hometown
International, which has an eye-popping market value despite totaling $35,748 in sales in the
last two years combined, according to securities filings.
“Someone pointed us to Hometown International (HWIN), which owns a
single deli in rural New Jersey … HWIN reached a market cap of $113
million on February 8. The largest shareholder is also the CEO/CFO/Treasurer and a Director,
who also happens to be the wrestling coach of the high school next door to the deli. The
pastrami must be amazing,†Einhorn said in a letter to clients published
Thursday.
For young people getting ready to graduate from high school and go to college,
don’t waste your time.
Just open up a small deli and go public.
Soon you will be a multi-millionaire.
Alternatively, you could start a fake cryptocurrency as a joke and watch it become worth
billions of dollars.
The digital currency Dogecoin surged by more than 85 percent so far this week in thrilling
scenes for fans of the bizarre coin. Launched in 2013 and created by Jackson Palmer and Billy
Markus as a joke, the cryptocurrency has never seen the highs of rival coins like bitcoin,
which is currently worth $63,531.49. But a growing fanbase has helped kickstart the meme
coins value, and today has seen the prices skyrocket.
Looking at it objectively, I don’t know why any rational investor would
ever put one red cent into Dogecoin.
But in 2021, rational investors are being left in the dust, and those that foolishly rush in
are getting filthy rich.
Coinbase was briefly valued at as much as $100 billion in its Nasdaq debut Wednesday, a
landmark event for the cryptocurrency industry. The stock closed at $328.28 per share,
valuing Coinbase at $85.8 billion on a fully diluted basis.
Don’t you wish that you would have been the one to launch Coinbase?
Of course all of these absurd valuations are just temporary.
This bubble will inevitably pop, and those that did not sell at the top of the market will
be kicking themselves.
In the financial markets, enormous fortunes are being won and lost all the time, but none of
this is real.
What is real are the riots that are happening in our streets on a nightly basis. Last night,
rioters “waved
a pig’s head†at police officers in
Minnesota…
DAUNTE Wright protesters waved a pig’s head at cops as chaos again
erupted in Brooklyn Center, with hundreds storming the police station.
Demonstrators came out for the fourth night in a row since Wright, 20, was fatally shot by
police officer Kim Potter during a traffic stop on Sunday.
A prominent activist who supports the Black Lives Matter movement has appeared to support
violent protests, arguing that rioting and looting are ‘a legitimate,
politically-informed response to state violence’.
Bree Newsome, 35, made the passionate remarks in a series of tweets this week, arguing
that police are not limited to non-violence, and that a violent response to injustice can be
appropriate and justified.
Homeless men lie on the sidewalk while others wearing blankets and rags loiter on a street
strewn with garbage, feces, and drug paraphernalia along the notorious Kensington Avenue drag
in Philadelphia.
Video posted online on March 10 shows people living out of suitcases on the sidewalks in
the area adjacent to the entrance to the Somerset train station along the Market-Frankford
train line while others openly brandish needles.
Cardboard boxes with trash bags stacked on top of them lie feet away from the entrances to
various pawn shops, check-cashing stores, delis, and bodegas.
The financial bubble that we are experiencing right now will go away, but the problems on
our streets are not going away.
But if you don’t want to believe this, go ahead and pour your life
savings into Hometown International or Dogecoin and see what happens.
You only make money in the markets if you get out in time, and time is quickly running out
for those that have put their faith in this financial bubble.
* * *
Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The
Future Of America†is now available in paperback and for the
Kindle on Amazon.
Educated_Redneck 12 hours ago (Edited)
This article is late by 13 years (i.e. 2008 financial crisis) or dare I say 49 years (i.e.
1972 leaving the gold standard) or maybe 108 years (i.e. 1913 FED creation). Pick your
favorite year.
Lordflin 12 hours ago
Our civilization is now run on fraud...
People expect fraud... depend on it... entire industries are built around it...
What hasn't fraud touched...?
chunga 12 hours ago
A few years ago I was semi-obsessed with looking for it. If you look you will see it is
literally everywhere. It is what it is.
Lordflin 12 hours ago
Sadly...
In too many situations over the past thirty years it has come looking for me...
From my experience in education to my experience at the hands of the justice system here
in Idaho...
And I have been trying to mind my own business... imagine what I could accomplish if I
were actually looking for trouble...
Kreditanstalt 12 hours ago (Edited)
They're not "filthy rich" until they successfully sell their Dogecoins to some other
fool...which might one day become difficult.
It's a Ponzi scheme and only the early entries get rich
truthseeker47 12 hours ago
I would not call it a bubble; looks more like a Ponzi Scheme to me.
"... In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime example. ..."
"... The parallel in the stock market is the hunt for the greater fool . Sure, GameStop shares bear no relation to the reality of the company, but I can make money from buying an overpriced stock if I can find someone willing to pay even more because they 'like the stock.' ..."
"... The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools and prices quickly drop back. ..."
In Minsky's second stage, borrowers plan only to repay the interest, and
refinance when the main debt is due to be repaid; much company debt works like this. It is
taken out with a plan to roll it over indefinitely. Interest rates matter a lot: If they go
down when the company needs to refinance, it will pay less.
The equity parallel is to gains in valuation due to lower long-term rates. As with corporate
debt, this is entirely justified and sustainable so long as rates stay low, because future
earnings are now more appealing. The danger is that rates rise, in which case the stock might
be hit no matter how earnings pan out.
A big chunk of the gains in stocks in the past year came from the sharply lower rates in the
first response to the pandemic when the Federal Reserve flooded the system with money.
Price-to-forward-earnings multiples soared. From the S&P 500's low on
March 23 to the end of June, the market went from 14 to more than 21 times estimated earnings
12 months ahead, even as those estimated earnings fell amid lockdown gloom. The yield on the
10-year Treasury, already down sharply from mid-February's high, fell
further as stocks rebounded.
In Minsky's third phase, borrowers take loans where they can't afford to pay either the interest or principal from income, in the
hope of capital gains big enough to make up the gap. Land speculators are a prime
example.
The parallel in the stock market is the
hunt for the greater fool . Sure, GameStop shares
bear no relation to the reality of the company, but I can make money from buying an overpriced stock if I can find someone
willing to pay even more because they 'like the stock.'
Wild bets became obvious this year, as newcomers armed with stimulus, or 'stimmy,' checks
drove up the price of many tiny stocks, penny shares and those popular on Reddit discussion
boards.
The concern for investors: How much of the market's gain is thanks to
this pure speculation, and how much to the justifiable gains of the improving economy and low
rates? If too much comes from speculation, the danger is that we run out of greater fools
and prices quickly drop back.
Builders are struggling to construct new homes given an ongoing lumber shortage. Without more homeowners listing, buyers are scrambling
to compete for the limited number of homes on the market, which continues to drive prices up to new heights.
Warren Buffett on Saturday said RobinHood and other trading apps were contributing to the
"casino aspect" of the stock market, which has grown more prevalent over the past year to
year-and-a-half. In response to a question about the trading apps at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s
annual meeting, Buffett said that while there was nothing illegal or immoral about short-term,
speculative trading activity, "I don't think you build a society around people doing it."
Vice Chairman Charlie Munger expressed stronger misgivings, calling it "just godawful that
something like that would draw investment from civilized men and decent citizens; it's deeply
wrong. We don't want to make our money selling things that are bad for people."
My uncle did admissions at Cambridge and he actively discriminated against Public School
boys, despite being one himself. He was actually involved in hiring that black woman to be the
Master at Christ's College. Similarly at Citi it was very obvious any remotely competent black
was promoted way beyond there competency, although that was largely limited to back and middle
office roles.
Still the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is testament to
white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination and the free market at work.
Trying to guess when the bubble burst is fools game. But the fact support the idea that this
is a huge bubble.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fake earnings, fake GDP, fake interest rates and super-high valuations' make for an increasingly untenable situation, he warns. The expanding market bubble has been building since 2008. But the Federal Reserve keeps averting the next huge crisis by continuously 'printing money,' declares the Harvard Business School MBA. ..."
"... It's the riskiest market since 1929. The difference is that '29 wasn't as global. This is an everything bubble. And with the $1.9 trillion fiscal stimulus bill, we're wiling to stimulate 40-something percent of GDP just to prevent a slowdown in the economy. That's going to go down in history as the most insane thing ever. They'll say, 'What were they smoking?' ..."
"... The next crash will be worse than the last one because it will come from higher levels and [plummet] to lower levels. ..."
"... If you're willing to take more risk, you'll have one bucket in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds and maybe in a few other good governments, like Sweden or Australia. Triple-A corporate could go in there too. Then you'll have another bucket '" of short stocks, not leveraged. ..."
"... Jeremy Grantham [GMO co-founder] said [on Jan. 5] this level of euphoria means you're within months '" not years '" of a major bubble peak. You're at the end. ..."
"... The only reason people are spending is because the government handed businesses and consumers tons of money. But it will get to a point where it's not going to matter how much money is printed '" and then you'll have an avalanche. A huge collapse is coming. ..."
"... Loans will fail by the boatload. Then money disappears. That causes bank and business failures. We have to get all the financial leverage, financial assets and debt out of our economy. Twenty percent of public companies are zombies. They can't even pay their debt service in a growth economy. ..."
That's what 'The Contrarian's Contrarian, as Dent has been dubbed, tells ThinkAdvisor in an interview.
The strategist correctly called Japan's 1989 bubble bust and recession,
the dot-com crash and the populist swell that made Donald Trump president.
What could be 'the biggest crash ever,' he argues, will hit by the end of June, if not sooner. It will be 'the initiation of the next
big economic downturn,' Dent predicts.
'Fake earnings, fake GDP, fake interest rates and super-high
valuations' make for an increasingly untenable situation, he warns. The expanding market bubble has been building since 2008.
But the Federal Reserve keeps averting the next huge crisis by continuously 'printing money,' declares the
Harvard Business School MBA.
His HSD Publishing, an independent research firm, generates monthly newsletters that he and
Rodney Johnson, HSD president, each write.
In the interview, Dent delivers his prescription for investing amid the weakened economy and
impending disaster, as he sees it: Zero in on long-term Treasurys.
'What's better than sleeping with 30-year Treasury
bonds,' he exults. They'll 'magnify your money.'
He then describes a portfolio allocation for the investor that's 'willing to take more risk.' As for
the notion of high inflation, 'no way in hell,' he says.
Dent, whose latest book is ' What to Do When the
Bubble Pops: Personal and Business Strategies for the Coming Economic Winter '
(G&D Media-April 2020), also tells ThinkAdvisor his considered opinions on cryptocurrency
('a big trend long term'), the GameStop frenzy
('stupid but admirable') and Sen. Elizabeth
Warren's wealth tax bill ('First of all, those assets are
going to crash.')
ThinkAdvisor interviewed Dent on March 5. He was speaking by phone from his base in San
Juan, Puerto Rico, where he has resided for the last several years. When the conversation
pivoted to folks who attack him for his frequently inaccurate predictions, he offered some
choice words and an explanation, then described key indicators he employs that show 'very clear cycles.'
Here are highlights of our interview:
THINKADVISOR: How much risk is there in the stock market right now?
HARRY DENT JR.: It's the riskiest market since 1929. The
difference is that '29 wasn't as global. This is an
everything bubble. And with the $1.9 trillion fiscal stimulus bill, we're
wiling to stimulate 40-something percent of GDP just to prevent a slowdown in the economy.
That's going to go down in history as the most insane thing ever.
They'll say, 'What were they smoking?'
Please elaborate on the extent of the risk you see.
This may be the biggest bubble crash ever: stocks, commodities, real estate.
The next crash is the initiation of the next big [economic] downturn, which will be much worse
than the one in 2008-2009.
When do you think the next crash will occur?
It will likely come by the end of June, probably sooner. The S&P falls to 2,100
'" lower than the March 2020 low '" and that would be a 47% to 48% drop
from recent highs, though it may go to 4,000 first. The next crash will be worse than the last
one because it will come from higher levels and [plummet] to lower levels.
Why will the downturn that you see be so harsh?
The only reason the 2008 downturn didn't turn into a depression was that
they turned on the monetary spigots so hard and blew us out of it, which kept the bubble going.
They kept printing money and put it off. Now we've got a bigger bubble. This
downturn is going to be the Great Depression that the deep recession of 2008 was [falling
into].
How long do you think the depression will last?
If the economy finally falls apart after this much stimulus, economists will flip from being
endlessly bullish to endlessly bearish. They'll say, 'Now
we're in a decade-long-plus depression, like the 1930s.' But
I'll say, 'Nope, this thing will be hell:
It's going to do its work very fast. By 2024, it will be over.'
By 2023 or 2024, we're going to be coming out of it into what I call the
next Spring Boom.
Right now, you favor investing in Treasury bonds. What's your
strategy?
Man, what's better than sleeping with 30-year Treasury bonds
'" the safest investment in the reserve currency of a country
that's in big trouble '" but not as much as Europe and Japan are
in and nowhere near as much as China is in. We're in the best house in a bad
neighborhood.
What will happen to the 30-year Treasury bond during the massive crash you
foresee?
It's going to fall to half a percent and maybe zero. It will expand your
money 30%, 40%, 50%, while stocks are crashing 70%, 80%, 90%. Real estate will go down 30%,
40%, 50%. Commodities are already down 50% and are going down another 30% or 40%. Everything is
going to default. Cash will preserve your money. The 30-year Treasury will magnify your
money.
So, do you think 50% of an investment portfolio should be in Treasurys?
If you're willing to take more risk, you'll have one
bucket in long-term U.S. Treasury bonds and maybe in a few other good governments, like Sweden
or Australia. Triple-A corporate could go in there too. Then you'll have
another bucket '" of short stocks, not leveraged.
Stocks are very volatile on the way down. You can also be in REITs that are in very solid
areas, like multi-family housing in affordable cities and medical facilities because those will
hold up the best.
There's a discernable euphoria now among investors. But John
Templeton, the renowned investor and fund manager, famously said that 'bull
markets die on euphoria.' Do you agree with that?
Yes. And Jeremy Grantham [GMO co-founder] said [on Jan. 5] this level of euphoria means
you're within months '" not years '" of a major
bubble peak. You're at the end.
Wil cryptocurrency be part of that huge crash?
Yes. I think Bitcoin is the big thing long term and that crypto and blockchain is a big
trend. It's like the internet of finance '" money and assets
'" instead of information. So it's a big deal '" but
in its early stages.
Bitcoin is going to go to 58 [thousand], 60, 80 '" and then end up back at 3,000
to 4,000. I would buy it long term, a couple of years from now. I wouldn't
touch it between now and then.
What are your expectations for the economy once the pandemic substantially fades?
Some industries are never going to come back. We're not back to where we
were before COVID '" by GDP or any other major indicator. Everybody is acting like 'When we get over COVID, we'll be back better than
ever.' The stock market is already anticipating that. But it's
wrong.
The only reason people are spending is because the government handed businesses and
consumers tons of money. But it will get to a point where it's not going to
matter how much money is printed '" and then you'll have an
avalanche. A huge collapse is coming.
What specifically will cause it?
There's is no way you can [keep] having fake earnings, fake GDP, fake
interest rates and super-high valuations. Financial assets have to come down to reality.
What are the implications?
Loans will fail by the boatload. Then money disappears. That causes bank and business
failures. We have to get all the financial leverage, financial assets and debt out of our
economy. Twenty percent of public companies are zombies. They can't even pay their
debt service in a growth economy. They're already dead.
We've just keeping them alive with embalming.
Jensen joined
Bloomberg's "What Goes Up" podcast to discuss this week's Federal Reserve meeting and how
ample liquidity from the central bank, combined with a booming economic rebound, make
conditions ripe for markets to get more bubbly.
Q. Bubbles are a very strange phenomenon because the risk-reward relationship is so
interesting. It almost seems that as an investor, you have to participate in bubbles. Because
if you think it's a bubble too early, you really miss the best returns from them. How do you
know when it's time to get out of an overvalued market?
A: All along through Bridgewater's history we've been systematic. So we've taken the kind
of discussion we're having now -- a very qualitative view of the world -- but translated into
ways to measure it. So you take something like a bubble, right? A classic qualitative thing.
What do you mean by bubble? How do you measure that it's a bubble? Is it enough to say prices
are high relative to history, or what's the actual measure? And then how reliable is it?
And we have six gauges of a bubble that we use all over the world. Then you could apply it
to cryptocurrency. You can apply it to anything you wanted in the world to stocks, to bonds
to anything. Our basic scoreboard is: Are prices high relative to traditional measures? Are
prices discounting unsustainable conditions?
So, as an example today, there's something like 10% of stocks that are pricing in more
than 20% revenue growth and margin expansion. If you look at history, 2% of stocks actually
achieved that. That's an extremely hard thing to do.
Q: That's not counting the base effects from last year, right?
A: No. I'm talking about ongoing growth rates without the base effect. It doesn't happen.
That's very, very unlikely to happen. Potentially with inflation or something you might, but
in a normal kind of forward-looking picture, you don't get that. So that's an example of
discounting unsustainable conditions. They can't, as a group, actually achieve that
condition.
The third thing is new buyers entering the market. How many new buyers are there? How big
a part of the market are they? There's the broad sentiment measures. There's purchases being
financed by leverage and buyers and businesses sort of making extended forward purchases .
That's all part of our checklist for a bubble. And you see today a fair amount of the equity
market in the U.S. in a bubble, but not the aggregate.
There are definitely pockets that meet those standards and that's dangerous. And then,
like you said, what do you want to do, buy or sell them? Well, that's a whole other dangerous
thing.
And that's where, when we had a drawdown in 2000-2001 associated with the bubble -- both
the dollar and the equity market and how that was playing out at the time -- that really
forced us to get into flows, which is basically how we measure bubbles today. Where's the
money coming from? Who are the buyers and sellers? What are their balance sheets? How much
more money can they put into this bubble versus how much income they're getting and when does
that start to flip? And so for us, that process of being able to look at the balance sheets
of the buyers and sellers and think about when they've been stretched to an extreme -- where
they won't have the money, where there's more supply coming than possible demand."
So you look at the IPO pipeline, you look at the creation of new instruments, how fast
those balance sheets are growing. And that's how we try to measure that criss-cross. And it's
still a very, very dangerous game, like you're saying.
So the third part is be careful and be conservative in your thinking around the ability to
time those things, because that's kind of the easiest place to die in asset prices is trying
to be short a bubble too early.
"... Mr. Courtney's calculation was one of several supporting the disclosure in a Journal article last fall that taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for roughly a third of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. This could amount to more than $500 billion, exceeding what taxpayers lost on the saving-and-loan crisis 30 years ago. ..."
The federal budget assumes the government will recover 96 cents of every dollar borrowers
default on. That sounded high to Mr. Courtney because in the private sector 20 cents would be
more appropriate for defaulted consumer loans that aren't backed by an asset.
He asked Education Department budget officials how they calculated that number. They told
him that when borrowers default, the government often puts them into new loans. These pay off
the old loans, and this is considered a recovery, even though in many cases the borrowers
haven't repaid anything and default on the new loans as well.
In reality, the government is likely to recover just 51% to 63% of defaulted amounts,
according to Mr. Courtney's forecast in a 144-page report of his findings, which was reviewed
by The Wall Street Journal.
"If you accounted this way in the private sector, you wouldn't be in business anymore," Mrs.
DeVos said in a December interview. "You'd probably be behind bars."
Mr. Courtney's calculation was one of several supporting the disclosure in
a Journal article last fall that taxpayers could ultimately be on the hook for roughly a
third of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio. This could amount to more than $500
billion, exceeding what taxpayers lost on the saving-and-loan crisis 30 years ago.
If Mr. Courtney is right, there are big implications for taxpayers and families alike. While
defaulted student loans can't cause the federal government to go bankrupt the way bad mortgage
lending upended banks during the financial crisis, they expose a similar problem: Billions of
dollars lent based on flawed assumptions about whether the money can be repaid.
There are periods when you should sit on your money, despite inflation. This is probably one of those. When no one believes in the future, that's an opportunity. When everyone does, sell
Notable quotes:
"... Take Quantumscape, which went public via a SPAC and produces solid-state lithium metal batteries. Bill Gates and Volkswagen are investors. In 2020 it had no revenue and lost more than $1 billion. Quantumscape had a peak valuation of $50 billion last December. ..."
When I read that technology can construct an image of your face from your DNA, my initial reaction was: That's the stupidest
thing I've ever heard.
Fortunately, I've had a lifetime
of stupidest-things-I've-heard things (
like Bleep ) became
reality. Like the Kübler-Ross stages of grief -- denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance -- technology goes through similar
phases.
My phases of techno-hype: Incredulous. Will never happen. Dread. I'll try it. Booster. Overhype. Failed expectations.
On to the next paradigm. Understand these before plunking money into passing fancies. We know the famous will-never-happen
predictions.
Understand these before plunking money into passing fancies.
We know the famous will-never-happen predictions.
IBM 's Thomas
Watson : "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Digital's Ken Olsen : "There is no reason anyone would want a computer
in their home." Funny now, but not unreasonable at the time.
I've learned to harness those knee-jerk denials when I know that technology performance will increase and costs decrease.
Classic scale. I'm actually suspicious of things that aren't controversial from the start. I live in those denial phases -- ask
my wife. Why? Because almost every time, no one believes in the future. That's the time to invest. Until everyone believes it and
then some. Then it's probably time to sell.
I live in those denial phases -- ask my wife. Why? Because almost every time, no one believes in
the future. That's the time to invest. Until everyone believes it and then some. Then it's probably time to sell.
Think of the 2007 iPhone introduction. Typing on glass, are you kidding me? So many white-collar warriors hurdling through airports
were thumb-writing on BlackBerry s -- aka Crackberrys. Take
away my keyboard, even though it's tiny and painful to use? Over my dead body. Well, we know how that turned out. BlackBerry is now
worth $5 billion. Apple a bit more.
Same for electric cars. It's my God-given right to guzzle gas and shift gears with abandon. I don't want a car that works like a
high school electronics lab with a battery and a fan. No way. Yet batteries got cheaper, and range went up.
It wasn't that long ago that everyone was dubious of autonomous cars. The 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge saw Stanley, a Stanford robot,
win $2 million in a 132-mile self-driving race. But on real streets with bicyclists and old ladies? No way. Well, we're not there yet,
but it's certainly accepted that it will happen.
The stock market allocates capital to those ideas it believes are winners. Remember investing guru Benjamin Graham's stock market
as a short-run voting machine, long-run weighing machine? So where are we now -- especially amid a Fed-fueled feeding frenzy? When markets
overpay, they're voting that all that good stuff is practically guaranteed to happen. Huge expectations are built into many stock prices.
Entrepreneurs, naturally, love the overhype stage -- almost free money thrown at them at billion-dollar valuations. But it's the
most dangerous time for investors. HBO has a show named "Euphoria." It's about teen drug use, but no matter; the show's best line is
by the main character, Rue: "Every time I feel good, I think it will last forever . . . but it doesn't."
Expectations eventually get dashed. Reality bites. Stocks come down. Even if the market or product ends up successful, I've noticed
that overhyped stocks can return to their peak values, but five to 10 years later. That's a long time to wait for hype to become real.
Take Quantumscape, which went public via a SPAC and produces solid-state lithium metal batteries. Bill Gates and
Volkswagen are investors. In 2020 it had no revenue
and lost more than $1 billion. Quantumscape had a peak valuation of $50 billion last December. Now it's $13.5 billion. It could work.
I hope it does work. But unless something radical changes, I think it will take a long time for the company to be worth $50 billion
again.
There are plenty of overhyped things to choose from, many with zero revenue. Some may be successful, others certainly won't: Air
taxis (Archer and Joby). Hydroponic vertical farms (AeroFarms). Space travel (Momentus).
Gamestop 's turnaround.
My advice is always to invest in the fog. When everyone else is incredulous, look for scale. Usually, no one else can see it. Squint
hard, but don't make stuff up. If you can see something that everyone dismisses, and that will get cheaper over a long period of time,
maybe decades, buy in cheap and go along for the long ride. Others will eventually overpay.
On the flip side, when the fog clears and we've moved from the acceptance to hype, it's time to unload your shares to those late
to the party. One hint is that stocks are now worth twice gross domestic product. You might sell early. So what? No one ever lost money
taking a profit. But please, know which phase we're in -- don't be the last one in the pool. Instead, start hunting for the next wave
no one believes in.
But constructing a face from DNA? That'll never happen. Well, maybe . . .
In fall 2011 the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that higher education
enrollment was slightly more than 20.5 million students. By fall 2019 that figure had dropped
to about 18.2 million, a decline of slightly over 11%. During those eight years the number of
18- to 24-year-olds remained roughly constant.
We have long had a social consensus that it's worth four years of our children's lives and
very large sums of their parents' money to see their knowledge, mental capacity, and career
prospects greatly expanded by going to college. Attitudes and habits formed by this consensus
were bound to lag behind the reality of academia as it now is. Yet the NSCRC numbers show that
already about 1 in 9 have mustered the courage and independence of thought to face reality and
stop wasting time and money.
This illicit conversion of a vital social institution to an alien use deprives all Americans
of the benefits of a properly functioning system of higher education. It also means that a
destructive and long since discredited political ideology is now using colleges and
universities to gain a degree of influence over society that it could never have achieved at
the ballot box. That's election interference on a scale not remotely matched by anything that
was alleged in the 2020 election.
When academia's astonishing message to society is, "We'll take your money, but we'll do with
it what we want, not what you want," the response ought to be simple: "No you won't." The
question is, can the millions of people who make up that wonderful abstraction called "society"
act in a way that is sufficiently concerted and organized to deliver the message effectively?
Many have already made a good start. But the rest need to join if we are ever again to have
college campuses that aren't as academically incompetent as they are politically
malevolent.
Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California,
Santa Cruz and author of "The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It happened, the Damage It
Does, and What Can Be Done."
SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago Borrowing money to gamble on the stock market is not
a very smart thing to do in my opinion. Like thumb_up 7 Reply reply Share link Report flag
R
Goldman Sachs expects global oil demand to realize the biggest jump ever over the next six
months, the investment bank said on Wednesday, keeping its bullish forecasts for oil prices
this summer.
... ... ...
At the beginning of March, the bank expected Brent Crude
prices to hit $80 a barrel in the third quarter this year, up by $5 compared to the
previous forecast issued two weeks earlier.
Even after the sell-off in oil in mid-March, Goldman said that the "big breather" was a buying
opportunity for oil and continued to forecast Brent hitting $80 per barrel in the
summer.
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes climb to
fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or increasingly
buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial assets in
April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Federal Reserve
data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that investors'
allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in March. And margin
debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities over the
past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the risk is they decide to
get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at JPMorgan. "That is
effectively what happened before in 2000."
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes climb to
fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or increasingly
buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial assets in
April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Federal Reserve
data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that investors'
allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in March. And margin
debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities over the
past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the risk is they decide to
get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at JPMorgan. "That is
effectively what happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th . I'm not sure th@t all the
day traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough money to pay their taxes . Those gains
were all short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not be breached for many years . Of
course all bets are off if Biden pays every one's taxes for them and gives them an extra "
stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes climb to
fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or increasingly
buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial assets in
April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Federal Reserve
data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that investors'
allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in March. And margin
debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities over the
past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the risk is they decide to
get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at JPMorgan. "That is
effectively what happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th . I'm not sure th@t all the
day traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough money to pay their taxes . Those gains
were all short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not be breached for many years .
Of course all bets are off if Biden pays every one's taxes for them and gives them an extra
" stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes climb to
fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or increasingly
buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial assets in
April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Federal Reserve
data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that investors'
allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in March. And margin
debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities over the
past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the risk is they decide
to get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at JPMorgan. "That
is effectively what happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th . I'm not sure th@t all
the day traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough money to pay their taxes .
Those gains were all short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not be breached for many
years . Of course all bets are off if Biden pays every one's taxes for them and gives
them an extra " stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes climb
to fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or
increasingly buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial assets
in April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Federal
Reserve data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that
investors' allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in March.
And margin debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities over
the past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the risk is they
decide to get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at
JPMorgan. "That is effectively what happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th . I'm not sure
th@t all the day traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough money to pay
their taxes . Those gains were all short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not be breached for
many years . Of course all bets are off if Biden pays every one's taxes for them
and gives them an extra " stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major indexes
climb to fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify their
bets or increasingly buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total financial
assets in April, the highest level on record. That is according to JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and Federal Reserve data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement
accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed that
investors' allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year high of 70% in
March. And margin debt -- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority figures
show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including equities
over the past year. At some point, given how high their equity allocation is, the
risk is they decide to get out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a
managing director at JPMorgan. "That is effectively what happened before in
2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th . I'm not
sure th@t all the day traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough
money to pay their taxes . Those gains were all short term ordinary
income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not be breached
for many years . Of course all bets are off if Biden pays every one's
taxes for them and gives them an extra " stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before as major
indexes climb to fresh highs. They are also upping the ante by borrowing to
magnify their bets or increasingly buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their total
financial assets in April, the highest level on record. That is according
to JPMorgan Chase & Co.
and Federal Reserve data going back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement
accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual Investors showed
that investors' allocations to the stock market hit around a three-year
high of 70% in March. And margin debt -- or money that investors borrow
to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
figures show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things including
equities over the past year. At some point, given how high their equity
allocation is, the risk is they decide to get out and take profits," said
Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at JPMorgan. "That is effectively
what happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top before May 17 th
. I'm not sure th@t all the day traders from 2020 have actually
put aside enough money to pay their taxes . Those gains were
all short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in that may not
be breached for many years . Of course all bets are off if
Biden pays every one's taxes for them and gives them an extra "
stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than ever before
as major indexes climb to fresh highs. They are also upping the
ante by borrowing to magnify their bets or increasingly buying on
small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to 41% of their
total financial assets in April, the highest level on record.
That is according to JPMorgan Chase
& Co. and Federal Reserve data going back to 1952 that
includes 401(k) retirement accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of Individual
Investors showed that investors' allocations to the stock market
hit around a three-year high of 70% in March. And margin debt
-- or money that investors borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March , Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority figures show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on many things
including equities over the past year. At some point, given how
high their equity allocation is, the risk is they decide to get
out and take profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing
director at JPMorgan. "That is effectively what happened before
in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put in a top
before May 17 th . I'm not sure th@t all the day
traders from 2020 have actually put aside enough
money to pay their taxes . Those gains were all
short term ordinary income .
We won't crash , we will have just put a high in
that may not be breached for many years . Of course
all bets are off if Biden pays every one's taxes
for them and gives them an extra " stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding more stocks than
ever before as major indexes climb to fresh highs.
They are also upping the ante by borrowing to magnify
their bets or increasingly buying on small dips in
the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households increased to
41% of their total financial assets in April, the
highest level on record. That is according to
JPMorgan
Chase & Co. and Federal Reserve data going
back to 1952 that includes 401(k) retirement
accounts.
... A survey by the American Association of
Individual Investors showed that investors'
allocations to the stock market hit around a
three-year high of 70% in March. And margin debt
-- or money that investors borrow to buy securities
--
stood at a record as of March , Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority figures show.
... "Retail investors have made a lot of money on
many things including equities over the past year. At
some point, given how high their equity allocation
is, the risk is they decide to get out and take
profits," said Mr. Panigirtzoglou, a managing
director at JPMorgan. "That is effectively what
happened before in 2000."
I believe there is 60% chance we put
in a top before May 17 th . I'm not
sure th@t all the day traders from
2020 have actually put aside enough
money to pay their taxes . Those
gains were all short term ordinary
income .
We won't crash , we will have just
put a high in that may not be
breached for many years . Of course
all bets are off if Biden pays every
one's taxes for them and gives them
an extra " stimmy" .
Individual investors are holding
more stocks than ever before as major
indexes climb to fresh highs. They are
also upping the ante by borrowing to
magnify their bets or increasingly
buying on small dips in the market.
Stockholdings among U.S. households
increased to 41% of their total
financial assets in April, the highest
level on record. That is according to
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and
Federal Reserve data going back to 1952
that includes 401(k) retirement
accounts.
... A survey by the American
Association of Individual Investors
showed that investors' allocations to
the stock market hit around a
three-year high of 70% in March. And
margin debt -- or money that investors
borrow to buy securities --
stood at a record as of March ,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
figures show.
... "Retail investors have made a
lot of money on many things including
equities over the past year. At some
point, given how high their equity
allocation is, the risk is they decide
to get out and take profits," said Mr.
Panigirtzoglou, a managing director at
JPMorgan. "That is effectively what
happened before in 2000."
I believe there is
60% chance we put in
a top before May 17
th . I'm not sure
th@t all the day
traders from 2020
have actually put
aside enough money to
pay their taxes .
Those gains were all
short term ordinary
income .
We won't crash , we
will have just put a
high in that may not
be breached for many
years . Of course all
bets are off if Biden
pays every one's
taxes for them and
gives them an extra "
stimmy" .
Individual investors
are holding more stocks
than ever before as
major indexes climb to
fresh highs. They are
also upping the ante by
borrowing to magnify
their bets or
increasingly buying on
small dips in the
market.
Stockholdings among
U.S. households
increased to 41% of
their total financial
assets in April, the
highest level on
record. That is
according to
JPMorgan Chase
& Co. and Federal
Reserve data going back
to 1952 that includes
401(k) retirement
accounts.
... A survey by the
American Association of
Individual Investors
showed that investors'
allocations to the
stock market hit around
a three-year high of
70% in March. And
margin debt -- or money
that investors borrow
to buy securities --
stood at a record as of
March , Financial
Industry Regulatory
Authority figures
show.
... "Retail
investors have made a
lot of money on many
things including
equities over the past
year. At some point,
given how high their
equity allocation is,
the risk is they decide
to get out and take
profits," said Mr.
Panigirtzoglou, a
managing director at
JPMorgan. "That is
effectively what
happened before in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in a
top
before
May
17 th
. I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
... A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
-- or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at a
record
as of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
Individual
investors
are
holding
more
stocks
than
ever
before
as
major
indexes
climb
to
fresh
highs.
They
are
also
upping
the
ante
by
borrowing
to
magnify
their
bets
or
increasingly
buying
on
small
dips
in
the
market.
Stockholdings
among
U.S.
households
increased
to
41%
of
their
total
financial
assets
in
April,
the
highest
level
on
record.
That
is
according
to
JPMorgan
Chase
&
Co.
and
Federal
Reserve
data
going
back
to
1952
that
includes
401(k)
retirement
accounts.
...
A
survey
by
the
American
Association
of
Individual
Investors
showed
that
investors'
allocations
to
the
stock
market
hit
around
a
three-year
high
of
70%
in
March.
And
margin
debt
--
or
money
that
investors
borrow
to
buy
securities
--
stood
at
a
record
as
of
March
,
Financial
Industry
Regulatory
Authority
figures
show.
...
"Retail
investors
have
made
a
lot
of
money
on
many
things
including
equities
over
the
past
year.
At
some
point,
given
how
high
their
equity
allocation
is,
the
risk
is
they
decide
to
get
out
and
take
profits,"
said
Mr.
Panigirtzoglou,
a
managing
director
at
JPMorgan.
"That
is
effectively
what
happened
before
in
2000."
I
believe
there
is
60%
chance
we
put
in
a
top
before
May
17
th
.
I'm
not
sure
th@t
all
the
day
traders
from
2020
have
actually
put
aside
enough
money
to
pay
their
taxes
.
Those
gains
were
all
short
term
ordinary
income
.
We
won't
crash
,
we
will
have
just
put
a
high
in
that
may
not
be
breached
for
many
years
.
Of
course
all
bets
are
off
if
Biden
pays
every
one's
taxes
for
them
and
gives
them
an
extra
"
stimmy"
.
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The stock market
used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after the start of a
bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record highs in
only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, that's the
fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the
conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades, according to Dow
Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious.
These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If anyone
should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the people in this
survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments, roughly
70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into early
2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up
reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020
than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold -- but not
until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that stocks
aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks only go up
" so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing interest
rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion in
Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other massive
interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of dollars of
stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the conversation below
.
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting markets, but
individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as
the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks -- and why fear
another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added $52 billion
to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to buy them;
otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The stock market
used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after the start of a
bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record highs in
only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, that's the
fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the
conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades, according to Dow
Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious.
These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If anyone
should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the people in this
survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments, roughly
70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into early
2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up
reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020
than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold -- but not
until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that stocks
aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks only go up
" so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing interest
rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion in
Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other massive
interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of dollars of
stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the conversation below
.
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting markets, but
individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as
the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks -- and why fear
another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added $52 billion
to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to buy them;
otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009 to present msft is up
1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot com
peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation : there is nothing left to buy
) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT buy . Cash is a
wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The stock market
used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after the start of a
bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record highs in
only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, that's the
fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the
conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades, according to Dow
Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious.
These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If anyone
should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the people in this
survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments, roughly
70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into early
2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up
reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020
than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold -- but not
until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that stocks
aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks only go up
" so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing interest
rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion in
Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other massive
interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of dollars of
stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the conversation below
.
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting markets, but
individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as
the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks -- and why fear
another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added $52 billion
to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to buy them;
otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009 to present msft is
up 1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot com
peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation : there is nothing left to
buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT buy . Cash is a
wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The stock market
used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after the start of a
bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record highs in
only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, that's the
fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the
conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades, according to
Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious.
These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If anyone
should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the people in
this survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments,
roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into
early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended
up reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March
2020 than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold -- but
not until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that stocks
aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks only go
up " so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing interest
rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion in
Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other
massive interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of
dollars of stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the conversation
below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting markets, but
individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long
as the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks -- and why
fear another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added $52
billion to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to buy them;
otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009 to present msft
is up 1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot
com peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation : there is nothing left
to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT buy . Cash is a
wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The stock
market used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after the start
of a bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record
highs in only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, that's
the fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the
conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades, according
to Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three
years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be
cautious. These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If
anyone should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the
people in this survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard
investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into
early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They
ended up reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February
and March 2020 than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold --
but not until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that
stocks aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks only go
up " so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing
interest rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion
in Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other
massive interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of
dollars of stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the conversation
below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting markets,
but individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed.
So long as the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks
-- and why fear another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added $52
billion to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make market
crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to buy
them; otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009 to present
msft is up 1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has surpassed
the Dot com peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation : there is nothing
left to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT buy .
Cash is a wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v
GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time
record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of
stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them? The
stock market used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak after
the start of a bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks
regained record highs in only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009,
that's the fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at
least 20% -- the conventional definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past
nine decades, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have
typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be
cautious. These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky.
If anyone should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed,
it's the people in this survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000
in Vanguard investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went
into early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming
year. They ended up reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the
crash of February and March 2020 than those who had been expecting lower
returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just
sold -- but not until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery
that stocks aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks
only go up " so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation. And, for
the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing
interest rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5
trillion in Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other
massive interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped
trillions of dollars of stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the
conversation below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were distorting
markets, but individual investors simply followed the old Wall Street adage: Don't
fight the Fed. So long as the central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity,
why not buy stocks -- and why fear another crash?
What's more, target-date
funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined exposure to stocks,
command in excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar Inc. Investors added
$52 billion to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped make
market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds have to
buy them; otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios of
stocks to other assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009 to
present msft is up 1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation : there is
nothing left to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT
buy . Cash is a wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by selling too
early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of
stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE
is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high for 95% of
stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can blame them?
The stock market used to take years, sometimes decades, to recover its
prior peak after the start of a bear-market decline. After last year's 34%
meltdown, however, stocks regained record highs in only 126 trading
days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early
2009, that's the fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has
fallen at least 20% -- the conventional definition of a bear market -- 26
times in the past nine decades, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard investors, who tend
to be cautious. These people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late
founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks
are risky. If anyone should come through the sharpest market decline in
decades unperturbed, it's the people in this survey -- typically about 60
years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments, roughly 70% in
stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those
who went into early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in
the upcoming year. They ended up reducing their exposure to stocks much
more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020 than those who had
been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had
just sold -- but not until prices had already shot above the March
lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the
recovery that stocks aren't risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared " Stocks
only go up " so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation.
And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by
squashing interest rates toward zero and by buying more than
$2.5 trillion in Treasury securities since February 2020, along with
other massive interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government programs
pumped trillions of dollars of stimulus into the economy.
SHARE YOUR
THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not? Join the
conversation below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies were
distorting markets, but individual investors simply followed the old Wall
Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as the central bank is drenching
the markets with liquidity, why not buy stocks -- and why fear another
crash?
What's more,
target-date funds , which continually seek to keep a predetermined
exposure to stocks, command in excess of $2.8 trillion, according to
Morningstar Inc.
Investors added $52 billion to target-date funds in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway -- helped
make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the target-date funds
have to buy them; otherwise, the portfolios would fall below their mandated
ratios of stocks to other assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 ,
from2009 to present msft is up 1000% dwarfing my loss in WAMU
.
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value of stocks v
GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks ( translation
: there is nothing left to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but whatever you do
..Do NOT buy . Cash is a wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch replied " by
selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday the total
value of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in early
2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving average at high
for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe -- and who can
blame them? The stock market used to take years, sometimes
decades, to recover its prior peak after the start of a
bear-market decline. After last year's 34% meltdown, however,
stocks regained record highs in only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop
in early 2009, that's the fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak.
The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20% -- the conventional
definition of a bear market -- 26 times in the past nine decades,
according to Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs
have typically taken almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among Vanguard
investors, who tend to be cautious. These people often follow the
philosophy of the firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly warned that
stocks are risky. If anyone should come through the sharpest
market decline in decades unperturbed, it's the people in this
survey -- typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in
Vanguard investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the survey stood
out: those who went into early 2020 with the highest expectations
for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up reducing
their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of
February and March 2020 than those who had been expecting lower
returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock
they had just sold -- but not until prices had already shot above
the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness
of the recovery that stocks aren't risky at all. After last
spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared "
Stocks only go up " so often that it began to seem like a
magic incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped
markets by squashing interest rates toward zero and by buying
more than $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities since February
2020, along with
other massive interventions . Meanwhile, emergency government
programs pumped trillions of dollars of stimulus into the
economy.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why or why not?
Join the conversation below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how these policies
were distorting markets, but individual investors simply followed
the old Wall Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as the
central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity, why not buy
stocks -- and why fear another crash?
What's more,
target-date funds , which continually seek to keep a
predetermined exposure to stocks, command in excess of $2.8
trillion, according to Morningstar
Inc. Investors added $52 billion to target-date funds in
2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so far, anyway --
helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more the
target-date funds have to buy them; otherwise, the portfolios
would fall below their mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I lost 100% in WAMU
in 2008 , from2009 to present msft is up 1000%
dwarfing my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the total value
of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in
early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for 95% of stocks (
translation : there is nothing left to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't sell but
whatever you do ..Do NOT buy . Cash is a wonderful
hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard Baruch
replied " by selling too early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that as of Friday
the total value of stocks v GDP has surpassed the Dot
com peak in early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all
time record
margin loans at all time record . 200 day moving
average at high for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some investors seem to believe --
and who can blame them? The stock market used to take
years, sometimes decades, to recover its prior peak
after the start of a bear-market decline. After last
year's 34% meltdown, however, stocks regained record
highs in only 126 trading days.
With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an
interim drop in early 2009, that's the fastest-ever
recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen
at least 20% -- the conventional definition of a bear
market -- 26 times in the past nine decades,
according to Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to
previous highs have typically taken almost three
years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll -- even among
Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious. These
people often follow the philosophy of the firm's late
founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience and repeatedly
warned that stocks are risky. If anyone should come
through the sharpest market decline in decades
unperturbed, it's the people in this survey --
typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in
Vanguard investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One group in the
survey stood out: those who went into early 2020 with
the highest expectations for stock returns in the
upcoming year. They ended up reducing their exposure
to stocks much more sharply during the crash of
February and March 2020 than those who had been
expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much
of the stock they had just sold -- but not until
prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from
the swiftness of the recovery that stocks aren't
risky at all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media celebrity, declared
"
Stocks only go up " so often that it began to
seem like a magic incantation. And, for the past
year,
just about every stock has gone up .
That's largely because the Federal Reserve has
backstopped markets by squashing interest rates
toward zero and by buying
more than $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities
since February 2020, along with
other massive interventions . Meanwhile,
emergency government programs pumped trillions of
dollars of stimulus into the economy.
SHARE
YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear market? Why
or why not? Join the conversation below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained about how
these policies were distorting markets, but
individual investors simply followed the old Wall
Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So long as the
central bank is drenching the markets with liquidity,
why not buy stocks -- and why fear another crash?
What's more,
target-date funds , which continually seek to
keep a predetermined exposure to stocks, command in
excess of $2.8 trillion, according to Morningstar
Inc. Investors added $52 billion to target-date funds
in 2020.
The popularity of these portfolios has -- so
far, anyway -- helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks fall, the more
the target-date funds have to buy them; otherwise,
the portfolios would fall below their mandated ratios
of stocks to other assets.
Mr. Sinclair is correct . While I
lost 100% in WAMU in 2008 , from2009
to present msft is up 1000% dwarfing
my loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that as of Friday the
total value of stocks v GDP has
surpassed the Dot com peak in early
2000 .
Case Schiller PE is at all time
record
margin loans at all time record .
200 day moving average at high for
95% of stocks ( translation : there
is nothing left to buy ) .
The course of action is clear ..Don't
sell but whatever you do ..Do NOT buy
. Cash is a wonderful hedge .
When asked how he got so rich Bernard
Baruch replied " by selling too
early"
From commnets: "Barrons reports that
as of Friday the total value of stocks
v GDP has surpassed the Dot com peak in
early 2000 .Case Schiller PE is at all
time record
margin loans at all time record . 200
day moving average at high for 95% of
stocks"
...That's what some investors seem
to believe -- and who can blame them?
The stock market used to take years,
sometimes decades, to recover its prior
peak after the start of a bear-market
decline. After last year's 34%
meltdown, however, stocks regained
record highs in only 126 trading
days.
With the exception of a 100-day
rebound after an interim drop in early
2009, that's the fastest-ever recovery
to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has
fallen at least 20% -- the conventional
definition of a bear market -- 26 times
in the past nine decades, according to
Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to
previous highs have typically taken
almost three years,
often much longer .
... ... ...
That complacency takes a toll --
even among Vanguard investors, who tend
to be cautious. These people often
follow the philosophy of the firm's
late founder,
Jack Bogle , who preached patience
and repeatedly warned that stocks are
risky. If anyone should come through
the sharpest market decline in decades
unperturbed, it's the people in this
survey -- typically about 60 years old,
with about $225,000 in Vanguard
investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn't all sit tight. One
group in the survey stood out: those
who went into early 2020 with the
highest expectations for stock returns
in the upcoming year. They ended up
reducing their exposure to stocks much
more sharply during the crash of
February and March 2020 than those who
had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and
buy back much of the stock they had
just sold -- but not until prices had
already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have
concluded from the swiftness of the
recovery that stocks aren't risky at
all. After last spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a social-media
celebrity, declared "
Stocks only go up " so often that
it began to seem like a magic
incantation. And, for the past year,
just about every stock has gone up
.
That's largely because the Federal
Reserve has backstopped markets by
squashing interest rates toward zero
and by buying
more than $2.5 trillion in Treasury
securities since February 2020,
along with
other massive interventions .
Meanwhile, emergency government
programs pumped trillions of dollars of
stimulus into the economy.
SHARE
YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost your fear of a bear
market? Why or why not? Join the
conversation below .
Fund managers fruitlessly complained
about how these policies were
distorting markets, but individual
investors simply followed the old Wall
Street adage: Don't fight the Fed. So
long as the central bank is drenching
the markets with liquidity, why not buy
stocks -- and why fear another
crash?
What's more,
target-date funds , which
continually seek to keep a
predetermined exposure to stocks,
command in excess of $2.8 trillion,
according to
Morningstar Inc. Investors added
$52 billion to target-date funds in
2020.
The popularity of these
portfolios has -- so far, anyway --
helped make market crashes
self-correcting . The more stocks
fall, the more the target-date funds
have to buy them; otherwise, the
portfolios would fall below their
mandated ratios of stocks to other
assets.
Mr. Sinclair is
correct . While I
lost 100% in WAMU in
2008 , from2009 to
present msft is up
1000% dwarfing my
loss in WAMU .
Barrons reports that
as of Friday the
total value of stocks
v GDP has surpassed
the Dot com peak in
early 2000 .
Case Schiller PE is
at all time
record
margin loans at all
time record .
200 day moving
average at high for
95% of stocks (
translation : there
is nothing left to
buy ) .
The course of action
is clear ..Don't sell
but whatever you do
..Do NOT buy . Cash
is a wonderful hedge
.
When asked how he got
so rich Bernard
Baruch replied " by
selling too early"
From commnets:
"Barrons reports that
as of Friday the total
value of stocks v GDP
has surpassed the Dot
com peak in early 2000
.Case Schiller PE is at
all time record
margin loans at all
time record . 200 day
moving average at high
for 95% of stocks"
...That's what some
investors seem to
believe -- and who can
blame them? The stock
market used to take
years, sometimes
decades, to recover its
prior peak after the
start of a bear-market
decline. After last
year's 34% meltdown,
however, stocks
regained record highs
in only 126 trading
days.
With the exception
of a 100-day rebound
after an interim drop
in early 2009, that's
the fastest-ever
recovery to a prior
peak. The S&P 500
has fallen at least 20%
-- the conventional
definition of a bear
market -- 26 times in
the past nine decades,
according to Dow Jones
Market Data. Recoveries
to previous highs have
typically taken almost
three years,
often much longer
.
... ... ...
That complacency
takes a toll -- even
among Vanguard
investors, who tend to
be cautious. These
people often follow the
philosophy of the
firm's late founder,
Jack Bogle , who
preached patience and
repeatedly warned that
stocks are risky. If
anyone should come
through the sharpest
market decline in
decades unperturbed,
it's the people in this
survey -- typically
about 60 years old,
with about $225,000 in
Vanguard investments,
roughly 70% in
stocks.
Yet they didn't all
sit tight. One group in
the survey stood out:
those who went into
early 2020 with the
highest expectations
for stock returns in
the upcoming year. They
ended up reducing their
exposure to stocks much
more sharply during the
crash of February and
March 2020 than those
who had been expecting
lower returns.
They also tended to
turn around and buy
back much of the stock
they had just sold --
but not until prices
had already shot above
the March lows.
Investors elsewhere
seem to have concluded
from the swiftness of
the recovery that
stocks aren't risky at
all. After last
spring's rebound,
Dave Portnoy , a
social-media celebrity,
declared "
Stocks only go up "
so often that it began
to seem like a magic
incantation. And, for
the past year,
just about every stock
has gone up .
That's largely
because the Federal
Reserve has backstopped
markets by squashing
interest rates toward
zero and by buying
more than $2.5 trillion
in Treasury
securities since
February 2020, along
with
other massive
interventions .
Meanwhile, emergency
government programs
pumped trillions of
dollars of stimulus
into the
economy.
SHARE
YOUR THOUGHTS
Have you lost
your fear of a bear
market? Why or why not?
Join the conversation
below .
Fund managers
fruitlessly complained
about how these
policies were
distorting markets, but
individual investors
simply followed the old
Wall Street adage:
Don't fight the Fed. So
long as the central
bank is drenching the
markets with liquidity,
why not buy stocks --
and why fear another
crash?
What's more,
target-date funds ,
which continually seek
to keep a predetermined
exposure to stocks,
command in excess of
$2.8 trillion,
according to
Morningstar Inc.
Investors added $52
billion to target-date
funds in 2020.
The popularity of
these portfolios has --
so far, anyway --
helped make market
crashes
self-correcting .
The more stocks fall,
the more the
target-date funds have
to buy them; otherwise,
the portfolios would
fall below their
mandated ratios of
stocks to other
assets.
Mr.
Sinclair
is
correct
.
While
I
lost
100%
in
WAMU
in
2008
,
from2009
to
present
msft
is up
1000%
dwarfing
my
loss
in
WAMU
.
Barrons
reports
that
as
of
Friday
the
total
value
of
stocks
v
GDP
has
surpassed
the
Dot
com
peak
in
early
2000
.
Case
Schiller
PE
is
at
all
time
record
margin
loans
at
all
time
record
.
200
day
moving
average
at
high
for
95%
of
stocks
(
translation
:
there
is
nothing
left
to
buy
)
.
The
course
of
action
is
clear
..Don't
sell
but
whatever
you
do
..Do
NOT
buy
.
Cash
is
a
wonderful
hedge
.
When
asked
how
he
got
so
rich
Bernard
Baruch
replied
"
by
selling
too
early"
From
commnets:
"Barrons
reports
that
as of
Friday
the
total
value
of
stocks
v GDP
has
surpassed
the
Dot
com
peak
in
early
2000
.Case
Schiller
PE is
at
all
time
record
margin
loans
at
all
time
record
. 200
day
moving
average
at
high
for
95%
of
stocks"
...That's
what
some
investors
seem
to
believe
--
and
who
can
blame
them?
The
stock
market
used
to
take
years,
sometimes
decades,
to
recover
its
prior
peak
after
the
start
of a
bear-market
decline.
After
last
year's
34%
meltdown,
however,
stocks
regained
record
highs
in
only
126
trading
days.
With
the
exception
of a
100-day
rebound
after
an
interim
drop
in
early
2009,
that's
the
fastest-ever
recovery
to a
prior
peak.
The
S&P
500
has
fallen
at
least
20%
--
the
conventional
definition
of a
bear
market
-- 26
times
in
the
past
nine
decades,
according
to
Dow
Jones
Market
Data.
Recoveries
to
previous
highs
have
typically
taken
almost
three
years,
often
much
longer
.
...
...
...
That
complacency
takes
a
toll
--
even
among
Vanguard
investors,
who
tend
to be
cautious.
These
people
often
follow
the
philosophy
of
the
firm's
late
founder,
Jack
Bogle
, who
preached
patience
and
repeatedly
warned
that
stocks
are
risky.
If
anyone
should
come
through
the
sharpest
market
decline
in
decades
unperturbed,
it's
the
people
in
this
survey
--
typically
about
60
years
old,
with
about
$225,000
in
Vanguard
investments,
roughly
70%
in
stocks.
Yet
they
didn't
all
sit
tight.
One
group
in
the
survey
stood
out:
those
who
went
into
early
2020
with
the
highest
expectations
for
stock
returns
in
the
upcoming
year.
They
ended
up
reducing
their
exposure
to
stocks
much
more
sharply
during
the
crash
of
February
and
March
2020
than
those
who
had
been
expecting
lower
returns.
They
also
tended
to
turn
around
and
buy
back
much
of
the
stock
they
had
just
sold
--
but
not
until
prices
had
already
shot
above
the
March
lows.
Investors
elsewhere
seem
to
have
concluded
from
the
swiftness
of
the
recovery
that
stocks
aren't
risky
at
all.
After
last
spring's
rebound,
Dave
Portnoy
, a
social-media
celebrity,
declared
"
Stocks
only
go
up
" so
often
that
it
began
to
seem
like
a
magic
incantation.
And,
for
the
past
year,
just
about
every
stock
has
gone
up
.
That's
largely
because
the
Federal
Reserve
has
backstopped
markets
by
squashing
interest
rates
toward
zero
and
by
buying
more
than
$2.5
trillion
in
Treasury
securities
since
February
2020,
along
with
other
massive
interventions
.
Meanwhile,
emergency
government
programs
pumped
trillions
of
dollars
of
stimulus
into
the
economy.
SHARE
YOUR
THOUGHTS
Have
you
lost
your
fear
of a
bear
market?
Why
or
why
not?
Join
the
conversation
below
.
Fund
managers
fruitlessly
complained
about
how
these
policies
were
distorting
markets,
but
individual
investors
simply
followed
the
old
Wall
Street
adage:
Don't
fight
the
Fed.
So
long
as
the
central
bank
is
drenching
the
markets
with
liquidity,
why
not
buy
stocks
--
and
why
fear
another
crash?
What's
more,
target-date
funds
,
which
continually
seek
to
keep
a
predetermined
exposure
to
stocks,
command
in
excess
of
$2.8
trillion,
according
to
Morningstar
Inc.
Investors
added
$52
billion
to
target-date
funds
in
2020.
The
popularity
of
these
portfolios
has
-- so
far,
anyway
--
helped
make
market
crashes
self-correcting
. The
more
stocks
fall,
the
more
the
target-date
funds
have
to
buy
them;
otherwise,
the
portfolios
would
fall
below
their
mandated
ratios
of
stocks
to
other
assets.
Mr.
Sinclair
is
correct
.
While
I
lost
100%
in
WAMU
in
2008
,
from2009
to
present
msft
is
up
1000%
dwarfing
my
loss
in
WAMU
.
Barrons
reports
that
as
of
Friday
the
total
value
of
stocks
v
GDP
has
surpassed
the
Dot
com
peak
in
early
2000
.
Case
Schiller
PE
is
at
all
time
record
margin
loans
at
all
time
record
.
200
day
moving
average
at
high
for
95%
of
stocks
(
translation
:
there
is
nothing
left
to
buy
)
.
The
course
of
action
is
clear
..Don't
sell
but
whatever
you
do
..Do
NOT
buy
.
Cash
is
a
wonderful
hedge
.
When
asked
how
he
got
so
rich
Bernard
Baruch
replied
"
by
selling
too
early"
I don't really. I estimate total fuel consumption for light and heavy vehicles (road only)
worldwide in 2018, then I simply assume the non-land transport demand for C+C (for farm
equipment, water transport, air transport, and everything else that isn't for road vehicles
(heavy trucks, buses, motorcycles, and light vehicles). I simply assume that quantity remains
fixed (greater need for miles travelled by air and water matched by less fuel use due to
efficiency improvements so the two factors exactly offset).
Essentially it is just a simplifying assumption. NICK G IGNORED04/26/2021 at
7:55 pm
Dennis,
So you're assuming that global land transport oil consumption (excluding farm, rail, buses,
heavy off-road trucks, motorcycles, chainsaws, etc) is 55 Mb/d, or 64% of all C&C? That
seems a little high. How did you estimate that? DENNIS COYNE IGNORED04/27/2021 at
6:52 am
Nick,
I used US data for average fuel economy for heavy trucks and light vehicles, then I used a
1300 million global fleet size, assumed average miles driven was about 10k per year, did
something similar for commercial (heavy truck) fleet globally. It is a rough estimate, BP has
gasoline and diesel consumption for World at 52 Mb/d in 2019, I assume most of that is for
light vehicles and heavy trucks, not sure how much is used in ships (I assumed they mostly use
fuel oil/bunker/residual fuel).
Also see figure 2 on page 6 of EIA document below, 55 Mboe/d in 2020 looks about right, and
they estimate about 57 Mboe/d in 2025, my estimate is about 56 Mboe/d, with decreases starting
in 2028.
The model is no doubt imperfect and does not account for the drop in demand in 2020 due to
pandemic (the model was done in 2019 before the pandemic).
It's interesting how quickly this 2017 study has become out of date:
" The combined share of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in OECD countries
increases from less than 1% in 2015 to 10% in 2040. In non-OECD countries, diesel, natural gas,
and electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles experience a three-to-five percentage point
increase in the total share of LDVs sold in non-OECD countries. In 2040, diesel and natural gas
vehicles each represent approximately 11.5% of the total LDV new sales market in non-OECD
countries, and electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles combined represent 4.5%."
They thought EVs would be about 10% in 2040, while diesel and NG vehicles would each be
about 11.5%. Based on how quickly car makers are abandoning diesel and NG and adopting EVs, I'd
say EVs will take pretty much all of the 23% projected for diesel and NG and, of course, much
more. LIKBEZ04/30/2021 at 1:12
pm
Dennis,
I know that you are EV enthusiast, and even own Tesla, but still we need to be
realistic.
For heavy trucks transporting goods over long distances the switch to EV is very problematic
and might never happen. The switch to natural gas is a possibility but this is an expensive
solution. For local trucks the problem is the cost of the battery and it might happen but very
slowly, as gradual displacement due to high gas prices. Even in this case natural gas will eat
lithium.
Three large users of fuel that you did not account are military, airplanes and agricultural
machinery. In the USA we also need to add trains as the level of electrification of railroads
leaves much to be desired.
Those three categories of consumers of fuel are not switching to EV in foreseeable future.
If you account for the growth of population the demand actually might increase until the price
of fuel will come into play.
Globally Africa, China, India (and Asia in general), xUSSR space very rapidly add personal
cars so those areas will experience growth of fuel demand. And cars in those regions often run
for 15-20 years not 12 like in the USA. .
And that will affect African producers and, especially Russia. So when talking about Russia
it is important to understand that the internal consumption will grow (Russia adds around 1.5
million cars a year) and that will cut exports https://knoema.com/atlas/Russian-Federation/Primary-energy-consumption
although many Russian cars are running of natural gas as it is cheaper.
The initial fascination with EV as passenger cars will soon pass as outside places like
California with no winter they are very problematic during winter periods. I would say they are
dangerous.
Currently they are kind of status symbol in certain circles and IMHO represent "conspicuous
consumption." Conspicuous consumption is a term coined by American economist and sociologist
Thorstein Veblen.
I wonder whether Tesla stock will be able to sustain the current crazy valuation in
three-five years period. (139 minutes and 25 seconds) DENNIS COYNE IGNORED04/27/2021 at 5:17
pm
Hickory,
Here is a transition scenario that assumes the 37% growth rate in plug in sales continues,
personally I think this is too optimistic, sales for light vehicles is 100% plugin by 2031 and
the ICE light vehicle fleet is replaced 100% by 2044 with plugin vehicles. Interesting that you
believe this is pessimistic. Also interesting that Ovi believes my original EV scenario is too
optimistic, I seem to be somewhere between your optimism and the pessimism of Ovi. It will be
interesting to watch (and I hope you are right).
We shall see. It seems to me that at a certain point, there is going to be a very rapid
realization that we are in new territory. Most of the manufacturers now get it, and are
scrambling to react.
It will be very interesting to see if there is a component supply crunch ( I think likely) in
the late decade.
A big piece of the unknown on this this is the general state of the world economy.
If there is stability and resumed growth after pandemic, the transition to plugin vehicles will
be quicker.
If there is economic stagnation/contraction- it will be much slower as people hold on to what
they've got.
And of course, the price oil will play a leading role in the incentive/disincentive
equation.
I also think it is important to acknowledge that we are talking about percent of new sales,
but not the absolute magnitude of sales. That may be more important. Vehicles last so much
longer now, and if petrol is available at reasonable price, the best bet for most people
financially will be to milk their current vehicle for as long as possible. But after that, the
next one will probably have a plug. STEPHEN HREN IGNORED04/28/2021 at 3:32
pm
At some point people will stop buying ICE vehicles even if no EV option is available.
Operating a gas station, especially in an urban environment, is a low margin, high regulation
enterprise. As gas stations in urban areas either go out of business or give up on selling gas,
gas cars will lose most of their appeal for urban and suburban residents because of "range
anxiety" – i.e. not enough places to fill up. I would guess that at about 20-30% EV
saturation, selling gas will no longer become profitable in any given area. This will add to
the spiral of concerns about resale value for ICE cars as the inevitability of the EV
transition becomes ever more apparent. HICKORY IGNORED04/28/2021 at
10:31 pm
This kind of action is hard to predict from past performance, but get used to these kind of
news items-
Germany March 2021
"The number of new passenger plug-in car registrations increased to 65,681 (up 232%
year-over-year), which is 22.5% of the total [new car]market. That's more than one in five new
cars!" OVI IGNORED04/26/2021 at 5:17
pm
Dennis
To me the EV market is bifurcated. From what I can see there are four concentrated EV
markets in the world.
– California due to its history with car pollution.
– Norway using its massive oil revenues to heavily subsidize EVs along wth other
perks.
– China with their heavy EV sales mandate and getting away from its achilles heal,
oil.
– Japan also wants to reduce dependence on oil.
Looking at what is happening in two US states provides some insight on how fast the EV take
up will occur in the US. California with a population of 39.5 M sold 133,000 EVs in 2020 or put
another way 3,360 EVs per million population. New York with a population of 19.45 M sold 21,000
EVs in 2020 or 1,080 EVs per million population. That is a ratio of three to one. it would be a
lot higher in other states.
Total US 2020 sales were 296,000. California accounts for 45% of US sales.
My point is that these 4 concentrated regions are not representative of the rest of the
world. The only region that will continue to grow at a significant pace will be China with its
sales mandate and I think with an eye to becoming a world leader in EV design. EVs are coming,
no doubt, but at a pace that is slower than most prognosticators are forecasting, primarily
because of cost.
He is right that it doesn't work at $55/b, at $61 (today's price for WTI) it works in the
Permian basin. Note that I also use the data from shaleprofile as the basis for my models.
Though I clearly don't know the oil business as well as an old pro like Mike, not even
close.
The average price of oil in 2020 was about $36/b, in 2021 it will be about $60/b and in 2022
about $70/b (WTI prices). Decline will stop at $70/b for sure and probably at $60/b.
Note that in 2017 the average WTI price was about $52/b, and in 2018 it was $67/b, and in 2019
it was $60/b. 2018 saw a very large increase in tight oil output and the increase in 2019 was
pretty big as well.
My Permian model assumes new wells are financed from cash flow rather than new debt, debt
paid back in full by 2026. REPLYSCHINZY
IGNORED04/27/2021 at 4:21
am
Dennis,
Your observations are correct with the implicit assumption that extraction costs do not rise
at the same rate as the price of oil. Shallow Sand has remarked that in the 1990s $20/barrel
was considered a good price but today most wells, either onshore or off, are not profitable at
$50/barrel. Shallow is our invaluable guide to the evolution of costs in the oil patch.
My prediction is that oil prices will stay in the current range ~$55-$65/ barrel until
decreased investment (see
http://peakoilbarrel.com/december-non-opec-oil-output-continues-rebound-from-may-low/#comment-715646
) results in a shortage. I believe the shortage will cause oil prices to kick on the order of
50% in a year. The price kick will then provoke a financial crisis similar to that of 2008, but
central banks will have far fewer options to alleviate the crisis. REPLYHOLE IN HEAD IGNORED04/27/2021 at 6:24
am
Schinzy , I agree with you . Dennis is underestimating a few critical issues ;
1. End of OPM finance .
2. Underestimating the GOR and WOR rise .
3. Underestimating decline rates in shale .
4. Underestimating the rise in costs now ( steel above by 50% in 2021) which makes $ 75 non
viable .
5 . His contention that the big corporations will buy out the bankrupt corporations . The flaw
is that the big corporations themselves want to exit . Further as Mike S has pointed out " who
wants to buy wells which are at the tail end of their production and are going to have a
shutdown expense of $ 100000 to bear " .
All three agree that there is going to be shortage in 2022 sometime in the second or third half
and your scenario that the resultant high price will provoke an even deeper financial crisis
than that exists now will play out . Let me add that Covid damage cannot be assessed at this
stage as the virus is mutating at a rapid pace . It has moved from India to Pakistan. https://www.rt.com/news/522199-pakistan-military-coronavirus-khan/
P.S : He always give's EOG as an example of a well run shale play but " one swallow does not
the summer make " . For every one EOG there are 10/15 waiting in line for bankruptcy .
SHALLOW SAND IGNORED04/26/2021 at 6:48
am
I don't see how these wells can be profitably operated by a company with a lot of overhead,
which I assume these publicly traded companies have. DENNIS COYNE IGNORED04/26/2021 at 7:31
pm
I have discussed before the uselessness of GAAP accounting in US shale.
Raw Energy, who writes articles on Seeking Alpha, has addressed this much better than I
can.
Over 3,000 of the approximately 19,000 oil wells in ND produced 0 barrels of oil in the last
reported month, 2/21. Some of this could be weather related. I suspect more of the problem is
economic, even at improved oil prices.
I suspect the numbers are similar in the other shale basins. Mike says there are many
inactive shale wells in EFS, where he operates his conventional production.
"... nobody, myself included, knows when this is going to end. We just watch the things that would normally indicate an end. ..."
"... "I think we should recognize we're pulling demand forward and that the longer-term outlook is not particularly favorable, in my view," he said. Cooperman said he expects Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who has described a recent pickup in price pressures as "transitory," will ultimately be surprised by inflation, forcing the central bank to signal action before the end of 2022. ..."
Billionaire investor Leon Cooperman says he's a "fully invested bear" with "an eye on the exit.
'I suspect the market will be lower a year from today. But I
don't have to make that guess now. This is not going to end well.'
-- Leon Cooperman, Omega Family Office
That's self-described "fully invested bear" Leon Cooperman,
who told CNBC
on Friday that given a coming rise in taxes, inflation and a "reasonably richly appraised market," he has "an eye
on the exit."
Cooperman, the chair of the Omega Family Office, added that "
nobody, myself included, knows when this is going to end. We
just watch the things that would normally indicate an end.
"
Stocks were
weaker Friday
, on track for a mixed weekly performance despite a hectic week of corporate results that featured blowout
results for some of the world's largest tech-related companies. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
-0.54%
was down more than 200 points, dragging the blue-chip gauge lower for the week. The S&P 500
SPX,
-0.72%
was down 0.7% for the session, while the Nasdaq Composite
COMP,
-0.85%
was down 0.5%.
Cooperman warned that the pace of market gains since bottoming out in March 2020 following
the pandemic-induced bear market plunge can't continue indefinitely.
"I think we should recognize we're pulling demand forward and that the longer-term outlook is not particularly favorable,
in my view," he said. Cooperman said he expects Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who has described a recent pickup in
price pressures as "transitory," will ultimately be surprised by inflation, forcing the central bank to signal action before the
end of 2022.
dougc
1 hour ago
If he is a fully invested BEAR he should be invested FOR the pullback and not eyeing an exit. If
he's fully invested now in a bull market strategy, he's lying about his expectations.
Reply
1
1 reply
Jolly
2 hours ago
The fed and biden are committed to endless cash until we go bankrupt or bonds pricing go way up and
this thing is forced to crash. you stay in the market and make the fed raise rates.
1Economist
4 hours ago
Popcorn: Do intelligent people erase Glass/Steagall, and uptick rule? At the same time powers in charge are unable to
grasp the significant loss of market makers, the progress of Ai & dark pools. Throw in new monetary policy that debt
doesn't matter and you get huge liquidity and a big BANG!
John
31 minutes ago
Saw the exact same thing in the 1990's. Everyone knew it was a bubble, but they all thought they could get out before
everyone else if they had to.
aaa
1 hour ago
I would never trust the epitome of greed, when it comes to investments that they can go long or
short...into a decree of direction. You have to ask yourself how and why entities like this have
accumulated billions on the market....
Reply
1
Scott
3 hours ago
Leon Cooperman says he has an "eye on the exit?" So? Anyone who doesn't at all times have an eye on
the exit is a fool. Tell me something I don't know, Leon.
C
49 minutes ago
Another shorter trying to manipulate the market
"Retail clients were the only buyers last week, while institutional and hedge fund clients sold," said Bank of America strategists
led by Jill Carey Hall. "Retail clients have been buyers for the eighth straight week, while hedge fund clients sold for the third
straight week."
The team at Bank of America notes that cumulative equity flows last week totaled a net $5.2 billion worth of outflows, the largest
one-week move out of stocks since November and the fifth-largest on record. In the past, these kinds of exoduses from the market
have portended shaky periods for investors.
"In the prior times weekly flows were this (or more) negative, the subsequent week's returns were -1% on avg/median with negative
returns 75% of the time," the firm notes. "Four-week average flows have been trending lower in recent weeks and have now turned negative
for the first time since mid-Feb, suggesting a pause to increasingly euphoric sentiment."
...But data from strategists on the Street does show that retail's participation in this market is not what it once was. The strategy
team over at Deutsche Bank led by Binky Chadha published a report late last week showed that single-stock call options â€"
a core part of the YOLO trade
powered by retail â€" has been declining in recent weeks.
After thirteen months, the BLS still cannot count the Unemployed. Headline U.3
Unemployment also remained deep in non-recovery territory. The BLS acknowledged continuing
misclassification of some "unemployed" persons as "employed," in the Household Survey. Where
the count of the understated unemployed had an "upside limit" of 636,000 persons in March 2021,
the February 2021 upside estimate of understated unemployed was 756,000. The difference would
be a potential headline U.3 of 6.44% instead of today's headline 6.05%, which was down from a
headline 6.22% in February. Fully adjusted for COVID-19 disruptions, based on BLS side-surveys
of Pandemic impact, and with more than six million people missing from the headline U.S. labor
force, actual headline U.3 unemployment still should be well above 10%, the highest
unemployment rate since before World War II, outside of the Pandemic and possibly at the trough
of the 1982-1983 recession. Broader March 2021 headline U.6 unemployment [including some
decline in short-term discouraged workers and those employed part-time for economic reasons]
eased to 10.71% from 11.07% in February. Including long-term discouraged/ displaced workers,
the March 2021 ShadowStats Alternate Measure –- moving on top of the decline in U.6
–- notched minimally lower to 25.7%, from 25.8% in February 2021, reflecting some modeled
transition of "short-term" to "long-term" discouraged workers, with the Pandemic having passed
its 12-month anniversary. The latest Unemployment Rates are posted on the ALTERNATE DATA
tab (above).
Indices such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and S&P 500 ( ( SPY ) ) are generally viewed
as convenient ways to measure the health of the entire stock market. Indeed, they are the
indicators that most folks in the business media use to determine if there are uptrends,
downtrends, bull markets, or bear markets.
The major indices generally do a good job of measuring overall market health, but there are
times when they can be very misleading. The problem is that there a small number of big-cap
stocks that can move the indices in one direction while hundreds or even thousands of smaller
stocks are moving in the other way.
Over the last 10 weeks, there has been a significant disconnect between the stocks that led
early in the year and the indices. Growth stocks, speculative small-caps, hot theme names, and
other groups have been very weak for a while, but the S&P 500 was hitting a new high
Thursday morning.
For a clearer picture of what is going on out there, a much better indicator is the ARK
Innovation ETF ( ARKK ) . ARKK was in a very strong
uptrend off the March 2020 low and gained nearly 400%. The fund held the stocks that market
participants favored for a very long time. It topped at $160 on Feb. 16 and a week later had
fallen 20% to $128, which is the definition of a bear market.
Since falling into a bear market, ARKK has been in a trading range and continued to
languish. It is down more than 3% Thursday as growth stocks and small-caps are taking it on the
chin again.
This is what is really going on in the market for most individual traders that focus on
stock-picking. The S&P 500 and DJIA are totally disconnected from this action. For most
traders it has been a bear market for over two months now, but we never hear about it in the
media.
This presents the most crucial question right now: What will happen to ARKK and the stocks
that it reflects if there is a major correction in the senior indices? Will they continue to
fall, or will there be some rotational action as money comes out of the names that are
currently at highs?
There is no easy answer, but that is the dilemma we face if we start to see deeper
corrective action in the S&P 500 and DJIA.
After being stuck in their homes for so long, people are itching to get out again. It's a
boon to newly reopening economies, with consumers ready to start spending more at gas stations,
convenience stores, restaurants, hotels and attractions. Daimler AG, BMW AG and Toyota Motor
Corp. all started the year with sales at records, and things are so hot that used car prices in
the U.S. are soaring to all-time highs.
The jump in vehicle sales is a strong sign that this is more than just a passing fad.
Gasoline is the big winner.
Profits from making the fuel are near seasonal five-year highs and are expected to stay
strong as the Northern Hemisphere heads into summer driving season. U.S. refiner Valero Energy
Corp. says gasoline sales are nearly at pre-pandemic levels, and the biggest bulls are
predicting demand could hit a record. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects summer
fuel prices to be the highest since 2018 this year.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it is hard to square with last year's market
logic. A year ago, we were a month into a rebound as the valuations of big technology stocks
soared, something explained at the time by
far lower Treasury yields . That made sense: Lower bond yields make earnings that are
expected to grow far into the future look more attractive, and Big Tech is full of those.
Growth stocks were a great place to be as the longest-dated Treasury yields plumbed new lows.
Valuations should rise when bond yields fall a long way.
Here we come to the problem: Just as lower yields justified a higher valuation for stocks
last year, higher yields should mean a lower price-to-earnings multiple -- albeit a lower
multiple of much higher earnings. Instead, valuations have gone broadly sideways as bond yields
first rose and then this month pulled back a bit. The result is that the stock market's
relationship with the bond market has gone haywire.
The strangeness shows up in the correlation between stocks and bond yields. Since the late
1990s higher yields have typically been good for stocks, so they tended to rise and fall
together daily -- even as over the long run, yields fell and stocks rose.
Last year, this relationship broke down. Investors got into a cycle where bad news on the
economy was good news for stocks, because it resulted in such
extreme support from the Federal Reserve and the government. The effect canceled out the
usual relationship almost entirely, breaking the link between stocks and bonds by late
summer.
The odd relationship of yields up, stocks up...Yields dropped a little and growth stocks
made more new highs. The tendency for both to move in the same direction, measured by the
50-day correlation of growth stocks to bond yields, has reversed and is at its most negative
since the boom times of 1999. Bizarrely, the link between value stocks and bonds has also
turned reversed, although not in such an extreme way, as value stocks also made new highs.
The bearish investor can take this as a sign of over-exuberance.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it is hard to square with last year's market
logic. A year ago, we were a month into a rebound as the valuations of big technology stocks
soared, something explained at the time by
far lower Treasury yields . That made sense: Lower bond yields make earnings that are
expected to grow far into the future look more attractive, and Big Tech is full of those.
Growth stocks were a great place to be as the longest-dated Treasury yields plumbed new lows.
Valuations should rise when bond yields fall a long way.
Here we come to the problem: Just as lower yields justified a higher valuation for stocks
last year, higher yields should mean a lower price-to-earnings multiple -- albeit a lower
multiple of much higher earnings. Instead, valuations have gone broadly sideways as bond yields
first rose and then this month pulled back a bit. The result is that the stock market's
relationship with the bond market has gone haywire.
The strangeness shows up in the correlation between stocks and bond yields. Since the late
1990s higher yields have typically been good for stocks, so they tended to rise and fall
together daily -- even as over the long run, yields fell and stocks rose.
Last year, this relationship broke down. Investors got into a cycle where bad news on the
economy was good news for stocks, because it resulted in such
extreme support from the Federal Reserve and the government. The effect canceled out the
usual relationship almost entirely, breaking the link between stocks and bonds by late
summer.
The odd relationship of yields up, stocks up...Yields dropped a little and growth stocks
made more new highs. The tendency for both to move in the same direction, measured by the
50-day correlation of growth stocks to bond yields, has reversed and is at its most negative
since the boom times of 1999. Bizarrely, the link between value stocks and bonds has also
turned reversed, although not in such an extreme way, as value stocks also made new highs.
The bearish investor can take this as a sign of over-exuberance.
Thanks for the insightful article. Yet for the time being the facts don't matter. The Fed has
turned investors--those who put money into the markets for the long term--into
speculators--those who put money into the markets with the hope of selling to a greater fool
in the short to near term. And just as most believe themselves above average, most of these
speculators believe they'll be amongst those who will get out at the top. Never mind that as
the saying goes, "There will be a whole bunch of fat people all trying to get out one skinny
door."
The rise in commodity prices has pushed inflation and that raise questions about the Fed's
assurances that any bump in inflation will be short-lived. Gundlach Says Fed Is Guessing That
Inflation Will Be Transitory
The stock market's recovery from the pandemic may be a mere continuation of the bull market
that preceded this crisis. If so, stocks may be at the end of their run, rather than beginning
an upswing.
It could actually be seen as the end of a longer bull market that began after the 2008-2009
financial crisis. That would mean the 2020 bear market and recession -- a health-induced crisis
rather than one caused by financial excess -- interrupted a bull market that had gone on for
more than a decade.
dopie 3 hours ago Apple....2.2 trillion market cap trading at 35 times EARNINGS? Reply 1 1
Patrick dopie 2 hours ago You think THAT'S a bubble? So that means you don't own any AMZN (P/E
of 82), NFLX (61), or TSLA (695!!) either, right?
"... The temptation to book profits and bail is getting hard to resist after the S&P 500's best 12-month rally since the 1930s. Increasing the anxiety are a mountain of charts signaling a market that's stretched to its limits. ..."
"... Earlier this month, the index soared 16% above its 200-day average, a feat that before December had occurred only a handful times over the past three decades. Moreover, the benchmark's relative strength index has surpassed 70 on both a weekly and monthly basis, a sign that the market has risen too far, too fast. ..."
"... A strategy following RSI signals has dropped 10% this year. The damage occurred as stocks entered the year with unbridled momentum that touched off an order to sell. The trade has since been in place as the S&P 500 never pulled back fast and long enough to flash buy. ..."
"... The moving average convergence/divergence indicator -- better known as MACD -- has suffered a loss of 9.8%. Five of the nine trading signals that the model has produced have been buys, and four of them have lost money. In addition, all four short recommendations have been losers. ..."
(Bloomberg) -- If you bailed because of Bollinger Bands, ran away from relative strength or took direction from the directional
market indicator in 2021, you paid for it.
It's testament to the straight-up trajectory of stocks that virtually all signals that told investors to do anything but buy
have done them a disservice this year. In fact, when applied to the S&P 500, 15 of 22 chart-based indicators tracked by Bloomberg
have actually lost money, back-testing data show. And all are doing worse than a simple buy-and-hold strategy, which is up 11%.
Of course, few investors employ technical studies in isolation, and even when they do, they rarely rely on a single charting technique
to inform decisions. But if anything, the exercise is a reminder of the futility of calling a market top in a year when the journey
has basically been a one-way trip.
"What we've seen this year is a very strong up market that didn't get many pullbacks," said Larry Williams, 78, creator
of the Williams %R indicator that's designed to capture a shift in a security's momentum. A long-short strategy based on the
technique is down 7.8% since the end of December.
"All the overbought and oversold indicators, mine as well as anybody else's, didn't get many buy signals, but a lot of sells,"
he said.
The temptation to book profits and bail is getting hard to resist after the S&P 500's best 12-month rally since the 1930s. Increasing
the anxiety are a mountain of charts signaling a market that's stretched to its limits.
Earlier this month, the index soared 16% above its 200-day average, a feat that before December had occurred only a handful times
over the past three decades. Moreover, the benchmark's relative strength index has surpassed 70 on both a weekly and monthly basis,
a sign that the market has risen too far, too fast.
Add in pundits warning of bubble-like valuations and resurgent coronavirus concerns, and it's a recipe for sell orders. Hedge
funds, for instance, have hit the exits this month, stampeding out of tech stocks just days before Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
report financial results.
Yet avoiding the stock market for any period of time has proven to be the riskiest wager of all. The S&P 500 has yet to retrench
more than 5% this year. At the same time, missing out on the big up days is more penalizing than ever. Absent the top five sessions,
the index's 11% gain dwindles to 2%.
"To try to guess that this is the right time to be out of the market, you may as well go to Las Vegas," said Mark Stoeckle,
chief executive officer at Adams Funds. "There's just as much risk doing that."
Bloomberg's back-testing model purchases the S&P 500 when an indicator signals a "buy" and holds it until a "sell" is
generated. At that time, the index is sold and a short position is established and kept until a buy is triggered.
A strategy following RSI signals has dropped 10% this year. The damage occurred as stocks entered the year with unbridled momentum
that touched off an order to sell. The trade has since been in place as the S&P 500 never pulled back fast and long enough to flash
buy.
The moving average convergence/divergence indicator -- better known as MACD -- has suffered a loss of 9.8%. Five of the nine trading
signals that the model has produced have been buys, and four of them have lost money. In addition, all four short recommendations
have been losers.
Such is the cost of betting against momentum in a market where the S&P 500 has already eclipsed the average Wall Street strategist's
year-end target.
"Today, and for much of 2020, the overbought conditions have been absorbed by the market with more strength, or at best a pause,"
said Renaissance Macro Research co-founder Jeff deGraaf, who ranked as the top technical analyst in Institutional Investor's
annual survey for 11 straight years through 2015. "Overbought/oversold conditions are useless without first defining the
underlying trend of the market."
Williams, who has been trading since 1962, agrees. Technical analysis tools aren't broken, he says, but in a bull market that's
as resilient as this one, investors need to use them in the right context.
"You have to have a different tool, if you will, for a job you're doing," he said. "I have a hammer that can build a house,
but if I use the hammer to dig a hole in the ground, that's going to be really hard."
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
Subscribe now to stay
ahead with the most trusted business news source.
-The Greens, if they "win" will not win with a majority. That means they will need
coalition partners. Neither the CDU or the SPD is going to go along with their plan to stop
NS2. The Greens, in order to form a govt. will cave in on NS2 and probably other things.
-The Ukies are still fleeing the country to avoid going to the front. The Ukie brass says
as much. These are not soldiers. They are farm kids. At the 1st sign of serious war, they
will all head for the russians with hands in the air.
-V. Putin handled the western MSM narrative quite well, imo, when he said "Those behind
provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done
in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time." It can't be clearer than that.
And that tells me that the ussa is in the crosshairs. This may be the 1st time in history
that the oceans will offer no protection for the warmongers that have been at war for 222
years of 237 years of their existence
The comedian is still flaying about and now trying to play the SWIFT card (last week it
was nuclear weapons, before that it was...). Which, of course, the west will not honor
because it would cripple the west as much or more than RU. I would imagine he needs to change
his undershorts on an hourly basis these days. He is literally caught between a rock and a
hard spot. No more support from DE, FR, US, NATO, TR except good wishes. And demands from his
brain-dead Banderites are only growing more shrill. What's a poor comic to do?
The west is basically done with him and with the show of force by the russians they are
more done with him than before. For his sake, i hope his khazarian passport app has been
approved.
Another failed state compliments of the khazarians in DC. And the beat goes on.
Eighthman @10 North Stream 2 will be the last mayor cooperation between Russia and Europe
for the next 10, 20 years. If you had to choose where to put your money, would you put it in
a gas pipeline to China (Power of Siberia) or a gas pipeline to Europe (North Stream2)?
Putin will be the last Russian president who looked west, to Europe; the next president
will look east, to Asia. It's where the money is.
I know how the German system works. Yet I am not seeing the Greens win or compose the next
government if they threaten to cancel NS2. The NS2 is not about the CDU/CSU but about the
German elite interest. No way they are going to give green light to the Greens. Speaking of
someone which city is on the border.
There is ONE little thing Mike Whitney missed, or maybe it developed as/after he wrote
this, the State Department told Germany last week there would be no further sanctions on
Germany or her companies as regards Nordstream II. I believe also that a four-Euro-country
coalition told the U.S. a couple of weeks ago that this was for Germany's energy security,
Nordstream that is and they sounded like they're serious about any further American
interference in the matter.
On the subject of LNG, is it even possible to transport enough LNG from the United States
to Germany in quantity equal to the flow of Nordstream II? That pipe they're laying looks of
sufficient diameter to walk through standing up, it's going to pass a LOT of gas. I don't
know what the flow rates and pressures are, but I know one thing; Boston has a large LNG
terminal and it's a dangerous setup. Pipelines seem to me a safer enterprise.
-The Ziocorporate globalist NATO/EU terrorists: We supported Chechen terrorist separatists
and KLA organ-harvesting Jihadis, dismembered Yugoslavia and bombed Serbia, used your Russian
airspace that you opened for us to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 Zioterrorist
self-attacks, instigated Georgia into war with Russia, used your UNSC vote to destroy Libya
with ISIS, turned EUkraine into a NATO satellite complete with an bloody massacre in Odessa
and yet another massmurderous war on Russia's border and blamed and sanctioned you for it,
shot down your planes in Syria; and we're gonna be taking Belarus the moment Lukashenko
blinks. But we're really good business partners, and need some gas, you know...
To my American readers I'd say that the US is very strong and the people of the US can
have a wonderful life even without world hegemony, in fact, hegemony is not in their
interests at all. What they should seek is a strong nationalist policy that cares for
the American people and avoids wasteful foreign wars.
The problem here, is that the American people are crushed and powerless, and in the grip
of something morphing into a Neo-Bolshevik style dictatorship. Similarly to the mid 1930's
this dictatorship wants world power – and from this perspective Ukraine looks more like
Spain 1936 (the first act of a much bigger show).
Biden's recent phone call to Putin suggests that the administration has decided not to
launch a war after all. The unconfirmed report of two US ships turning away from the Black
Sea fits this assessment. However, we cannot be sure about this since the Kremlin refused
to agree to Biden's offer for a meeting. The Kremlin's response was a frosty "We shall
study the proposal". Russians feel that the summit proposal might be a trick aimed at
buying time to strengthen their position.
Except that the US ordered two British warships to go there instead.
TASS, April 18. Two British warships will sail for the Black Sea in May. According to
The Sunday Times, a source in the Royal Navy indicated that this gesture is intended to
show solidarity with Ukraine and NATO in the region against the background of the situation
at the Russian-Ukrainian border.
According to the newspaper, one Type 45 destroyer armed with anti-aircraft missiles and
an anti-submarine Type 23 frigate will peel off from the Royal Navy's carrier task group in
the Mediterranean and sail through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea.
It is reported that the decision was made in order to support Ukraine after the US
cancelled its plans of sending two destroyers to the Black Sea in order to avoid further
escalation in the region and tensions with Russia. It is noted that in case of a threat on
the part of Russia, the UK is ready to send other military equipment to the region.
I would guess that the US Trotskyites plan to push the Ukrainians into a war and then
launch a massive international media barrage, "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian
atrocities", "killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2 and scare France and
Germany back into the US fold.
If this is right, then they're not expecting Russia to retake the whole of the Ukraine,
and they're not planning to start WW3.
However, Russia's lowest risk strategy would probably still be to only defend their
existing positions making it difficult to claim a "Russian invasion". They've probably
already lost Nord Stream (which is really a German loss – and the Germans know what the
ZioGlob are doing here). This buys time, and given that the US is already on a fast downward
slope, lets them keep sliding.
@Anonymous
point the finger and shriek about 'Russian aggression' in order to pressure the Germans into
cancelling Nordstream 2 and any other Russian supplied energy.
Of course if the Europeans weren't run by (((banker))) stooges and if they had any balls
between them they would force the US to call the whole thing off and pressure the Ukrainian
fascists to honour the Minsk 2 agreement. Sadly we are just going to have to prepare for the
worst and hope it doesn't go nuclear.
I see my own government (I am from the UK) has decided to send some sacrificial ships to
the Black sea (the US apparently doesn't want to risk theirs) What else can we expect when
2/3 of our parliament are in 'Friends of Israel' groups?
The Ukrainians who would the hardest to pacify are in the Ukie Diaspora in US, Canada and
Western Europe. These folks still maintain a WW II mentality, act as if the Holodomor (which
was terrible) only happened the other day and have a fair number of Banderists among their
number. They do not wish to acknowledge that the Holodomor was orchestrated by the same Jews
who launched the Bolshevik Revolution and killed millions of Orthodox Russians more than a
decade beforehand. The ideal would be for Ukraine to maintain it territorial integrity minus
perhaps the Donbas and go forward with a positive relationship with Russia.
@Anonymous
refugees, including tens of thousands of Russian passport holders, trek into Russia, creating
a nightmare for Putin. Ukranazistan is enormously emboldened, joins NATO de facto if not yet
de jure, Russia is tremendously weakened, loses all allies and prospective allies. Win for
Amerikastan.
Scenario 2: Putin intervenes.
Result: Amerikastan leaves the Ukranazis high and dry, but shrieks about Evil Russian
Invasion; NordStream II and all other economic connections with Europe are severed.
Amerikastan immensely reasserts its control over Europe, sells its LNG to Germany at much
inflated prices, and its useless weapons to everyone to "defend against Russia". Hands Russia
the unenviable burden of the ruin of Ukranazistan, which Amerikastan has looted for 7 years
till there is nothing left. Win for Amerikastan.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist ttlement of Disputes". Hopefully it will direct the attention of
the Security Council or the General Assembly to realize the Russian Federation and permanent
member of the UNSC, see no other path to peace if the representatives of the UN fail to make
a just and fair decision on this particular matter that has gone on for far too long.
This in itself does not necessarily mean the armies of Russia will pour over Ukraine's
western border and over their northern border from Belarus. But the declaration of defensive
war puts US-NATO in a Hobson's choice predicament and that is to choose peace. If they choose
to cross the Rubicon then the necessity of defense war as theoretically stated will happen to
preserve the sovereignty of Mother Russia.
Less than 11% of ukrainians are Catholic -- less than 1% "Latin Rite" and 10% Uniate
Catholic -- and they are concentrated overwhelmingly in the oblasty bordering Poland and
Slovakia etc. in the west. Catholicism does not exist in the Donbass region and has almost
zero presence or influence in the rest of the Ukraine excluding the far west.
Russian and Ukrainian are even more similar than you make out, albeit not nearly-identical
like Russian and Belarussian.
In any event, many Ukrainians consider BOTH Russian and ukrainian to be their native
languages.
Moreover, a large minority of people, especially around Kiev, use the Russian-Ukrainian
mix called Surzhyk.
If the MIC/Banksters like the brinkmanship games so much, it would be interesting to see
Russian nuclear submarines emerging near Patagonia (Jewish "retreat") and Cuba. A piece of
leaked information about the City of London being on a crosshair of Kinzhal will be a bonus.
Add to that the publication of a detailed map of underground luxury bunkers for the
"deciders;" that would be super nice.
The cannibals – the "globally-oriented elites" – need to feel the flaming spear
directed towards each of them (and their progeny) personally. The confrontation has indeed
become personal: the ZUSA's "elites" against humankind.
@Miro23
re it fit best how would that be a bad thing?
Some to Russia, some to Poland, some to a rump State.
I would love to see Putin, Lavrov and Shoigu cook up a feast for Bidet Joe and Camel Toe tbat
would see them humiliated. Bidet is a fraud and anything that makes him and his little goblin
Blinkenfeld look like idiots is great.
We can only hope!
P.S. It must really suck to be a Ukrainian. Here we are in the 21st century and these guys
can't get out from being stuck in the mud. The young have to leave for Poland to get jobs.
And for what reason, so American Jews can get their Hate On for the Czar?! All the
Greenblatts need war crime charges. Convict and execute the next morning. All legal. Force is
all these vermin understand.
@Anonymous
oke Putin into overreacting, thus, proving that Russia poses a threat to all of Europe. The
only way Washington can persuade its EU allies that they should not engage in critical
business transactions (like Nordstream) with Moscow, is if they can prove that Russia is an
"external threat" to their collective security.
Shamir unfortunately became fixated on Whitney's use of the word "overreact" (though I agree
it's not the right word) and mostly failed to address the substance of the question and its
underlying premise.
And, as a postscript, I agree with animalogic. Your kindergarten language is embarrassing. I
mean, if you're going to insult Escobar et al., at least use adult insults.
In the unlikely event that Ukraine does try to take back the Donbas by force, Shakespeare
has already devised the appropriate stage direction for the Zelensky government:
"Get your hands off my country," Zimerman told the stunned crowd in a denunciation of US
plans to install a missile defence shield on Polish soil. Some people cheered, others yelled
at him to shut up and keep playing. A few dozen walked out, some of them shouting
obscenities.
I've played hundreds of Russians at chess, and they prefer what chess players call "quiet
moves." (Unlike US players, who are more impetuous). Same for Putin; quiet moves. But if
provoked, he will finish the job. (Adm Spruance, after Pearl Harbor: By not attacking the tank
farms, sub base, and machine shops, they had not "finished the job.
The "western" Ukraine you cite may have been culturally Ukrainian/Russian/eastern Slavic,
several hundred years ago. But as they were under Polish and later Austro-Hungarian
overlordship for many generations, they became westernized–culturally deracinated. They
are Galicians, NOT Ukrainians.
If Ukraine retains some level of political independence, they need to divorce these
culturally undigestible Uniates and their fascistic leadership. Currently that group poses a
toxicity to the body-politick of Ukraine, however else you may wish to define Kievan Rus.
@Bombercommand
> In some ways your take is apropos, particularly regarding potential Russian overextending.
You do place a lot of reliance on "International Law". With little incidents like Trump's
overturning of the uranium-processing accords with Iran, plus numerous other violations by the
U$/British consortium working as the intel and military enforcement arms for the Bank$ter
Cabal; international law has been constantly and consistently violated.
Geopolitically speaking, in terms of realistic "real politick", as per Bismark, no national
regime regards such nice-sounding accords as valid and inviolable. At some unknown future time,
genuine International Law may become a reality. At present, it is primarily a smiley-faced
mask.
A bear has never been a "Russian totem animal". Eagles, falcons, wolves – but never
bears. "Russian bear" is a product of the British russophobic propaganda of the Crimean war of
the 19 century.
The ukies are not Russians. Russian society looks forward demolition of the ukronazi
statehood, but without any form of integration of the Northern Somalia into our country. A few
million insurgent anarchists on top of all our problems would finish us.
The fanatics who actually live in Ukraine can be easily traced and kept under control. Their
funding would be cut off. They are a tiny portion of the population.
In the last elections that were won by Zelensky, the parties that wanted peace with Russia
represented over 95% of the population. Zelensky deceived everyone by continuing exactly the
same policies of Poroshenko. In fact, he was worse as he recently shut down all opposition TV
stations.
1n 2019, the only area in favour of continuing the war was brick-red on this map. Today, due
to the collapsing economy and the lockdowns, there are even fewer people in favour of war. The
Russians would be welcomed almost everywhere.
Fraud Bidet and little goblin Blinkenfeld; amusing but true nevertheless.
And I couldn't agree more when it comes to what you say about Ukraine, i.e. the borderland.
According to my sister who lives in Poland, Ukraincy (in Polish "those from bordeland) are
everyplace.
I would add that the western part of Ukarine "released" to join Poland would just allow the
evil empire to occupy that much land even closer to Russia. I don't see that as desirable.
Perhaps that western
extremity is something that needs to be made "independent" and demilitarized, perhaps with UN
peacekeepers present. At any rate, it needs to be rendered as no danger to Russia.
I have thought that by making Ukraine unavailable to the native neo-nazies there, they are
forced to relocate, and then become a major headache for their damaging and dangerous influence
in Europe.
Call it "blowback" . just another reason for the Europeans to defuse any American smart ideas
in their neighbourhood.
Canadian, British and hand-picked nazi battalions attempt to enter the no mans land, come
under mortar fire, go to ground and ask their artillery to save them.
Ukrainian/nato artillery battalions get counter-batteried into oblivion by ru artillery
regiments stationed in range.
Commanders at battalion level ask for a cease-fire, evacuate their troops back to the starting
line.
V.V. Putin, being merciful and kind, agrees.
Russia wins.
Fifth variant
Nothing happens except for a lot of hot air, troop movements and wails from Lugenpresse.
Status quo is maintained, zato keeps paying for the Ukrainian Project.
Russia wins.
They are already being treated as an outlaw state, and although Russians are inhumanly
patient, as I've seen for too long firsthand, this may figure into any looming brinkmanship
– as Lavrov's recent exasperated remark about the US being incapable of negotiation may
indicate.
True, There is zero need for the US to play Imperial Global Overlord because of the
natural resources on North America. It is only the greed and hubris of the Elites, who cannot
ever be satisfied.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire is very much an Evil Empire.
There are dozens of charts that illustrate how closely today’s financial
bubble resembles its predecessors. But simple is better when expressing a hard truth, so
let’s go with that old standby, margin debt. This is debt created when
over-stimulated investors borrow against their stocks to buy more stocks. At its high extremes,
the result is always the same: A price decline that forces overleveraged investors to liquidate
at any price, turning correction into bloodbath. Note that the steeper the rise in margin debt,
the more severe the resulting plunge in share prices.
The next chart illustrates more clearly the “steep†thing.
The current spike is one for the record books.
Now, during past spikes in margin debt the “investors†who
were swept up in the euphoria of easy money frequently responded to criticism with a variation
on “corporate earnings are about to soar, which will make everything okay.
Plus we know you’re only complaining because you missed the gravy train and
you’re jealous.â€
But corporate earnings almost never completely offset extreme valuations and soaring margin
debt. A useful measure for visualizing this fact is “earnings
yield,†which is the S&P 500 index’s aggregate earnings
expressed as a percentage of its aggregate market cap. This is how much a buyer of the average
stock receives in earnings per dollar invested. Common sense says the more the buyer receives
the better the deal. And history says the less the buyer receives the higher the likelihood of
stock prices falling in the ensuing few years. Today’s yield of 2.36% is the
second-lowest ever. That’s really bad.
Market will definitely collapse sooner or later. But nobody knows when. Especially taking into account FED Plunge protection team activities. If is stupid and irresponsible to talk about June crash...
Dent’s forecast
seems to have struck some kind of chord. For about a week or longer, the article was the most popular article at ThinkAdvisor.com. But although he may be unique in setting a deadline, he’s not the only guru predicting disaster.
Just this week I got a note from Jonathan Ruffer, an eminent money manager in London, with this dire warning: “I take it pretty much
for granted that the 40 year bull market is ending, and that it will be replaced by hard investment times.†And Jeremy Grantham
(also born in England, but long based in the U.S.)
recently
concluded
that stocks, bonds and real estate are all in a bubble and may well collapse together in the next year or two.
Longstanding gloomster John Hussman
estimates
the
S&P 500
SPX,
+1.09%
could
end up losing us all money over the next 20 years even before you deduct inflation, and suspects a quick 25-30% market slump may be
ahead.
I have a guilty secret. I’m a sucker for these warnings (OK, maybe not for Dent’s). They often make for compelling reading. The most
bearish stock market forecasters are generally more intelligent, more freethinking, and more interesting than the average Wall
Street salesman. They usually write much better, too. Hussman’s math and logic are almost unarguable. Why, asked John Wesley, does
the devil have the best tunes? (I am not comparing these people to a religious devil, of course, only to the Wall Street equivalent:
Sinners who may interfere with the business.)
And their arguments make plenty of sense. Maybe not those predicting a market collapse in time for Wimbledon, but those warning us
of grim years ahead. The U.S. stock market is
almost
90% above the level
where the “Warren Buffett Rule†is supposed to trigger red flashing lights and deafening warning sounds. The
so-called
“Shillerâ€
or
cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio ], the
Tobin’s
Q
â€" all sorts of measures are telling us some version of Alien’s “Danger! The emergency destruct system is now activated! The
ship will detonate in 30 minutes... 10 minutes ...†Run, don’t walk, to the escape pod. Don’t forget the cat.
And most of the most bullish forecasts we hear from Wall Street involve the simple fallacy of double-counting: The more stocks rise
the better their “historic returns,†which a salesman then cheerfully extrapolates into the future.
... ... ...
It’s not that the bull market salesmen are clearly right. Actually, math and cold hard logic should give anyone cause for concern,
especially about the most euphoric U.S. stocks.
But even if these skeptics turn out to be right, when is it going to happen? Will the market go up another 10% or 20% or 50% before
it turns? Will it happen in June this year â€" or June in 2025?
I always figure that the day I finally decide to tune these guys out altogether will be the moment the Titanic hits the iceberg.
But there are options instead of trying to guess on Boom and Doom. We can just let the market decide for us instead. Money manager
Meb Faber
worked
out
years ago that pretty much every stock market crash or bear market in history has been signaled in advance. If you just
cashed out when the market index first fell below its 200-day moving average, you avoided nearly all the carnage. (OK, in the sudden
1987 one-day crash you got all of a single day’s notice.)
Even if you didn’t end up making more money in the long-term than a buy-and-hold investor, he found, you made pretty much the same
amount … and with far less “volatility“ (and sleepless nights).
Last year this trigger got you out of the S&P 500 on March 2, just before the main implosion. The market rose above the 200-day
moving average again, triggering it was time to get back in, on June 1.
Most people will use the S&P 500 index as their trigger, but Faber found it worked for other assets such as REITs as well. Global
investors may prefer the MSCI All-Country World Index.
Is this system guaranteed to work? Of course not. But nor is anything else. That includes all those bullish predictions that stocks
will earn you inflation plus 6% a year. And those bearish predictions that once the market reaches a certain valuation triggers it’s
heading for disaster. All rules are rely on some assumption that the future will resemble the past.
And using this rule means you can safely and happily ignore all the people predicting the end of the world.
Brett Arends is an award-winning financial writer with many years experience writing about markets, economics and personal
finance. He has received an individual award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers for his financial
writing, and was part of the Boston Herald team that won two others. He has worked as an analyst at McKinsey & Co., and is a
Chartered Financial Consultant. His latest book, "Storm Proof Your Money", was published by John Wiley & Co.
Amos Library
8 hours ago
It took 19 years and 2 crashes to get to even (inflation adjusted) from the 2000 peak.
James Goodwin
7 hours ago
I've been among the gloomsters for the last decade and evidently wrong. That pessimism (and
lost opportunity) rests on debt and demography which are connected into the future. Our vast
debts are unstainable at these low interest rates unless savings are substantial and
economic growth is high. For now the substantial baby boomer generation (now in their mid
70s and in their mid 50s to 60s) have no alternative but to invest in the stock market. This
is self fulfilling lowering the cost of capital and pushing up returns as central banks can
afford to come to the rescue. That seems to have hit the limits with record low interest
rates and QE now being tested by rising bond yields. But as more retire there will be a
double hit from the higher costs of their health and pensions, and a shrinking workforce
which presents wage bargaining power (technology and globalisation included). That is a
situation which has been slowly developing this last decade (beginning in Japan in the 1990s
and more recently China) and will now accelerate across the developed world (notably in
Italy and Germany). This pivots on Covid caused inflation which seems likely to be more than
a blip. As part of this I am reminded that Japan's Nikkei Index is still 25% below its 1989
high of 38,000. I will retain my wait and see approach while others enjoy themselves talking
and acting like its the roaring 20s.
Reply
6
1
lee Hoffman
James Goodwin
1 hour ago
Well James you will be waiting another 10 years. Your prognostications have been
wrong in the past, and will continue in the future. Bond yields in the US?
What's the bond yields in Germany and Japan? Negative. Yes, the US monetary
policy is suspect. But, compared to what? The Euro? The yen? The Chinese
currency value is tied to ours, not an independent currency at all. Bond yields
here have decelerated mostly because of the ability to arbitrage currency abroad
and buy a 10 year US bond guaranteed by the US at 1.5 as opposed to a German
Bund at negative .30! Yes, there is a wrinkle in the supply chain caused by
Covid, and perhaps exasperated by reluctant workers to return to work, and
frankly an incentive domestically not to go back to work. But the deflationary
levers at work have not abated. The internet, international competition, more
efficient supply chains, and the ability to tap into inexpensive labor worldwide
are still there. You've missed in the last 10 years, by being out of the market
a return of over 500%. Do you really feel qualified to provide investing advice?
Reply
2
David Binkowski
8 hours ago
The ones who treat ever rustle in the grass as a lion, also never become millionaires
because they run every time the grass rustles. Sometimes surviving inhibits thriving.
Reply
6
2
William Howell
David Binkowski
7 hours ago
Wait a minute! Your death also means thriving - for the lion! It's much better
to die as a contributor to vibrant being than to get run over by an inanimate
car. (Message paid for by the Lion's Pride)
Reply
2
Darryl Egbert
David Binkowski
7 hours ago
I became a millionaire through hard work and frugal living and not touching the
stock market (except for some shorts in 2000 and 2008).
Todd Johnson
5 hours ago
In April of this last year 2020 there were many "experts" predicting
an even larger crash after the March 20th bottom from Covid, mainly
due to the economic slowdown and huge jump in unemployment. I felt
that as the pandemic waned the thirst for consumption would
re-emerge so I bought, bought, bought. While Warren Buffet was
selling all his airline stock I was buying them. I made over 50%
return on these investments since then. Not bad!
Reply
2
Mike Mayo
5 hours ago
A homeowner since 1995, I live in St Petersburg, Florida - where
real estate values have exploded over the past few years (since
'17), and there is very little inventory. Without question, this is
NOT a healthy market, and I'm hopeful that prices will in fact
decrease modestly while inventory increases. I have over $400K in
equity in the house, and can't even buy a loaf of bread with it. In
fact, I continue to put money into the house, with repairs,
renovations, etc. Making matters worse, I can't even downsize into
something smaller and less expensive - and bank or invest the
difference - since prices are sky-high and inventory so low. This is
not a healthy or sustainable market. As for the financial markets,
it remains the greatest wealth creator in the history of human-kind.
Markets will always fluctuate, sometimes wildly, but if you keep
cash on the ready, consistently buy the dips and don't sell in a
panic into weakness, you will always make money - and lots of it.
Throughout the bull-market that started in '09, we've had some very
significant down-turns and corrections. December '18 is an excellent
example. The market dropped like a rock, nearly 20% in a month. The
following month, the market came roaring back. I'm confident that at
some point this year, the market will have a 10%+ correction. I will
stay the course, buy that dip aggressively, only to have the market
come roaring back and my net-worth grow.
Reply
2
Paul Johnston
Mike Mayo
5 hours ago
Just curious: If you want to cash out the gains on the
house, why not downsize and buy elsewhere? There are
lots of pleasant places to live besides St Pete, and not
all have low inventory and sky-high prices. Just sayin'....
Reply
don stern
2 hours ago
Since 1793, there has never been a stock market crash
that hasn't resulted, ultimately, in another all time
stock market high.
Reply
2
Thor B
don stern
2 hours ago
The key word is "ultimately"...
Reply
Amos Library
1 hour ago
from a major investment research company V and L weekly
summary 4/30 There are potential flies in the ointment,
however. First, there is a recent jump in inflation,
with the U.S. homebuilding sector and several regional
manufacturing surveys The Value Line View In This Issue
suggesting greater cost pressures. Then, there’s the
troubling uptick in COVID-19 cases, which could slow
progress on the recovery front. Meanwhile, earnings
season is proving to be a solid one so far, with strong
performances from a number of banking giants, as well as
several consumer and tech entities. In all, we think
Corporate America will do well in the coming weeks.
Here, too, there should be further improvement in the
next few quarters. The bull market is rambling on, with
the Dow Jones Industrial Average recently ascending
34,000 for the first time ever while the NASDAQ, off
notably to close the first quarter, is back near 14,000.
What’s more, the recent trends could well continue,
although the high price-earnings ratios and low dividend
yields now in place make the stock market, now priced
for near perfection, vulnerable to unwelcome news. So,
some caution is warranted. Conclusion: We think
investors should proceed with some care, with a wary eye
on price-earnings ratios and dividend yields.
Reply
1
Michael Wilson
2 hours ago
Using both the 50 and 200 DMA as signals works good
also. Sell 1/2 if the 50 is crossed and the other half
if the 200 is crossed. Reverse the method to buy. Worked
great over the last two years.
Jakob Bear
7 hours ago
Well written article thanks.. Growth stocks already crashed though so I'm guessing he is referring to tech and the dow?
Could be, always a good idea to have money on the sidelines to pick up any drastic or non-sensical dips. Dividend stocks
still give dividends also so the economy really would have to crash. Consider we are just coming out of covid and there
is robust growth ahead, it is unlikely the economy is going to crash anytime soon, maybe not grow as fast as
anticipated. But once again bond rates will go down and growth stocks will go up if that happens. Who knows I'll stick
with a few select spec stocks for now they don't follow the market anyways except in short term movements. Good luck
all!
CARLOS T BAEZ
7 hours ago
Discipline always works in the long term. If one treats every
historical proven trigger consistantly, one would do better than
average. The reason that it is called discipline is because it most
be acted upon consistanly. Wealth always runs to where it has been
treated the best historically: Real Estate, US Treasuries,
Commodities (between a cookie brand and a company that provides the
flour, butter, salt and suggar I would always choose the latter),
significant companies' dividend stocks, defensive stocks, major
financial stocks, and major consumer staples stocks. No matter how
the economy/stocks do one has to eat, drink, shelter, utilities,
transportation, communication, health care and die (funeral homes).
If one can not make money (consistantly) with the S&P 500, one can
not make money in any other index consistantly. Never bet against
the USA. We are the Financial/Wealth Heaven in the unniverse.
Reply
2
2
Darryl Egbert
7 hours ago
I really do believe we are now at the point that the Fed cannot
allow assets prices to fall without the real economy taking a huge
nosedive. They have essentially sucked (forced) everyone into the
equities to avoid losing the purchasing power of their savings. If
asset price were to drop by 50%, people would look into their
savings accounts and realize they have to stop consuming and start
saving their a significant income to make up for the losses (the
"wealth effect" that the Fed built the recovery on would go into
reverse). They have said as much in congressional testimony - if a
fall asset prices flows through to the real economy, there is a Fed
"put". One my favorite advisors made a comment this weekend that 20%
fall in equities would be met by the Fed jumping in with $50
billion/month of more QE. He also postulated that they would go find
some good lawyers who could find a loophole around the Federal
Reserve Act, allowing the Fed to directly purchase equities - like
they have been doing in Japan. As Hussman says, even if they could
prevent asset prices from falling materially, the forward returns
will dismal if not negative for decades to come. Fed can postpone -
or maybe even prevent price discovery, but they cannot change the
underlying value of assets. And long as the price of assets exceed
the underlying value, you are swimming against the currents.
Reply
1
William Howell
7 hours ago
Fun article by Brett Arends. This seems to be a basic need of every
human : to carry around at least five "end-of-the-world scenarios"
at all times. Why 5? Because these scenarios have a habit of
[washing out, breaking in two, being mis-placed or forgotten]. But
historically they also become true, even in recent times, and
perhaps to far greater depths than the imaginations of Hollywood?
But one can't stop living for fear of death (or a bad-return year).
At least one of your doomsayers has also been a super-bull on and
off, not a perma-bear.
Reply
1
T Cr
5 hours ago
In the modern data-tracking of stocks, there has never been a
worldwide pandemic coming a few years after a global equities and
banking meltdown. This time right now is unheralded. So, all of the
old "rules" for predicting a turn toward the bears simply can't and
don't count. This is one data point, and you never base a
statistical conclusion on one data point; you need at least 10 for
significance and preferably 20. So, ignore anyone who is using these
old metrics to try to win any argument about upcoming market
conditions. They simply don't even enough data points to base the
future on the past. Instead, look to current forces at play and use
your ability to rank order investment choices for both individual
and institutional investors: inflation and bond yields are
ultra-low, central banks are still involved in some degree of
quantitative easy, federal governments are still stimulating
economic activity, unemployed resources still exist in any number of
sectors (entertainment, food service, vacationing, labor), major
corporations still pay dividends well in excess of inflation (I see
you Verizon and AT&T), and profits in any and all health care
related industries are booming as is residential real estate and IT
(remote learning and work from home). As long as these factors hold,
well chosen stocks or indexes will flourish. Investors don't want
either bonds or CDs, and a tin can in the back yard rarely feels
like a savvy choice.
Reply
michael pyles
3 hours ago
Falling interest rates, decreasing taxes, higher government
spending, rising productivity via automation, and loss of labor
bargaining power via globalization and the destruction of unions,
have all kept the market rising since 1982. Keep your eye of these.
If they begin to change, the outlook for earnings will change. Don't
be a victim to recency bias.
Reply
Amos Library
1 hour ago
Lance Roberts Real investment advice dot com For Jeremy Siegel, making wild
predictions about markets has no consequence. If he is wrong, he makes
another prediction to cover for the first. However, for you, following such
a prediction can have a devastating impact on your short- and long-term
financial goals. The reality is that markets are pushing “rarified air.†It
is unlikely that corporate earnings will achieve the lofty goals set out by
analysts currently. It is also very probable that economic growth may be
weaker than expected. Of course, these are just “concerns†of an overvalued,
extended, and overly bullish market. Sure, the current cyclical bull market
could rise another 30%. Momentum-driven markets are hard to kill in the
latter stages, particularly as exuberance builds. However, they do
eventually end. Will the market likely be higher in another decade from now?
Maybe. However, if interest rates or inflation rise sharply, the economy
moves through a normal recessionary cycle, or if Jack Bogle is
correct, things could be much more disappointing. As Seth Klarman from
Baupost Capital once stated: “Can we say when it will end? No. Can we say
that it will end? Yes. And when it ends and the trend reverses, here is what
we can say for sure. Few will be ready. Few will be prepared.â€
Amos Library
1 hour ago
Lance Roberts Real investment advice dot com For Jeremy Siegel,
making wild predictions about markets has no consequence. If he is
wrong, he makes another prediction to cover for the first. However,
for you, following such a prediction can have a devastating impact
on your short- and long-term financial goals. The reality is that
markets are pushing “rarified air.†It is unlikely that corporate
earnings will achieve the lofty goals set out by analysts currently.
It is also very probable that economic growth may be weaker than
expected. Of course, these are just “concerns†of an overvalued,
extended, and overly bullish market. Sure, the current cyclical bull
market could rise another 30%.
Jay Arant
5 hours ago
Dent's thinking sounds dented. We've had quite a few pullbacks since the
beginning of this year and I believe a correction is coming whenever but no one
know exactly WHEN.....Do not put any "stock" into some fringe thinking doomsday
prophesyer which we've all heard before.
Reply
1
1
Gerry Cruzman
Jay Arant
3 hours ago
The US is approaching $30 trillion dollars of National Debt, and we
have a mentally incompetent President and Dems in control of
Congress who have no interest or clue in controlling Federal
spending - and it’s but a matter of time until that massive debt and
uncontrolled spending reeks havoc with our economy...
Reply
1
3
Show 2 more replies
Mike Staples
8 hours ago
When hype runs into reality, there’s a crash. As long as reality is being hid by
money from above, there’s no need to worry.
Reply
Alberto Perez
6 hours ago
With central bankers' feet on the accelerator, it's hard for me to envision a
"crash" anytime soon.
Reply
Maitreya riske
Alberto Perez
5 hours ago
Almost every crash has been caused by the Central Bank trying to
goose the economy. The next one will be also.
Reply
Maitreya riske
6 hours ago
The BIG issue with the market as currently configured is that we are relying on
the FED to save us if something goes wrong even though these are the exactly the
same people who have destroyed all market pricing signals/ pushed us all to the
same side of the boat at the same time/ continually tried to goose the economy
over and over until interest rates have been lowered to zero. Well guess what?
Now they are trapped because how do you engineer a new bull market when you
can't lower rates the next time something bad happens. That's the problem, we're
told everything is fine but its not. If we actually had a real economy based on
savings and investing instead of a giant pozzi game based on IOU's and Debt then
maybe people wouldn't be so worried. You should be worried because trusting
these people is a fool's errand. But don't worry Goldman Sachs will be there
with plenty of cash to buy all your assets for dirt cheap when the time comes.
Reply
T Cr
Maitreya riske
5 hours ago
You see only the FED as a key actor in macro policy. Keynes holds
most of the cards, though, not the FED. Stimulus by the Treasury for
brick and mortar projects is ultimately much more powerful than the
FED, and requires no changes in either taxation or the
buying/selling of Treasuries. Any spending that is needed is simply
done by creating new money via the Treasury, which is its
Constitutional authority. As long as inflation is well under 3%, say
most economists, creating new money nudges innovation, upgrading of
infrastructure, enhanced education for a smarter future work force
and enhanced productivity. Priming the economic pump is not a Ponzi
scheme, since no one has to be "paid back", ever, as in a Ponzi
scheme. There is no "debt" when the Treasury creates new money.
Reply
1
Hey Now
4 hours ago
I just figured loose monetary policy from the Fed would keep this bull market
going.
Reply
Mike Elek
5 hours ago
Somewhere between market doomsday and the never-ending party is the truth. For
those who have warned, "Cash out now!" for the past five years, well, they
missed out on an incredible bull run. Then there are those who post rocket
emojis and expect this bull run to continue forever. I'm OK with a market
downturn, because it's healthy. Fundamentals should win out, because someone
always wins on Wall Street. All of those who short stocks help the market,
because their bearish predictions help to keep stock prices in check (my
theory). Another of my theories is that Trump kept the market in check. Every
time the market seemed ready for a big run-up, he would say something
ridiculous, and the market would slide. I think that this prevented a massive
bubble and crash. His big mouth caused mini-corrections, which in the long run
helped the market. ...
See
more
Reply
Dave N Japan
1 hour ago
I see the market not doing much in he next 4 years, but not a collapse, It all
depends on China and Taiwan I think
Reply
average american
3 hours ago
Please read this info from Indian medical experts regarding COVID triple
mutation. If this is true a market crash is around the corner. Western world
doesn’t want you to know. The Times of India spoke to Vinod Scaria, a researcher
at the CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology in India, who said the
triple-mutant was also an "immune escape variant" â€" a strain that helps the
virus attach to human cells and hide from the immune system. In other words, you
may not be safe from this variant even if you were previously infected by
another strain, or even if you have been vaccinated," Chinnaswamy said.
Reply
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
"... The Fed has been buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets. ..."
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
The spread between the two-year Treasury yield and a key interest rate set by the Federal Reserve is the narrowest since the depths
of the coronavirus market selloff, a potential sign of financial-system stress.
The two-year Treasury yield, which closed Tuesday at 0.115%, is 0.015 percentage point above the interest rate on excess reserves,
or IOER. It traded as low as 0.105% earlier in February. The Fed pays banks on the reserves held above and beyond those required by
central-bank regulatory policy as part of its effort to maintain liquidity in the financial system.
When the coronavirus
sent
markets and the economy into a tailspin
in March, the Fed cut IOER by 1 percentage point to 0.10% --
alongside
other interventions
-- to shore up short-term lending markets and support economic activity. The spread between IOER and the
two-year yield has typically been above 0.05 percentage point since the Fed cut the rate to its lowest level ever in March.
Yield on U.S. 10-year Treasury note
Source:
Tullett Prebon
%
March
2020
'21
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Traders said the shrinking of this spread reflects appetite for short-term debt as investors gobble up safe assets and park
their cash. It also highlights a key tension point in financial markets: to what extent is Fed support for markets taking asset
prices to unsustainable levels, and how vulnerable does that leave bond markets and other areas exposed to sudden reversals
...bond traders are concerned that inflation could rise in coming months and years as the government prints money to support the
economy and cover future borrowing costs.
Traders contend that short-term yields would be higher if the central bank wasn't anchoring rates.
The Fed has been
buying $80 billion in Treasurys each month since June and slashed rates to near zero in March to stabilize financial markets.
The idea is that low interest rates and bond buying boost spending by providing cheap credit to businesses and households.
Some bond investors fear too much cheap credit will mean inflation.
...
Another
corner of U.S. markets is sending warning signals: the 10-year break-even rate, which tracks annual inflation expectations over
the next decade, traded as high as 2.24% last week.
....The difference between the break-even rate and the Treasury yield recently widened to more than 1 percentage point. For some
this is a sign that inflation isn't far off, and in the meantime that financial markets remain vulnerable to bubbles.
"I would characterize the phase we are in now as an era of hyperstimulation between fiscal and monetary policy," said Thomas
Pluta, global head of linear rates trading at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "The byproduct is all this cash sloshing around the system
chasing assets like crypto, commodities and meme stocks." (Traders on Reddit's WallStreetBets forum use memes such as a rocket
emoji to accompany favorite stock picks like GameStop Corp.)
SUBSCRIBER
1 month ago
So every time the stock market wobbles the Fed is going to step up and say "don't worry, hang onto your stocks
and bonds, we'll keep printing more money?"
Contra market is a description of an asset or investment that moves against the trend of the broad market. Contra market securities
and sectors tend to have a negative correlation
, or weak correlation, with the broader market index and the general economy. When the economy is weak or stock market indexes
underperform , contra segments
outperform , and vice versa.
Understanding a Contra Market
A contra market stock or sector is one that performs well in bear markets and underperforms in bull markets. For example,
defensive stocks â€"so called because of their
relative immunity to economic cycles â€"such
as large pharmaceuticals and utilities, may outperform (but not necessarily rise in value) during bear markets because of their stable
revenues and cash flows. However, they may not fare as well during bull markets when investors favor riskier stocks and sectors such
as technology and basic materials.
"Safe haven" securities such as U.S. Treasuries
and gold, which have the greatest appeal during economic turmoil, are also classic examples of contra market plays.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A contra market is one that moves against the trend of the broader market and tends to have a negative correlation with it,
or at least a relatively weak correlation.
Investors utilize contra markets to hedge, make contrarian investment plays, or to diversify holdings.
The advantage of contra markets is that they tend to be out favor when the broader market is doing well, which may provide
some opportunities for value investors to
snatch up some deals.
The disadvantage of contra markets is that investing in them during a broad market rally could mean missing out on big returns
from the broader market.
Contra Market Strategies
Contra market strategies are employed for a variety of reasons. Possibly an investor believes the broader market will decline,
and so they wish to gain some protection, or possibly profit, by moving some or all of their funds into contra markets. Or possibly
the investor is a contrarian , meaning they prefer
to buy or sell assets that go against the flow of the broader market or economy. The investor may also simply want to
diversify and not hold only assets that tend
to move in the same direction.
Hedging: Investors can use simple contra market strategies to
hedge their portfolios. For example, if an investor’s
portfolio has significant exposure to equities, they could purchase an asset class that is typically viewed as a
safe haven , such as gold, to protect against
a severe stock market downturn. Investors can purchase physical gold from government mints, precious metal dealers and jewelers,
or through futures contracts on a commodities exchange. Buying a gold
exchange-traded fund (ETF) like the SPDR Gold Trust
Shares (GLD) is another way that investors can gain exposure to the commodity.
Contrarian Investing: Using contra market strategies can help contrarian investors profit against the crowd. Some fund managers
believe that taking a long position in an aging bull
market is the "crowded trade," meaning there is little room for new money to push the market higher. Instead of taking the obvious
trade, the contrarian investor may look for investment opportunities that outperform if the broader stock market starts to fall,
for instance, purchasing an ETF that returns the inverse performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 (S&P 500) index. There
are many inverse ETFs that rise in price when the
underlying asset falls in value.
Diversification: Using contra markets can help an investor diversify. Holding only stocks that move in the same direction
may work well when the stock market is rising, but when it falls so will all the holdings in the portfolio. Adding some stocks
or other assets that have a low correlation, or negative correlation, to the stock market may help level out some of the ups and
down in the portfolio's returns.
Advantages of Investing in Contra Market Sectors
During bull markets, cyclical sectors such as technology and financials perform well and get more expensive in terms of price,
while contra market sectors such as consumer staples and utilities underperform. This provides investors with an opportunity to
accumulate contra market stocks at lower prices
and more attractive valuations. For example, as the U.S. economy performed well in the first half of 2018, technology
FANG stocks outperformed the broader market.
1 As a result, utility stocks were out of favor and subsequently cheaper. This may have attracted some contra investors to start
accumulating positions in these underperformers in the hopes that they will perform better in the future.
Disadvantages of Investing in Contra Markets
While contra markets provide a potentially safer or more profitable place to be when the broader market or economy changes direction,
holding contra assets during a major bull market could mean missing out on big returns from the broader market. Over a 5 year period
between May 2014 and 2019, the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) returned over 50% while the SPDR Gold Trust Shares (GLD) returned -3%. Taking part
in the major bull market in stocks was a more prudent play than hoping gold would find its footing.
Example of a Contra Market: Gold
Gold has a weak correlation with the S&P 500 stock index. At times the correlation is negative, other times it is positive, and
tends to oscillate back and forth. Many investors like to hold gold as it is viewed as an outperformer during tough times for the
stock market. Yet that isn't always the case.
When the S&P 500 rose in 1995 to 2000, gold declined and had a negative correlation. The S&P 500 then fell from 2001 into late
2002. Gold started rising while stocks were falling, trading relatively flat and then picking up steam to the upside in mid-2001.
So in this case, switching to gold would have paid off.
The chart below shows the SPDR S&P 500 ETF versus gold futures (blue line), with the bottom
indicator showing the correlation between the two
assets.
From early 2003 to mid-2007 stocks and gold both rose. Stocks flattened out for most of 2007 while gold rose. For this period,
gold was favorable as stocks where topping . Stocks and
gold both sank in 2008, but gold turned higher earlier than stocks and ran to upside into the 2011 high.
The S&P bottomed in early 2009 and continued to rise into 2019, with several
corrections . Gold peaked between 2011 and 2012,
and then went into a downtrend in 2013. Between 2014 and 2018 gold moved sideways, and did not provide a safe haven during the 2015
stock market correction as gold also fell during that time. In 2018, while stocks experienced a correction, gold also fell, although
it experienced a small rally prior to the stock market bottom.
Printing money has its limits after which the Central Bank loses the control of inflation. The only question is when this limit will be reached.
Notable quotes:
"... The Fed is underestimating the massive amount of money printing it will have to do to finance the largest peacetime spending the U.S. has ever engaged in. Banks, foreign governments and U.S. agenciesâ€"chiefly Social Security, which is no longer running large surplusesâ€"are not going to be the big buyers of bonds, as has previously been the case. That leaves the Fed doing the heavy lifting, and the scale of money creation it will need to do will fire up a sizable inflation. ..."
The stock market
is assuming that the damage the Biden
administration and the Federal Reserve are beginning to inflict on the recovering economy will be limited. This episode of
What’s
Ahead
examines why that happy assumption will explode.
The Fed is
underestimating the massive amount of money printing it will have to do to finance the largest peacetime spending the U.S. has
ever engaged in. Banks, foreign governments and U.S. agenciesâ€"chiefly Social Security, which is no longer running large
surplusesâ€"are not going to be the big buyers of bonds, as has previously been the case. That leaves the Fed doing the heavy
lifting, and the scale of money creation it will need to do will fire up a sizable inflation.
Then there are
the enormous tax increases that Democrats are determined to enact on capital gains, businesses, higher incomes, gasoline, car
mileage, energy, inheritances and more, which will whack the nascent recovery later this year and in 2022.
The economy has
real strengths coming out of the pandemic, but it won’t be able to withstand the magnitude of these abuses.
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between
them.†â€" Thomas Jefferson
The trial was pointless .
We knew the outcome . We knew
the threat. Convict Derek Chauvin of murder, or cities will burn . Jurors
surely knew they would be doxxed if they didn’t vote to convict; one
potential juror was
dismissed after he dared mention this fear.
There is a debate to be had about police conduct. I’m not going to back
the blue unconditionally after Charlottesville
, Ashli Babbit , and
the ruthless
manhunt for January 6 rioters. Derek Chauvin would have carried out the same orders against
us. However, what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd isn’t even close to
what happened to white
man Daniel Shaver , gunned down in a hotel hallway by a police officer who was later
acquitted and was paid for his mental suffering . This is about race, not police. I expect police will crack
down further on law-abiding
whites while ignoring black crime .
The howls for Derek Chauvin’s head were primal. I
haven’t heard such cries of triumph since O.J. Simpson was
acquitted .
Of course, Derek Chauvin was hardly a champion of white identity . In 2018, the
Twin Cities Pioneer Press gave a fawning profile to his then-wife, Hmong
refugee Kellie Chauvin. She called her husband a “gentlemanâ€
and “just a softie.†Less than two years later, just three days
after George
Floyd’s death , she divorced him. Her lawyer
told journalists about her “utmost sympathy†for
Floyd’s family.
What’s so striking about the Derek Chauvin case is that it could have
happened anywhere. Every police officer (or white person who lives in a black neighborhood)
knows about the sob stories, the wailing, the lying, and the sudden switch from threats to
begging and back again when blacks face cops. Floyd himself had
tried this soft-shoe routine when he was arrested in 2019. Derek Chauvin and his three
colleagues had probably seen far worse.
Whether a routine arrest like this becomes a cause depends on countless factors. If
the teenager Darnella Frazier had not
taken a video , nothing would have happened. Even with body cam footage, I suspect there
would have been no case. Without a simple image to rouse the simple masses, no one would have
cared.
The sanctification of George Floyd makes this even more surreal. The #MeToo movement took
down powerful men who had made inappropriate jokes or crude gestures decades ago, but a
criminal who spent his last moments on earth trying to rip-off shopkeepers and lying to police
has become a holy
figure , complete with literal claims of miracles. George Floyd’s life
and death were practically a caricature of what the crudest
“racist†would conjure out of a hateful imagination. A white man
with his record would have been treated exactly the
same , but because Floyd was black, journalists made him a saint. Most people let
others
build their reality . Post-white America has a new faith .
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy
of Hate , said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges,
he
thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this
country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the
bravery of American conservatives for you. While the country didn’t
“go up in flames,†there were some troubling signs last night
that worse is to come.
The guilty verdict didn’t calm the streets. It didn’t
even calm the politicians. The President of the United States
said that “this can be a moment of significant change.â€
Kamala Harris , whose
parents are immigrants,
intones that this won’t “heal the pain that existed
for generations.†Barack and Michelle Obama
want “true justice,†which requires “that
we come to terms with the fact that Black Americans are treated differently, every
day.†(I don’t think they mean affirmative action.) Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez said the verdict
wasn’t justice and doesn’t want people to think the
system works. Empty-headed celebrities
demand that more be done.
Rep. Tlaib represents Detroit ,
where the already-ruined city saw a huge
increase in homicides and shootings in 2020, just another part of what was undoubtedly the
largest
single-year increase in the murder rate in American history. Almost all the added victims
were black. “The community†doesn’t seem to
care, so there’s no reason politicians should.
Let’s hear no wailing about “black lives.â€
The main victims of the crime wave are black, with victims including
children , partygoers , and funeral guests
. Voters who elect
progressive prosecutors don’t seem to care any more than the
“community†does. Do they prefer bloodshed to good police
work?
Vox
tells us BLM has led to a reduction in “police homicides†in
areas where there were protests. Of course, at least some of these homicides would have
been justified use of force. Yet the very same research Vox cites says that between 2014 and
2019, there were “somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than
would have been expected [absent protests]†in those places. Even if we accept the
unhinged premise that police suddenly stopped gunning down blacks for no reasons, the result of
BLM was thousands of dead blacks â€" and nice houses for the
movement’s co-founder .
Still, it’s not about blacks. It’s about us. Rudyard
Kipling, a poet who wouldn’t get far in our affirmative
action world , wrote :
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: â€"
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet
you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.â€
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
We paid the Dane-geld. We’ve shamefully paid it to people with far less
nobility and courage than the Vikings. The Minnesota protester screaming that riots worked is
right. They worked because they had media backing. If others ran the press, the Cannon
Hinnant case alone could have changed everything. Instead, most whites
haven’t heard of it, nor about the others of
our race butchered every
year .
Our loss of identity leaves us vulnerable to moral blackmail. Whites seem to be in a
permanent state of shellshock. White conservatives want to be left alone, with Tucker Carlson
saying
that what the nation needs “more than anything†is
“a moment to catch our national breath.†Really? Conservatives
know something is wrong, but don’t dare recognize the real problem.
Republicans who collaborate with this rotten system have
shut down even halting steps towards white
identity .
Meanwhile, over the last decade, white liberals have radically changed their views on race
and actively discriminate against
whites . It’s more correct to say that new views were
inserted into their brains through hysterical media coverage of police shootings. Those who
call themselves “very liberal†are hopelessly deluded. A
majority think that
police gun down over 1,000 unarmed black men a year â€" almost 100 times the actual
number.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/5Bf07CnmFidD/
Statistics can’t compete with sob-stories, and stories give people
meaning. I believe many Americans get their moral purpose for life from them.
There are also specific benefits in keeping the system going. Activists and politicians
build careers. Blacks get a chance of hitting the “
ghetto lottery †(assumed they aren’t killed) and becoming
heroes. It’s a strong incentive to turn a petty scam into an epic showdown.
Journalists who want to lead a social revolution or just get clicks (or both) fall right in
line.
Even as this is written, there is a case in Columbus, Ohio that could be our next George
Floyd-style passion play. Officers arrived at a chaotic brawl and shot a black girl. Body cam
footage shows the girl trying to stab someone before she was shot. Nonetheless, the image the
Associated Press
uses for the story is a Black Lives Matter protest. It looks like yet another case of a
degenerate “community†causing chaos, attracting the police, and
causing a racial confrontation.
The police are going to lie. I’m so thankful that someone from the
family was actually on the scene,†[Aunt] Bryant said . . . .
“The police are going to lie. The police are going to cover up for
themselves. They don’t care. At this point, I feel like
they’re just out to kill Black people. They’re not here
to protect and serve. That isn’t happening. That’s been
over a long time ago. They’re not here to protect and serve.
They’re here to kill Black folks.
Like many other whites, I’m exhausted. Unlike Tucker Carlson , I don’t
think we need a chance to catch our breath or pursue change more slowly. We need radical
change.
Every confrontation between a white officer and a non-white criminal is a potential
riot . The process is corrupt
because judges, jurors, and politicians know that the mob has a veto over the verdict. The rule
of law is dead.
The answer is separation . Without it, this will never
stop.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/2vb9uMyWhLuW/
The strange reality is that there is almost no difference now between being a notorious
white advocate or any white guy. Derek Chauvin went, in just one day, from a heartwarming
“softie†who married a Hmong refugee to the embodiment of white
supremacy. A few days ago, it was a
soldier who stopped a black guy from accosting women. He had to be chased from his home.
Tomorrow it could be you.
You could try to stop a crime. You could fight back against an assault. Maybe you just look
at someone the wrong way. Maybe you do nothing at all. But if you
donated $10 to a cause the media don’t like â€" or even if
you didn’t â€" you could be the mark for the next great hate
hoax.
I write this reluctantly. Many of us become white advocates kicking and screaming, afraid to
see the truth. We all get here through experience
, usually painful.
However, no matter how far you run, how earnestly you plead, what you say, or even whom you
marry, you will always be white to those with power. That means many despise you. At some
point, you must decide to stand or kneel, and a society that kneels before the memory of a
George Floyd is not one worth serving or saving.
Whites created this country. They sustain it. Without whites, there is no America. America
is an extension of Western Civilization, white civilization, on this continent. Whites
pay to support
people who hate, curse, and sometimes kill us. We gain nothing. They owe everything. What they
have, we gave them, through weakness, folly, and good
intensions .
We deserve reparations for trillions wasted in a 60-year effort to babysit a population that
pays us back with violence and hatred. Most importantly, we deserve liberation from this
albatross that prevents any kind of real national life. Almost any price would be worth paying
if we could be sovereign and free, something our ancestors took for granted.
All the quasi-theological abstractions about “privilege†and
“critical theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They
need us; we don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of us
â€" including you â€" are just one “viralâ€
incident away from ruin.
Don’t know who Gregory Hood is but I do know after reading all of his
essays, that he is the most erudite writer on race issues. I find him fair and balanced
basically sticking to the relevant issue of what ever he is writing about.
“Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and
free…â€
This essay is superb…but worryingly, only as far as it goes. What,
very specifically, is the separation plan, and what is the price that might have to be paid
and IS worth paying, and what is the price that is NOT worth paying? The action-plan cannot
be safely specified, because we have already come too far for one to safely specify it.
Already. And worse is to come.
Besides individual ramifications, there is this. In Trump vs. Hawaii, Justice Roberts
declined to overrule Korematsu (the Japanese-internment case). He wrote that Korematsu had
been “overruled by history.†Group internment remains the law
of the land.
And yes, I am too cowardly to speak-out. Again. I was an undergraduate at an elite
University exactly when (late 60s) and where this all started. I (and my friends, and
like-minded faculty members and administrators) were all too cowardly to speak out, and take
action, then. Too much to lose. I apologize to the younger generations.
American Renaissance is a joke. No mention of the (((real problem))) at all. Until we can
discuss and point to the (((instigators))) of our present day horror, we will achieve
nothing. The funny and ironic thing about all of this is, (((they))) will suffer as much as
any White at the hands of the Frankenstein’s monster they created. I guess
Whites can take some small comfort in those just desserts.
The U.S. had a good run while it lasted. My plan is to move on. Whites really should
consider leaving. Problem is when we establish a new area they will just come to move in on
us all over again.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, author of The Bible of Unspeakable Truths and The Joy of
Hate, said that even if Derek Chauvin wasn’t guilty of all charges, he
thought the verdict was a good thing. “I want a verdict that keeps this
country from going up in flames,†he explained. That’s the
bravery of American conservatives for you.
This is how greed-driven “Jews†(Gutfeld is a partially
Hebrew, greed-driven Globalist and stooge for Conservatism Inc) have destroyed the neoconned
American right, and ultimately the nation. Having no soul or backbone, brushing it all under
the carpet in deference to the Golden Calf markets, Satanic Hebrews like Gutfeld will appease
the irrational mob all day long, and then just prior to collapse, invoke their
“Jewish†heritage and flee to Israel.
This us why they are known as Judenrats , and have always been.
And “liberal†Judenrats are even worse, but had
trouble penetrating the GOP until the ((neocons)) came along and sold it on easy-money
wars.
Anything for a buck, no matter how Satanic. Morality never enters into the equation.
They’re only destroying animal goyim nations, after all.
Whites don’t need blacks, browns or Jewish parasites.
The day we refuse to be intimidated and believe the lies is the day we get our countries
back.
Demand that Congress exercise their constitutional power over money creation.
National strike.
Something.
We need to turn this cancer around rather than waiting for the ship to hit the iceberg. That
will be the financial collapse lurking. It is the perfect opportunity for radical reform
including constitutional admendments. It will be a blessing in disguise: angry masses looking
for soneone to blame. Tptb will try to throw US to the angry masses but we throw them.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
y intractable endemic racial frictions in the USA are being systematically nurtured and
nourished by malign agents embedded in the American governmental and media frameworks.
The behaviour and loyalties of your Senator Maxine Waters makes this abundantly clear,
beyond any ambiguity or doubt.
So there is a cancer, for sure, eating away at the American Republic.
To extend the analogy, the danger with any cancer is permitting it to get past the point
of no return, after which the host cannot possibly recover and is inevitably consumed.
So you better find a cure soon, preferably something holistic which feeds the healthy
constituents and promotes healing at the same time as extinguishing the poisonous
infections.
Otherwise Team America may suffer a tragic and permanent demise.
Don’t forget that Jews own the media and the politicians. The culture
of vicitmhood, cancel culture, “wokeness,†race-baiting and
multi-racialism all either originate in the Jewish community or are strongly supported by
Jews. Jews brought down white, Christian Russia in 1917 and they are in the process of doing
that here. Jews hate us Christian whites and that fact is reflected in their media.
“All the quasi-theological abstractions about
“privilege†and “critical
theory†melt away before one immutable truth: They need us; we
don’t need them. Until we have the will to say so, all of
us…â€
Us who? White liberals don’t want you & don’t
need you & never will accept you, let alone agree any hare-brained scheme to
‘separate’ or have a racial homeland. And
they’re using Blacks to tell you that.
And until we have the will to say so, nothing will result from DOA dreams about a separate
state for “usâ€. A separate quasi-theological state abstraction
based on race will melt away in immutable reality as quickly as the communist belief in a
dictatorship of the proletariat abstraction. You have to make it here; there is no
“us†anymore. Get ready for 2022 or civil war as you will, but
there’s no escape to la-la land.
In the 1960 census, Minnesota was 98.8% white. In 1973, Time magazine ran an article on
the “Good Life in Minnesota.†It really was. We led the nation
in education. In 1960, there were 1,400 violent crimes in the State. Now, it is 13,000 to
14,000. What happened? We had mass migration from Chicago. Our Minnesota socialists offered
generous welfare benefits that attracted Chicago’s blacks and resettled
many refugees from failed countries, like Somalia, to the State. The State went from low
crime, highly educated, to much crime, much disorder, and a feeling we now live in a 3rd
world country. Today, we have armed soldiers with machine guns on the corners of the streets
in Minneapolis. You’d think the woke monsters that censure our news and
who form the Chauvin jury would awake from their idiocy, but instead, they censure the facts,
portray cops as the bad guys, portray drug abusing criminal degenerates like George Floyd as
saints.
It looks like blacks are now untouchable. This can only cause them to increase their
savage ways.
Realistically, wouldn’t it be better if every white person that wanted
to be armed could do so, and do so without a gov’t permission slip? The
reason we can’t pack a piece is because the gov’t says
the police will protect us. I know that’s a lie, do you?
Get rid of street cops like Chauvin because they are the ones that
aren’t there to protect us and end up in Floyd type situations. We should
be demanding our Constitutional rights to carry a weapon if we want to AND have the laws
changed so if we take out some POS there’s nothing to worry about.
Just think if a shop keepers in Portland put a shotgun round through their window through
the same hole made by the brick some antifa or blm POS threw. All the rioting and destruction
would have been cut off in seconds as these miscreants scatter. That’s the
only way to handle the low life trash that currently has immunity via a justice system that
is broken.
Eliminate street cops. Demand our Constitutional rights. Tell the gov’t
to change the laws that allow for deadly force when attacked by some miscreant.
No, Whites cannot police them, just like we cannot educate them. That’s
why the only acceptable solution is to expel them from White countries. Any other course of
action will mean the end of civilization because their presence is incompatible with
civilized life. Fuck them all and their cuckservative fans.
"... This widespread concern is entirely consistent with a bubble’s formation, according to a definition proposed several decades ago by Robert Shiller, the Yale finance professor and Nobel laureate. According to him, a bubble is “a market situation in which news of price increases spurs investor enthusiasm which spreads by psychological contagion from person to person, bringing in a larger and larger class of investors, who, despite doubts about fundamental value ..."
"... Rather than responding by taking some chips off the table, however, many began freely admitting that a bubble was forming. They no longer tried to justify higher prices on fundamentals, but began justifying it instead in terms of the market’s momentum. Prices should keep going up as FOMO seduces more and more investors to jump on the bandwagon. ..."
"... As a recent Wall Street Journal article outlined , the dogecoin “serves no purpose and, unlike Bitcoin, faces no limit on the number of coins that exist.†Yet investors are flocking to it, for no other apparent reason than it has already gone up so much. Billy Markus, the co-creator of dogecoin, was quoted in that Wall Street Journal article saying “This is absurd. I haven’t seen anything like it. It’s one of those things that once it starts going up, it might keep going up.†..."
"... Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
I have no idea whether the stock market is actually forming a bubble
that’s about to break.
But I do know that many bulls are fooling themselves when they think a bubble
can’t happen when so many of us are concerned about one. In fact, one of the
distinguishing characteristics of a bubble is that such concern is widespread.
This seems counterintuitive. You would think that a bubble is most vulnerable to forming and
then popping when investors are oblivious to that possibility. But you would be wrong.
It’s important for all of us to be aware of this bubble psychology, but
especially if you’re a retiree or a near-retiree. That’s
because, in that case, your investment horizon will be shorter than for those who are younger,
and you therefore are less able to recover from the deflation of a market bubble.
To appreciate how widespread current concern about a bubble is, consider the accompanying
chart of data from Google Trends. It plots the relative frequency of Google searches based on
the term “stock market bubble.†Notice that this frequency has
recently jumped to a far-higher level than at any other point over the last five years.
This widespread concern is entirely consistent with a bubble’s
formation, according to a definition proposed several decades ago by Robert Shiller, the Yale
finance professor and Nobel laureate. According to him, a bubble is “a
market situation in which news of price increases spurs investor enthusiasm which spreads by
psychological contagion from person to person, bringing in a larger and larger class of
investors, who, despite doubts about fundamental value , are drawn to the investment
partly through envy of others’ successes and partly through a
gambler’s excitement.†(I italicized the above phrase, not
Shiller.)
Notice that recognition of overvaluation is an integral part of the definition.
This recognition was certainly present during the weeks and months prior to the popping of
the Internet bubble in March 2000. During the early and middle years of the 1990s, you may
recall, it was possible to justify higher prices while keeping a straight face. But that became
less and less possible as prices continued going higher in the late 1990s, and especially as
some dot-com companies went public with huge valuations despite having no assets, revenue or
business plan.
Rather than responding by taking some chips off the table, however, many began freely
admitting that a bubble was forming. They no longer tried to justify higher prices on
fundamentals, but began justifying it instead in terms of the market’s
momentum. Prices should keep going up as FOMO seduces more and more investors to jump on the
bandwagon.
There is no shortage of current analogies, of course. Take dogecoin, which was created as a
joke and has no fundamental value. As a
recent Wall Street Journal article outlined , the dogecoin “serves no
purpose and, unlike Bitcoin, faces no limit on the number of coins that exist.†Yet
investors are flocking to it, for no other apparent reason than it has already gone up so much.
Billy Markus, the co-creator of dogecoin, was quoted in that Wall Street Journal article saying
“This is absurd. I haven’t seen anything like it.
It’s one of those things that once it starts going up, it might keep going
up.â€
Needless to say, things don’t go up forever. Those who nevertheless
continue to invest in such an environment do so with the implicit assumption that they will be
able to recognize it, in advance, when the bubble is about to popâ€"and therefore
able to leave the party before everyone else. This is a dangerous delusion, however; not
everyone can be the first to leave the party.
The bottom line? Far from being a reason why a bubble isn’t forming, the
widespread current concern about a possible bubble is actually a reason to worry that it could
be. Take heed.
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat
fee to be audited. He can be reached at [email protected]
The U.S. isn't driven by manufacturing like it once was. Services, which accounted for about
40% of GDP in the 1950s, now account for about 60% of it. Many of the effects of the
Covid-crisis were also unique, such as the way it hammered services like travel and restaurant
spending while touching manufacturing far more lightly.
That makes it easy to spin plausible stories where things go well or poorly. For example,
the work-from-home revolution the crisis helped spark might help businesses run more
efficiently, boosting productivity, raising potential GDP and allowing the economy to run
faster over the long run without overheating. Or,
the thicket of supply-chain problems the crisis caused , and difficulties scaling up
services to meet demand, could cause a more serious bout of inflation than most economists
expect. Other uncertainties abound, including how successful President Biden will be getting
his remaining spending and tax plans passed.
...the overall cash buildup still effectively means that companies have looked at the
investment options available and found them wanting. When a company determines that sitting on
near zero-yielding assets is the best use of their funds, it paints a very dim picture of their
collective view of the economy's future.
... ... ...
The U.S. cash buildup isn't yet in Japan's league, but the situation appears to be heading
that way in Europe. Investors should keep a close eye on where overall levels settle: if they
stay up here where the air is thin, that will be a dispiriting signal about the future.
The macro conditions for oil and gas are undoubtedly improving: OECD oil inventories have
been drawn down to levels near their five-year average, working off the massive overbuild from
the last year. Brent crude prices also are back to their immediate pre-pandemic levels.
Halliburton noted in its Wednesday earnings call that while smaller, private energy companies
have dominated the recovery so far, listed drillers are expected to pick up activity in the
second half of the year.
Oil field servicers' collective discipline should help them command higher prices as energy
companies require more of their services. Despite flattish revenue compared to the prior
quarter, all three
saw continued margin improvement , benefiting from efforts last year to pare costs,
including head count reductions and the use of remote technology for certain services. Also
helping their outlook is considerably weakened competition: Oil field services bankruptcies
rose to an all-time high of $45 billion in debt affected in 2020 and are continuing this
year.
... ... ...
Despite their resilience, oil field service companies have underperformed a broad basket of
oil-and-gas exploration companies year to date. The three industry leaders are trading at or
below their historical multiple of enterprise value to earnings before interest, tax,
depreciation and amortization.
For investors looking to ride the coattails of the oil demand recovery, servicers are an
inexpensive way to do it.
Whether or not the broader stock market is in a bubble, ultra-growth stocks seem to be,
according to an analyst at JPMorgan.
While some Wall Street analysts are concerned about a broader stock market bubble,
JPMorgan's Eduardo Lecubarri, global head of small- and mid-cap equity strategy, wrote in a
note that ultra-growth equities are the area of most concern. "We have argued since the start
of the year that investors needed to run away from stocks trading on high multiples over rich
growth expectations," said Lecubarri in...
US shale oil producers shut in production because it became hugely. A large part of US
production even saw negative prices. But even as prices recovered quickly to $40/bbl, hardly
any producer could cover their operating costs, let alone being profitable. This lead to a
continuous decline in output and only very recently we saw a modest recovery in production. At
this point, production is down around 2.5mb/d from peak.
One might argue that we have seen the same dynamics before. Back in 2014, US shale oil
production was also growing at breakneck pace. This eventually led to a much oversupplied
global market and a price crash from $110/bbl to $30/bbl over 18 months. As a consequence, US
shale oil production also sharply declined, which eventually rebalanced the market. Prices
recovered and stabilized at around $60-70/bbl. Subsequently US shale producers slowly adapted
to the new price environment and by 2019, production again grew at over 2mb/d. But in 2019, the
market had not much trouble absorbing that kind of production. In fact, it depended on it.
However, the recent price crash and ensuing production decline doesn't seem to follow the
same path. Oil prices have fully recovered by now, but production has not. In fact, US
production is near the lowest it has been since the outbreak of the pandemic. Moreover,
drilling activity is also greatly lagging. Arguably the US oil rig count has recovered from 172
in August 2020 to currently 344, but this seems not enough to keep production even
constant.
Exhibit 11: US production has yet to show any meaningful recovery despite the full price
recovery (Kb/d year-over-year)
Source: EIA. Goldmoney Research
In fact, the reason why US shale output is not lower despite this very low rig count is
because producers reverted to high grading. High grading means the producers are producing from
their most prolific acreage. This also means that any production increase would require a
massive redeployment of rigs as new wells would be less prolific than the current ones. But US
producers vowed to their investors as well as to their banks that – unlike the last time
prices recovered – they would refrain from growing output and focus on profitability
instead.
Exhibit 12: As the rig count fell, average production per rig increased due to high grading
(B/d and rig count (Permian Basin))
Source: EIA, Goldmoney Research
A further issue is the size of US shale output and the steep decline rates. Unlike shale gas
producers which somehow managed to flatten their decline curves, shale oil producers still
struggling with decline rates around 70% in the first year. The larger total US shale oil
output gets, the more new production has to be brought online to simply offset the decline
rates in existing output. This is not a new problem, but the recent reluctance of US producers
to grow output at all costs means this issue is now real.
Exhibit 13: Steep decline rates remain a problem as US shale oil output remains high even
after the crash (B/d all basins)
Source: EIA, Goldmoney Research
The pandemic and the price crash have also accelerated phenomenon that was already known
from the shale gas market, but is new to the shale oil market. In the US, there used to be
multiple shale oil basins which all showed production growth, albeit at different speeds. The
Permian basin became sort of the king of shale oil, but other basins such as the Bakken (the
first), Eagle Ford, Mississippi Lime and Niobrara all grew as well. But in this price recovery,
and despite the rebound in the rig count, all those basins show a continuous decline. The
Permian Basin is the only shale oil Basin that shows a recovery in supply (albeit a small one).
This is not unlike what we have seen in US gas, where shale gas production started in the
Barnett shale, then Haynesville Basin outgrew everything else, but now the Marcellus shale is
dominating US gas markets.
Exhibit 14: Only the Permian Basin shows some output recovery (b/d)
Source: EIA, Goldmoney Research
If this fully repeats in the shale oil space, then production is limited to how much
pipeline space can grow out of the Permian. Arguably that was an issue before, but if
production continues to decline in other basins, then the Permian has to offset those declines
as well. This would further restrict how fast production can growth in the future.
We believe that the necessary focus on profitability, combined with the issue of high
decline rates which become more dominate as base production grows, limit US shale oil
production growth long term. We don't think we see production again growing at the record rates
of the past, certainly not at these prices. Much higher prices would likely ignite another rush
in the sector, but eventually the decline rates will dominate and effetely limit production
growth.
The future of global supply growth:
On net, this means that supply will struggle to return to pre-COVID-19 levels quickly as
non-OPEC ex US shale will be permanently lower and continue to decline while it will take time
for US to reach old highs. US shale oil production is unlikely to grow again at past rates,
particularly with current prices. And once US shale production has reached the previous peaks,
it will be increasingly difficult to grow much further as high decline rates simply limit to
how high production can go. Even before the pandemic, most OPEC countries were already more
concerned about maintaining their production rather than growing it over the long run. Low
prices and high spare capacity also prompted core OPEC members to lower their CAPEX, at least
temporarily.
The duration mismatch between supply and demand peaks
The problem is, while oil producers are preparing for a low carbon future with potentially
declining oil demand, oil demand itself will still grow for many years to come. The oil space
is facing a duration mismatch.
Oil demand is primarily driven by the transportation sector and to a lower extent by the
petrochemical industry and industrial sector as a whole. Together they account for 84% of
global oil demand, 87% if demand from the agricultural, forestry and fishing sectors are added
(as it is likely also mostly transportation related oil demand). The transportation sector
accounts for about 2/3 of global oil demand and it is still growing. The petrochemical sector
accounts for 11% and is the fastest growing sector for oil demand. Industrial demand comes in
third at 7% and it has been declining for decades.
The future of oil demand
Industrial demand will likely continue to decline slowly. Wherever possible it's substituted
as oil tends to be one of the most expensive energy sources compared to power or gas. But this
is an ongoing process and the low hanging fruits have been harvested decades ago. Hence this
future decline is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
In contrast, demand from the petrochemical sector will continue to grow in the foreseeable
future as plastics demand will continue to rise with population growth and global economic
expansion. We expect Petchem demand growth to offset declines from all sectors other than the
transportation sector.
The big question therefore is what will happen to transportation demand. Transportation fuel
demand has been declining for many years in most Western economies even as Western economies
continued to expand and both the population as whole and mobility continued to rise. This is
mainly due to much better fuel economies in transportation vehicles driven mostly by
regulations. Importantly, the regulatory frameworks that drive these efficiency gains are not
new. In the US, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were introduced already in
1975 as a reaction to the 1973-1974 oil embargo. The regulatory frameworks aims at fuel
consumptions directly. The CAFE standards have been continuously tightened over the past 45
years.
Exhibit 17: Fuel efficiencies have been increasing for decades without electrification
Source: Wikipedia
The European Union adopted a regulatory framework with a dual mandate that not just targets
fuel economy, but also emissions. European manufacturers have a binding emission target of CO2
95g/km for the average mass of their vehicles from 2021 onwards. It was CO2 130g/km from
2015-2019. Other OECD nations have similar standards that have tightened over the past
decades.
The result is that fuel consumption in most OECD countries has actually peaked a while ago.
Countries with high population growth such as the US have seen their overall fuel consumption
rising, but not at the same speed as their population and economy was growing.
The main contributor to fuel demand growth over the past 20+ years this were the emerging
markets. In Emerging Markets, the fuel economy of newly sold cars is already quite high as the
cars sold tend to be smaller, lighter and equipped with smaller engines. According to the SIPA
center on global energy policy, the fuel economy of average car sold in China in 2018 was
roughly 5.8 liters per 100km, equivalent to 40.5Mpg. In contrast, the average vehicle sold in
the US had a fuel economy of around 33.8Mpg. However, given the rapid expansion of the car
fleets in these countries, fuel demand has been strongly rising over the past decades.
Importantly, the rise in popularity of hybrid cars and EVs over the past years has not yet
lead to a complete change in trend in fuel consumption. The efficiency gains over the past
years were still primarily driven by more fuel efficient cars with combustion units. The reason
is that despite their popularity, hybrid and full EVs are still only a small fraction of all
transportation vehicles sold in the world and even a smaller share of the global car fleet.
According to the international Energy Agency (IEA) roughly 90 million of cars are sold
worldwide, up from around 60 million units by 2005. According the IEA, only 2.1 of the vehicles
sold in 2019 were electric in some form, which includes hybrid cars.
According to Bloomberg, there are currently 1.2 billion vehicles in the world. According to
the IEA, the total electric car flight is just 7 million. Again, this includes hybrid cars.
The US dollar could collapse by the end of 2021 and the economy can expect a more than
50% chance of a double-dip recession, the economist Stephen Roach told CNBC on
Wednesday.
The US has seen economic output rise briefly and then fall in eight of the past 11
business-cycle recoveries, Roach said.
Grim second-quarter data cannot be dismissed, he said, pointing out that "the
current-account deficit in the United States, which is the broadest measure of our
international imbalance with the rest of the world, suffered a record deterioration."
Roach last predicted a crash in the dollar index in June, when it was trading at about
96. He said at the time that it would collapse 35% against other major currencies within the
next year or two.
The "seemingly crazed idea" that the
US dollar will collapse against other major currencies in the post-pandemic global economy
is not so crazy anymore, the economist Stephen Roach
told CNBC's "Trading Nation" on Wednesday.
Roach, a former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, also said he sees a more than 50%
probability of a double-dip recession in the United States.
He based that prediction on historical evidence, saying that in eight of the past 11
business-cycle recoveries economic output has risen briefly and then fallen.
"It's certainly something that happens more often than not," he said.
Roach
last predicted a dollar crash in June , saying it would collapse 35% against other major
currencies within the next couple of years. At the time, the dollar index traded at about 96.
On Thursday, the index traded at about 94.41.
He said on Wednesday that he expected the collapse to happen by the end of 2021, but he did
not say by how much.
"The current-account deficit in the United States, which is the broadest measure of our
international imbalance with the rest of the world, suffered a record deterioration in the
second quarter," he said.
"The so-called net national savings rate, which is the sum of savings of individuals,
businesses, and the government sector, also recorded a record decline in the second quarter,
going back into negative territory for the first time since the global financial crisis."
Lingering vulnerability and the aftermath of the initial decline are two factors driving the
dollar's ominous future, he said.
"Lacking in saving and wanting to grow, we run these current-account deficits to borrow
surplus saving, and that always pushes the currencies lower," Roach said. "And the dollar is
not immune to that time-honored adjustment."
Additionally, Roach said, new COVID-19 infections and higher mortality rates must be part of
assessing the risk of an aftershock, Roach said.
"As we head into flu season with the new infection rates moving back up again, with
mortality unacceptably high, the risk of an aftershock is not something you can dismiss," he
said. "So that's a tough combination. And I think the record of history suggests that this is
not a time, unlike what the frothy markets are doing, to bet that this is different."
"The current-account deficit in the United States, which is the broadest measure of our
international imbalance with the rest of the world, suffered a record deterioration in the
second quarter," he said.
"The so-called net national savings rate, which is the sum of savings of individuals,
businesses, and the government sector, also recorded a record decline in the second quarter,
going back into negative territory for the first time since the global financial crisis."
Lingering vulnerability and the aftermath of the initial decline are two factors driving the
dollar's ominous future, he said.
"Lacking in saving and wanting to grow, we run these current-account deficits to borrow
surplus saving, and that always pushes the currencies lower," Roach said. "And the dollar is
not immune to that time-honored adjustment."
Additionally, Roach said, new COVID-19 infections and higher mortality rates must be part of
assessing the risk of an aftershock, Roach said.
"As we head into flu season with the new infection rates moving back up again, with
mortality unacceptably high, the risk of an aftershock is not something you can dismiss," he
said. "So that's a tough combination. And I think the record of history suggests that this is
not a time, unlike what the frothy markets are doing, to bet that this is different."
In his 2008 letter to shareholders, Warren Buffett shared an important lesson.
"Long ago, Ben Graham taught me that 'Price is what you pay; value is what you get,'"
Buffett wrote. "Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise
when it is marked down."
This is one of the most fundamental concepts in investing. No matter how good a company is,
or how fast it's growing, it's always possible to overpay.
This is why analysts talk so much about valuation . The market price gyrates on a
daily basis, especially during a market crash. But over the long term, price and value
ultimately converge.
So where are stocks valued today? Despite the difficult environment, many markets are
trading at historically high multiples.
"The current P/E on the U.S. market is in the top 10% of its history," said GMO Asset
Management co-founder Jeremy Grantham. The Canadian stock market isn't too far behind,
especially when you strip out the ailing fossil fuel industry.
Prices suggest that conditions are in the top 10% of history, but is that actually true?
"The U.S. economy in contrast is in its worst 10%, perhaps even the worst 1%," concluded
Grantham. "In addition, everything is uncertain, perhaps to a unique degree."
Prepare for
a market crash
The numbers are clear. Stock prices are sky-high. The value that you're getting in return,
meanwhile, could be quite low.
At minimum, there's an unprecedented range of outcomes over the next 12 to 24 months. A
complete return to normal could occur. Alternatively, we could slide into a deep and dark
recession.
Just take a look at what some major CEOs are saying about the market crash.
Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu said, "It's the darkest period ever in the history of
commercial aviation." He doesn't expect conditions to normalize for three years. Linamar Corp
Linda Hasenfratz warned that the industry must brace for a resurgence of COVID-19. Canadian
Federation of Independent Business CEO Dan Kelly said that just 17% of Canadian restaurants are
reporting an average volume of sales.
Things just don't line up. Whenever the gap between price and value rises, the odds of a
market crash also rise. Grantham thinks we could be experiencing one of the biggest gaps
ever .
"The market's P/E level typically reflects current conditions. Markets have historically
loved fat margins, low inflation, stability and, by inference, low levels of uncertainty," he
explains. Yet prices are high and conditions are terrible.
"This is apparently one of the most impressive mismatches in history," Grantham
concluded.
Most stocks are too expensive, but some still trade at bargain prices.
Renowned Canadian investor Iain Butler just named 10 stocks for Canadians to buy TODAY. So
if you're tired of reading about other people getting rich in the stock market, this might be a
good day for you.
Because Motley Fool Canada is offering a full 65% off the list price of their top
stock-picking service, plus a complete membership fee back guarantee on what you pay for the
service. Simply click here to discover how you can take advantage of this.
The S&P 500's price-to-sales ratio is worryingly high
A second reason to be concerned can be found in the S&P 500's price-to-sales
(P/S) ratio . This ratio describes the value of the S&P 500 index relative to the
aggregate revenue its 500 components are bringing in. As a general rule, the lower the
price-to-sales ratio, the more fundamentally attractive an investment.
As of April 21, the S&P 500's price-to-sales ratio was estimated at 3.06. This is an
unquestioned high point dating back at least 21 years. In fact, the S&P 500's P/S ratio
hadn't ended the year higher than 2 at any point this century prior to 2017. Since the end of
2018, the P/S ratio for the widely followed index has expanded 64%.
On one hand, an increased reliance on technology should allow companies to be more
efficient, thus expanding their operating margins. On the other hand, nothing historically
shows that P/S ratios this high can be sustained.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES. 3. The S&P 500's price-to-book value spells
trouble
A third metric that could cause warning bells to go off is the S&P 500's price-to-book (P/B)
ratio . This is a measure of the S&P 500's market capitalization divided by the book
value of the equities that make up the index. Like the P/S ratio, a lower value is generally
indicative of an equity or index being undervalued.
As of this past week, the price-to-book-value of the S&P 500 topped 4.5. That's closing
in on the highest level reached this century, 5.06, set back in March 2000. If March 2000 rings
a bell, it's because that's when the dot-com bubble hit its peak. For some context, the average
P/B value over the past 21 years is 2.87.
Although the P/B ratio has lost much of its importance as technology and innovation have
taken over, it's still concerning that the index subsequently lost about half of its value the
last time the ratio was this high.
The fourth worrisome metric is the S&P 500's earnings
yield . Whereas the price-to-earnings ratio is a measure of share price divided by earnings
per share, the earnings yield is earnings per share divided by share price, and multiplied by
100 to yield a percentage.
Since 1870, the average earnings yield for the S&P 500 is 7.31%. That's a lot higher
than what investors can typically generate from bonds, which is why equities are often such a
smart and desirable investment. But as of April 21, the earnings yield of the S&P 500 was a
measly 2.35%. It's been more than halved since the beginning of 2019, when it was 5.1%.
The issue here is that 30-year Treasury bonds sport a nearly identical yield (2.26%).
Although earnings can grow over time and improve the S&P 500's earnings yield, it's worth
hypothesizing that, with historically low lending rates and ongoing fiscal stimulus, earnings
growth won't get any better than it is now. Future earnings growth could slow as dovish
monetary policy is tightened, thereby exposing an unattractive risk-versus-reward ratio with
bonds.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES. 5. The frequency of double-digit-percentage corrections is a
red flag
Lastly, don't overlook how common double-digit declines are for the benchmark index.
Since the beginning of 1950 (a year I've arbitrarily chosen for the sake of simplicity),
there have been 38 declines of at least 10%. This works out to an
average double-digit decline every 1.87 years . We're already about 1.1 years removed from
the bear market bottom.
Understand, though, that averages are exactly that: averages. Sometimes the market can go an
exceptionally long time without a single 10% correction (1991 through 1996), while other times
they become an annual occurrence (1997-2003, with the dot-com bubble encompassing 2000 through
2002). The point is this: Corrections and/or crashes happen often.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES. Crashes are blessings in disguise
All five of these metrics would seem to point to one inevitable conclusion: The likelihood
of a stock market crash or double-digit correction is quite high. This might be unnerving to
some, but it's actually great news for investors with a long-term mindset.
Every single crash and correction throughout history has
been a blessing in disguise . That's because investors are trading short-term pain for
long-term gain.
Eventually, every double-digit decline in the S&P 500 has been completely erased by a
bull-market rally. If you buy great companies when emotion-based crashes rear their heads and
you hang on to them for long periods, there's a very good chance you'll build wealth over time.
While it's not normal to see total returns of 88% in 13 months following a crash, an annualized
double-digit total return over the long run is quite possible.
History serves as a warning for the S&P 500's Shiller P/E ratio
Arguably the biggest red flag from a fundamental standpoint is the S&P 500's Shiller
price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, which is also commonly referred to as the cyclically adjusted
P/E, or CAPE. The Shiller P/E is based on average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous
10 years.
As of April 21, the Shiller P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was 37.49. That's well over double
its average annual reading of 16.81 since 1870.
What's particularly
concerning is what's happened previously when the Shiller P/E ratio has surpassed and
stayed above 30. In the previous four instances (the Great Depression, the dot-com boom, Q4
2018, and the coronavirus crash), the S&P 500 has lost anywhere from 20% to 89% of its
value. While an 89% loss is very unlikely with the Federal Reserve and federal government
willing to provide seemingly unlimited support to financial markets, a sizable double-digit
correction has become the expectation when valuations extend well past historic norms.
W hat I'm about to say is going to unnerve some of you, but it's the absolute truth: A stock
market crash
might be imminent .
Since hitting a bear-market bottom on March 23, 2020, the three major U.S. indexes have been
virtually unstoppable. Through April 6, 2021, the tech-dependent Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX:
^IXIC) has doubled, while the benchmark S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) and iconic Dow Jones
Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI) were up a respective 82% and 80%. There's not an optimist
on Wall Street who would be dissatisfied with gains like these in just over one year's
time.
The question is whether or not these gains will prove fleeting.
Image source: Getty Images.
Signs point to a potential crash
Right now, there is no shortage of catalysts that could knock this market off its
perch.
In recent months, Wall Street has been
worried about rapidly rising Treasury yields . Keep in mind that when I say "rapidly
rising," some context is needed. Although 10-year Treasury yields have doubled over the last
five months, a 1.7% yield is still historically very low.
Nevertheless, investors are concerned about the potential for higher lending rates, which
could slow the borrowing capacity and growth prospects for the dozens of fast-paced and
innovative companies that have led the stock market higher. It could also signal an uptick in
inflation and force the Federal Reserve to consider raising interest rates earlier than
expected.
Another
chief concern is equity valuations . Dating back 150 years, there have only been five
instances where the S&P 500's Shiller price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio has surpassed and
sustained 30. The Shiller P/E ratio measures average inflation-adjusted earnings from the
previous 10 years and is also known as the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, or CAPE. On April 6,
the Shiller P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was nearly 36.7, which is well over double its
historic average of 16.8.
Furthermore, in the previous four instances where the S&P 500's Shiller P/E hit 30, the
index lost anywhere from 20% to as much as 89% of its value. Although we're unlikely to see
Great Depression-like losses of 89% ever again,
at least a 20% decline has been the recipe when valuations get extended.
The coronavirus pandemic also remains a concern. Though the light at the end of the tunnel
is now visible, variants of the disease threaten to minimize vaccine efficacy or push herd
immunity (i.e., a return to normal) further down the line.
Image source: Getty Images.
Three things to do right now
So, what's an investor to do?
1. Realize that downside catalysts always exist and
don't overreact
The first thing is to relax and realize that there's always a catalyst waiting in the wings
that could send the market screaming lower. Whether we're mired in a recession or the economy
is firing on all cylinders, I can't recall a time in my more than two decades of investing
where the warning siren hasn't been sounding about one thing or another.
Investors should understand that
stock market crashes and corrections are a normal part of the investing cycle and the
so-called price of admission to the greatest wealth creator on the planet. With the S&P 500
experiencing a double-digit decline every 1.87 years, on average, since the beginning of 1950,
it's important not to overreact to sharp or sudden moves lower in the market. It also helps
knowing that these moves lower
usually don't last very long .
2. Reassess what you own
Secondly, and to build on the previous point, it's always a good time to
reassess your portfolio and reaffirm your investment thesis . In other words, take a closer
look at the companies you own stakes in and revisit the reason(s) why you purchased them in the
first place. There's a very good chance that a stock market crash is going to have little or no
long-term effect on the underlying performance of the companies you've invested in and is
therefore going to have no impact on your investment thesis.
Keep in mind that you don't need to wait for a stock market crash, or even the threat of a
crash, to do this a couple of times a year. Ensuring that your investment thesis still holds
water will minimize the emotional aspects of stock market corrections and crashes and make it a
lot easier to hold on to great stocks.
Image source: Getty Images.
3. Have cash at the ready for when opportunity comes
knocking
The third thing to do is build up a healthy cash position so you can take advantage of the
market's inevitable downturns. You see, despite the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average,
and Nasdaq Composite undergoing dozens of double-digit corrections and crashes throughout their
history, each and every one of these moves lower has
eventually been erased by a bull market rally .
In fact, data from Crestmont Research shows that
at no point between 1919 and 2020 have rolling 20-year total returns (including dividends)
ever been negative. If you bought an S&P 500 tracking index at any point over the past 102
years and held on to your investment for a minimum of 20 years, you made money.
When the next correction or crash does rear its head, be thankful, because you're being
given an opportunity to buy great companies at a discount.
The current financial world has been reduced to a one-legged bar-stool in a bar where
drinks are on the house. There is no scenario where this does not end well no matter how
euphoric we are in the moment.
The important part for future production is that we make a clear distinction between those
three supply sources (counting OPEC and the + states as one source). There are very different
reasons for why production is down from each source and more importantly, what the long term
prospects are.
In the second part of this report, we will discuss the prospects of each source in detail
and show that the pandemic, and the ensuing price crash, have accelerate a process where global
production will hardly be able to grow. At the same time, demand will not peak as quickly as
people believe. This has the potential for a massive supply shortfall in the medium term.
smellmyfingers 2 hours ago
The only real shortage we have is truth.
We're all being fed a huge steaming pile of BS on everything. Oil build/draw. Crypto
currencies based upon what? Fiat money, paper.
All these lying politicians and banksters just jockeying for positions to steal as much as
they can as they push the human family to genocide.
wick7 38 minutes ago
Either way oil is going over the Seneca cliff and then Mad max here we come.
wick7 35 minutes ago
Every oil well that has ever existed has followed a bell curve. Pretending oil is infinite
is like believing in a flat earth.
Galtmandu 1 hour ago (Edited)
This is some weak sauce analysis on the relationship between gold and energy prices. Here
is a summary:
Energy prices and gold prices tend to correlate.
I have simplified,
Galtmandu
PS, your model is basically, interest rate policy, fed reserves of gold supply, and
inflation - not groundbreaking stuff. You have created an algorithm that uses these three
inputs to overlay on gold prices. Simple stuff. In fact, a basic polynomial exercise gets you
your best fit.
Now, predict the movements of fed gold reserves, inflation, and interest rate policy. You
can't. Therefore, your model has no predictive capability beyond your opinion. Otherwise, you
would be spending your days sipping umbrella drinks.
If I seem aggressive about this stuff its because I hate this kind of faux-analytical
b@llsh&t that is just sales propaganda.
Thrashed10 2 hours ago
I'm sitting mostly in cash right now. I do have a little exposure to oil. And food.
The oil market is so manipulated. Probably a smart move long term. But I have to trade so
my kids get ice cream. I already know my trade for Monday if I feel motivated. I trade
commodities and industrials. The boring stuff that is not sexy.
hanekhw 1 hour ago
Oil prices linked to the worthless dollar won't continue and this Administration is
working hard to make our dollars even more worthless.
[Apr 24, 2021] Why Grantham Says the Next Crash Will Rival 1929, 2000 by further inflating money not by deflating it. So people who warn regular fold about risks are rare and they harm their own business, if they have any. Profit of doom and gloom are not popular and it is precarious occupation
He suggest that SPACs,Tesla, and bitcoin can serve are canary in the mine as for timing of bubble deflation.
This video is over two months old of course and the the market has continued to set new records. Ray Daleo also issued a warning as did Harry Dent. And market still is going up.
Because of the corona epidemic, investments in real production have dried up and the money has instead flooded the stockmarkets. I guess that if the crisis continues the stockmarket bubble can be kept inflated because the money has nowhere else to go!
electrification, especially in cars is a very long shot and here it is unlear if it make sense to invent int he currest companies involvedas they are in a bubble. Just look at Tesla. electrification, especially in cars is a very long shot and here it is unlear if it make sense to invent int he currest companies involvedas they are in a bubble. Just look at Tesla.
Notable quotes:
"... Around 37:30 , Milton Friedman ism at the corporate level, that is sociopath by any definition... : ) ..."
"... People and corporations qho like Frieman professes are driven exclusively by profit motive are "sociopaths" ..."
"... What a refreshing honest interview. The interviewer and Mr. Grantham are professional, easy to follow and are respectful. The topic they are discussing can be disheartening, but it is nice to know someone is looking out for the retail investors instead of fleecing them of their hard earned labor by misleading the retail investor to go all in and go for broke. ..."
"... Many of the big companies are just sucking up cheap money and making it look like profits with clever accounting. The fact that the markets seem unaffected by covid shows how thick the fraud is. ..."
"... SPACs " an excuse for people with reputation and marginal ethics to take 20% and dash around the country for six months" EPIC ..."
"... COVID-19 revealed that there are two kinds of jobs: essential jobs and bullshit jobs. We just eliminated all the bullshit jobs and put them onto UBI/welfare and it removed a drag on the economy. ..."
"... 1929 and 2000? Also 2008. So we have 3 very big bubbles in the space of 20 years. This is a boom / bust economy with each action of the Federal Reserve to mitigate the pain of the bursting of the previous bubble only sews the seeds for the next bubble. ..."
His comment about how workers are treated nowadays is so true and so important. I once saw
a video of a guy who explained that his small company (service online) had made an extra
million the previous year. He went on to explain that he wasn't going to buy another house
or car or TV etc and would probably only need to employ one extra worker. He said that the
"rich" don't create jobs, the lower and upper middle class create jobs. When they have a
secure job and suitable income for the work they do, they will buy more things which will
create more manufacturing, transport, shipping, retail jobs over time which increase the
numbers in stable jobs et al
"The future value of dividends"......I'll try to remember that. He reminds me of Buffett. All I
know is, there are a lot fewer companies paying even 4% than there used to be. You're lucky now
just to get 3% and it will more likely be 2%, if anything.
I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the
market the next day and not reopen it for ten years. –Warren Buffett
I love his refutation of Milton Friedman's idea that corporate management's only job is to maximize
profit and a company has no responsibility to society in general. "If you say, as an individual,' My only
interest is to maximize my advantages,' which is what they say at the corporate level, you're a
sociopath." - Jeremy Grantham
37:20
If you say, as an individual, 'My only interest is to maximize my advantages,' which is what they say at
the corporate level, you're a sociopath.
WOW!
Stop & think about this. I don't think I have
Ever
thought about corporate America this way, but it is 100% true.
The interviewer either was playing Devil's advocate or doesn't believe Grantham. Grantham is old enough to have
seen some bear markets. It's now a game of musical chairs and when the music stops it will be a rush to the
exits. Quote 12 days before the 1929 crash: "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high
plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears)
have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months." – Irving Fisher,
Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929
I disagree that nobody saw the 2008 real estate burst coming. I saw it when I sold my house in 2004. I mean it was
unprecedented that the value of my house doubled in 8 years. And the buyers of my house were given a loan of 105% of the
purchase price. Then I read that people had taken out balloon mortgages. Then, I was offered a "no doc" loan to purchase a
condo. I mean the red flags were HUGE
This is a stunning interview beautifully articulated, glad there are others who see through the fog too. We're living in massive,
massively fraudulent times, value is utterly misplaced, and loss has been hidden on a scale never before seen. Extraordinary
times ahead.
Wow a great interview with challenging questions and a calm exchange of ideas! Its been years since I've witnessed something like
this.... Thank you gentlemen!
What he says at the end is the most important of all. A system, a corporate mindset that they have no responsibility to their
workers, to their customers, to their communities or country or the planet, that their only responsibility is to maximize
profits... that's beyond sociopathy and it's incredibly corrosive to society and humanity.
10:10
"When you have reached this level of super-enthusiasm, the bubble has
always,
without exception, broken in the next few months - not a few years." This video was recorded on Jan 22 Today is March 27. My
daughter has been on the point of buying a house for the last 6 months, and I have been telling her to wait, so she bought a van,
and has spent the Winter in it, but with the market getting ever higher, she is starting to think "Dad, you're obviously wrong. I
should buy now. How long can I wait?"
Most newbies usually undermine and neglect the importance of technical analysis with regards to trading. Technical analysis
overly predicts the movement of assets prices regardless of what is happening in the wider or broader market. Essentially, the
procedure involves studying the paths of a particular asset movement in the past so as to establish a sustainable pattern that
can be used to predict future movement of an asset. Doing technical analysis can be quite different which is why most newbies/traders
neglect day trading their coins and stick to holding which is very dangerous as when the market goes bearish, advise any
newbies/traders to buy the dip for traders who are still wondering to enter the market or old time traders who are holders to
seek help from not just any trader but an established trading expert with at least 96% trade accuracy . I underwent series of
trading loses I'd best not talk about before I was introduced to trading analyst Mrs Clara. My contact with her has been the
Pinnacle of this year for me, under his careful guide and his signal service I've been able to recover my losses and even grow
my trading portfolio massively from 1.6 BTC to 7 BTC in just 5 weeks. I will advice traders esp newbies to have orientation of
trading before they involve in it. Mrs Clara makes you learn daily while you make profit with his signals. She can contacted
w,h,a,t,s,a,p,p,(+1 7 8 6 4 3 2 8 3 1 6)
Great
point
34:00
Investing in Infrastructure, more jobs, creating less energy waste....now I waste my stimmy check in the market. Italy is
supporting greening of homes,....ya have too as they begin to look more and more like the colosseum.
People and corporations qho like Frieman professes are driven exclusively by profit motive are "sociopaths"
🤡 Hey no one is
stopping interviewee or interviewing company from giving away all or most of their wealth, yet strangely none of these
do-as-I-say types never do...
Great
Interview. Respect to Mr Grantham for his views on green issues and for investing in these. He sees that unless we begin to
invest heavily into something which actually MATTERS in order for us Humans to inhabit this Planet long term, then we are doomed
as a race. I thought the part referring to "Stuffed Chinese dogs" Sums this up perfectly.
This video aged well. The bubble popping in many EVs, cloud, SPACs, hyper growth techs. Now, money rotated to the junior and big
cap stocks. Nasdaq hitting new highs. Soon they would start dumping the big cap stocks, then the SP500 stocks... its playing out
just like in 2000
The market has appeared to me unreal for a long time. Soaring to ever new heights for no particular reason. Reality will have its
way eventually, perhaps soon.
I guess what this good gentleman is saying the whole system is going to collapse this year and I guess Covid was the safety net
to ease us into it. Fasten your seatbelts folks. God bless Vince in London. Brilliant interview
I just don't get the markets, and investors, we are now at a point where the U.S. has to print money in order to survive, and
printing money will never stop. Yet as far as wallstreet is concerned this is on of the best times America has ever had.
Whenever talking with a financial investor, ALWAYS remember they will encourage what benefits them personally and discourage what
benefits them personally as well.
Long terms bonds are very expensive! I am not agree with the electric cars they are not that green as they say, the good thing
about electric car is, that they aren't noisy!
"long-term discounted value of a future stream of dividends" using what interest rate? The benchmarks are either close to zero or
even negative these days, a simple geometric progression will diverge to infinity.
@
24:00
in... its will never pay a dividend.... your right its CALLED FORKING and everyone whos was in along time ago is quite rich off
the forks alone.
Great interview although I would have asked a couple of questions about the value stocks in emerging markets. I would have asked
for concrete examples. Problem with many emerging markets is that they are riddled with political instability, and they tend to
depend too much on developed economies for their exporting success. I would not bet a dime on Brazil or Russia, for example.
China is a giant scam when it comes to its stock markets. India might be a different story but not sure about the BJP either.
What a refreshing honest interview. The interviewer and Mr. Grantham are professional, easy to follow and are respectful. The
topic they are discussing can be disheartening, but it is nice to know someone is looking out for the retail investors instead of
fleecing them of their hard earned labor by misleading the retail investor to go all in and go for broke.
This is the biggest asset bubble in modern history. Very different than 99' and 08' but the same , an extremely quick increase in
asset values due to available essentially free money. People can get lending as long as they have a job. Jobs go away as soon as
there is an issue. I witnessed this in both 99 and 08. And BTW we did see it coming in 08. Then how do they pay for a mortgage? I
can't say when it will happen, but it will with certainty.
There's
some really useful long term perspective, mixed with nostalgia for dividends which stocks had to have to compete with interest to
match risk free return of government bonds along with magical thinking about total electrification. All this is wound together
with a hypnotic calm like he's imparting facts and received wisdom not opinion. Stay skeptical and take the good and leave the
rest.
"Rival"? I think "dwarf" is the word you are looking for. WW3 is a real possibility. There's a dutch ex-soldier who predicts
there is going to be be a huge war in the years between 2020 and 2022. His name is Ingo Piepers. And he did his research very
thoroughly and had it even verified in multiple peer reviews. If we look back on all the big wars, they were almost always about
money. Now there is a money problem brewing
WORLDWIDE.
Also his research was completely independent from any kind of economic information as far as I am aware, so there's a good chance
he doesn't even know about the economic side of things. But they seem to overlay frighteningly well. I hope it's all going to be
okay without any real war. Here's the video (it's in dutch tho):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wTX3CGeOJ8
Every administration since Bush knows that if you keep interest rates low, and print money, you creat inflation. Inflation
creates a strong market. TheFed has made the market the only game to invest in.
I feel what is happening at the COMEX is criminal. I feel major banks are hording the silver and trying to drive the price of
silver down for acquisition of the physical. In my mind and my gut tells me they are preparing a large horde of silver for the
automotive markets to produce electrical vehicles(EV's). Look at the price of Palladium and Platinum. P&P sored when it was/is
used for automotive catilittic converters. What is going to be used next for automotives (whispers batteries in huge demand). The
price of silver will sky rocket for automotive use just like Palladium and Platinum. Then you will see Palladium and Platinum
prices tank.
The
"usual" basics of real economy and real life are right. They have been working well for centuries despite bubbles, as well as
rational investment decision did. Mr Grantham is a successful investor that has been making money investing in the pre "New Era
economy". Probably, I think things work different there. So, I think that probably, the way to invest and gain money in markets
would change too in near the future, as it is happening in all markets and industries. Maybe, it would grow the alternative ways
to make lots of money in short periods of time (SPACS, tech startup, complex derivatives, etc..) as it already happened. There
would be investments based on extremely higher business results expectations not correlated with biz fundamentals. There would be
more bubbles. Anyway, I agreed with Mr Grantham on how real life works...
The thing I always ask about pundits and prognosticators is: what has been their record. I believe that Grantham has been bearish
and wrong for many years. I looked at GMO's Global Asset Allocation Fund (GMWAX). Since it started in June 2019, it's up 6%. The
broad market (VTI) is up 43%. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For those complaining about his big payday on QuantumScape while being against SPACs, remember he invested $12 million in
QuantumScape seven years prior to the SPAC deal, he did not have a controlling interest in the company to stop the merger.
The next step is more bond buying to control yields as inflation expectations rise. The final step before the implosion is a
"Credit Choke" where the government orders banks to stop lending to prevent hyperinflation, in tandem with big interest rate
rises that will cause mass bankruptcies in order to purge the excess currency out of the system and stabilise prices
The
correction or crash will come, statistically speaking, it has to at some time eventually. In 2021 though? I'm skeptical of that
given the enormous liquidity being unleashed, the pent up demand, the signs for employee new hire rates and unemployment rates.
All that $ has to go somewhere so business growth will continue, equity growth, EPS and ROIC will continue to lead to further
higher stock prices until they don't and then, maybe this time in 2023 things change but heck 2 years is a long time in business.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That being said major US corporations are over leveraged in the bond market and are
barely making interest payments while being down graded to "junk bonds". We need a hero that can trim the fat and save our
country.... excuse me while I put on my super man costume. :)
Hopefully, unlike the no-fault bank, trading, and brokerage house bailouts of the 2008 crisis, the next big market flop
will see people jailed, jumping from high windows a la 1929, and a general deep cull of the ruling and "investing" classes.
Equities traders and corporate bonds issuers have an out-of-control need for Fed support. Cold turkey is coming, not
because regulators won't rightly try to ease their massive subsidies, but because traders will just ride their
over-leveraged positions right in the ground.
It is not crash, it is correction, stock market always goes in cycle of up and down. It is called "fleecing the sheep", sheep
being their clients and the 401k owners, rainse and repeat every 8 to 12 yeas or so.
"We have lost considerable strength in the economy; we have fewer people working, and we have a reduced stream of goods and
services, and yet the [market] price is much higher." "Is it really justified that we have delivered a serious blow to the world
economy and yet the global stock market has gone way up? It doesn't feel right."
"I
don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war
upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else." Abraham Lincoln
"I see
in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... corporations
have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is
destroyed." Abraham Lincoln
I have listened to this Bloomberg YouTube interview in its entirety with Jeremy Grantham, at least six times now, he shares a
lifetime of accumulated knowledge and wisdom in a time when we need sound logic and direction desperately. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! Mr.
Grantham.
Many of the big companies are just sucking up cheap money and making it look like profits with clever accounting. The fact
that the markets seem unaffected by covid shows how thick the fraud is.
...Our markets are in whole driven by the central bank printing. Zombie companies and vulture investment firms distort what is
left, value investing is deeply buried in the grave.
13:30
COVID-19 revealed that there are two kinds of jobs: essential jobs and bullshit jobs. We just eliminated all the bullshit
jobs and put them onto UBI/welfare and it removed a drag on the economy.
"You cant predict a market to the week, or even the month" proceeds to say the bubble always pops within months and then
says people are putting in their final in for these last few weeks. This guy doesn't see the whole picture, although i
agree that eventually we will deleverage but this guy has tunnel vision on his view
37:00
If the system demands that the only way a business can make a profit is by providing Goods and Services that make
peoples lives better then what difference does the motivation make? State Power has no such obligation, in fact, the
immoral can pitch groups against each other for advantage and wealth, they can borrow to cover up inefficiencies, they
can empire build pointless departments for personal advancement. Similarly corporations can leverage state power for
advantageous regulations, a truly free market is the only moral system.
Big inflation will hit at the same time. Remember, 40% money supply increase in the last year, and a lot of that money went
into either equities or savings accounts during the uncertainty of covid. People who cash out of equities with a profit will
then spend it and put it into goods as consumer confidence will still be high when this first happens and people will no
longer be looking to hold onto investments during the uncertainty of covid. This is where the newly printed money makes its
way back into the economy and drives prices of commodities up. Simultaneously, you will have the bagholders who got caught up
in the market bubble who made little to no money or even bought in high and suffered massive losses as always happens in a
bubble. This is going to get ugly. It will then turn into hyperinflation if the government's solution is once again to print
their way through a crisis
"Bitcoin is 100% faith. Come the next market phase where faith is at a minimum, what do we think will happen to a stock
whose entire reason for existence is faith and nothing but faith?" - But doesn't that a hundred percent describe the US
dollar too??!
For your average American having a Savings account is .20 of a Percent Interest Investment and Corporations Force people
into 401ks because the Pensions are gone, That must make a big difference in how much money is in the stock market. Normal
people have no choice, The Wealthy Do.
After the disaster in Texas, I'm not so sure renewable energy is great for investment. The picture of the frozen windmills
has become an iconic image in the American mind, however much the windmills may or may not have contributed to the break
down.
1929 and 2000? Also 2008. So we have 3 very big bubbles in the space of 20 years. This is a boom / bust economy with
each action of the Federal Reserve to mitigate the pain of the bursting of the previous bubble only sews the seeds for the
next bubble.
I wonder if there is even another cycle left in this zero %, money printing economy!
I
can see how alluring a video like is... It's hard to disagree with anything that is described in the video, so on the whole
everyone will feel it's truthful, There is a strong feeling that extended rises in any market are illogical, instinctively
investors will always look for a perceived difference between current price and current real value which should be much
higher and expect that eventually prices will rise to eliminate the gap. The problem as always is defining the "imminent"
collapse... Is that supposed to happen today? Next week? Month(s) from now? Years from now? And like most prognosticators
this video doesn't identify a date or even a range of time. Eventually all bubbles burst, and are identified in hindsight.
It's an axiom that hardly anyone can properly identify the day before a bubble bursts, if that were possible than everyone
would have gotten out that day before. A reasonable strategy seems to be outlined in this video which is to always
transition your investments into risk-averse parts of the marketplace, and he identifies green industries that are likely
to become ever more important into the next years, possibly decades. People should realize that discussing an imminent
bubble burst is important, yet ironically the mere discussion by enough people will likely result in behaviors that delay
that very event, perhaps indefinitely.
Next four years, I see extemely slow growth. Maybe slight stock pullbacks (~10%) on tax increases or other event. Raising
interest rates will cause pullback greater than 20% and historically been a sure sign.
Mr. Grantham's hope in the Biden administration doing something good for the country is both sad and misplaced. How can an
intelligent person have any confidence in a corrupt liar who is barely able to read a teleprompter?
Listening to Jeremy Grantham it occurs to me that I have never in my entire life not been able to listen to someone that
says the stock market is going to crash in the near future nor at the very same time not been able to listen to someone
advocating that stocks are the best investment you can make. My conclusion is that the people that say the stock market is
going up are right most of the time but when the people that say the stock market is going down are more right when they
are right.
You all are addicted for money, thats the reason of MMT, it is needed due to your addiction, in the end it will crete
poverty and satisfaction for the bubbles classes...try to free yourself from addiction
If you think a president who has held ZERO press conferences and taken no calls with foreign leaders can fix the stock
market, I'd be better off taking stock advice from Mickey mouse.
He said in this video that a sign of a bubble about to burst is to look for stocks like Tesla and SPACs, and Bitcoin coming
down day after day. One month later this exact thing happened. The writing is on the wall.
The bond yield graph does not take into account the inflation rate. I recall purchasing S&L CDs for 12% back in 1981 but
the inflation rate was 10.5%. If you could find a fixed rate 30 year mortgage the rate was about 18.5%. So the real bond
return was not much different compared to present day.
"I have no confidence and have not had any for over 20 years in price-to-book and PE and price-to-cash flow,
price-to-sales, even, as a measure of true value. a measure of true value is the long-term discounted value of a future
stream of dividends" -Jeremy Gratham
This is great... I'm starting to learn about the current situation.... I lived through 4 booms and busts.. I didn't see the
first one coming because I was young and inexperienced... I was in the land business... I got out at the right time for the
last three busts.. Never waited for the top.... When it starts down its too late... Get out now as he says... Brilliant
guy... Thanx
Greenspan talked of Irrational Exhubberence in Sept 1997 but the market continued to rise till NASDAQ peak in March 2000
and S&P Peak in July 2000. so a few months is way to fast
it really looks like an October crash is coming - looks like it, feels like it, smells like it. People are nearly all
in on the stock and crypto markets, some are taking loans to do it. We are in a frenzy. Even I am all in. I hope I
listen to myself and derisk a bit into cash before the end of the year.
This is pretty revealing interview that systematize know facts about the current bubble. That
does not mean that you can predict when the bubble will deflate and from what level. It might run
for another couple of year or even more. After all stock market is a casino.
The "greatest economy in history" was the USA from the 1950s to about 1975 when its
standard of living was the highest in world history. That was a time when the average man
could afford to buy a nice house and raise a large family on his income alone, and mom stayed
home to manage the family and the home.
One thing I never see addressed by any of the guests here on overvaluation of stock
markets this: aren't markets just pricing in the likelihood of future superinflation? They're
not looking today's earning multiples, they're looking at future earning multiples when
currency is worthless. I feel like most guests are talking out of both sides.
There's both inflation coming and also a crash because of fundamentals. They can't both be
happening at the same time. Either the dollar crashes or the stock market crashes - if both
crash at the same time, then they cancel each other out since share are traded on
dollars.
Another podcast of doom and gloom.. It's informative, truthful, and revealing.. It's also
the same message DS has been delivering for sometime.. Hardly news worthy..
I have respect for Mr Stockman. But he's been very wrong for quite a while. He's been
saying for a long time that the poop is going to hit the fan. Well it will hit the fan. But
nobody knows when.
On today's Wall Street Journal home page, two articles appear side-by-side. One is about how
a heretofore obscure, nearly-valueless cryptocurrency called dogecoin, originally created as a
joke, has soared to the point of being consequential for large sections of the investing
public. And it's not unique:
Last year, stocks with less in the way of fundamentals, and more reliance on telling a
hard-to-disprove story about the future, had a fabulous time.
Profit provides a grounding for a stock, while story stocks can soar on the wings of the
imagination for a long time before being pulled back to earth -- or occasionally confirmed as
true fliers -- by hard business facts.
Dogecoin's combination of get-rich-quick speculators and you-only-live-once Reddit meme
traders is similar to GameStop, which was initially pushed up by a story about a new business
model and then a short squeeze, before nihilistic Redditors took over.
The story stock of the last decade was electric-car maker Tesl a, with the tale being that
there was a gigantic untapped market for self-driving electric cars and clean power that would
eventually both work and be highly profitable.
The danger is that the excess so obvious in dogecoin has spread beyond the story stocks into
mainstream investments, and that when eventually the froth is blown away, the rest of the
market cools suddenly. That would be a bad joke.
The second article notes that something similar is happening in the bond market:
A key measure of the perceived risk in low-rated corporate bonds is hovering around its
lowest level in more than a decade, highlighting investors' mounting confidence in the
economic outlook.
The average extra yield, or spread, investors demand to hold speculative-grade corporate
bonds over U.S. Treasurys dropped below 3 percentage points this month to as low as 2.90
percentage points for the first time since 2007, when it set a record of 2.33 percentage
points, according to Bloomberg Barclays data.
Yields on low-rated corporate bonds already hit a record low of 3.89% in February. That
data point is especially important for businesses, because it signals how cheaply they can
borrow when they issue new bonds. Companies including Charter Communications and United
Airlines Holdings have issued a total of $184.5 billion of speculative-grade bonds this year
through Tuesday, the highest over that period on record, according to LCD, a unit of S&P
Global Market Intelligence.
The spread relative to Treasurys, however, is arguably an even better measure of
investors' outlook for the economy, since it shows how much investors feel they need to be
compensated for the risk that companies may default on their debt.
The narrow speculative-grade bond spreads indicate debt investors think that the economic
environment for businesses over the next several years could be better than at any time since
the 2008-2009 financial crisis -- a striking development after many feared a severe,
long-lasting economic downturn just last year.
So at one end of the financial asset spectrum, a crypto originally created as a joke is
generating the most enthusiasm and biggest capital gains, while way over on the corporate debt
part of the spectrum, junk bonds have never been more richly valued (i.e., they've never
yielded less). Each of these asset categories – cryptos and junk – are "story
stocks" of a sort, securities that are perceived to be attractive because the environment is
going to be nothing short of perfect for years to come. Therefore no need to worry about risk
and every incentive to roll the dice for big returns.
Note the all-important sentence from the junk bond article (bold added):
"The average extra yield, or spread, investors demand to hold speculative-grade corporate
bonds over U.S. Treasurys dropped below 3 percentage points this month to as low as 2.90
percentage points for the first time since 2007 "
Here's what happened to junk bond yields (and, inversely, junk bond prices) after 2007:
One last data point: I got a long-overdue haircut yesterday, and instead of the normal
chitchat about our families and upcoming vacations, the stylist and I talked dogecoin, bitcoin,
Robinhood, and GameStop. She (a 20-something Latina) and her husband are having a ball
speculating on things they hadn't heard of six months ago on exchanges that didn't exist in
2019. So far they – like the "investors" in the above Wall Street Journal articles
– are thoroughly enjoying their newfound wealth.
Lordflin 1 day ago (Edited)
There will come a day... should such a day still have prospect amid the coming chaos...
and historians of that day exist such that they are still recording...
That humans will be forced to ask...
What the holy **** were they thinking...!?
Paul Bunyan 1 day ago (Edited)
It happens frequently to humanity. Real estate a decade ago. Dot com bubble. Merger and
Acquisitions in '87. The inflation crash of the early '80s. So when the system buckles and we
get another crash it's just another bubble of hubris that humans know and truly love. For if
we didn't love creating manic bubbles, we wouldn't do it.
Entertaining1 1 day ago
These are NOT sell signals.
They just look like them. We've had 12 years of head fakes.
You will go broke trading on ZH sell signal articles.
HopefulCynical 23 hours ago
You're sort of correct. They ARE sell signals.
But then the Fed sees them too, and buys stonks, propping up the market until the wave of
selling has passed and the bears are all murdered again.
The Fed then dribbles their stonks back out into the next bull leg up.
Rinse, repeat, wipe hands on pants.
XanII 2 hours ago
If one would just know when the music stops. It's been like this for so so long only old
ones recall how it was to trade stocks. Not stonks that always go up.
Kreditanstalt 1 day ago (Edited)
WHEN the bubble does pop they will find it exceedingly difficult to all fit through that
tiny exit door simultaneously.
The somewhat smarter segment among Bitcoin "investors" have already started selling
archipusz 23 hours ago
I don't think it will pop.
I think it will go parabolic until the currency goes kaput and then you sure as heck will
be glad you are not in the currency.
radical-extremist 1 day ago (Edited)
Everything is the South Sea Bubble. Get out before gravity takes hold.
When the cute Latina chick at the hair cutting place is talking crypto...that's God's way
of telling you it's time.
chunga 1 day ago
The stock market is the bellwether of US health.
Entertaining1 1 day ago
The funny thing is that this all happened a century ago.
In the 1920s, the Dow was the only measure of the economy commonly used.
We came up with GNP, later replaced with GDP, because in 1929 we realized the market is
not America.
Don't worry. We'll get there again. See you in a Hooverville.
chunga 1 day ago
Dmitry Orlov has had the best one sentence quote for two years running.
The Unites States can best be described as a singular, highly integrated, systemically
corrupt scheme.
Chen Zhao, Founding Partner and Chief Strategist of Montreal-based Alpine Macro, has been
analyzing global financial markets for more than thirty years. Numerous investors worldwide
know him as the long-serving Chief Strategist of BCA Research.
Today, Zhao is confident about equity markets. He sees the ingredients for a strong recovery
in the global economy, and he believes fears of higher inflation are overblown. He sees the
potential for the Federal Reserve's monetary policy to inflate a new speculative bubble. "This
bubble is going to be a whole lot bigger than the tech bubble of the late nineties, and it will
probably run a whole lot longer than we think", says Zhao in an in-depth conversation with The
Market NZZ.
Mr. Zhao, in February and March, we have witnessed a sharp upward move in long term US bond
yields, temporarily causing a sell-off in the Nasdaq. What do you make of this?
Whenever bond yields rise, you should conceptually decompose this movement into two
stages. One is reflective, meaning the bond market is trying to tell you something about the
underlying economy. Rising bond yields are reflective of stronger economic growth. However, a
market selloff could also move into a phase where bond yields become too high, constraining
economic activity. In my judgement, what we are witnessing right now is purely reflective.
The ISM manufacturing index is at its highest level since 1983, the world economy is in a
strong recovery mode. Higher yields are consistent with the economy getting stronger. Under
these circumstances, I would be more concerned if bond yields did not rise.
Aren't rising inflation expectations also playing a part?
I don't see a clear breakout in inflation expectations. People forget that during the
decade after the global financial crisis, inflation expectations have fallen apart. Markets
became much more concerned about deflation. Inflation breakeven rates currently are between 2
and 2.2%, whereas the average range during the decade before 2009 was more like 2.5 to 3%. So
inflation expectations are simply in the process of being normalized.
Do you see room for a further rise in yields?
Our model says ten year Treasury yields are pretty much at fair value today, at around
1.5%. But we know that if we have a cyclical move in financial markets, nothing stops at fair
value. Markets always undershoot or overshoot. So I could see yields rise towards 2% or even
a bit more. If they approach 2%, we would be active buyers of long term Treasuries.
Don't you see structural inflation building up?
No, not at all. There is a widespread misunderstanding of this issue. Many people look at
the fiscal position of the United States and see a budget deficit of almost 20% of GDP. The
Fed balance sheet has expanded by $7 trillion since the beginning of the pandemic, M2 has
exploded upward. How can this not be inflationary? Well, in my experience, something that is
too obvious is usually wrong.
How so?
What happened is this: For all of 2020, the US government unleashed $3.5 trillion in
various rescue packages, as a result of which the federal government debt rose by $3.6
trillion. At the same time, the household sector's disposable income increased by $3.5
trillion, and household savings shot up by $5.5 trillion. In other words, American households
not only saved up all the transfer payments they received from the government, but they even
saved $2 trillion more from their own income. These rescue programs did absolutely nothing to
generate aggregate final demand or GDP growth. What we have seen was not a fiscal stimulus to
boost aggregate demand, but a transfer payment. This was no different than a one-time tax
cut. We know that people's spending behaviour is determined by their outlook for sustainable
income. If you give them a one-time tax cut, they will save it. This is what the Permanent
Income Hypothesis says and this is what has happened.
... ... ...
Does that also mean you don't see a structural bear market for bonds, where yields would
drift higher over the coming years?
Correct, I don't see the drivers for structurally higher yields. That's why I think that
ten-year Treasury yields above 2% would represent a good buying opportunity.
play_arrow
Leonine 2 minutes ago
M2 has exploded upward. How can this not be inflationary? Well, in my experience,
something that is too obvious is usually wrong.
Even those with half a brain can twig that JP Morgan are a bunch of crooks. Simply Google
"JP Morgan fines".
Those who are market savvy should Google "JP Morgan fines".
Surely in literally everly market segment the CEO, Jamie Dimond, would be banged up in
prison?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nsurf9 21 hours ago (Edited)
You think this guy understands that, even with more than 50% of the, country in plandemic
lock-down, shutter/closed and/or bankrupt for a solid year, the "markets" have literally
doubled.
This just means that JPM like the other whores have taken their short positions and will
now do everything in their power to ensure that they cash out.
Corporations, especially those headquartered in Georgia, have come out against the
legislation signed by Governor Kemp. Republicans describe the bill as one that addresses
election integrity while Democrats call it a voter suppression law – "Jim Crow 2.0".
Coca-Cola and Delta were among
the first to make a point to virtue-signal after the governor signed the bill, only to be
exposed as taking part in the process and giving input into the legislation. Both were fine
with the law until the governor signed it and grievance activists did their thing. Coke soon
discovered that not all of its consumers think that companies should be making policy –
that 's the job of lawmakers- and now it is trying to clean up the mess it made for itself.
Churches have increasingly played a part in American politics and this is an escalation of
that trend. Evangelical churches have shown support for conservative and Republican candidates
while black churches get out the vote for Democrats. This threat of bringing a large-scale
boycott over state legislation is a hostile action against the corporation. It's political
theatre. Groups like Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund (Stacey Abrams),
and the Georgia NAACP are pressuring companies to publicly voice their opposition and the
religious leaders are doing the bidding of these politically active groups.
When SB 241 and HB 531 were working through the legislative process, the groups put pressure
on Republican lawmakers and the governor to abandon the voting reform legislation. They also
demanded that donations to any lawmakers supporting the legislation be stopped. The Georgia
Chamber of Commerce tried to remain bipartisan while still voicing support for voting rights
but then caved and expressed "concern and opposition" to some provisions . At the time,
several large Georgia companies were targeted by activists, including Aflac, Coca-Cola,
Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS.
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce previously reiterated the importance of voting rights
without voicing opposition against any specific legislation. In a new statement to CNBC, the
Georgia Chamber said it has "expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB
531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access" and "continues to engage in a
bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting
rights in our state."
Office Depot came out at the time and supported the Chamber's statement. The Election
Integrity Act of 2021, originally known as Georgia Senate Bill 202, is a Georgia law
overhauling elections in the state that was signed into effect by the governor and we know what
happened. Office Depot has not delivered for the activists as they demand so now the company
faces boycott drama. The
religious leaders are taking up where the activist groups left off.
African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Reginald Jackson said the company has remained "silent
and indifferent" to his efforts to rally opposition to the new state law pushed by
Republicans, as well as to similar efforts elsewhere.
" We just don't think we ought to let their indifference stand ," Jackson said.
The leader of all his denomination's churches in Georgia, Jackson had a meeting last week
with other Georgia-based executives to urge them to oppose the voting law, but said he's had
no contact with Home Depot, despite repeated efforts to reach the company.
Faith leaders at first were hesitant to jump into the boycott game. Now the political
atmosphere has changed and they are being vocal. Jackson focused on pressuring Coca-Cola first.
After that company went along to get along, before it realized its error, Jackson moved his
focus onto other companies.
"We believe that corporations have a corporate responsibility to their customers, who are
Black, white and brown, on the issue of voting ," Jackson said. "It doesn't make any sense at
all to keep giving dollars and buying products from people that do not support you."
He said faith leaders may call for boycotts of other companies in the future.
So, here we are with Home Depot in the spotlight. There are
four specific demands leveled at Home Depot in order to avoid further action from the
activists.
Rev. Lee May, the lead pastor of Transforming Faith Church, said the coalition is "fluid
in this boycott" but has four specifics requests of Home Depot: To speak out publicly and
specifically against SB 202; to speak out against any other restrictive voting provisions
under consideration in other states; to support federal legislation that expands voter access
and "also restricts the ability to suppress the vote;" and to support any efforts, including
investing in litigation, to stop SB 202 and other bills like it.
" Home Depot, we're calling on you. I'm speaking to you right now. We're ready to have a
conversation with you. You haven't been ready up to now, but our arms are wide open. We are
people of faith. People of grace, and we're ready to have this conversation, but we're very
clear those four things that we want to see accomplished ," May said.
The Rev. Timothy McDonald III, senior pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church, warned
this was just the beginning.
"It's up to you whether or not, Home Depot, this boycott escalates to phase two, phase
three, phase four," McDonald said. "We're not on your property -- today. We're not blocking
your driveways -- today. We're not inside your store protesting -- today. This is just phase
one."
That sounds a lot like incitement, doesn't it? Governor Kemp is speaking out, he has had
enough. He held
a press conference to deliver his comments.
"First, the left came for baseball, and now they are coming for Georgia jobs," Kemp said,
referring to MLB's decision to move this year's All-Star Game from Atlanta over the new laws.
"This boycott of Home Depot – one of Georgia's largest employers – puts partisan
politics ahead of people's paychecks."
"The Georgians hardest hit by this destructive decision are the hourly workers just trying
to make ends meet during a global pandemic. I stand with Home Depot, and I stand with nearly
30,000 Georgians who work at the 90 Home Depot stores and 15 distribution centers across the
Peach State. I will not apologize for supporting both Georgia jobs and election integrity,"
he added.
"This insanity needs to stop. The people that are pushing this, that are profiting off of
it, like Stacey Abrams and others, are now trying to have it both ways," Kemp said. "There is
a political agenda here, and it all leads back to Washington, D.C."
The governor is right. The activists are in it to federalize elections, not to look out for
Georgians, who will lose jobs over these partisan actions. The law signed by Kemp increases
voting rights, it doesn't limit them .
In a recent note from SocGen's Andrew Lapthorne, the cross-asset strategist summarizes the
ongoing market insanity delightfully, saying that "there is an increasingly large number of
weird and wonderful signs of market excess, from surging crypto currencies started as a joke to
a single New Jersey Deli trading at $100m market cap."
To be sure, it's not just the record liquidity that has pushed the Goldman index of
financial conditions to record easy levels...
... there is also a lot of good news, with the economic narrative improving and vaccination
programs accelerating worldwide, with most now hoping that the worst of the pandemic is behind
us. At the same time, global profit expectations are being revised upwards and earnings growth
is forecast to jump by a third in 2021.
Given this almost euphoric market backdrop, Lapthorne correctly notes that "anything bearish
is met with groans."
But to complete the record, the SocGen strategist adds that even after this profit rebound,
global equities will be trading at over 21x earnings, which is extremely expensive on most
historical measures, and at a stock level, " the distribution of valuations is as extreme as
during the 1999 tech-bubble."
Finally, the amount of global market capitalization that has reported a negative profit
number in the last year and in each of the last three years is higher than at any point during
the past 22 years, and has even surpassed the dot com bubble.
Lapthorne's rhetorical question: " We wonder how the history books will describe 2021."
mailll 6 hours ago (Edited)
Corporate stocks are the new bitcoin. People putting trillions into worthless corporate
assets. Brought to us by free money from the Federal Reserve.
I know one company that had a market cap of about $200 million about 5 years ago. It now
has a market cap of about $2 billion. And as their stocks have been increasing year after
year, their net incomes were becoming more and more in the negative. And in order to finance
their mismanaged company, they have been issuing more stocks. And instead of decreasing the
value of their stocks, their stocks actually doubled. Once again, brought to us by free money
from the Federal Reserve.
But keep in mind, the Fed giveth, and the Fed taketh away. And each time they taketh away
after issuing all of this easy money, they have gained more and more power over our financial
system, and over our government. In fact, the Federal Reserve is now Uncle Sam's new daddy.
And Uncle Sam is loving it. And investors are loving it, many of who don't even realize why
this is happening.
I expect the Fed to taketh it all away sometime in 2022.
istt 3 hours ago
P/E ratio for the NASDAQ are not anywhere close to 1999. But the Buffett Indicator is near
record highs.
(Bloomberg) -- Wall Street banks have long relied on a familiar system to limit the dangers
of trading with big clients: assign sales staff to win deals, and risk controllers to keep them
in check -- even if it sacrifices some profit.At Credit Suisse Group AG, executives had given
the point salesman to Archegos Capital Management on its swaps desk the new responsibility of
instead overseeing risk-taking in the broader prime-brokerage unit, according to people with
knowledge of the matter. This year, Archegos's swap bets spectacularly collapsed, saddling the
bank with a $4.7 billion writedown, and setting it up as the biggest loser to emerge from the
debacle at Bill Hwang's family office.
Parshu Shah -- the salesman who became head of prime-services risk -- hasn't been accused of
any impropriety in previous trades with Archegos. But the bank has faced questions in the wake
of the debacle over whether managers prioritized boosting revenue over managing against
downside. Shah is among a roster of Credit Suisse executives who've been forced to step down
following the blowup, according to an internal memo early this month.
The usually behind-the-scenes functions of risk controls have been thrust into the limelight
after Credit Suisse was left holding the bag on two financial catastrophes in just a few months
-- Hwang's firm and the collapse of Greensill Capital. The Swiss lender's losses have left
investors puzzling over whether it has sufficient checks in place.
In recent years, Credit Suisse Chief Executive Officer Thomas Gottstein and his predecessor
Tidjane Thiam gave the task of resetting risk management and the bank's risk appetite to Lara
Warner, head of risk, who is stepping down as well. She challenged risk managers to stop
thinking only about defending the bank's capital and also look at strategic business
priorities, Bloomberg reported earlier.
While it's not typical for revenue-generating finance employees to switch to risk-oversight
roles, some banks make such shifts.Credit Suisse, the worst-performing major bank stock this
year, is set to disclose first-quarter earnings results on Thursday that are likely to involve
a more-detailed discussion around the Archegos mess. Anna Christensen, a spokeswoman for Credit
Suisse declined to comment for the firm and Shah, or say how long he'd been in the
risk-oversight position.
Shah, who has been with the bank for more than 20 years, was one of the people at the firm
who helped nurture the relationship with Archegos as the fund began growing in size.When Shah
left the swaps desk, his sales role ended and he took over the new oversight position within
the prime-brokerage group. That job included overseeing the risk of several clients, including
Archegos. An existing member of Shah's team was assigned to Hwang's firm for monitoring its
activity on a daily basis, according to a Credit Suisse executive who asked not to be
identified discussing internal matters.
The prime-brokerage risk group was one among several lines of defense set up to shield a
firm of Credit Suisse's size from confronting hefty losses in dealings with any one client. But
the enormity of the bank's exposure coupled with the rapid implosion of Hwang's firm ripped
through the safety net Credit Suisse had set up, leaving management befuddled, the lender's
workforce frustrated and investors furious.
In 2016, under then-CEO Thiam, Credit Suisse underwent a significant restructuring of its
risk functions that led to many people leaving. The risk-control center was shifted to Zurich,
Credit Suisse's headquarters, from New York, where the majority of the bank's
investment-banking and trading activities sit.
Since the restructuring, efforts to cut costs have damped the bank's ability to add talent
and replenish the defense lines, a person familiar with the matter said.
It would be stupid to buy US stocks at those valuations. But it is strange that 401K
investors do not participate, they usually have fixed allocation heavily biased to stocks
providing Wall Street sharks with ample food chain...
Household equity holdings now account for 47% of total assets, according to Citi. That is
the highest level since 1970. Returns were subpar for the next decade.
With politics leaning ever more left on university campuses, I hope Dr Ladapo doesn't lose
his job at UCLA for writing a cogent and concise opinion piece.
RICHARD SANDOR SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
Brian : Yes, an expensive university in my largely Democrat-controlled state state has a
student group which wants to ' censor ' the university president for not being focused enough
on ' diversity, inclusiveness and equity . ' Hope the parents realize the high price they are
paying for this left wing indoctrination. mrs
The politician most responsible for pitting ordinary men and women
against each other, ruining marriage among ordinary people, then
accusing someone else of "having no soul" is ironic.
It's the Orwellian narrative: "We have enemies overseas." Enemies
that aren't real enemies because we really don't actually want to
start a war with them but we need to put on a show to keep the
people distracted from looking at who are the real enemies inside
their own country.
The idea of seasonality is not bad per se, but needs to be applied intelligently. In this
sense, May is not fixed month and can occur during any month of the year when signs of impeding
collapse are prominent. Selling when you (still) have some gains is kind of insurance against the
crash.
"Sell in May and go away," advises the trading maxim. But with stocks at record highs, one
trader at the New York Stock Exchange is recommending the strategy with a twist.
... The full axiom was originally, "Sell in May and go away, and come on back on St. Leger's
Day." It has its roots in the City of
London . Financial professionals would go on holiday in May for approximately four months
to escape the summer heat and return for the St. Leger derby in mid-September. Traders and
bankers in the U.S. appropriated the aphorism over the years and condensed it to its current
form.
Many traders still leave their desks for the summer. Volume dries up, liquidity tends to
wane, and the bearish summer tendencies become a self-fulfilling prophesy -- to an extent. The
likelihood of markets to follow predictable patterns based on the calendar is called
seasonality -- accounting for up to one-third of a market's price movement.
While a powerful indicator at times, there can easily be overriding factors. Entire books
and websites are dedicated to the study, such as The Stock Trader's Almanac , which has been
published since
1967. The author, Jeff Hirsch, has combined seasonality with other technical indicators to
produce a
robust trading strategy over time.
Woods takes account of the current year-to-date gains for the indices and sees the potential
for some cooling off.
"We could see a pause in this market. It seems too obvious, but right now seeing where we've
gone and how strong this rally has been -- a pause would be fine. And you throw in the
seasonality factor where April is the second strongest month over the last 20 years. Now we're
coming into that slowdown. We didn't see it last summer, which was great. But this summer,
rationale would dictate that we're gonna go away," said Jay.
... ... ...
Jared Blikre is an anchor and reporter focused on the markets on Yahoo Finance Live.
Follow him@SPYJared
Kevin 17 hours ago I don't think anyone
can give you good advice about this market. I am 50/50 and unsure...and I think everybody else
is in all honesty. We all know that valuations are high, the market may be over-heated, and the
market is due for a pullback. We all know that. But, in my lifetime, we have never had an
economic reopening after a forced government shutdown during a pandemic. You can make arguments
for a pullback or a continued rally very easily. Both sides make perfect sense. With that being
said, I think you just have to be playing both sides. Stay in the game and keep some dry powder
as well. Yes, I know that is very simplistic and basic, but this thing really could go either
way during the coming months. Frank 22 hours ago Slashing interest rates and backstopping
corporate debt, for example, helped direct money into the financial system. Some of the biggest
beneficiaries were wealthier Americanswho hold investments. As a stark sign of how the rich got
richer in the past 12 months, the number of billionaires on Forbes's 35th-annual ranking grew
by nearly a third, swelling by 660.
BananaBob 22 hours ago It makes sense to sell in Q2 when the markets are at record highs. Q3 is
usually the worst quarter of the year. Lots of companies take their losses in Q3 (at least on
paper) to make their Q4 numbers look better. Then, then they can say 'a gain of x% since last
quarter' to boost their year end numbers and show a hockey stick shaped chart on their annual
reports.
MickinMD 6 hours ago Yahoo should point out here that a "trader" is more of a gambler than an
investor.
While May-Sept. may be bad, history says that people that sell generally miss the optimum
reentry point and buy back at a higher price.
Still, the P/E of the S&P 500 was 18 in 2014 and is 43 now - something not seen since
2000 when Fed Chair Alan Greenspan wisely warned against "irrational exuberance."
The problem with selling stocks today is: where are you going to put the money for the short
term until you reinvest? In 0.1% credit union savings or 0.05% 1-year M&T bank CD (0.025%
is the national avg.)?
A big reason for the big-bubbled market is that the people who tend to invest in the market
also tended not to lose their jobs during the pandemic, they have money to invest, and CD's and
Bonds don't pay anything.
I've taken money out of stocks but only to spend a ton to repair and remodel my house: my
"emergency" CD's pay 2.1% to 2.85% interest and mature in 2024: I'm not going to redeem them
and later replace them with 0.5% CD's.
The clincher for me to sell stocks is because the market is SO overpriced. My personal,
conservative, retiree's stock portfolio's P/E went from 20 in 2014 to 26 now - value stocks are
mostly not in a huge bubble.
So I partially-sold stocks that made big gains last year but tend not to be moving up this
year and have higher than usual P/E's. For ex., Costco (COST) returned 33% last year but is
down 2% this year and it's P/E is 39 - it was 27 to 29 from 2015-18.
Uald NRA 19 hours ago You might want to look at a chart of national debt. Republicans make a
big deal about the debt whenever Democrats are in power, but the moment they are in control
that worry goes away completely. The national debt increased by 186% under Reagan, 101% under
Bush, Obama was 74%. Reality doesn't fit perception when it comes to who actually increases our
debt faster.
a 16 hours ago Don't sell out rather reblance your portfolio to restore your asset allocation
to a what makes sense for you from a risk tolerance standpoint. Also study the previous market
crashes. 1987, 1992, 2000, 2008 and 2020, They all happened for completely different reasons.
History never repeats itself. The next crash will be for something completely different yet
again. Work on possible senarios that might tigger a market crash, for example a run on the
dollar, or crypto goes bust and the leverage take the banks with it, massive inflation, covid
comes back, etc. When you have a few scenarios then look for asset classes that can survive
that crash. That's where you get insight from studying previous crashes. mike s 1 day ago
"Thoughts On the Market" podcast had a bit on this. While it is old, there seems still some
truth in it - but with newer influences and some specific to NOW. Taxes, financial experts
taking vacations, etc. I am more concerned with supply chains slowly coming back as demand is
there, inflation, rising costs in things like corn, lumber (other commodities), etc. Also, I
think many "day-traders" will continue to chase gains with cryptos - not sure what that will
do. I'm only in a little bit with GBTC and RIOT. I've got a decent bit of cash on the side to
buy in if (when - many think) there is another major dip. There are a few areas that have been
slowing down (tech, small caps, SPACs, ARK-type stuff) that I am still buying little bits here
and there - BUT not over-buying (I hope)... Where to buy? Services? Airlines? Shipping? not
sure.. (is anyone? nope)
Hose 22 hours ago Fed banksters and wall st. Analyst Criminals should go to Jail.
David2 1 day ago Sell in May and then pay the capital gains tax in April. Tax harvesting after
a decline seems like a much smarter move
sixpacktwo 5 hours ago I'm older and last year went to dividend paying funds and utilities.
After 50 years I'm letting other people keep me safe. DENNIS S 1 day ago With the S & P at
37.9 times earnings, the highest in history it may be time for some profit taking .
Evolution 6 hours ago The calm before the storm is here. Ultra smart market. Totally
undetectable.
..."Commercial oil inventories across the OECD are already back down to their five-year
average," said Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Citigroup Inc. "What's left of the
surplus is almost entirely concentrated in China, which has been building a permanent petroleum
reserve."
... Oil inventories in developed economies stood just 57 million barrels above their
2015-2019 average as of February, down from a peak of 249 million in July, the IEA
estimates.
... In the U.S., the inventory pile-up has effectively cleared already.
Total stockpiles of crude and products subsided in late February to 1.28 billion barrels --
a level seen before coronavirus erupted -- and continue to hover there, according to the Energy
Information Administration. Last week, stockpiles in the East Coast fell to their lowest in at
least 30 years.
... There have also been declines inside the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the
warren of salt caverns used to store oil for emergency use. Traders and oil companies were
allowed to temporarily park oversupply there by former President Trump, and in recent months
have quietly removed about 21 million barrels from the location, according to people familiar
with the matter.
...For the 23-nation OPEC+ coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, the decline is a
vindication of the bold strategy they adopted a year ago. The alliance slashed output by 10
million barrels a day last April -- roughly 10% of global supplies -- and is now in the process
of carefully restoring some of the halted barrels.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has consistently said its key objective is
to normalize swollen inventories, though it's unclear whether the cartel will open the taps
once that's achieved. In the past, the lure of high prices has prompted the group to keep
production tight even after reaching its stockpile target.
... For better or worse, the re-balancing should continue. As demand picks up further,
global inventories will decline at a rate of 2.2 million barrels a day in the second half,
propelling Brent crude to $74 a barrel or even higher, Citigroup predicts.
The danger here is that the US and the EU vassals push Russia into having nothing to lose.
I don't see how NS2 can be finished if Navalny dies. I hope Russia/Putin are working to
prevent this, if they can.
Microsoft buys speech recognition company Nuance in $16B deal, second biggest since
LinkedIn
Nuance has a strong reputation for its voice recognition technology, and it has been
considered an acquisition target for companies like Apple, Microsoft and more for several
years.
The past year or so has been one of the oddest periods ever for the stock market and
economy, with a rare pandemic shutting down businesses and throwing millions of people out of
work.
At the same time, the federal government stepped up with unprecedented amounts of stimulus
payments, free loans to businesses, eviction moratoriums and other aid -- even a delayed
deadline for filing income-tax returns.
Things are off-the-charts unusual. Yet for novice investors who stuck a toe in the stock
market for the first time over the past year or so, it's all they know.
And it's not just a few people, either. Armed with stimulus checks and motivated by boredom
perhaps, millions of people took the stock market plunge last year -- a whopping 15% of all
current stock investors got their start in 2020, according to a new Schwab survey.
Most must be thinking, "This is easy." Here are some reasons why they should think
twice.
The stock market has climbed steadily for the past 13 months, over which time it has nearly
doubled in value. That's rare in itself. But the really unusual part was the extremely short
duration of the preceding bear market or downward spiral, which lasted just five weeks.
No wonder these first-year investors are more optimistic about near- and long-term results
compared to more seasoned market participants, according to the Schwab survey. The newbies also
tend to be younger -- 35 years old, on average, compared to 48 for people who started investing
prior to 2020. They thus can afford to be more optimistic, as they have more time to make up
losses.
It's true that rising or bull markets always spring from the ashes of bear markets, but
usually those preceding downdrafts are much more prolonged. That's the real challenge of
investing -- dealing with month after month, if not year after year, of falling prices, when
disappointment leads to despair and then desperation. If you blinked, you missed the bearish
phase of 2020. The next downward cycle won't be so kind.
... ... ...
Investing, like gambling, isn't so difficult when you're playing with house money. That was
somewhat the case for millions of Americans who received stimulus payments from Uncle Sam or
possibly souped-up unemployment benefits.
Sure, plenty of people used this cash as financial lifelines, to stay afloat. But others
saved their stimulus checks or put them to use in the stock market.
In other words, some new investors probably don't fully appreciate that investing involves
sacrifice: You forego consumption today in hopes that your money will grow enough over time
that higher spending will be possible years down the road.
Stimulus checks don't arrive every year, though there is one form of free money that you can
tap into on an ongoing basis. These are the matching funds available through workplace
401(k)-style funds that employers ante up to encourage workers to invest.
Even the federal government offers limited retired matching funds to lower-income
workers, through the widely underappreciated Retirement Savers tax credit (details at irs.gov).
It's not a huge sum -- a maximum credit of $1,000 annually to the lowest-income workers -- but
it beats the stimulus money you can count on most years.
Don't assume your buddies are right
There's a lot of psychology to investing, and one tendency is that people seek out
confirming views from friends, family members and colleagues. There's something heartening
about having your investing ideas validated by others. The danger is that these other parties
might have even less knowledge than you.
More than in most years, collaborative investing appears to be on the rise. For example, a
survey by MagnifyMoney, a subsidiary of Lending Tree, found that nearly six in 10 investors age
40 or younger are members of online forums such as Reddit. These can be good ways to learn
about finances, but they also might lead you astray.
"It's great that these communities are introducing a lot of people to investing, which is
one of the best ways to build wealth over a lifetime," said Tendayi Kapfidze, LendingTree's
chief economist, in a statement. "A concern is that some are leading to relatively short-term
trading concentrated in a few stocks with hopes of getting rich quick."
Usually, investors are better off thinking for themselves and tuning out the "noise" or
outside distractions. In part, this is because other people often have different goals,
tolerance for risk or other motivations compared to you. Or, they're just wrong.
... .... ...
And rather than concentrate your money in a handful of stocks, Sandoval recommends spreading
it out through low-cost, diversified mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. The market's strong
performance last year, she noted, was driven by a smattering of large, technology-focused
companies including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google.
But already, there are signs that the market's leadership is shifting. Besides, pinpointing
future hot stocks isn't easy to do, except in hindsight...
"British private schools create a class culture of a kind unknown in the rest of Europe.
The extreme case is the boarding prep schools, which separate children from their parents at
the age of eight in order to shape them into members of a detached elite. In his book The
Making of Them the psychotherapist Nick Duffell shows how these artificial orphans survive
the loss of their families by dissociating themselves from their feelings of love(14).
Survival involves "an extreme hardening of normal human softness, a severe cutting off from
emotions and sensitivity."(15) Unable to attach themselves to people (intimate relationships
with other children are discouraged by a morbid fear of homosexuality), they are encouraged
instead to invest their natural loyalties in the institution.
This made them extremely effective colonial servants: if their commander ordered it, they
could organise a massacre without a moment's hesitation (witness the detachment of the
officers who oversaw the suppression of the Mau Mau, quoted in Caroline Elkins's book,
Britain's Gulag(16)). It also meant that the lower orders at home could be put down without
the least concern for the results. For many years, Britain has been governed by damaged
people.
I went through this system myself, and I know I will spend the rest of my life fighting
its effects. But one of the useful skills it has given me is an ability to recognise it in
others. I can spot another early boarder at 200 metres: you can see and smell the damage
dripping from them like sweat. The Conservative cabinets were stuffed with them: even in John
Major's "classless" government, 16 of the 20 male members of the 1993 cabinet had been to
public school; 12 of them had boarded(17). Privately-educated people dominate politics, the
civil service, the judiciary, the armed forces, the City, the media, the arts, academia, the
most prestigious professions, even, as we have seen, the Charity Commission. They recognise
each other, fear the unshaped people of the state system, and, often without being aware that
they are doing it, pass on their privileges to people like themselves.
The system is protected by silence. Because private schools have been so effective in
moulding a child's character, an attack on the school becomes an attack on all those who have
passed through it. Its most abject victims become its fiercest defenders. How many times have
I heard emotionally-stunted people proclaim "it never did me any harm"? In the Telegraph last
year, Michael Henderson boasted of the delightful eccentricity of his boarding school. "Bad
work got you an 'order mark'. One foolish fellow, Brown by name, was given a double order
mark for taking too much custard at lunch. How can you not warm to a teacher who awards such
punishment? Petty snobbery abounded," he continued, "but only wets are put off by a bit of
snobbery. So long as you pulled your socks up, and didn't let the side down, you wouldn't be
for the high jump. Which is as it should be."(18) A ruling class in a persistent state of
repression is a very dangerous thing."
... the financial markets sometimes feel like a house of cards.
...the more existential questions: what's the right level for a stock market that plunged
33% in about two weeks just a year ago? How much of that gain comes down to policy stimulus
and how much is real? How much of the expected economic rebound is already priced in? What
happens if the vaccine promise falls short? What if this is as good as it gets?
Taken together, it leaves people who manage money, their clients, and the companies that
advise them, just as befuddled as Andersen, with almost as many perceived red flags as there
are theories as to what's causing it all.
"The most common observation we get from clients is that markets don't "feel right", and we
absolutely get that," wrote Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research, in a recent note.
"For us, a big piece of this unease comes from the novelty of seeing capital markets go from
distress to euphoria in such a short period of time."
...there's been a rush for young companies to go public, sometimes before they have the full
business model ironed out and sometimes when profits are still far on the horizon. That means
the stock market resembles a casino some days, with people piling in who are unafraid of, or
just not used to, losing money.
...the current moment, full of Redditors
and memes and
SPACs and
electric cars and Zoom meetings to 1999, when the internet was the wild, wild west and
trading had just moved on line.
...still worth considering. It's simultaneously true that for the past 20 years, any time
any tech stock anywhere gets a little pricy, it prompts a lot of pearl-clutching about the
dot-com bust -- and that there are uncanny similarities that do warrant more attention.
Why do periods of disruption so frequently lead to speculation? Why do we let
snake-oil-sounding financiers sell us whatever they're selling us? ...
... the traditional ways of managing risk -- government bonds, for example --
aren't really up to the job the way they might have been a few decades ago, as yields
remain low and the decades-long bull market comes to an end.
The stock market has been breaking records over the last year while the real economy has struggled in the face of the pandemic.
And that discrepancy is starting to make experts a little nervous.
One expert, Suze Orman, would go so far as to say she's now preparing for an inevitable crash.
... ... ...
"I don't like what I see happening in the market right now," Orman said in a video for CNBC. "The economy has been horrible, but
the stock market has been going [up]."
While investing is as easy now as
using
a smartphone app
, Orman is concerned about where we can go from these record highs.
And even with stimulus checks, which are still going out, and the real estate market breaking its own records last year, Orman
worries about what will come with the coronavirus -- especially as new variants continue to pop up.
And given how long the market has been surging, she feels it's just been too long since the last crash to stay this high much
longer. "This reminds me of 2000 all over again," Orman says.
The Buffett Indicator
...
the Buffett Indicator, which is a measurement of the ratio of the
stock market's total value against U.S. economic output, continues to climb to previously unseen levels.
And those in the know are wondering if it's a sign that we're about to see a hard fall.
Even Tesla boss Elon Musk is starting to feel anxious. Musk recently asked investing bigwig Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest, if we
should be expecting a crash.
While Wood initially brushed off any concerns, she did tell Musk she would have her team take a closer look.
HHw to prepare for a rainy day
Freedomz / Shutterstock
Orman has three recommendations for setting up a simple investment strategy to help you successfully navigate any sharp turns in the
market.
1. Buy low
Part of what upsets Orman so much about the furor over meme stocks like GameStop is it goes completely against the average
investor's interests.
"All of you have your heads screwed on backwards," she says. "All you want is for these markets to go up and up and up. What good is
that going to do you?"
She points out that, the only extra money most people have goes toward
investing
for retirement
in their 401(k) or IRA.
Because you probably don't plan to touch that money for decades, the best long-term strategy is to buy low. That way, your dollar
will go much further now, leaving plenty of room for growth over the next 20, 30 or 40 years.
... ... ...
First, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Since the onset of the pandemic, Orman now recommends everyone have an emergency
fund that can cover their expenses for a full year.
"... How much of my retirement portfolio do I really want to gamble on a high-risk, low-profit company that is already valued at over 1,000 times its most recent earnings, plus seven times the peak earnings of its entire industry, and which is controlled and run by a volatile, drug-taking eccentric? ..."
"... You've got nearly five times as much of your retirement portfolio invested in Tesla than you do in the entire U.S. home-building industry. ..."
How much of my retirement portfolio do I really want to gamble on a high-risk,
low-profit company that is already valued at over 1,000 times its most recent earnings, plus
seven times the peak earnings of its entire industry, and which is controlled and run by a
volatile, drug-taking eccentric?
Right now if you hold an S&P 500 or similar stock market index fund you've got more
money invested in Tesla than you do in, say, Ralph Lauren (RL) Molson Coors (TAP) Gap (GPS)
Hasbro (HAS) American Airlines (AAL) United Airlines (UAL) Delta Air Lines (DAL) Campbell Soup
(CPB) Domino's Pizza (DPZ) Hershey (HSY) Wynn Resorts (WYNN) Kellogg (K) General Mills (GIS)
Darden Restaurants (DRI) Clorox (CLX) and many others.
You've got nearly five times as much of your retirement portfolio invested in Tesla than
you do in the entire U.S. home-building industry.
The professional poker player finally points out some of the insane moves observed in
pennystocks in Q1, focusing on a tiny deli owner in rural NJ:
Strange things happen to all kinds of stocks. Last year, on one day in June, the stocks of
about a dozen bankrupt companies roughly doubled on enormous volume. Recently, the Wall
Street Journal reported a boom in penny stocks.
Someone pointed us to Hometown International (HWIN), which owns a single deli in rural New
Jersey. The deli had $21,772 in sales in 2019 and only $13,976 in 2020, as it was closed due
to COVID from March to September. HWIN reached a market cap of $113 million on February 8.
The largest shareholder is also the CEO/CFO/Treasurer and a Director, who also happens to be
the wrestling coach of the high school next door to the deli. The pastrami must be amazing.
Small investors who get sucked into these situations are likely to be harmed eventually, yet
the regulators – who are supposed to be protecting investors – appear to be
neither present nor curious.
We don't find it at all surprising that Einhorn's conclusion from his capital markets
observations over the past quarter is identical to ours, when we discussed the insane stock
moves that dominated much of January and February:
"From a traditional perspective, the market is fractured and possibly in the process of
breaking completely."
"Having a large amount of leverage is like driving a
car with a dagger on the steering wheel
pointed at your heart. If you do that, you will be a better driver. There will be fewer
accidents but when they happen, they will be fatal ." Warren Buffett
The Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) has both empirical and theoretical aspects that
challenge the classic precepts of Smith and Walras, who implied that the economy can be best
understood by assuming that it is constantly an equilibrium-seeking and sustaining system. The
theoretical argument of the FIH emerges from the characterization of the economy as a
capitalist economy with extensive capital assets and a sophisticated financial system.
In spite of the complexity of financial relations, the key determinant of system behavior
remains the level of profits: the FIH incorporates a view in which aggregate demand determines
profits. Hence, aggregate profits equal aggregate investment plus the government deficit. The
FIH, therefore, considers the impact of debt on system behavior and also includes the manner in
which debt is validated.
Minsky identifies hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance as distinct income-debt relations
for economic units. He asserts that if hedge financing dominates, then the economy may well be
an equilibrium-seeking and containing system: conversely, the greater the weight of speculative
and Ponzi finance, the greater the likelihood that the economy is a "deviation-amplifying"
system. Thus, the FIH suggests that over periods of prolonged prosperity, capitalist economies
tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance (stable) to a structure that
increasingly emphasizes speculative and Ponzi finance (unstable). The FIH is a model of a
capitalist economy that does not rely on exogenous shocks to generate business cycles of
varying severity: business cycles of history are compounded out of (i) the internal dynamics of
capitalist economies, and (ii) the system of interventions and regulations that are designed to
keep the economy operating within reasonable bounds.
"... much like the dot-com period, there is a broad subset of stocks (mostly in technology) that have become completely untethered, particularly since the summer of 2020, from business fundamentals like earnings and even sales -- driven higher only by euphoric market participants extrapolating from a past extraordinary trajectory of prices. ..."
"... A lot of today's US stock market has become what I call a "pure price-chasing bubble." Examination of the history of comparable pure price-chasing bubbles shows there has been a set of key causal factors that contributed to these rare (I have found nine in total) market events; the presence of most of these factors has usually been necessary for markets to reach the requisite escape velocity. ..."
"... To fuel the bubble further, there was a rapid expansion of bank money beginning three years before the market peak -- but the expansion of credit was even greater, owing to an explosion of margin credit (with implied annuaized interest rates sometimes reaching 100 percent) through an informal system utilizing postdated checks ..."
"... The US market certainly exhibits an exceptional record of price appreciation, with the S&P 500 having risen by almost 500 percent over more than a decade. In contrast to most other bubbles, however, it is notable that US economic growth over this period has been relatively anemic. ..."
"... Due to a sustained high rate of corporate equity purchases financed with debt, this overarching expansion of credit has also made its way into the last decade's bull market and steepened its price trajectory. ..."
"... The role of message boards and chat rooms -- with their millions of participants, all in instant real-time contact -- has created crowd dynamics in speculative stock market favorites at a pace without parallel in other pure price-chasing bubbles. ..."
"... a peak will be reached, a decline will follow, and the psychological dynamics in play on the way up will go into reverse and will accelerate the fall. ..."
"... Moreover, in the context of a grossly underestimated mass of corporate debt, history tells us the consequences of the bursting of the US stock market bubble should be another financial crisis and another recession ..."
According to Frank Veneroso, a broad subset of today's US stock market has become what he
calls a "pure price-chasing bubble." Examination of the history of comparable pure
price-chasing bubbles shows there has been a set of key causal factors that contributed to
these rare market events.
The most extreme such case was an over-the-counter market in Kuwait called the "Souk
al-Manakh." This exemplar of a pure price-chasing phenomenon may shed light -- albeit
unflattering -- on the current US equity market, Veneroso contends.
Our trade deficit rose 4.8% February, as both our exports and imports decreased, but the
value of our exports fell by almost three times as much as the value of our imports did .the
Commerce Department
report on our international trade in goods and services for February indicated that our
seasonally adjusted goods and services trade deficit rose by $3.3 billion to $71.1 billion in
February, from a January deficit that was revised down to $67.8 billion from the $68.2 billion
deficit reported a month ago in rounded figures, the value of our February exports fell by $5.0
billion to $187.3 billion on $4.8 billion decrease to $131.1 billion in our exports of goods
and a $0.2 billion decrease to $56.1 billion in our exports of services, while our imports fell
$1.7 billion to $258.3 billion as a $2.0 billion decrease to $219.1 billion in our imports of
goods was partially offset by a $0.3 billion increase to $39.2 billion in our imports of
services . export
prices averaged 1.6% higher in February , which means our real exports fell more month over
month than the nominal decrease by that percentage, while import prices rose 1.3%, meaning that
the contraction in real imports was greater than the nominal decrease reported here by that
percentage
We should stop seeing capitalism as this unmovable, eternal and indestructible
system ...
Yes, in fact USA has adjusted capitalism as needed/wanted with socialism (the "welfare
state") and neoliberalism (crony-capitalism).
= ... capitalism and the USA are historically specific phenomena, and they will - 100%
certainty - collapse and disappear eventually.
Still, a collapse can take many forms and affect the world's people in different ways. We
can't just expect that capitalism will die of natural causes and the world will inevitably be
a better place for it. We are right to be wary of the worst outcomes.
= ... you just need to last longer than your political enemy. The fact that USA outlived
the USSR gave it almost 17 years of incontestable supremacy ...
You make "outlasting" seem like a random thing. USSR didn't just lose the roll of the
dice.
= No one takes neoliberalism seriously anymore, even among the high echelons of the
economics priesthood.
Examples?
= It is in this world that the Ukraine chose to align with the American Empire. To put it
simply, it chose the wrong side at the wrong time: it chose the West in an era that's
shifting to the East.
But their "choice" wasn't a free and knowledgeable one, was it? The West was pushing for
that change for 10 years and Nuland bragged of spending $5 billion to achieve it.
And the "choice" was for the entirety of Ukraine to move into the West. Ukraine
suffers greatly from not having Crimea and Donbas. For example, the West had planned gas
fracking in eastern Ukraine (by Burisma). That, of course, never happened.
= The euphoria of the fall of socialism masked the degeneration of capitalism that was
started at the same time and it particularly impacted the Warsaw Pact (Comecon) and the
Western ex-USSR nations.
Ukraine was already an oligarchic nightmare when Maidan happened.
= Nazism is not a system, it is just crazy liberalism, and I hope the white supremacists
and traditionalists in the West take note of that - if they don't want to be
crushed.
Nazism lives on in the form of the combination of: neoliberalism, neoconservativism, and
neocolonialism (aka Zionism). And those who adhere to these ideologies don't seem to have any
concern about being crushed. AFAICT the beatings will continue until morale improves
.
It's hard to track neoliberalism because the neoliberals don't consider themselves
"neoliberal": they're just "normal" or simply "liberal". They are the Hadean ideology par
excellence, the ideology that disguise itself as a-ideological, the invisible ideology.
But we can infer the death of neoliberalism as codified in the Washington Consensus list
from 2008 onward by the set of policies enforced in the USA, the UK, Japan and other
developed European countries (where neoliberalism are expected to be hegemonic), and here I'm
specifically asking you to focus on the so-called "austerity" (which is a more regressive
form of neoliberalism, but is not technically neoliberalism) and the rise of MMT through
money printing or, in the case of Japan, more T-bond issuance, in a complete disregard to
national (sovereign) debt after the pandemic (and, in the USA's case, even before that). Also
pay attention to the list of Economy "Nobel" (Riksbank) Prize winners post-2008 - none of
them being neoliberals in the academic sense of the word, nor having a neoliberal past
(apparently).
The only place left where neoliberalism is still alive and well, albeit weakened, is in
Latin America and the so-called "emerging economies" (Turkey, South Africa and Russia). But
those are not the dominant part of the world in the capitalist sense, it would be akin to the
Roman Empire surviving only as a remnant in pieces of Hispania or Gallia.
Yves here. Tom Engelhardt tries to get his arms around US weapons sales and use. The figures
are depressing, particularly in comparison to those of our nominal peers. And the intensity of
our fixation with killing has only grown only over time. Just look at TV. In its early, tamer
days, frontier shows like The Rifleman and Gunsmoke gave weapons top billing. Now in our
post-Vietnam, post Archie Bunker of greater realism, police shows have gory gunplay as their
prime offering, with big side portions of blowing things up and car chases/crashes. We even
have a prime time show, The Blacklist, where the lead is assured to shoot at least one person
every episode. Better to look at the fictionalized version, where we know no actors were hurt,
than clips of the real thing from the Middle East, which are oddly absent from news shows.
By the time you read this piece, it will already be out of date. The reason's simple enough.
No matter what mayhem I describe, with so much all-American weaponry in this world of ours,
there's no way to keep up. Often, despite the headlines that go with mass killings here,
there's almost no way even to know.
On this planet of ours, America is the emperor of weaponry, even if in ways we normally tend
not to put together. There's really no question about it. The all-American powers-that-be and
the arms makers that go with them dream up, produce, and sell weaponry, domestically and
internationally, in an unmatched fashion. You'll undoubtedly be shocked, shocked to learn that
the
top five arms makers on the planet -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
and General Dynamics -- are
all located in the United States.
Put another way, we're a killer nation, a mass-murder machine, slaughter central. And as
we've known since the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, there
could be far worse to come. After all, in the overheated dreams of both those weapons makers
and Pentagon planners, slaughter-to-be has long been imagined on a planetary scale, right down
to the latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) being created by Northrop Grumman at
the cost of at least $100 billion. Each of those future arms of ultimate destruction is slated
to be " the
length of a bowling lane " and the nuclear charge that it carries will be at least 20 times
more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That missile will someday be capable
of traveling 6,000 miles and killing hundreds of thousands of people each. (And the Air Force
is planning to order 600 of them.)
By the end of this decade, that new ICBM is slated to join an unequaled American nuclear
arsenal of -- at this moment -- 3,800 warheads . And
with that in mind, let's back up a moment.
Have Gun -- Will Travel
Before we head abroad or think more about weaponry fit to destroy the planet (or at least
human life on it), let's just start right here at home. After all, we live in a country whose
citizens are armed to their all-too-labile fingertips with more guns of every advanced sort
than might once have been imaginable. The figures are stunning. Even before the pandemic hit
and gun purchases soared to record
levels -- about
23 million of them (a 64% increase over 2019 sales) -- American civilians were reported to
possess
almost 400 million firearms. That adds up to about 40% of all such weaponry in the hands of
civilians globally, or more than the
next 25 countries combined.
And if that doesn't stagger you, note that the versions of those weapons in public hands are
becoming ever more militarized and powerful, ever more AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, not .22s.
And keep in mind as well that, over the years, the death toll from those weapons in this
country has grown staggeringly large. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote
recently , "More Americans have died from guns just since 1975, including suicides, murders
and accidents (more than 1.5 million), than in all the wars in United States history, dating
back to the Revolutionary War (about 1.4 million)."
In my childhood, one of my favorite TV programs was called Have Gun -- Will Travel
. Its central character was a highly romanticized armed mercenary in the Old West and its
theme song -- still
lodged in my head (where so much else is unlodging these days) -- began:
"Have gun will travel is the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire heeds the calling wind.
A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin."
Staggering numbers of Americans are now ever grimmer versions of Paladin. Thanks to a
largely unregulated gun industry , they're armed like no other citizenry on the planet, not
even -- in a distant second place
-- the civilians of Yemen, a country torn by endless war. That TV show's title could now be
slapped on our whole culture, whether we're talking about our modern-day Paladins traveling to
a set of Atlanta spas ; a
chain grocery store
in Boulder, Colorado; a real-estate office
in Orange, California; a convenience
store near Baltimore; or a home
in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Remember how the National Rifle Association has always defended
the right of Americans to own weapons at least in part by citing this country's hunting
tradition? Well, these days, startling numbers of Americans, armed to the teeth, have joined
that hunting crew. Their game of choice isn't deer or even wolves and
grizzly bears , but that ultimate prey, other human beings -- and all too often themselves.
(In 2020, not only did a record
nearly 20,000 Americans die from gun violence, but another 24,000 used guns to commit
suicide.)
As the rate of Covid-19 vaccination began to rise to remarkable levels in this country and
ever more public places reopened, the first mass public killings (defined as four or more
deaths in a public place) of the pandemic period -- in Atlanta and Boulder -- hit the news
big-time. The thought, however, that the American urge to use weapons in a murderous fashion
had in any way lessened or been laid to rest, even briefly, thanks to Covid-19, proved a
fantasy of the first order.
At a time when so many public places like schools were closed or their use limited indeed,
if you took as your measuring point not mass public killings but mass shootings (defined as
four or more people wounded or killed), the pandemic year of 2020 proved to be a record 12
months of armed chaos. In fact, such mass shootings actually surged by 47%. As USA
Today
recounted , "In 2020, the United States reported 611 mass shooting events that resulted in
513 deaths and 2,543 injuries. In 2019, there were 417 mass shootings with 465 deaths and 1,707
injured." In addition, in that same year, according
to projections based on FBI data, there were 4,000 to 5,000 more gun murders than usual,
mainly in inner-city communities of color.
In the first 73 days of
Joe Biden's presidency, there were five mass shootings and more than 10,000 gun-violence
deaths. In the Covid-19 era, this has been the model the world's "most exceptional" nation (as
American politicians of both parties used to love to call this country) has set for the rest of
the planet. Put another way, so far in 2020 and 2021, there have been two pandemics in America,
Covid-19 and guns.
And though the weaponization of our citizenry and the carnage that's gone with it certainly
gets attention -- President Biden only recently called it "an
international embarrassment" -- here's the strange thing: when reporting on such a binge of
killings and the weapons industry that stokes it, few here think to include the deaths and
other injuries for which the American military has been responsible via its "forever wars" of
this century outside our own borders. Nor do they consider the massive U.S. weapons deliveries
and sales to other countries that often enough lead to the same. In other words, a full picture
of all-American carnage has -- to use an apt phrase -- remained missing in action.
Cornering the Arms Market
In fact, internationally, things are hardly less mind-boggling when it comes to this country
and weaponry. As with its armed citizenry, when it comes to arming other countries, Washington
is without peer. It's the weapons dealer of choice across much of the world. Yes, the U.S. gun
industry that makes all those rifles for this country also sells plenty of them abroad and, in
the Trump years, such sales were only made easier to complete (as was the selling of U.S.
unmanned aerial drones to "less stable governments"). When it comes to semi-automatic weapons
like the AR-15 or even grenades and flamethrowers, this country's arms makers no longer
even need State Department licenses, just far easier-to-get Commerce Department ones, to
complete such sales, even to particularly abusive nations. As a
result , to take one example, semi-automatic pistol exports abroad rose 148% in 2020.
But what I'm particularly thinking about here are the big-ticket items that those five
leading weapons makers of the military-industrial complex eternally produce. On the subject of
the sale of jet fighters like the F-16
and
F-35 , tanks and other armored vehicles, submarines (as well as anti-submarine weaponry),
and devastating bombs and
missiles , among other things, we leave our "near-peer" competitors as well as our
weapons-making allies in the dust. Washington is the
largest supplier to 20 of the 40 major arms importers on the planet.
When it comes to delivering the weapons of war, the U.S. leads all its competitors in a
historic fashion, especially in the war-torn and devastated Middle East. There, between 2015
and 2019, it gobbled up
nearly half of the arms market. Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia was its largest customer,
which, of course, only further stoked the brutal civil war in Yemen, where U.S. weapons are
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
civilians
. As Pentagon expert William Hartung wrote
of those years, U.S. arms deliveries to the region added up to "nearly three times the arms
Russia supplied to MENA [the Middle East and North Africa], five times what France contributed,
10 times what the United Kingdom exported, and 16 times China's contribution." (And often
enough, as
in Iraq and Yemen , some of
those weapons end up falling into the hands of those the U.S. opposes.)
In fact, in 2020, this country's arms sales abroad
rose a further 2.8% to $178 billion. The U.S. now supplies no fewer than 96 countries with weaponry and controls
37% of the global arms market (with, for example, Lockheed Martin alone
taking in $47.2 billion in such sales in 2018, followed by the four other giant U.S.
weapons makers and, in sixth place, the British defense firm BAE).
This remains the definition of mayhem-to-come, the international version of that spike in
domestic arms sales and the killings that went with it. After all, in these years, deaths due
to American arms in countries like Afghanistan and Yemen have grown strikingly. And to take
just one more example, arms, ammunition, and equipment sold to or given to
the brutal regime of Rodrigo Duterte for the Philippine military and constabulary have
typically led to deaths (especially in its "war on drugs") that no one's counting up.
And yet, even combined with the dead here at home, all of this weapons-based slaughter
hardly adds up to a full record when it comes to the U.S. as a global mass-killing machine.
Far, Far from Home
After all, this country has a historic 800 or so military bases around the
world and
nearly 200,000 military personnel stationed abroad (
about 60,000 in the Middle East alone). It has a drone-assassination program that extends
from Afghanistan across the Greater Middle East to Africa, a series of "forever wars" and
associated conflicts fought over that same expanse, and a Navy with major aircraft carrier task
forces patrolling the high seas. In other words, in this century, it's been responsible for
largely uncounted but remarkable numbers of dead and wounded human beings. Or put another way,
it's been a mass-shooting machine abroad.
Unlike in the United States, however, there's little way to offer figures on those dead. To
take one example, Brown University's invaluable Costs of War Project has estimated that, from
the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to late 2019, 801,000
people , perhaps 40% of them civilians, were killed in Washington's war on terror in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. Of course, not all of those by any means
were killed by the U.S. military. In fact, some were even American soldiers and contractors.
Still, the figures are obviously sizeable. (To take but one very focused example, from December
2001 to December 2013 at TomDispatch , I was counting up
civilian wedding parties taken down by U.S. air power in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. I came
up with eight well-documented ones with a death toll of nearly 300, including brides, grooms,
musicians, and revelers.)
Similarly, last December, Neta Crawford of the Costs of War Project
released a report on the rising number of Afghan civilians who had died from U.S. air
strikes in the Trump years. She found that in 2019, for instance, "airstrikes killed 700
civilians -- more civilians than in any other year since the beginning of the war." Overall,
the documented civilian dead from American air strikes in the war years is in the many
thousands, the wounded higher yet. (And, of course, those figures don't include the dead from
Afghan air strikes with U.S.-supplied aircraft.) And mind you, that's just civilians mistaken
for Taliban or other enemy forces.
Similarly, thousands
more civilians were killed by American air strikes across the rest of the Greater Middle
East and northern Africa. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which followed U.S. drone
strikes for years, estimated that, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, by 2019 such
attacks had
killed "between 8,500 and 12,000 people, including as many as 1,700 civilians -- 400 of
whom were children."
And that, of course, is just to begin to count the dead in America's conflicts of this era.
Or thought of another way, in this century, the U.S. military has been a kind of global
Paladin. Its motto could obviously be "have gun, will travel" and its forces and those allied
to it (and often supplied with American arms) have certainly killed staggering numbers of
people in conflicts that have devastated communities across a significant part of the planet,
while displacing an estimated 37 million people .
Now, return to those Americans gunned down in this country and think of all of this as a
single weaponized, well-woven fabric, a single American gun culture that spans the globe, as
well as a three-part killing machine of the first order. Much as mass shootings and public
killings can sometimes dominate the news here, a full sense of the damage done by the
weaponization of our culture seldom comes into focus. When it does, the United States looks
like slaughter central.
Or as that song from Have Gun -- Will Travel ended:
Paladin, Paladin,
Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin,
Far, far from home.
Far, far from home -- and close, close to home -- indeed.
The US is a failed experiment. It was always based in nihilism. What we are seeing is like
the rise in human sacrifices of the Mayans as their world was being eclipsed by the Spanish.
Ironically, "thoughts and prayers" are offered up at these sacrifices too. Did the Mayans
realize it was futile?
As more and more Americans realize that it is over and that the American dream is bunkum,
expect to see more carnage.
That figure of 400 Million guns in the USA is undoubtedly low, The late Kevin RC O'Brien
looked at production reports for various manufacturers and came up with the figure of 300
Million sold in the USA this century alone.
Sales of rifles aren't broken out by rifle type or model, but the best guess is that there
are somewhere between 10-15 Million AR 15 style rifles owned by us Citizens if you take into
account home made versions such as those made from 80% recievers or laminated wood.
The last reporting period was 2019 and a total of a little less than 400 murders were
committed by people using rifles of any kind, you ere 4 x as likely to be beaten to death
with fists and feet than killed by someone using any kind of rifle.
Want to reduce violent crime?
Reduce poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity, when the majority of the populace has a
stake in society they act like it, when they don't you get what we have.
TBH the article is a mess, and reading it is rather like being accosted by a stranger in a
bar with a strong personal agenda (" and another thing.")
But (as a non-Murkin) I just wanted to make the point that we're into American Exceptionalism
again, in this case of the negative rather than the positive kind. You get the feeling that
the author's knowledge of the outside world is pretty much limited to what's on CNN, and that
perhaps he doesn't actually know that the US isn't the only nuclear power in the world. And
so on.
How do you put an article like this into context?
Well, for a start, you wouldn't make comparisons with Yemen unless you had been to Yemen,
would you? There are lots of guns in Yemen (virtually the entire adult male population is
armed) but these are in addition to the massive holdings of the military. And we're talking
serious stuff here: AK47s are 7.62mm automatic weapons, and there are millions of them. It
was not uncommon for males you passed in the street to be carrying these weapons, and once
outside the cities (as in Afghanistan) they were everywhere. Shooting incidents were common,
the more so since, after midday, a lot of the male population was blasted out of its skull on
Khat, which is an amphetamine-like substance derived from chewing a local plant. There were
occasional clashes when security forces from different tribes opened fire on each other. Oh,
and many tribesmen in the city carry long bladed knives, and fatal stabbings in the street
are very common. All that's in peacetime, of course.
Second, as in the Yemeni example above, the vast majority of all the deaths in wars since
1989 have been from the use of Soviet, Russian and Chinese weaponry, often dating back to the
1970s. The wars in the DRC from about 1996-2000, involving seven nations and known as
"Africa's World War" killed anything between two and five million people, depending on how
you calculate the figures, and were almost exclusively fought with Soviet and Chinese
supplied weaponry. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Chinese flooded Africa with millions
of AK47s, Makarov automatic pistols, landmines, and 12.7 and 14.5mm heavy machine-guns. As
any African specialist will tell you, these were the real weapons of mass destruction,
because, unlike the F35, they actually work. Together with Soviet-era tanks and APCs, they
were also the principal weapons used in the fighting in Syria and Libya, and in Yemen before
(and mostly since) the Saudi-led intervention. Oh, and those photos you've seen of the
Myanmar military firing on the people? They use mostly weapons supplied by China.
This is not whataboutism. Two wrongs don't make a right. But I wish that, just
occasionally, writers from the US would take the trouble to do a bit of research about the
rest of the world. Perhaps it's true that there is a link between the sale of F35s to Japan
and gun violence among black youths in the inner cities, but that has to be argued, not just
assumed. I don't know how you measure these things, but I seriously doubt that the US is
somehow a uniquely psychopathically violent country. The author needs to get out more.
I assume the authors point is that there is an inherent violence to US culture, and it is
exporting it. There may well be some truth in this, but you can well look at plenty of other
places in the world where there is a cultural worship of violence (or there was at times
past) and it infected other nations. Japan and Germany as obvious examples. But on the
optimistic side of things, both those countries at least partially cured their addition to
worshiping militarism, although to be fair, the USAF had a major say in that.
The one thing that is often missing from this sort of analysis, is they way other
countries use the US's (and others) addition to militarism as a means of exerting control. An
obvious example is the Middle East, where the vast military expenditures are as much a means
of purchasing influence in Washington (and London and Paris and Moscow) as it is a way of
building up their respective militaries.
I think that may well be his point, or the point he's trying to make. I think it's true,
at least to some extent, but it's hardly a unique case, and there are plenty of other
societies in the world where you feel (correctly) much more threatened by violence than I
ever have in the US.
@David
Mr. Engelhardt is a US writer who understandably focuses on current US issues. He lays out
his point at the start: the U.S is "a mass-murder machine". He illustrates it by pointing out
how the US supplies weapons around the world, promoting, funding, and facilitating violence,
and itself slaughters people, directly and through proxies, by the millions. He also outlines
the remarkable violence prevalent in the U.S. These facts are undeniable.
With respect to context, of course the U.S. is not now, nor has it been in the past, the
source of ALL evil in the world. However It has been the source of a very large part of it in
the past century. From a practical point of view, what would be the point of Mr. Engelhardt
focusing on Russian and Chinese actions in, say, the 1980s, when his own country is engaging
in "mass murder" right now? It leads nowhere except to distract from current slaughter that
he may be able to help slow down.
The US as "a uniquely psychopathically violent country": the author does not actually say
that. Nonetheless the US is certainly a very violent country compared to other developed
countries and for that matter past imperialist countries. Collectively Britain, France,
Belgium, etc., etc., massacred millions, even tens of millions, of people in their empires
but to my knowledge were not especially violent at home. Germany was an exception to this.
The fact it slaughtered white people at home is what made its actions unacceptable to the
majority of the elites of most European countries.
The link between US violence abroad and at home: Chris Hedges has written about this. I
suggest you read what he has to say.
It is absurd to pretend that Russia or China is anything like as great a danger to peace
as the United States is. Forty four years ago Martin Luther King observed, ""As I have walked
among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails
and rifles would not solve their problems But they asked, and rightly so, 'what about
Vietnam?' They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its
problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I
could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without
having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government."
The US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world then; it is an even greater
purveyor of violence today.
The only criticism I would make of the article is the disparagement of Palladin. Though
his business card read, 'Have Gun, Will Travel', in almost every episode the protagonist was
able to resolve the situation without killing anyone. The episodes are very entertaining, as
was his sidekick, Kim Chan (Kam Tong), who went by the extremely un-woke nickname of Hey
Boy.
I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of US politicians complaining of violence in the US
while ignoring or even approving of violence committed by the US outside the US borders.
I also support censoring violence in entertainment media.
Censoring anything, including displays of violence, would require state force, which is
based on the use of guns and other weapons -- another 'war to end war', I suppose.
According to the Violence Policy Center (about which I know nothing but will provisionally
trust), motor vehicle deaths still outnumber gun deaths, although guns are closing the gap.
[1] As I have been hit by private cars far more often than I have been shot at -- I ride
around on a bicycle as basic transportation, so the ratio is about 10:0 -- I'd like to
suggest that the proper metaphor for mortal violence in the US is the automobile, rather than
the gun. However, urban liberals like to focus on their political rivals, and gun fans tend
to be suburban or rural, so guns rather than vehicles are the choice of symbol. Yet again,
tribalism permeates every discussion, indeed, it seems, almost every thought.
Now it looks more and more like a deliberate provocation. With Ukraine striving to get
attention and the USA striving to stop NS2.
Notable quotes:
"... The new 2020/2024 Russia/Ukraine transit gas contract is 'pump or pay' in that Russia pays $7B over 5 years regardless of whether gas is shipped or not. So it doesn't matter if the volume drops. I am actually surprised that it has given the still harsh weather in Europe. ..."
"... Meanwhile more figures are out on NS2 and it looks, given good weather, that both Fortuna and AC could finish pipe laying in both Danish and German waters by the end of May. So operational by the end as of year as stated by Gazprom looks on the cards, if not earlier. ..."
"... I suspect that the US and its NATO lapdogs are playing a distraction game. And I think that the Russian government knows this; but also realizes that the Western nations are cirrently in the grips of madcap rulers. Thus Russia is not taking any chance. One can bet that, as the whole empire crashes, it would like to bring down as much of humanity down with it as it can. The future of the earth is not bright. ..."
"... The Oil Shock only added to the 1973-75 recession. The Oil Shock was political in nature, and somewhat coordinated with the USG itself. The deeper causes of the early 70s economic crisis, and of the end of Bretton Woods, was declining profitability across all advanced capitalist states. See Robert Brenner's book, The Economics of Global Turbulence. ..."
"... Nuland et al may be trying to show themselves loyal agents of Israel, testing whether Russia can be distracted from Syria, or pretending to raise the cost of NS2. Russia and China could make balanced moves in the Caribbean to tame the bullies, but may see no advantage in counterthreats. ..."
"... This will be followed by an attack on the two Republics, dead bodies everywhere, un indisputable reason to convince the Germans with to scrap Nord-2. ..."
"... I am wondering if this might be an advantage for Russia and other countries in the mid to long term, that their companies are forced to master all the complex technologies involved as fast as possible? Maybe they will even become competitors to their western equivalents? ..."
First the Ukraine said it would use force to
recover the renegade Donbass region as well as Crimea. It then moved heavy troops towards the
contact lines. The ceasefire at the contact line was broken multiple times per day. Several
Ukrainian soldiers died while attempting to remove a minefield in preparation of an
attack.
It became clear that a war in Ukraine's east was
likely to soon braek out. A successful war would help Ukraine's president Zelensky with
the ever increasing domestic crises. A war would also give the U.S. more
influence in Europe . The U.S. and NATO promised "unwavering support for Ukraine's
sovereignty".
Russia gave several verbal warnings that any Ukrainian attack on the renegade provinces of
Luhansk and Donetsk or Crimea would cause a serious Russian intervention. There was never a
chance that the U.S. or NATO would intervene in such a war. But it was only after Russia
started to move some of its troops around that sanity set in. It dawned on the Ukrainian
leadership that the idea of waging war against a nuclear armed superpower was not a good
one.
Late yesterday it suddenly decided to file for peace (machine translation):
KIEV, April 9 - RIA Novosti. "Liberation" of Donbass by force will lead to mass deaths
of civilians and servicemen, and this is unacceptable for Kiev, said Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ruslan Khomchak.
"Being devoted to universal human values and norms of international
humanitarian law, our state puts the lives of its citizens in the first place," the General
Staff's press center quoted him as saying.
According to Khomchak, the Ukrainian authorities consider the political and diplomatic
way to resolve the situation in Donbass a priority. At the same time, he added that the
Armed Forces of Ukraine are ready for an adequate response both to the escalation of the
conflict and to "the complication of the military-political and military-strategic
situation around the country."
MOSCOW, April 9 - RIA Novosti. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the
need for a new truce in Donbass after visiting the contact line.
The head of state wrote on Facebook that shooting at the front lines had become "a
dangerous routine." "After several months of observing a complete and general ceasefire, we
returned to the need to establish a truce," Zelensky said.
As the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Ruslan Khomchak emphasized
earlier, the use of force to "liberate" Donbass is unacceptable for Kiev, as it is fraught
with casualties among the civilian population and military personnel. At the same time,
last week he said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will strengthen the grouping of troops
in the Donbass and in the Crimean direction - in response to the "build-up" of Russian
forces on the border with Ukraine.
It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now. U.S.
reconnaissance flights near Russia's border continue . One should
therefore consider that the sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a ruse.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
Posted by b on April 10, 2021 at 14:44 UTC |
Permalink
It would be so beneficial to Russia in so many ways to fix the Ukraine
problem once and for all, that America is now backpedalling fast and hoping the Russians do
not get their fix. They want this to continue to be a set of problems for Russia. Avoiding a
war would be great for all, but if the West thinks they can resume this contentious scenario,
they will find they are wrong. I am willing to bet that most common citizens of ukraine are
sick of all this vitriol and tension, crashing economy, and other hardships. Maybe the
majority will finally speak up and get their say.
The new 2020/2024 Russia/Ukraine transit gas contract is 'pump or pay' in that Russia
pays $7B over 5 years regardless of whether gas is shipped or not. So it doesn't matter if
the volume drops. I am actually surprised that it has given the still harsh weather in
Europe.
Meanwhile more figures are out on NS2 and it looks, given good weather, that both
Fortuna and AC could finish pipe laying in both Danish and German waters by the end of May.
So operational by the end as of year as stated by Gazprom looks on the cards, if not
earlier.
At the same time, last week he said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will strengthen
the grouping of troops in the Donbass and in the Crimean direction - in response to the
"build-up" of Russian forces on the border with Ukraine.
If war is really unacceptable to Ukraine why aren't they pulling back their forces?
1) Because the "Russian aggression' propaganda must continue until Nord Stream 2 is
terminated.
2) Because the threat of a war with NATO-supported Ukraine must be sustained to deter
Russia in Idlib and elsewhere.
The only deterrent US ships provide is the type that Russia wants to avoid engaging the US
directly for fear of an eventual nuclear exchange. Otherwise, those ships provide no
challenge to their military capabilities.
I submit the ships are there to encourage Zelensky to take a risk thinking the US has his
back. But it appears even he isn't this dumb and this whole thing is going to blow over as I
predicted a week or two ago.
So, was it always about bluff, theater and optics? ... Or did they simply lose their will
to die young? I guess Zelensky is a bad-joke comedian after all. He gets the local nazis off
his neck (for a while) by being a bold bad-ass boy and passing ideological laws (far from
reality); and then goes listen to the frontline generals as they explain the suicidal meaning
of his comic bluster. Being an actor, it's all just a stage for a gig, it seems. So, now he
tells his pet nazi thugs that Ruslan Khomchak has their phone numbers. Perhaps now that
Phil-the-(UK)Greek has died the Nato biolabs will be working on the next 'Plan B'
reincarnation-virus pandemic mix. Sputnik-V 2.0 better be ready soon.
Maybe I missed it but there were elections in Ukraine last Sunday and
"The new Verkhovna Rada (parliament) of the Ukraine, elected on Sunday, will have an
overwhelming national mandate to negotiate peace terms to end the five-year civil war.
"Sluha Narodu ("Servant of the People"), the party of President Volodymyr Zelensky, having
won more than 43% of the votes countrywide, will now command majorities of both the
party-list and the single-constituency seats in the new parliament; 253 seats altogether out
of 422, or a "mono-coalition" as the party is calling the result, or as the hostile Ukrainian
media term it, "a landslide [which] has never occurred in the contemporary history of Ukraine
and it is more typical for post-Soviet Asian dictatorships..."
"...This beats earlier pollster predictions that Zelensky would be forced into a coalition
with Holos ("The Voice"), a US-invented spoiler organization of Lvov region (Galicia) led by
pop singer, Svyatoslav Vakarchuk. He ended up with less than 6% of the national votes, fewer
than forecast. Holos has proved to be neither the voice of youth, nor an organization without
oligarch support (it was backed by Victor Pinchuk), nor a political party at all.
"Polling better than predicted was the Donbass (Donetsk, Lugansk regions) party,
Opposition Platform led by Victor Medvedchuk, which ended up with 13% nationally; 48% in
Lugansk; 42% in Donetsk; 24% in Odessa; and 19% in Nikolaev. If the additional votes of the
eastern Opposition Bloc of Boris Kolesnikov and Vadim Novinsky are counted with Medvedchuk's
aggregate, together they have drawn majorities of 53% to 54%, putting Zelensky's party in the
east in a minority.
"This is the first time democracy has defeated a US Government-installed putsch and junta
in Europe since the election of Andreas Papandreou's Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)
in 1982."
According to John Helmer "President Volodomyr Zelensky (right) is suffering from memory
failure, mood swings, and other neurological disorders after his hospitalisation for Covid-19
five months ago..." The obvious theory is that Zelensky was playing for time while giving the
ultra fascists and their Canadian sponsors free rein until the elections gave the Ukrainian
people- powerless political flotsam and jetsam, tossed around by Ottawa Nazis, Anglo
imperialism and a corrupt oligarchy which has been robbing everyone in sight, blind since
time immemorial a chance to indicate that it would be an extremely dumb move to attack
Russia. Amongst other reasons, because the average Ukrainian would very likely side with the
Russians against their ancient persecutors the Poles and Balts.
b wrote
"
It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now. U.S.
reconnaissance flights near Russia's border continue. One should therefore consider that the
sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a ruse.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
"
Good question. It fits with the characterization of late empire flailing at trying to
exert/maintain control over global narratives. Empire keeps hoping that Russia and China back
down because they have no other options than bullying. This is just the latest example of the
bully being faced up to.....thank you Mr. Putin!....we just hope the bully goes down without
taking all the rest of us with it.
I suspect that the US and its NATO lapdogs are playing a distraction game. And I think
that the Russian government knows this; but also realizes that the Western nations are
cirrently in the grips of madcap rulers. Thus Russia is not taking any chance. One can bet
that, as the whole empire crashes, it would like to bring down as much of humanity down with
it as it can. The future of the earth is not bright.
If Ukraine doesn't start their self-destruction by launching war before end of June then I
will believe the danger has passed this year and only because the crazies in the US are
hesitating to push the final button.
But if it is not why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?
The only plausible explanation is that time isn't in favor of the Ukraine (and maybe the
USA). Time is running up.
We should stop seeing capitalism as this unmovable, eternal and indestructible system, and
the USA as this eternal and indestructible empire with endless resources. Both
presuppositions are entirely false: capitalism and the USA are historically specific
phenomena, and they will - 100% certainty - collapse and disappear eventually.
In politics, time is always relative. You know you won't last forever, but you know you
don't need to: you just need to last longer than your political enemy. The fact that USA
outlived the USSR gave it almost 17 years of incontestable supremacy, even though, analyzing
the numbers, we know that the economic apex of the American Empire (its "golden age") was
between Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson. The absence of its geopolitical rival resulted in
the fact that the American Empire reached its pinnacle during Bill Clinton and George W.
Bush, not at the time its people was the most happy, during 1945-1969.
But geopolitical apex doesn't always translate automatically to economic apex. The USA
also suffered a lot with the Oil Crisis of 1974, after which it quickly started to
financialize and deindustrialize, in a process that was best symbolized by the Nixon Reforms
(the creation of the Petrodollar in 1971 with the secret talks with the Saudi royal family
and the deal with China in 1972). This crisis was masked solely by the fact that the USSR
suffered even more with the Oil Crisis than the USA, resulting into a relative
ascension. This relative ascension can be verified by the fact that Ronald Reagan was the
most popular POTUS of the post-war USA: his reign was, by all economic metrics, a monumental
failure, but it was during his watch that the USSR started to collapse.
Signs of cracks in the USA were already evident when George H. W. Bush wasn't re-elected
because of a tax revolt by the electorate. During Bill Clinton, the American Empire gained a
lot of breathing space thanks to the absorption of the vital space left by the ex-USSR
countries, which were ransacked by the American and, to a lesser extent, German, capitalists
(Victoria Nuland's husband, for example, got extremely rich with the privatization of the
communications services in ex-Yugoslavia, hence her particular interest in Eastern Europe
affairs). But even during Bill Clinton we could already see some dark clouds, e.g. the
infamous "twin deficits" increase. Bill Clinton also governed long enough to see the crisis
of the Asian Tigers (1997) and the Dotcom Crisis (2000). The dark clouds that would result in
the storm of September 2008 were already there, gathering.
Analyzing the economic data, we can clearly see that the USSR wasn't the only one in an
age of stagnation: since 1990, only China and SE Asia genuinely grew. If the 21st Century is
to be consolidated as the "Asian Century", then a historian of the 22nd Century will have to
go back to that year (or even earlier, to the mid-1980s) to try to understand the Asian rise.
Growth elsewhere (when it happened) was either vegetative or fruit of a relocation (i.e. rise
in inequality, bankruptcy of some sectors in favor of others) of wealth. During the 2000s,
almost all the economic growth can be exclusively traced back to China (Russia's and Brazil's
commodity booms, SE Asia's continued dynamism due to China's outsourcing or financing of
American debt).
The 2008 crisis ended Neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideology. Today's world is still very
much neoliberal, but only because the global elites don't know what to do and, either way,
it's being implemented in a very distorted way, very far from its ideological purity of the
1990s. No one takes neoliberalism seriously anymore, even among the high echelons of the
economics priesthood. Some remnants of neoliberal thought are still alive in the form of some
living fossils in Latin America, but its end if fait accompli.
It is in this world that the Ukraine chose to align with the American Empire. To put it
simply, it chose the wrong side at the wrong time: it chose the West in an era that's
shifting to the East. The euphoria of the fall of socialism masked the degeneration of
capitalism that was started at the same time and it particularly impacted the Warsaw Pact
(Comecon) and the Western ex-USSR nations.
The Ukraine debacle has two aspects. First of all: the Maidan color revolutionaries
clearly envisioned a neonazi, pro-Western Ukraine in its territorial integrity, i.e. with
Crimea, Luhansk and Donbas. They didn't see the pro-Russians being well-organized enough to
be able to quickly fall back to Russia (Crimea being the most spectacular case, rapidly
organizing a referendum and fully integrating with Russia). Those losses are big: without
Crimea, Ukraine essentially lost any significant Black Sea influence, and without Donbas +
Luhansk, it practically lost all its industry and economy. Donbas specifically was a huge
blow to the Ukrainians: since the Tsarist era, it was the most industrialized and advanced
region of the Russian Empire (even more than Moscow and St. Petersburg) and it continued to
be so during the Soviet Era - three of the main Soviet General-Secretaries of the post-war
era came from the region (Krushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev).
Secondly, Ukraine, by choosing capitalism, has put itself withing the capitalist metabolic
clock. The era of the Marshall Plan is gone. The USA needs wealth and it needs now. It will
have to pay tributes to its new metropolis, and the price is high. The USA will settle for
nothing less than the entire Ukraine - including the rich regions of the Donbas basin, plus
the Crimea (over which its powerful Navy will be able to project into Russian territory). It
also won't settle for anything less than a fully NATO-integrated, IMF-controlled Ukraine.
That's the price for a full accession to the capitalist club post-2008.
In this sense, Ukraine's time is very short, as it is sucking the IMF dry (financial black
hole) and it will collapse soon. The patience of the Empire is short and is getting shorter.
As is common with capitalist societies, the Ukraine is also starting to devour itself as it
collapses with the lack of vital space: the liberal elites governing it are having to ask
themselves how can they get out of this mess without being murdered by the neonazi base that
sustains it; at this point, they're more worried about avoiding another Night of the Long
Knives than in reconquering the Donbas and Crimea.
The only good aspect I see in the dissolution and extinction of the Ukraine is that it can
finally put to rest the myth that Nazism is a brutal, but highly efficient, "system": there's
not such a thing - and never was - as a "Nazi system". Germany already was the second
industrial superpower by the time Hitler rose to power; he never elaborated any kind of
economic theory or even policy, instead delegating it to the already existing (Weimarian)
industrial elite. Hitler was just a very powerful cheerleader who dreamed in being an epic
movie. There was never such a thing called "national socialism" - it was just the name of the
Bavarian party that already existed when Hitler crossed the border; it was by mere chance of
destiny that he came from Austria (Southern border) and not Denmark (Northern border),
France/Alsace-Lorraine (Western border) or Poland-Sudentenland (Eastern border). Nazism is
not a system, it is just crazy liberalism, and I hope the white supremacists and
traditionalists in the West take note of that - if they don't want to be crushed.
MarkU , Apr 10 2021 17:28 utc |
27Prof , Apr 10 2021 17:33 utc |
28
VK The Oil Shock only added to the 1973-75 recession. The Oil Shock was political in nature,
and somewhat coordinated with the USG itself. The deeper causes of the early 70s economic
crisis, and of the end of Bretton Woods, was declining profitability across all advanced
capitalist states. See Robert Brenner's book, The Economics of Global Turbulence.
It is more than 24 hours since the initial announcement of a stand down and it would be
nice to see some confirmation. Troops withdrawing would be confirmation. If it is happening
in is not reported. What we get tends to be like the NYT item cited by John H @ 20. Nothing
in that article but fantasy and delusion. The ongoing narrative crowds out facts until
nothing is left. No one is as bad as NYT, still it is hard to trust anything we read.
Keeping an army in the field indefinitely is difficult. At minimum the troops must be fed
and must be kept busy. Does Ukraine have the wherewithal to do that? I tend to doubt that,
and yes, I am speculating. We will find out much later how bad desertion has been. We will
find out much later how the hodgepodge of conscripts, mercs, Special Forces, and NATO got
along. Reporting from 2014 had it that 600 NATO of every flavor were captured in the
Debaltsevo cauldron. If you believe that. I can't see how Ukraine musters and fields another
army after this if it is in fact over. More likely future armies will resemble what US
manipulates in Syria -- Turks, Uighurs, jihadis from whole planet, mercs.
Domestic politics in Uke have to be crazy. No one can possibly know what is happening
except the US Embassy. And they have their brains fogged by a lifetime of NYT fiction. No
good locals for them to work with. If there was anyone good we would have seen them by
now.
One must be awestruck with the talent the neo cons have for nation destruction. What they
created in Ukraine is a virtual post nuclear war. Neither the EU or Russia want this
basket-case-failed-Nazi state. Like the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, it has fortified its
enemy whom it intended to weaken. Now, Putin has a Hezbollah type ally in the Donetsk and
Lugansk region, and it has Russian Crimean back to the Motherland.
Nuland et al may be trying to show themselves loyal agents of Israel, testing whether
Russia can be distracted from Syria, or pretending to raise the cost of NS2. Russia and China
could make balanced moves in the Caribbean to tame the bullies, but may see no advantage in
counterthreats.
Such an utter humiliation of the US to pursue such foolish and racist FP, admitting its
complete control by money power in all federal branches and mass media.
As others here suggest, it's possible to read this as a success for the neocons. Ukrainian
gov't troop movements set off Russian troop movements, which are then portrayed as
aggressive, justifying whatever. It is very hard to believe that they seriously contemplated
an attack on Russia's doorstep, or in its antechamber. But the question remains as to how far
Zelensky's can has been kicked down the road.
I am wondering if this might be an advantage for Russia and other countries in the mid
to long term, that their companies are forced to master all the complex technologies involved
as fast as possible? Maybe they will even become competitors to their western
equivalents?
Usually, when governments decide about big industry projects, they demand that their
national companies get some orders to profit from the project. Now, it seems reversed. The
German government is still not openly against Nord Stream 2, but it has to be finished
without some of the companies originally involved.
Hedge fund managed reinvent old tricks on a regular basis. Regulators simply can't catch up and are not willing to catch up as
they are captured by big bonds.
NMR
0.00%
Cathy Chan and Steven Arons
Tue, April 13, 2021, 11:36 AM
More content below
NMR
0.00%
(Bloomberg) -- The collapse of Archegos Capital Management LP, an investment firm that few even on Wall Street had heard of
until it imploded last month, is changing a lucrative, decades-old part of global banking.
Nomura Holdings Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG, the two lenders hit hardest, have started to curb financing in the
business with hedge funds and family offices. European regulators are looking at risks banks are taking when lending to
such clients, while in the U.S., authorities started a preliminary probe into the debacle.
Together, steps taken from Washington to Zurich and Tokyo could portend some of the biggest changes since the financial
crisis to a cornerstone of global banking known as prime brokerage. Typically housed in the equities units of large
investment banks, these businesses lend cash and securities to the funds and execute their trades, and the relationships
can be vital for investment banks.
But the collapse of Archegos, the family office of former hedge fund trader Bill Hwang, has underscored the risks banks are
taking with these clients, even when their loans are secured by collateral. Credit Suisse has been the worst-hit so far,
taking a $4.7 billion writedown in the first quarter.
The lender, one of the biggest prime brokers among European banks, is now weighing significant cuts to its prime brokerage
arm in coming months, people familiar with the plan have said.
It has already been calling clients to change margin requirements in swap agreements -- the derivatives Hwang used for his
bets -- so they match the more restrictive terms of other prime-brokerage contracts, people with direct knowledge of the
matter said. Specifically, the bank is shifting from static margining to dynamic margining, which may force clients to post
more collateral and could reduce the profitability of some trades.
Nomura, which is facing an estimated $2 billion from the Archegos fiasco, followed suit, with restrictions including
tightening leverage for some clients who were previously granted exceptions to margin financing limits, Bloomberg reported
on Tuesday. A representative for the Tokyo-based firm declined to comment.
Hwang's family office built positions in at least nine stocks that were big enough to rank him among the largest holders,
fueled by bank leverage that would have been unusual even for a hedge fund. Archegos was able to place outsize wagers using
derivatives and, as a private firm, avoid the disclosures required of most investors. Almost invisibly, he accumulated a
portfolio that some people familiar with his accounts estimate at as much as $100 billion.
While Hwang's financiers had clues about what Archegos was doing and the trades they had financed, they couldn't see that
he was taking parallel positions at multiple firms, piling more leverage onto the same few stocks, according to people
familiar with the matter.
In the U.S., regulators are already privately dropping hints of new rules to come. Securities and Exchange Commission
officials have signaled to banks that they intend to make trading disclosures from hedge funds a higher priority, while
also finding ways to address risk and leverage.
"Hopefully this will cause the prime brokerages of regulated banking organizations (and their supervisors) to re-assess
their relationships with highly leveraged hedge funds," Sheila Bair, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp., wrote on Twitter.
In Europe, the top banking regulator has asked some of the bloc's largest banks for additional information on their
exposure to hedge funds, people familiar with the matter said. While the checks by the European Central Bank on lenders
such as Deutsche Bank AG and BNP Paribas SA are standard practice after such a disruptive event, they underscore
regulators' concern, even as most euro-region banks skirted big losses.
"There is a need to scrutinize the reasons why the banks enabled the fund to leverage up to such an extent," ECB executive
board member Isabel Schnabel said in an interview with Der Spiegel last week. "It is a warning signal that there are
considerable systemic risks that need to be better regulated."
The big news continues to be a bifurcation between the currently unfolding Boom, fueled by
the fire hose of monetary and fiscal stimulus, and the fallout in the long leading forecast
based on the increase in interest rates as a result.
Likbez , April 13, 2021 1:50 pm
Basing your investment decisions on indicators derived from the past is like driving
the car using only rear-view mirror :-). I forgot to whom this quote belongs (buffet?)
but there is some truth to that.
Add to this that government stats are distorted (we can debate how much), especially
unemployment stats (U3 vs. U6 vs. reality). That same is true about inflation. Both are
highly politically charged metrics and as such is subject to political pressures both in
methodology and actual stats collection.
When 10 years treasures yield goes down from 1.7%, when stock market goes up and
inflation is up too, that suggests rising level of fear.
Lemming (aka 401K speculators) are pushed from bonds into riskier assets. We saw
this development before.
It is quite probable that stock market will be lifted further while economy as a whole
deteriorates. Then what?
Nothing will revive business that were closed during pandemic. Situation with the
commercial real estate now is very interesting indeed.
The problem in the US economy are systemic and they can't be patched with stimulus.
Financial oligarchy needs to be tamed. Regulations needs to be restored. And some most
obnoxious players jailed or eliminated by other means. Or, at least, the revolving door
needs to be closed for GS and company. As Jesse put it
"THE BANKS MUST BE RESTRAINED, AND THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM REFORMED, WITH BALANCE
RESTORED TO THE ECONOMY, BEFORE THERE CAN BE ANY SUSTAINABLE RECOVERY."
I think leverage in cryptocurrencies is higher then in other sectors, as this is the most
reckless speculators market by definition, so the collapse is quite possible
Our call of the day from Bank of America narrows down where investors see the most risk
these days. Fingers are pointing at the world's most popular cryptocurrency.
'The ratio has certain limitations in telling you what you need to
know'
Who wouldn't love to replicate the investing success achieved by billionaire Warren Buffett?
This is why investors are drawn to stories about the "Buffett Indicator."
For those catching up, the Buffett Indicator is the value of a country's publicly traded
stocks divided by its gross national product (and
different people have different ways of
accounting for those
inputs ). This ratio first became associated with Buffett in a 2001
interview with Fortune's Carol Loomis where the investor characterized the ratio as
"probably the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment."
At the time he noted, the ratio was very high in the late 1990's, portending the dot-com
bubble which eventually burst.
At the 2017 Berkshire Hathaway ( BRK-A , BRK-B ) annual shareholders meeting,
Buffett fielded a question about the Buffett indicator as well as
Robert Shiller's legendary CAPE ratio . He had this to say: "Every number has some degree
of meaning. It means more sometimes than others...And both of the things that you mentioned get
bandied around a lot. It's not that they're unimportant They can be very important. Sometimes
they can be almost totally unimportant. It's just not quite as simple as having one or two
formulas and then saying the market is undervalued or overvalued ." (Emphasis ours.)
Sometimes it is prudent to stop investing for a while.. And what the author calls savers and investors should properly be called speculators. Petty speculators that serve as the feed for Wall Street sharks.
,,,valuations have never been so stretched at the beginning of an economic cycle. Savers need to plan for lower future returns.
S&P Composite 1500, cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio
Source:
Prof. Robert Shiller
Note:
Economic troughs are defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research:
.
times
MONTHS
SINCE TROUGH
GDP
trough
1990-2001
2001-07
2007-20
2020-Now
-30
0
30
60
90
120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10:05 am ET
The S&P Composite 1500 is trading at a CAPE of 37. That is more than twice the historical average, though still less than the
dot-com bubble peak of 44. It reached 33 before the 1929 crash.
Historical data show that negative returns can happen at almost any level of valuation, but that overall there is still an inverse
correlation between CAPE and future 10-year equity returns. Usually, stocks progressively cheapen after economic growth reaches a
peak. Once they hit a bottom, they slowly become expensive again. In the 2009-2020 cycle, for example, CAPE started at 16 and ended
at 31.
Economic data have been phenomenal lately, lifting the U.S. stock market to new highs as
investors celebrate an end in sight to the global nightmare of the past year.
And so it's an awkward time to be a killjoy, even if just hypothetically.
The fiercest debate among market participants this year has revolved around inflation --
will it or won't...
I have just finished reading a couple of weighty tomes with similar themes: Dark Money by Jane
Mayer is about how some nominally right-wing libertarian sociopaths, (i.e. the Kochs and their
coterie) seek to control American politics through various 'charitable' think tanks and stealth
infiltration of top ranked universities; and
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which is about how some nominally
left-wing(ish) libertarian whiz kid sociopaths seek to control the whole world through social
media.
My main take away is that libertarian ideology is just shorthand for narcissistic
entitlement and psychopathic greed.
None of this is to say risk markets are set to crash or that it's time to short
everything.
Parets says, "As long as US Financials are above those 2007 highs, it's tough to make a
structurally bearish case. The weight-of-the-evidence suggests this is just a messy environment
within a larger more macro advance for stocks."
He also highlights the bullish breadth thrusts in stocks over the last year, where large
numbers of stocks all advance simultaneously. "This first wave off the lows last year was
tremendous. All those breadth thrusts we've seen since June, and even through January this year
are characteristic of early cycle behavior. These thrusts historically show up near the
beginning of bull markets, not near the end of them. But one common denominator among all of
these longer-term bullish environments, is that there were corrections along the way."
Markets can correct through both price and time -- eventually working off excesses and
settling into equilibrium, waiting for the next catalyst.
Parets doesn't know how long it will take for markets to set up for the next big move.
However, he is looking at the energy sector for clues. "One tell will likely be how long it
takes for Energy stocks to digest this overhead supply from those former lows in early 2016,"
he says, referencing a chart of the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund ( XLE ). "We're also looking for Small-caps, Mid-caps
and Micros to get back above those February highs. But again, how long will that take?"
In the meantime, investors may reduce position size...
"There are times to make money in the market, and then there are times to keep your money.
In sports, you play offense and you play defense," says Parets. "Offense sells tickets, but
defense wins championships."
...Raymond James analyst John Freeman, who claimed this year in a note to clients that the
United States' true DUC count is much lower, given that many of the wells included in the EIA's
DUC count are dead in the water and many years old, likely never to be completed. According to
Freeman, this figure is as much as 22% too high.
A 2019 Federal Reserve of Dallas survey of oil and gas company executives suggests that half
of the respondents agree that the EIA is overestimating the number of DUCs.
Related: Investors Rush To Oil Stocks Despite ESG Push
In a low oil price environment, oil and gas companies may spend money on finishing off an
already drilled well, rather than on drilling a new well. But companies will continue to strive
to keep that DUC inventory in their back pocket should the market call for it. But when oil
prices have been low for a long time -- and demand for crude or gas remains low, those low oil
prices may never justify completing a well, resulting in another dead DUC.
The essence of shale operation is generation of the stream of junk bonds along with the
stream of oil and gas. In other words profitability is low or nagative. Junk bond need buyers do
this is a confidence gate -- as sson as confidence drops buyers will evaporate. At this point
there will be writing on the wall. We do not need necessary a stock crash for that. But as just
bond moves in parallel with stock that will also be the Minsky moment for shale oil
production.
Nice charts and summary of U.S. Oil & Gas Reserves.
However, it seems to me that a large percentage of these "supposed" unconventional reserves
will never be extracted. Thus, the U.S. Shale Industry will have permanent DUCs that will never
be completed and proved undeveloped reserves that will evaporate into thin air.
Why? Well, if we look at some of the top shale players, total long-term debt from just
five companies increased from $17 billion in 2006 to $133 billion in 2020 (XOM, CVX, EOG, OXY
& CLR).
With Equinor selling its Bakken assets (liabilities), writing down $11.5 billion from the
company's original price-tag, and saying it was a big mistake to get into shale . why would it
be any different for ExxonMobil or OXY?
Indeed, the U.S. Shale Ponzi Scheme will continue a bit longer until the day the
highly-leveraged over-inflated broader stock markets finally crash. At that point there will
not be a SHALE 3.0. I see U.S. shale oil production falling 75% by 2030.WATCHER
IGNORED04/09/2021
at 11:05 pm
Feb this year Exxon erased oil sands from its reserves.
Article talked pandemic so doubt they sold anything. Probably just a price determinant.
JEAN-FRANÇOIS FLEURY IGNORED04/11/2021
at 2:51 pm
This one is also laughable : "That gives plenty of incentive for giants like Total or Royal
Dutch Shell Plc, plus the hundreds of smaller explorers that remain in business, to keep
searching the world's frontiers for the next place to sink their drill bits." Royal Dutch Shell
stated that their production did peak in 2019 and that their production will decrease by 1 or 2
% per year. That means that they decided to cease exploration and implementation of new
oilfields or gasfields, if I am not wrong.Therefore, why there are still people who decide that
oil companies should look for new oilfields ? They want to make real their dreams despite the
crude reality ?
The Jewish Anti-defamation league is after Tucker Carlson. That's as bad as it gets. They
have more money than God.
Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt "Tucker must go"...."white supremacist
tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites" that is "anti-Semitic,
racist and toxic."
A pipe bearing the Nord Stream 2 logo at a plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, Feb. 26, 2020. PHOTO: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS Listen to this article 5 minutes 00:00 / 05:07 1x Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. me title= NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE
The Kremlin has demonstrated time and again its willingness to use energy trade to advance its geopolitical
ambitions. It would be unwise, if not reckless, for Europe to increase its dependence on
Gazprom
,
Russia's
state-owned energy company, and give Moscow direct control over which countries are supplied with gas and which
can be cut off.
The current contract between Gazprom and Ukraine's gas-transit operator guarantees the flow of westward exports
via Ukraine until the end of 2024. But make no mistake: The day Nord Stream 2 is completed, that promise will be
worthless. Even if some transit through Ukraine persists, Ukraine will be subject to the Kremlin's whims.
The fighting in the Donbas, where Russia operates through its proxies, mercenaries and even regular troops, has
continued unabated for more than seven years. The gas pipeline has been spared from shelling -- Russia needs
uninterrupted gas flows through Ukraine as much as we do. This mutual dependence is a deterrent that Nord Stream 2
will remove.
Ukraine is grateful to the U.S. Congress, which recognized the true nature of this pipeline project, and the
European Parliament, which voted 10-to-1 on Jan. 21 to demand a halt to construction with a resolution on the
arrest of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny in Moscow.
Germany and Europe already have access to a massive gas-transit network spanning the Black and Baltic seas,
Belarus and Ukraine. The existing capacity is more than 50% higher than current consumption of Russian gas in the
European Union. Even if the demand increases as Germany is working to phase out nuclear and coal power generation,
there is no commercial need for another pipeline.
While Germany has little to gain, Ukraine stands to lose billions of dollars in transit revenue if the second
Baltic Sea gas link is built -- a fact that Nord Stream 2 apologists often present as the only basis for Ukrainian
opposition. The economic effect will be significant, but the claim is deliberately misleading. Ukrainian soldiers
will be putting their lives on the line if Russia decides to escalate the conflict in the Donbas after it no
longer needs to consider the effect on gas exports.
Ukraine understands the need to strengthen the trans-Atlantic alliance and the desire to find a solution that
works for both Washington and Berlin. It is, however, incumbent on the Kremlin first to demonstrate respect for
international law. The ball is in Moscow's court. It can and should end hostilities in the Donbas region, withdraw
its troops from the Crimean Peninsula and restore Ukrainian sovereignty.
President Biden was right to call the pipeline "a bad deal for Europe." As the project inches closer to
completion, Ukrainians can't help but recall Mitterrand's words from nearly 30 years ago. Ukraine was tricked,
just as the French president predicted. Let us not repeat history but learn from it. We must come together and
reject Nord Stream 2 once and for all.
Mr. Reznikov is Ukraine's deputy prime minister for reintegration of the temporarily occupied territories.
V
V Lee
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
The Ukrainian kleptocracy will see their cut shrink or disappear when gas will start flowing via Nord Stream 2. Not "a
bad deal for Europe" just for Ukraine.
A Koster
SUBSCRIBER
17 hours ago
Did i mention Turkey's role in Syria ?
It's interesting that everyone conveniently fails "to mention the role that gas line geopolitics
played in the "fallout" between Erdogan and Assad; as soon as Assad vetoed the Qatar-Turkey pipeline
that would have brought massive wealth to his family's energy transshipment business (BMZ Ltd), Assad
instead signing on to the Iran-Iraq-Syria "Friendship Pipeline", the friendship was ended and the war
on Assad commenced"
A Koster
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
This article is about one thing.. absolutely nothing to do with a risk to Ukraine's national security
'Ukraine stands to lose billions of dollars in transit revenue if the second Baltic Sea gas link is built"
And Turkey is in there like a dirty shirt.. see "Russia Warns of Full-Scale War in Eastern Ukraine, Blames
Kyiv".. like it was with Azerbaijan as they slaughtered thousands of Christians in Armenia.. and all for the
first find in the Caspian Sea by Azerbaijan since Russia's breakup.. HINT: they wanted.. not needed.. a
direct route west for a pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey.. which they got in a Russia brokered peace deal
So i guess congratulations are in order to Biden's NATO as they loyally keep working on enlarging the EU and
keeping the oil baron families of Erdogan and Alyiev filthy rich
James Schumaker
SUBSCRIBER
1 hour ago
I suggest you look up the Budapest Memorandum. The U.S. gave no guarantees. Like Russia, it gave assurances. I also
suggest you stop falling for pro-Trump talking points and look at what Trump actually did with regard to Ukraine. He
tried to extort its President into digging up dirt on his main political opponent by threatening to withdraw military
aid. That's what he was impeached for -- the first time.
RODNEY SMITH
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Where does Burisma stand on the issue? Will be Biden's brief.
Jens Praestgaard
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Otto von Bismarck's maxim for the newly formed German state was to always keep cordial relations with Russia. NordStream
2 is a step towards normalization of the German/Russian relationship after 120 years of failure.
Jim Mcdonnell
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Bismarck's policy made sense in 19th Century Europe, and had Kaiser Wilhelm II not scuttled it we would be
living in a very different world. But he did scuttle it, and the world has changed - largely in ways Bismarck
sought to prevent - a great deal, as has Europe.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Bismarck's thoughts about Germany's geopolitical situation are still relevant today. He argued that the
map that matters for German politicians is the map of Europe [and since 1945 that frame has been enlarged,
has included the US and Canada]. That Germany needed to pay particular attention to relationships with its
neighbors. That the country was to small to dominate Europe, and should rely on a system of stable alliances
to ensure stability, Ukraine and Russia are neighbors, Bismarck would have seen relationships with both
countries as relevant. Communication channels need to be kept open, those relationships need to be
managed. One neighbor, Russia, is an authoritarian state and since 2014 more openly aggressive. It needs
to be contained and challenged. The US has not been a reliable partner in doing that in the last 4 years
under Trump. That might change under a Biden, but will he be able to make and lock in the appropriate policy
decisions? We'll see.
John Bute
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Germany has made a terrible strategic mistake by abandoning nuclear power to become more and more dependent on Russian
natural gas. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and about 10% from fossil fuel. Only moderate
increases in hydro power and renewable energy will make it fossil fuel independent.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
German voters make their own decisions about climate change and definitely don't look for US advice. Power
plants burning coal and producing nuclear energy are coming off the grid. Natural gas will continue to be
important in that mix for quite some time. The Green Party's power is growing. It successfully expanded its
electoral base in 2 state elections this spring with broad support from middle class voters. After all,
environmentalism is a full belly movement. The Greens will challenge the German Conservatives, Merkel's
Christian Democrats, in September at the ballot box in national elections and other state elections. And Merkel
will not be on the ballot. Her CDU, which has been consistently the most pro-American party in Europe, finds
that pro-American stance is now a big liability. 4 years of the Trump regime. which treated Germans as clients,
changed the political landscape. Fewer Germans see the US is as a reliable partner, and that is now true even
in Merkel's party.
SCOTT CORE
SUBSCRIBER
1 day ago
Germany may view the US as an unreliable partner but they still rely on the US for economic and military
protection. Perhaps Germans have replaced the US with NATO in their minds and ignored the fact that the US
is the majority of NATO. Where Russia to threaten Germany where do you think Germany would turn? France? UK?
China?
So Germans are free to trash Trump for asking them to provide a modicum of their own protection but in the
end they will look to the US should they be threatened either economically by a cutoff of gas from Russia or
a military threat from Russia.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
20 hours ago
Look at Gallup polling data or the Pew Research Center's data in its Global attitudes program. In many countries Trump
ranked even below Xi or Putin. He was perceived as the bigger threat--unstable, angry, without a strategic vision, just
a ventilator of his emotions, a middle schooler craving attention, a clown. Yet he made these huge claims, all lies,
that the US was respected and listened to. The polling data tells us otherwise. Trump's lying and the hubris that fell
from these lies, that is unprecedented.
And now; THE LOSER. The Mouse-of-Mar-a-Lago. But, the Republican Party still follows him.. The man will be remembered as
the worst president the US ever had, ranking even below the corrupt Harding and the imbecile Buchanan. The lowest of the
low. And as THE LIAR [-->Trump should register that as a trademark]. History books won't be kind to him and the suckers
that still gobble up his lies even now after the putsch or whatever you want to call the Capitol "riot." Barnum was
right!
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
England and France have their own nuclear deterrents. Europeans just want cheap steady supply of energy. Russia is in
the Middle East because Hillary and Obama destroyed Syria and Libya. Bush put us in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years!
Trump started the withdrawal. Let's hope sleepy preacher Biden continues it.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
A little reality check: At the very moment when Washington supposedly champions energy independence and warns European
allies against becoming too dependent on Moscow, American refineries are buying more Russian oil than ever before.
Check out the article by Javier Blas on the Bloomberg News site, published Mar. 24, 2021: "U.S. Thirst for Russian
Oil Hits Record High Despite Tough Talk."
David Thomson
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Puerto Rico buys Russian LNG because there are no American-built LNG tankers. Thanks to the Jones Act, we can't ship
LNG from Texas to PR.
Eugene Boutz
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
(Edited)
Ukraine is composed of three *identities* which have nothing in common and want nothing in common.
There are the Russian speakers in the East and along the Black Sea, the people surrounding Lviv in the West which want
to be European and the denizens of Kiev who tend to favor the values and views of the Chancellor of Germany in the '30s.
Ukraine already has a tripartite schism and is most likely headed for a tripartite split once the Russian Federation,
having had its absolute fill of Kiev's games, obtains Beijing approbation to bring the matter to a conclusion with
weaponry of which Kiev can only dream.
The United States is not going to fight a nuclear war with Russia over the interests of the Kiev faction nor does
Germany want it to.
Nor do I.
Nor do you.
Heiko Muhr
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
(Edited)
The Germans are not going to cave. They will finish the pipeline. It is now 96 % built. The West Europeans started
importing Russian gas more than 40 years ago. Ronald Reagan failed when he tried to stick it to the Germans with
sanctions. And so will Cancun Ted. The old pipeline system that runs through Ukraine has been reverse-engineered with EU
funds about a decade ago. Ukraine has already been reliably supplied from the West when the Russians cut supplies. The
talking points in this piece are based on Cancun Ted's hallucinations, and not the facts on the ground. For a factual
analysis see Eugene Rumer's long piece published today in Defense News "Punishing Germany for Nord Stream 2 does nothing
to stop Putin." Rumer is the director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. He previously worked as a national intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia for the U.S. National Intelligence
Council. He actually knows what he is talking about.
William Wahl
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Just put Hunter on it. He'll fix this right up.
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
Biden has been on the wrong side of every foreign policy decision in his entire career in Washington. Mitterrrand
was a bureaucrat who started his rise in vischy France. Ukraine is in a tough spot. So is Russia. They
have been fighting for 7 years. Body counts go up,citizens do not like it. Russia will not sacrifice one
pipeline for another. Ukraine and Russia can agree to no NATO troops on their border and tensions will go
down.
bruce miller
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
And who talked Ukraine into giving up their nukes? Well we did. Or rather, Slick and his pals did. Bet
the Ukrainians wish they'd kept a bunch. Just for old time's sake.
michael ring
SUBSCRIBER
2 days ago
What bargaining power would they be?No person or government in their right mind would use them. This is
about land grabbing.
GreatCaesar'sGhost called it: Ukraine is a tool to shut down Nordstream. Ukraine will push until Russia does something, then Germany shuts down Nordstream, shooting
themselves in the foot.
Puppyteethofdeath 1 hour ago
There's always the chance that election fraud will bring the Green Party to rise in Germany
also.
They'll gladly get rid of Nordstream 2 and destroy the German economy.
...Part of the runup in stock prices over the past year is due to the rebound in earnings we will see over the next few quarters.
However, now that interest rates, oil prices and the dollar index have each been rising for some time, earnings growth will almost
certainly peak and rollover next year, falling back into negative territory.
As the stock
market discounts fundamentals roughly 18 months into the future, according to Stan Druckenmiller, this bearish reversal in
fundamentals could begin to affect stock prices relatively soon.
Longer-term there is a very real risk to record-high corporate profit margins.
Over
the past decade, corporations have benefitted at the expense of labor to an unprecedented degree. This is already leading to
serious, "political problems," of the sort
predicted
by Warren Buffett
20 years ago. The current administration appears to view rectifying this situation as its primary mandate and
will, apparently, go about fulfilling it by, among other things,
raising corporate income
taxes and boosting a jobs market already showing signs of overheating.
Finally, as
Mehul
Daya
has demonstrated, history shows that rising interest rates regularly act as a bearish catalyst for both markets and the
economy. To the extent that low interest rates and easy money have encouraged and incentivized the unprecedented amount of leverage
supporting risk assets today,
the reversal in rates, which is already more
dramatic than anything we have seen in decades, threatens to reveal just how fragile markets and the economy have now become.
For the rest of the chart book and a more detailed discussion of these issues, check out the
interview, scheduled to be released tomorrow, at
MacroVoices.com
.
That seems to be the mood music at the White House; and the IMF; and the World Bank; and the
Fed, and in fact most central banks. All of them are busy building back better-ly. Ambitious
global tax plans are on the table to wipe tax havens off them; US spending plans are being
pushed; and Treasury Secretary Yellen is talking about "labor vs. capital": perhaps she will
soon add "M > C > MP > C+ > M+" to underline how the economy actually works, which
none of the neoclassical models at the Treasury or the Fed do?
Regardless, US yields are heading lower, the US dollar is heading down, and US stocks are
heading up, in a continuation of their own long-running impossible dream . Let me tell you a
tall tale: perhaps just one man is ultimately responsible for that right now - US Democrat
Senator Joe Manchin. He appears on what some might see as an anti -quixotic quest that may stop
the White House from tilting at any windmills (or solar panels or broader
"infrastructure").
Senator Manchin yesterday reaffirmed via a Washington Post op-ed that he will not back
proposed changes to the Senate filibuster rule (" I have said it before and will say it again
to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or
weaken the filibuste r") or support " shortcutting the legislative process through budget
reconciliation ." Both of those statements, if not negotiating positions, will prove to be
giants obstructing the path of President Biden's domestic agenda. It doesn't mean nothing will
get done – but it means nothing like what some people were recently thinking was going to
get done now will.
If so, as stocks and bonds ebulliently suggest, there is still a white knight to save us,
however : those plodding Sancho Panzas turned would-be dashing Dons, our central banks . It is
they who will continue to chase their own impossible dream of saving the world via yield curve
manipulation and junk asset purchases without lancing price-discovery and capitalism at the
same time. On a related note, Fed Chair Powell spoke yesterday against a backdrop of
supply-chain stresses that mean
Americans can't get ketchup to go with their fries , and explained he isn't worried about
inflation, but infections. As I keep repeating, this stance is only logically consistent if one
really *is* thinking about labour vs. capital: but Fed policy cannot deal with that populist
'red' issue any more than it can with a popular red condiment. It's all fiscal and
political-economy, which seems a dream too far at the moment.
Some might think it remarkable that the fate of the US economy, and hence the world economy,
can really turn on the actions of just one man. Welcome to the absurdity of real life. As
Cervantes noted: "When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be
too practical is madness. To surrender dreams -- this may be madness. Too much sanity may be
madness -- and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!" At least Manchin
was elected. By contrast, who elected central banks? (On which, what happens if the US, or
anywhere, elects an administration which wants to move away from a green economy when their
"independent" central bank has pledged to support the transition towards one? Has anyone
thought about that, or are we all too busy singing from the same hymn sheet to suppose it could
ever happen?)
Interesting combination: Rise of fear in bond market along with rising recklessness in
stoack markets
10-year U.S. Treasury note fall as low as 1.628% for a second straight day as it continues
to back away from a 14-month high of 1.776% hit in late March.
...
The recent pullback in yields has helped high growth names such as those in the technology
sector, the best performing sector on the day, while megacap stocks such as Apple , Microsoft
and Amazon were the biggest boosts to the S&P 500.
The gains have also sent the tech-heavy Nasdaq to a seven-week high and within 2% of its
February 12 record closing high.
The Russell 1000 growth index, which consists of tech-related stocks, gained 1.05%, while
its value counterpart , comprising mostly financials and energy names, slipped 0.11%.
My simple solution is to turn the vacant malls into giant marijuana growing operations,and
huge meth labs,and use the revenue from the meth and weed sales to balance the Federal
budget..As an additional plus,you put the Mexican drug cartels out of business,which can't be
a bad thing,either
FurnitureFireSale 26 minutes ago
The smile on the side of the Prime trucks looks like a big wang (Bezos's?) saying "F-U,
take THIS!" to all the small businesses. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
Puppyteethofdeath 14 minutes ago
Turn them into homeless shelters.
744,000 Americans filed for 1st time unemployment last week.
Every week the numbers are the same.
no cents at all 5 minutes ago
Yet mall property owners and their ilk have equity prices in the stratosphere. Same with
cruise lines. A mystery. (Although doesn't take scooby doo to understand why)
Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of war – with dire consequences for the whole
of Eurasia. Let's cut to the chase, and plunge head-on into the fog of war.
On March 24, Ukrainian President Zelensky, for all practical purposes, signed a declaration of war
against Russia, via decree No. 117/2021.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks
during a joint press conference with European Council President in Kiev on March 3, 2021.
Photo: AFP / Sergey Dolzhenko
The decree establishes that retaking Crimea from Russia is now Kiev's official policy.
That's exactly what prompted an array of Ukrainian battle tanks to be shipped east on flatbed
rail cars, following the saturation of the Ukrainian army by the US with military equipment
including unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, anti-tank systems and
man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).
More crucially, the Zelensky decree is the proof any subsequent war will have been prompted
by Kiev, debunking the proverbial claims of "Russian aggression." Crimea, since the referendum
of March 2014, is part of the Russian Federation.
It was this (italics mine) de facto declaration of war, which Moscow took very
seriously, that prompted the deployment of extra Russian forces to Crimea and closer to the
Russian border with Donbass. Significantly, these include the crack 76 th Guards Air
Assault Brigade, known as the Pskov paratroopers and, according to an intel report quoted to
me, capable of taking Ukraine in only six hours.
It certainly does not help that in early April US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, fresh
from his former position as a board member of missile manufacturer Raytheon, called Zelensky to
promise "unwavering US support for Ukraine's sovereignty." That ties in with Moscow's
interpretation that Zelensky would never have signed his decree without a green light from
Washington.
On March 8, 2021, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during observance of
International Women's Day in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP /
Mandel Ngan
Controlling the narrative
Sevastopol, already when I visited in December 2018 , is one of
the most heavily defended places on the planet, impervious even to a NATO attack. In his
decree, Zelensky specifically identifies Sevastopol as a prime target.
Once again, we're back to 2014 post-Maidan unfinished business.
To contain Russia, the US deep state/NATO combo needs to control the Black Sea –
which, for all practical purposes, is now a Russian lake. And to control the Black Sea, they
need to "neutralize" Crimea.
If any extra proof was necessary, it was provided by Zelensky himself on Tuesday this week
in a
phone call with NATO secretary-general and docile puppet Jens Stoltenberg.
NATO
Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gives a press conference at the end of a NATO Foreign
Ministers' meeting at the Alliance's headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2021. Photo: AFP /
Olivier Hoslet
Zelensky uttered the key phrase: "NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass" –
which means, in practice, NATO expanding its "presence" in the Black Sea. "Such a permanent
presence should be a powerful deterrent to Russia, which continues the large-scale
militarization of the region and hinders merchant shipping."
All of these crucial developments are and will continue to be invisible to global public
opinion when it comes to the predominant, hegemon-controlled narrative.
The deep state/NATO combo is imprinting 24/7 that whatever happens next is due to "Russian
aggression." Even if the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) launch a blitzkrieg against the Lugansk
and Donetsk People's Republics. (To do so against Sevastopol in Crimea would be certified mass
suicide).
In the United States, Ron Paul has been one of the very few voices to
state the obvious: "According to the media branch of the US
military-industrial-congressional-media complex, Russian troop movements are not a response to
clear threats from a neighbor, but instead are just more 'Russian aggression.'"
What's implied is that Washington/Brussels don't have a clear tactical, much less strategic
game plan: only total narrative control.
And that is fueled by rabid Russophobia – masterfully
deconstructed by the indispensable Andrei Martyanov, one of the world's top military
analysts.
A possibly hopeful sign is that on March 31, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian
Armed Forces, General Valery Gerasimov, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Mark Milley, talked on the phone about the proverbial "issues of mutual interest."
Days later, a
Franco-German statement came out, calling on "all parties" to de-escalate. Merkel and
Macron seem to have gotten the message in their videoconference with Putin – who must
have subtly alluded to the effect generated by Kalibrs, Kinzhals and assorted hypersonic
weapons if the going gets tough and the Europeans sanction a Kiev blitzkrieg.
French
President Emmanuel Macron speaks as German Chancellor Angela Merkel looks on after a
German-French Security Council video conference at the Elysee Palace in Paris, on February 5,
2021. Photo: AFP / Thibault Camus
The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO. Yet Merkel and Macron at least are
fully aware that if the US/NATO combo attacks Russian forces or Russian passport holders who
live in Donbass, the devastating response will target the command centers that coordinated the
attacks.
What does the hegemon want?
As part of his current Energizer bunny act, Zelensky made an extra eyebrow-raising move.
This past Monday, he visited Qatar with a lofty delegation and clinched
a raft of deals , not circumscribed to LNG but also including direct Kiev-Doha flights;
Doha leasing or buying a Black Sea port; and strong "defense/military ties" – which could
be a lovely euphemism for a possible transfer of jihadis from Libya and Syria to fight Russian
infidels in Donbass.
Right on cue, Zelensly meets Turkey's Erdogan next Monday. Erdogan's intel services run the
jihadi proxies in Idlib, and dodgy Qatari funds are still part of the picture. Arguably, the
Turks are already transferring those "moderate
rebels" to Ukraine. Russian intel is meticulously monitoring all this activity.
A series of informed discussions – see, for instance, here and here
– is converging on what may be the top three targets for the hegemon amid all this mess,
short of war: to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices;
to crash the Nord Steam 2 pipeline; and to boost profits in the weapons business for the
military-industral complex.
So the key question then is whether Moscow would be able to apply a Sun Tzu move short of
being lured into a hot war in the Donbass.
On the ground, the outlook is grim. Denis Pushilin, one of the top leaders of the Lugansk
and Donetsk people's republics, has stated that the chances of avoiding war are "extremely
small." Serbian sniper Dejan Beric – whom I met in Donetsk in 2015 and who is a certified
expert on the ground – expects a Kiev attack in early May .
The extremely controversial Igor Strelkov, who may be termed an exponent of "orthodox
socialism," a sharp critic of the Kremlin's policies who is one of the very few warlords who
survived after 2014, has unequivocally
stated that the only chance for peace is for the Russian army to control Ukrainian
territory at least up to the Dnieper river. He stresses that a war in April is "very likely";
for Russia war "now" is better than war later; and there's a 99% possibility that Washington
will not fight for Ukraine.
On this last item at least Strelkov has a point; Washington and NATO want a war fought to
the last Ukrainian.
Rostislav Ischenko, the top Russian analyst of Ukraine whom I had the pleasure of meeting in
Moscow in late 2018, persuasively argues
that, "the overall diplomatic, military, political, financial and economic situation powerfully
requires the Kiev authorities to intensify combat operations in Donbass.
"By the way," Ischenko added, "the Americans do not give a damn whether Ukraine will hold
out for any time or whether it will be blown to pieces in an instant. They believe they stand
to gain from either outcome."
Gotta defend Europe
Let's assume the worst in Donbass. Kiev launches its blitzkrieg. Russian intel documents
everything. Moscow instantly announces it is using the full authority conferred by the UNSC to
enforce the Minsk 2 ceasefire.
In what would be a matter of 8 hours or a maximum 48 hours, Russian forces smash the whole
blitzkrieg apparatus to smithereens and send the Ukrainians back to their sandbox, which is
approximately 75km north of the established contact zone.
In the Black Sea, incidentally, there's no contact zone. This means Russia may send out all
its advanced subs plus the surface fleet anywhere around the "Russian lake": They are already
deployed anyway.
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks on as Novator Design Bureau
director-general Farid Abdrakhmanov and Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko shake hands
during a signing ceremony for government contracts in Alabino, Moscow region, Russia. on June
27, 2019. Photo: AFP / Alexei Druzhinin / Sputnik
Once again Martyanov lays down the law when he predicts, referring to a group of Russian
missiles developed by the Novator Design Bureau: "Crushing Ukies' command and control system is
a matter of few hours, be that near border or in the operational and strategic Uki depth.
Basically speaking, the whole of the Ukrainian 'navy' is worth less than the salvo of 3M54 or
3M14 which will be required to sink it. I think couple of Tarantuls will be enough to finish it
off in or near Odessa and then give Kiev, especially its government district, a taste of modern
stand-off weapons."
The absolutely key issue, which cannot be emphasized enough, is that Russia will not
(italics mine) "invade" Ukraine. It doesn't need to, and it doesn't want to. What Moscow will
do for sure is to support the Novorossiya people's republics with equipment, intel, electronic
warfare, control of airspace and special forces. Even a no-fly zone will not be necessary; the
"message" will be clear that were a NATO fighter jet to show up near the frontline, it would be
summarily shot down.
And that brings us to the open "secret" whispered only in informal dinners in Brussels, and
chancelleries across Eurasia: NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict
with Russia.
One thing is to have yapping dogs like Poland, Romania, the Baltic gang and Ukraine
amplified by corporate media on their "Russian aggression" script. Factually, NATO had its
collective behind unceremoniously kicked in Afghanistan. It shivered when it had to fight the
Serbs in the late 1990s. And in the 2010s, it did not dare fight the Damascus and Axis of
Resistance forces.
When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians.
That's the rationale behind the annual US Army
DEFENDER-Europe 21 , now on till the end of June, mobilizing 28,000 soldiers from the US
and 25 NATO allies and "partners."
This month, men and heavy equipment pre-positioned in three US Army depots in Italy, Germany
and the Netherlands will be transferred to multiple "training areas" in 12 countries. Oh, the
joys of travel, no lockdown in an open air exercise since everyone has been fully vaccinated
against Covid-19.
Pipelineistan uber alles
Nord Stream 2 is not a big deal for Moscow; it's a Pipelineistan inconvenience at best.
After all the Russian economy did not make a single ruble out of the not yet existent pipeline
during the 2010s – and still it did fine. If NS2 is canceled, there are plans on the
table to redirect the bulk of Russian gas shipments towards Eurasia, especially
China.
Connecting German infrastructure for Nord Stream 2 is in place. In this handout photo
released February 4, 2020, by the press service of Eugal, a view shows the Eugal pipeline, in
Germany. The Eugal pipeline, which will receive gas from Nord Stream 2 in the future, has
reached full pumping capacity, and the second line of the pipeline has been introduced. Photo:
AFP / Press-service of Eugal / Sputnik
In parallel, Berlin knows very well that canceling NS2 will be an extremely serious breach
of contract – involving hundreds of billions of euros; it was Germany that requested the
pipeline to be built in the first place.
Germany's energiewende ("energy transition" policy) has been a disaster. German
industrialists know very well that natural gas is the only alternative to nuclear energy. They
are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage, condemned to buy ridiculously expensive
shale gas from the hegemon – even assuming the egemon will be able to deliver, as its
fracking industry is in shambles. Merkel explaining to German public opinion why they must
revert to using coal or buy shale from the US will be a sight to see.
As it stands, NATO provocations against NS2 proceed unabated – via warships and
helicopters. NS2 needed a permit to work in Danish waters, and it was granted only a month ago.
Even as Russian ships are not as fast in laying pipes as the previous ships from Swiss-based
Allseas
, which backed down, intimidated by US sanctions, the Russian Fortuna is making steady
progress, as noted by analyst Petri Krohn: one kilometer a day on its best days, at least 800
meters a day. With 35 km left, that should not take more than 50 days.
Conversations with German analysts reveal a fascinating shadowplay on the energy front
between Berlin and Moscow – not to mention Beijing. Compare it with Washington: EU
diplomats complain there's absolutely no one to negotiate with regarding NS2. And even assuming
there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's judgment is correct: the
Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at the record.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo using
Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus German-Russian
relations.
At the same time, the situation is evolving towards a possible new alignment in the heart of
the "West": US/UK pitted against Germany/France. Some Anglosphere exceptionals are certainly
more Russophobic than others.
The toxic encounter between Russophobia and Pipelineistan will not be over even if NS2 is
completed. There will be more sanctions. There will be an attempt to exclude Russia from SWIFT.
The proxy war in Syria will intensify. The hegemon will go no holds barred to keep creating all
sorts of geopolitical harassment against Russia.
What a nice wag-the-dog op to distract domestic public opinion from massive money printing
masking a looming economic collapse. As the empire crumbles, the narrative is set in stone:
it's all the fault of "Russian aggression."
Well, I'm hoping the Ukrainians will finally remember Bernard Lewis's warning about the
U.S. and realize they are being used like a Kleenex: "America is harmless as an enemy but
treacherous as a friend."
Americans have had it and will never tolerate sending combat troops into a Russia/Ukraine
conflict no matter how much rah-rah let's you and him fight we'll hold your coat for you,
faux patriotism the lugenpresse throw at them. Those of us who volunteered for the US
military in the past have learned our lesson.
"The problem is Merkel and Macron don't control NATO." I don't know how a decision is made
whether NATO will go to war or not but if Germany and France have no say in whether their
soldiers will be sent to war or not, that must by a very scary thought for them.
I found the following analysis interesting and I think it makes sense. It suggests France
and Germany have a say in matters and that they oppose any offensive Ukraine has in mind. The
commentator analyzes the diplomatic language and Germany and France appear to be fed up.
Without coming out and saying so directly, they see things more as Russia does than Ukraine.
It's very unfortunate things have developed this way for Ukraine. In addition, if Merkel
wants to be perceived as a complete failure as chancellor in Germany, only then will she let
NS2 be stopped from being completed. This analysis suggests there may be some strain between
France and Germany versus the USA.
I do have to disagree. If Ukraine start a war Russia must take back all eastern part of
Ukraine that has prevalent Russian population. Odessa and Zaporozhie is particularly
important. Russia must also tale all Kiev area back.
1. Senior Ukrainian officers were once Soviet officers. They, and most of their troops,
don't want to fight Russians and know it's foolish. The Ukrainian army will crumble if they
come in contact with regular Russian troops. It's not that they are cowards, but sane. It
would be like Canadian troops ordered to attack across the American border.
2. The American empire is furious and concerned that its long-time puppet disobeyed
orders. Germany wants Russian gas and the empire wants that pipeline stopped. Not only to
hurt Russia, but to teach the Germans a lesson. If fighting occurs in the Ukraine, would the
Germans dare to buy natgas from evil Russians?
3. Most importantly, Israel controls the American government. A major goal is the
destruction of Syria to allow the expansion of Greater Israel, as explained in the video
below. This nearly succeeded until the Russians intervened. Fighting in Ukraine would divert
Russian military resources from Syria so that nation can be destroyed, or Russia may give up
Syrian support as part of a grand peace deal.
The Biden administration is fully supportive of finishing off Syria and Lebanon, then
moving on to destroy Iran. The new talks about Iran's nuclear program will go nowhere. It's
just a show so Biden can say he tried.
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
Part of me wants to think that the Ukies will want to fold at the last moment. Yet all
this apparent evidence points to their going for it and promptly getting their collective
noses smashed in. Those who speculate in meta-political geo-strategic analysis cannot make
sense of the moves by the largely incompetent shot-callers and their even more incompetent
minions who cut the orders to their chessmen.
Heavy pressure by the equally incompetent regime in the Di$trict of Corruption, where
carrot and stick are equally in play, is as Escobar points out, the force behind this nearly
automatic death-sentence for the Kiev regime and the poor slobs who make up the draftee
elements in the Ukrainian military.
Again, geopolitically, one wonders at the deeper string-pullers within the Pentagram, the
CIA and the mass media of mind-control and message-massaging. Is this essentially a move to
keep the American people–most particularly the edjumacated managerial and technical
classes who make up the core of the alleged "middle-class"–"on message and in
line"?
Yes, the WarDefense industry (aka Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex") insist on
ongoing wars and threats of war to maintain their profit margins for the prime owners of that
false economic basis,prime actors such as the Rottenchild Crime Clan and the rest of the
parasites clustered in City of London and Wall $treet.
How will the canny and ever wary Russians proceed? Will they operate in the manner that
Escobar proposes, by not directly employing the considerable ground-forces which now stand on
alert just to the eastwards of their mutually agreed upon Swiss-cheese border with the
Novorussians in Donetsk and Luhansk? Or will Russian strategy be somewhat more comprehensive
by liberating the rest of the primarily Russian-speaking parts of eastern and southern
Ukraine which had largely backed the overthrown legitimate government of that bedizened
composite nation and are still smarting under the heels of the Galician fascists and the
smaller grouping of Russophobic Ukrainian nationalists who still harbor nightmares about the
Bolshevik/Stalinoid Holodomar? There are, after all human considerations which may influence
Kremlin policy.
Should Russia decide to make a move, it is my projection that they would never be likely
to even attempt to occupy central Ukraine and would set a stop-line well to the east of Kiev.
Something that bemusingly intrigues me is the Belarus factor. It would appear that the Minsk
regime, smarting from the attempted coup by the Poles, Baltic states and Ukraine backing of
"pro-Westerners, may be mobilizing to get into the action and perhaps readjust their
boundaries somewhat southwards. This could indicate a countering move by the Uniates in
Galicia to make common cause with their Roman Catholic brethren in the afore-mentioned Poland
along with Lithuania and remove their lands of control from a shattered Ukraine and form a
confederation with their neighbors to the west.
There is little doubt in my mind that Russia has numerous human assets in central and
southwestern Ukraine, who along with elements of a disintegrating Ukie military, would unite
to overthrow the rotten regime in Kiev and establish a markedly neutral smaller but more
cohesive Ukraine–a natural though smaller nation which could serve as an essential
buffer between a strengthening Russia and a collection of NATO nations which would then
comprise a hodgepodge of hawks and doves, a discombobulated collection of politico-economic
entities attempting to swim their ways to calmer shores or to maintain some semblance of
"Great Reset" programming in the face of popular resistance to lockdowns and mandated
AstraGenica jabbings.
Worst possible scenario is that someone in the Pentagon-dominated NATO command complex
loses their cool and initiates a conflict that could result in planet-wide chaos and
destruction. One would hope that cooler heads will take a few hits to their expansionist
fantasies and decide to make the best of a failed bit of adventurism and bide their time --
if they feel they have any time remaining before globalist economies hit the skids, leading
to a potential collapse to the myth of progress.
Everyone gets American logic. It's the Ukrainian logic that is truly baffling. Just how
stupid do the Ukrainians have to be to attack when anyone with a brain knows what will be the
outcome?
It makes all the difference when the revolving-door regulator-capture reframing is not
"USA/Nato vs Russia" -- but rather the more accurate "Raytheon (et al) vs Russia."
The modern truth is: Russia and China have governments in control of policy and industry.
The USA (and therefore also its yapping poodle collection) have Industry setting policy and
running government for their 1%-er shareholder benefits.
You can't do any Normal business with a Crime Syndicate like the USA/ EU and or Israel.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others. Russia is so close to being self sufficient , they could
turn their back on the West and it's cut throat allies , and just look to the East until the
West implodes. They will have to destroy all armies within close proximity to their borders,
including the Ukrainian/Mercenary one. Moscow must still have Jew Oligarchy baggage, that is
making money on Wall Street and those ties need to break apart or come to a Pro Russian
agreement or else. Rename Kyiv to Berlin 1944, and Lviv to Dresden and take it from there
– and don't look back anymore. And PS : on way to Lviv, Agent Orange every F..n
Monsanto/Bayer, Dupont and Cargil farm – like they did to Vietnam.
Behind the fog of war, though, a clear scenario emerges: the deep state/NATO combo
using Kiev to start a war as a Hail Mary pass to ultimately bury NS2, and thus
German-Russian relations.
Yes but also the Ukraine needs to save those gas transit fees that will go kaput if NS2 is
completed and operational, so it is the Ukraine the one with the most immediate incentive to
start a war. Though they need just a small war, a little war to force the hands of the
Germans to cancel NS2. Problem is the Russians have promised to give the Ukrainians more than
what they bargained for. To save those gas transit fees the Ukrainians may end losing the
country to a puppet installed by the Kremlin.
Escobar, besides not naming the Jew, does not mention which side Israel is likely to
support. We can be pretty certain that whichever side Israel supports is going to be the
victor in this conflict. Turkey is also important because of the Bosphorus, and Turkey and
Israel are working together to exploit the Leviathan gas field to the detriment of Cyprus and
Syria, so Israel can jerk Turkey around like a pitbull on a chain.
The US has been moving drones into Ukraine and they now are right on the border with
Crimea. The US Marines also have a large presence in Romania, also likely including all kinds
of drones. The Israelis are among the planet's leaders in drone technology, and surely own
even more patents. Israel provides much of its drone technology to Turkey, and the
Azerbeijanis used Turkish and Israeli drones in their short war with Armenia. During this
short war the Azerbeijanis shot up all kinds of Russian equipment with their drones including
Pantsir's and ZSU-23's.
The US also has all kinds of stealth drones and missiles, likely that is one area where
they lead the entire planet.
If this assessment is correct (in Russian but comes out OK in Google translate), then the
US / NATO have to get involved to compensate for the lack of a Ukrainian air force –
and in fact the rest of their obsolete equipment.
Personally, I can't imagine US or NATO troops on the ground in the Ukraine – and I
don't see any planning for it, so what's the idea?
One possibility seems to be 1) to start the fighting 2) then start the real game, which
is a massive anti-Russian media barrage "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian atrocities",
"killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2, divide Russia from
France/Germany, plus reanimate NATO and sanction Russia. Basically to force Europe back into
US hegemony, and away from independent decision making.
They won't have any problem with the UK (their most slavish follower) but at some point
the French and Germans are surely going to become tired of all this CIA/Neo-con BS.
[German Industrialists] are not exactly fond of Berlin becoming a mere hostage,
condemned to buy ridiculously expensive shale gas from the hegemon .
German Industrialists and financiers have been repeatedly shaken down by the hegemon for
fines related to a number of "infractions." The scuttlebutt I've heard from a number of them
is that it got old a long time ago; what point is it to participate in the US market when
your profits are repeatedly clawed back as "fines," and those in the US with whom you compete
are given a leg up not just in the US, but on the world stage. Left to most industrialists,
Germany might have gone its own way years ago. Oddly enough, it is the
Ossivergeltungswaffe who dithers over breaking ranks with the "ally" that openly spied
on her.
And even assuming there would be some sort of deal, Berlin is inclined to admit Putin's
judgment is correct: the Americans are "not agreement-capable." One just needs to look at
the record.
The most recent example would be the Doha agreement on the US withdrawal of forces and
personnel from Afghanistan. Apparently the Pentagon recently awarded a number of contracts
for contractor services in that country for some time well past the "agreed" withdrawal date,
strongly suggesting the agreement to leave was a ruse.
Unfortunately we live in a world where history is/was erased, facts don't matter or they
can be twisted to fit anything no matter how ridiculous, the present is what I say it is.
Thus US and its vassals are just interested in their today's narrative.
Ukrainian leadership is hopelessly incompetent and corrupt so will do anything Biden's gang
tells them. It's simply a depressing scenario.
Blinken poking the Ukies to attack is a Hail Mary to stop NS2. Maybe it will work,
maybe not. But a few hundred or a few thousand dead Ukies is worth the Russian boogeyman
psy-op for the empire.
""Ukraine and Russia may be on the brink of War blah blah""
Contrary to what Pepe asserts the rest of the world will not give a shit. Memories of
Chechnya? The sooner Putin over runs the place the better. You can bet the Ukrainian ruling
elite, for all their gumption, have their jets all fuelled and ready with flight plans for
the US via Switzerland...
"NATO puppets do not have the balls to get into an open conflict with Russia."
Sadly not so sure.
Some has it`s own agenda, like POland, Lithuania. Not even NATO/ US are in full control over
that, and needs no more than a misstep. Like activate some system which is potentionally
dangerous for Russia.
Or in different NATO/ US bases elsewhere in continental Europe.
"to provoke an irreparable fissure between Russia and the EU, under NATO auspices"
"When all fails, myth prevails. Enter the US Army occupying parts of Europe to "defend" it
against – who else? – those pesky Russians."
This sounds to be the real goal.
For long since the US is jealous to Europe as it became more and more equal in economic and
political power, and prevail better even with this "global pandemic".
EU wants more independence, US wants it`s colony to more obidient and follow commands.
If not just occupy, but "let" Europe partly destroyed even better: the treat of dominance
reduced, and again can be the "nice savior" who helps and "brings democracy".
So seems far too real in the Ukrainian conflict Ukraine is just a side character.
Good point. They simply can't "win" anything by attacking.
The (((US))) will provide plenty of encouragement and support as long as they get
mountains of Ukrainian corpses in return. Those corpses can then be photographed and the
photos broadcast all over the world as "proof" that Putin is Hitler. Basically, Ukrainians
are being funnelled into the meat grinder for a globohmo psyop opportunity. What a way to
die...
Are you referring to the Ukraine fiasco? Would that it were so that it was just a
distraction. Just apply some reverse engineering to how Germany and Russia have a pretext to
link up energy-wise when Ukraine was a perfectly serviceable transit point until NeoCon filth
started working their magic.
Indeed, let's not worry: German Chancellor Merkel spoke to President Putin yesterday and
apparently told him she wanted to see immediate de-escalation or else she might not sell Russia
any German cars; or buy Russian vaccine; or complete Nord-Stream 2 and tie the German economy
into Russian gas supplies. Isn't realpolitik a German word originally?
"Destiny guides our fortunes more favourably than we could have expected. Look there,
Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty or so wild giants, with whom I intend to do
battle and kill each and all of them, so with their stolen booty we can begin to enrich
ourselves. This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such
an evil race wiped from the face of the earth."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"The ones you can see over there," answered his master, "with the huge arms, some of which
are very nearly two leagues long."
"Now look, your grace," said Sancho, "what you see over there aren't giants, but
windmills, and what seems to be arms are just their sails, that go around in the wind and
turn the millstone."
"Obviously," replied Don Quixote, "you don't know much about adventures."
Or labour vs. capital; or realpolitik. But Happy Friday!
GreatCaesar'sGhost 1 hour ago
No nato troops will ever set foot in Ukraine. They're trying to pressure Russia into doing
something so they can force the Germans to stop nordstream. The Ukrainians can't win here and
they're being used. Not good.
USAllDay 56 minutes ago
Germans need the gas and Russia needs the revenue. These are facts that can not
change.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell. I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling
German government will buy Russian gas if there's a war.
BeePee 43 minutes ago
Russia already sells gas. This will continue. Mistake to destablize Russia's economy.
GreatCaesar'sGhost 53 minutes ago
US has gas to sell. Greater Israel and their Saudi partners believe that after they
overthrow Assad they will have gas to sell.
I'm not sure the constantly virtue signaling German government will buy Russian gas if
there's a war.
land_of_the_few 51 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
They should just mock them mercilessly.
Formation flypasts with rainbow colored smoke, Village People blasting from frigates
buzxing them, that kind of thing.
Judge James C. Ho is absolutely correct to imply it is profoundly offensive to be offered
opportunity based on race rather than merit ("
Notable & Quotable: Judges ," March 27).
When I was approaching graduation and beginning my job search, a friend of the family, who
was Jewish himself, approached me with an opportunity. His accounting firm, one of the "Big
Eight" firms, had inquired if he knew any young Jewish accountants it could hire because it
didn't have any Jews working in the firm. The family friend told me this was a wonderful
opportunity and that I would be made partner and become prosperous. He was shocked when I
responded no, and asked why. I told him if I accepted this offer, I would never know if I was
successful because I was Jewish or because I was talented and skilled.
The Remarkable Accuracy of CAPE as a Predictor of Returns
by
Michael
Finke
,
7/20/20
On
July 21, 2020, this article was corrected to attribute the term "animal spirits" to John Maynard Keynes instead of Adam
Smith.
What return can I expect from my stock investments over the next 10 years?
The most common answer is to use the historical average. The geometric average historical return on the S&P 500 is about
10%.
Is it reasonable, then, to project 10% stock returns?
Another method is to consider the valuation of stocks. If stocks are at a higher price than their historical average as a
multiple of recent earnings, can we then expect a lower return than we have in the past?
Can valuations predict future earnings?
There have been a number of recent criticisms of Robert Shiller's measure of stock valuation – the cyclically-adjusted
price to earnings ratio (CAPE) – as a predictor of future stock returns. A 2017
Advisor
Perspectives
article
pointed
out that the ratio wasn't a realistic measure of future stock returns because 10-year earnings included the global
financial crisis. Others have
argued
that
changes in accounting rules mean that you can't compare today's CAPE to historical CAPE. An
analysis
by
Vanguard found that the R-squared, or predictive ability, of the Shiller CAPE and 10-year returns between 1926 and 2011 was
0.43. Although 0.43 is high for an asset whose returns are assumed to be random, it gives CAPE critics a reason to dismiss
its value.
Care to guess how well the monthly CAPE predicted future 10-year returns between January 1995 and May 2020?
In a period where accounting rules changed and the 2008 global financial crisis decimated profits, CAPE explained 90% of
the variation in 10-year returns. Here's what it looks like when I model 10-year nominal, annualized, geometric returns
starting every month from January 1995 through June 2010 (185 blue dots) as a function of their CAPE value during this
period:
The standard deviation of the error (how far off the prediction was from the actual value) is 1.37%. This is the difference
between the predicted annual return (the yellow dot) and the actual return (the blue dot) at each initial Shiller PE ratio.
In other words, 67% of the time the return was plus or minus 1.37% from the CAPE model prediction; and 95% of the time the
actual return was within 2.74% of the future 10-year predicted returns. CAPE's ability to predict 10-year future returns
during the last 25 years has been remarkable.
As I write this, the S&P CAPE is 29.28. The 10-year return we can expect using the 1995-2020 model is 5.89%, with a 67%
probability that it will be between 4.52% and 7.26%. This is about 1% per year lower than Blackrock's 10-year capital
market
expectations
for
large-cap U.S. stocks, but still in the ballpark.
Over the next 10 years, a hypothetical equity return of 10% is exactly three standard deviations above what the CAPE model
would predict (5.89%). If returns are normally distributed, a 10% S&P return has about a 0.3% chance of occurring (or a
99.7% chance of not happening).
Was the 1995-2020 period different than historical periods? As the Vanguard study notes, CAPE predicted only 43% of the
variation in 10-year S&P returns between 1926 and 2011. You might expect that the recent predictability of CAPE is an
anomaly.
Since 1975, the Shiller CAPE has explained 85% of variation in future stock returns. In fact, CAPE's ability to predict
10-year returns was remarkably strong until just before the Great Depression. The R-squared starting at 1940 is 0.7. It's
hard to dismiss the value of an indicator that can predict 70% of the variation in future stock returns.
The figure below shows CAPE's ability to predict 10-year returns beginning in 1920. I started with the Jan 1995-May 2020
time period and went back in time to estimate how the R-squared changed within various periods. The predictability of the
CAPE model has remained consistent in the post-WW2 era, but the lower predictive power prior to 1975 may mean that the
expected future 10-year return of stocks starting from a CAPE of 20 using the 1940 model may differ from the predicted
return on stocks using the 1975 or 1995 models. Again, it's not much different.
The marginal effect of investing in a higher CAPE stock market today is remarkably similar to investing in high-CAPE
periods through the latter half of the 20th century. For each point increase in CAPE, investors should expect a 10-year
stock return that is just over half a percent lower. Higher stock returns after 1975 pushed the predicted value up slightly
compared to the 1940 model, but not by a huge amount. For example, the predicted S&P return from investing when CAPE values
are 20 is 11.1% in both the 1975-2020 and 1995-2020 periods, and 9.8% in the 1940-2020 period.
An investor can grab the current
CAPE
ratio
online and refer to the table below to estimate (with a surprising degree of confidence) the expected return on
an equity portfolio over the next 10 years. For a one standard deviation range, add plus or minus 2% to the predicted
values for the earlier time periods.
How can stock returns be this predictable? In 1981, economist Robert Shiller rocked the efficient market world when he
asked a simple question: If stock prices are rational, why are they so much more volatile than dividends? Historical
dividends don't bounce around all that much, while stock prices exhibit wild swings in value that don't reflect future
volatility in cash flows. Something must be amiss.
Shiller's article heralded a new stream of literature on the impact of market sentiment, or what John Maynard Keynes
referred to as "animal spirits," on stock prices. Sometimes people are more excited about the idea of investing in stocks,
and other times they lose their nerve. This results in valuation swings that are higher during periods of economic
expansion and positive sentiment, and fall during recessions when investors are pessimistic.
In my own
research
,
I have found that measured risk tolerance of retirement plan participants rises and falls with periods of high and low
market sentiment. During the global financial crisis, risk tolerance, measured using a popular financial planning
instrument, had a
0.9
correlation
with the S&P 500 and a high correlation with other measures of consumer sentiment. Investors' appetite for
investment risk is not constant.
What is a stock return? According to the capital asset pricing model, a stock returns consist of a risk-free return and a
risk premium. The risk premium is the amount of extra expected return that is needed to incent risk-averse investors into
buying a stock instead of a bond. The Sharpe Ratio of the market portfolio is positive because investors are generally risk
averse, but sentiment can drive the reward for risk up or down. What if the price of risk is driven predictably by market
sentiment?
A risk premium that rises and falls with changes in investor risk tolerance has enormous implications for portfolio
construction. When investors are risk averse, the market Sharpe Ratio rises and investors receive a greater reward for
taking investment risk. When investors are risk tolerant, the Sharpe Ratio falls and investors don't get as much juice from
buying stocks instead of bonds.
The predictability of CAPE presents a problem for those who use historical mean returns to project future returns. Although
often considered heresy, return predictability also challenges the investment policy approach of maintaining a constant
asset allocation.
Why? Let's assume two investors – one is a Vulcan and the other a behavioral human whose risk preferences depend on market
sentiment. The Vulcan will simply look at current valuations and adjust asset allocations based on the expected return
being offered by the market. If the CAPE is 34, the expected stock return is between 2% and 4% over the next 10 years. This
paltry compensation for taking investment risk means that the Vulcan will select an optimal portfolio with a lower
percentage of stocks. Conversely, the Vulcan will go all-in on stocks when CAPE ratios revert to the teens.
Sign me up to receive email newsletters from
Advisor
Perspectives
The behavioral investor is willing to accept low-return stocks during an economic expansion because they are highly risk
tolerant. During a bear market, they suddenly become risk averse and avoid investing in stocks. A constant equity
allocation can help the behavioral investor rebalance toward risk when markets fall and away from risk when markets rise in
value. Maintaining a constant allocation is better than the alternative, and automatic rebalancing is one of the reasons
target-date fund participants outperform other fund investors.
Constant equity allocations are still not optimal.
Rebalancing toward a desired equity allocation is not optimal because the Vulcan can do better by responding to what
markets are willing to pay for risk. Building valuation-based portfolios is hard because portfolio managers and individual
investors aren't Vulcans. They don't want to take more risk after markets fall. They don't want to reduce risk when markets
rise.
But investors would be wise to think of CAPE as the price of risk. An investor is a price-taker walking through the aisle
of the investment store. When risk is on sale, investors should buy more risk. When risk is expensive, they should buy
less. And they shouldn't expect to eat as well when, like today, nothing in the investment store is on sale.
Michael Finke, PhD, is a professor of wealth management and the Frank M. Engle
Distinguished Chair in Economic Security at The American College of Financial Services.
Looking Back at Jeremy Siegel on the Business Cycle and the Markets
by
Erik
Conley
,
7/10/18
Advisor Perspectives
welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not
necessarily represent those of
Advisor Perspectives
Dr. Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has done a remarkable
study of the returns of different types of assets over the past 200 years. He published his findings in the book
Stocks
for the Long Run
in 1994. He has updated the book several times, most recently in 2014. It is surely one of the best
books on investing of all time.
This article focuses on chapter 15 in Siegel's book, "Stocks and the Business Cycle." This chapter was a revelation to me
when I first read it in 1994. It makes so much sense, and yet it's rarely discussed in the financial literature. It's as if
Siegel discovered a gold mine and nobody else was interested. I'll give you the short version of this landmark chapter.
Cliff notes for chapter 15 of
Stocks
for the Long Run
Invariably the stock market turns down before a recession hits and rises before it is over. Of the 47 U.S. recessions since
1802, 43 (9 out of 10) have been preceded by stock market declines of 8% or more. The table below is from the book.
Stock Prices and Business Cycle
Peaks, 1948-2017
If an investor went to cash or Treasury bonds four months before each recession, the gains would be significant. The
problem, of course, is knowing when to get back into stocks.
Here's where the real money is
made
I have a voracious appetite for anything related to the stock market, the economy and behavioral science. When I come
across information like what is shown in these tables, I pay attention. Is it just coincidence, or is there something else
going on? Do stock market investors "sense" when a recession is coming, precipitating a market decline? To answer this
question, we also must talk about false signals.
Recession False Alarms by Stock
Market, 1945-2017
The stock market telegraphs the onset of a recession, but it also gives false signals. What are we to make of this?
Market declines that are not followed by a recession (false signals) are notably shorter in duration and less severe than
declines that presage recessions. This is an easy hurdle to clear. When the market is in decline, but the economic
indicators are healthy, investors should stay invested and take the short-term pain that the market is dishing out.
If, on the other hand, the economic indicators are in decline, an aggressive and proactive defensive strategy is warranted.
That might involve cutting back on equity exposure, buying a put on the market or switching from stocks to bonds. Each
investor must decide for him/herself how to play defense.
Why go to all the trouble?
According to Siegel, an investor who correctly plays defense stands to gain as much as 5% per year in returns, versus an
investor who simply stays put throughout recessionary periods. This is more than enough reward for going to all the
trouble. Here is what Siegel had to say in his book:
My studies show that if investors could predict in advance when recessions will begin and end, they could enjoy superior
returns to the returns earned by a buy and hold investor. Specifically, if an investor switched from stocks to cash or
short-term Treasuries 4 months before the start of a recession and back to stocks 4 months before the end of the recession,
he or she would gain almost 5 percentage points over the buy and hold investor.
Gains through timing the business cycle – Part 2
We now move from the theoretical aspects of Siegel's research to the practical realm. We do this by looking at actual
returns, using real clients with real money invested, by applying various investment strategies over the past 20 years.
The numbers in the table below come from actual client accounts, beginning in 2002. Prior to 2002, the numbers come from
back testing, using the identical strategy parameters.
I would like to draw your attention to the 6th strategy in the table – "Recession Defense." This is the strategy I designed
to capture the 4-5% bonus returns from timing the business cycle, as described in Siegel's book.
The returns for the Recession Defense strategy are the same as they are for a traditional buy-and-hold strategy for the
time period that began after the last recession. This is because the strategy is only invoked at the early stages of a new
recession forecast. Most of the time this strategy will remain operating quietly in the background until it's needed.
Once the model raises the alarm for a new recession, the returns for buy-and-hold and Recession Defense start to diverge.
At the end of the full 20-year period, the Recession Defense strategy has outperformed the buy-and-hold strategy by 13% per
year. If that seems hard to believe, consider this. The last 20 years included two severe recessions and two severe bear
markets. All an investor had to do was get out of the way when the warning signs were there and get back into stocks when
the model sounded the all-clear. Yes, it can be and has been done.
As I said earlier, my model isn't perfect (87% accuracy score), and it's not the only one. But it has worked well enough to
add substantial value to my clients' portfolios over time.
If you decide to stand pat during recessions, eventually you will get back to even. This is why the buy-and-hold doctrine
is so appealing, and Siegel is a big advocate of this doctrine. But here's the thing. A bear market may not cost you money
in the long run, but it will certainly cost you time, and lots of it.
For example, those unfortunate souls who bought into the stock market mania in 1929 not only lost their collective shirts
in the downturn, but it took them more than 20 years to get back to even. Do you have 20 years to wait to get back to even?
Recession forecasting
Returning once again to Siegel,
If one could predict in advance when recessions will occur, the gains would be substantial. That is perhaps why billions of
dollars have been spent trying to forecast the business cycle. But the record of those efforts is extremely poor.
My own research agrees with that statement. Forecasting recessions is extremely difficult. But it's not impossible. I know
of at least three recession forecasting services (
here
,
here
and
here
)
that have been around for at least a decade and have accuracy scores of 80% or higher. (I did my own analysis on their
published forecasts to arrive at this accuracy score.) I also have my own recession forecasting model that has an 87%
accuracy score, using the same analysis methods I used for the other three forecasting services.
The benefits of having a contingency plan
Unless you're financially independent, stock market investing is going to play an important part in your retirement
planning. The whole point of financial planning is to find a way to make sure your cash doesn't run out before you do.
But investing in stocks means you're going to go through some harsh market declines. Investors who expect to earn generous
returns while watching their net worth rise smoothly are fooling themselves.
The best way to protect your nest egg from the next bear market is to plan ahead. Having a contingency plan, even a simple
one, will save you from the worst parts of a bear market. You will never be able to sell at the top and buy back in at the
bottom, but if you can avoid the worst months of a bear market, your returns will be significantly higher than a
buy-and-hold investor.
Sign me up to receive email newsletters from
Advisor
Perspectives
A contingency plan is an add-on to your strategic plan. Brokers, advisors and planners often don't cover this critical
aspect of investment planning. The advice industry does a good job of designing plans that serve investors well while the
economy and the market are healthy and growing. That's how it is about two-thirds of the time. But what about the other
one-third of the time? Their standard answer is "Don't worry about it, just stay invested and ride the waves."
That's not bad advice for many investors, especially those who don't have the time to fiddle with their investment
accounts. Many others just aren't interested in investing, so not worrying about bear markets or recessions makes perfect
sense for them. For those who do care about bear markets, there is a better alternative: your "plan B."
An example of a contingency plan
A contingency plan doesn't have to be complicated to be effective. What's required is to take some time, perhaps an hour,
and think about what you should do when things start to fall apart. The method I teach my clients is setting up a simple
rules-based tactical plan that tells them exactly what to do, and when to do it. For example
This is a very simplistic example. But with such a plan in place, you don't have to stress about what to do. You just look
at the recession indicator and follow your own instructions.
Final thoughts
Recessions and bear markets are two of the topics about which I'm the most passionate. I've devoted most of my career to
studying the link between the two, and the models I designed are the result of hundreds of hours of effort. I would be
happy to answer any questions you have about this topic, and I encourage you to sign up for the free stuff on my website,
like the weekly newsletter, the mini-courses in investment theory, and the quizzes.
Erik Conley was a trader and portfolio manager from 1975-2001 and former head of equity
trading at Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. He is now a private investor, founder of a nonprofit investor advocacy firm and
private investing coach.
B Bill Hestir SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago Stocks Soar As Bank Aid Ends Fear of Money
Panic
By W. A. Lyon in the New York Herald Tribune on March 28, 1929
The stock market strode out from under the shadow of a panic in call money that so lately
threatened, but was revived in all its old strength yesterday.
Assured that the New York banks were ready with their boundless resources to prevent a
money crisis, the public and the professional trader set out to repair the damage done to
prices on Monday and the major part of Tuesday.
Stocks in the aggregate, though bucking a 15 per cent rate for loans, enjoyed the
greatest advance they have known in a single day in the last two years. Not even the surging
bull markets of the memorable year 1928 saw such a day of heavy buying. Like
thumb_up 8 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
P Peter Hayes SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago This totally looks like 1929 all over again. Maybe we'll
even see "Bidenvilles" popping up at some future date.
[Apr 08, 2021] Financial crises get triggered about every 10 years -- Archegos might be right on time by Paul Brandus Paul Brandus Financial crises are never quite the same. During the late 1980s, nearly a third of the nation's savings and loan associations failed, ending with a taxpayer bailout -- in 2021 terms -- of about $265 billion. In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- Financial crises are never quite the same. During the late 1980s, nearly a third of the nation's savings and loan associations failed, ending with a taxpayer bailout -- in 2021 terms -- of about $265 billion. In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- In 1997-1998, financial crises in Asia and Russia led to the near meltdown of the largest hedge fund in the U.S. -- Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). Its reach and operating practices were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that when LTCM failed, "he had never seen anything in his lifetime that compared to the terror" he felt. LTCM was deemed "too big to fail," and he engineered a bailout by 14 major U.S. financial institutions. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data.
Here's the potential danger. Family offices generally aren't regulated. The 1940 Investment Advisers Act says firms with
15 clients or fewer don't have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. What this means is that trillions
of dollars are in play and no one can really say who's running the money, what it's invested in, how much leverage is being
used, and what kind of counterparty risk may exist. (Counterparty risk is the probability that one party involved in a
financial transaction could default on a contractual obligation to someone else.)
The problem is that only about a third of that, or $10 billion, was its own money. We now know that Archegos worked with
some of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Credit Suisse Group AG
CS,
+0.74%
,
UBS Group AG
UBS,
-0.18%
,
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
GS,
+1.41%
,
Morgan Stanley
MS,
+1.47%
,
Deutsche Bank AG
DB,
-0.88%
and Nomura Holdings Inc.
NMR,
-1.30%
.
But since family offices are largely allowed to operate unregulated, who's to say how much money is really involved here
and what the extent of market risk is? My colleague Mark DeCambre reported last week that Archegos' true exposures to bad
trades could actually
be closer to $100 billion
.
Danger of counterparty risk
This is where counterparty risk comes in. As Archegos' bets went south, the above banks -- looking at losses of their own
-- hit the firm with margin calls. Deutsche quickly dumped about $4 billion in holdings, while Goldman and Morgan Stanley
are also said to have unwound their positions, perhaps limiting their downside.
So is this a financial crisis? It doesn't appear to be. Even so, the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a
preliminary investigation into Archegos and its founder, Bill Hwang.
One peer, Tom Lee, the research chief of Fundstrat Global Advisors, calls Hwang one of the "top 10 of the best
investment minds" he knows.
But federal regulators may have a lesser opinion. In 2012, Hwang's former hedge fund, Tiger Asia Management, pleaded
guilty and paid more than $60 million in penalties after it was accused of trading on illegal tips about Chinese banks. The
SEC banned Hwang from managing money on behalf of clients -- essentially booting him from the hedge fund industry. So Hwang
opened Archegos, and again, family offices aren't generally aren't regulated.
Yellen on the case
This issue is on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's radar. She said last week that greater oversight of these private
corners of the financial industry is needed. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which she oversees, has
revived a task force to help agencies better "share data, identify risks and work to strengthen our financial system."
Most financial crises end up with American taxpayers getting stuck with the tab. Gains belong to the risk-takers. But
losses -- they belong to us.
To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, family offices -- a multi-trillion dollar industry largely
allowed to operate in the shadows in a global financial system that is more intertwined than ever -- are of the
super-wealthy, by the super-wealthy and for the super-wealthy. And no one else.
The Archegos collapse may or may not be the beginning of yet another financial crisis. But who's to say what thousands
of other family offices are doing with their trillions, and whether similar problems could blow up?
In 2007, I was at a conference
where Paul McCulley, who was with PIMCO at the time, was discussing the idea of a "Minsky Moment." At that time, this idea
fell on "deaf ears" as the markets, and economy, were in full swing.
However, it wasn't too long
before the 2008 "Financial Crisis" brought the "Minsky Moment" thesis to the forefront. What was revealed, of course, was
the dangers of profligacy which resulted in the triggering of a wave of margin calls, a massive selloff in assets to cover
debts, and higher default rates.
Economist Hyman Minsky argued
that the economic cycle is driven more by surges in the banking system, and in the supply of credit than by the
relationship which is traditionally thought more important, between companies and workers in the labor market.
In other words, during periods
of bullish speculation, if they last long enough, the excesses generated by reckless, speculative, activity will eventually
lead to a crisis. Of course, the longer the speculation occurs, the more severe the crisis will be.
Hyman Minsky argued there is
an inherent instability in financial markets. He postulated that an abnormally long bullish economic growth cycle would
spur an asymmetric rise in market speculation which would eventually result in market instability and collapse. A "Minsky
Moment" crisis follows a prolonged period of bullish speculation which is also associated with high amounts of debt taken
on by both retail and institutional investors.
One way to look at "leverage,"
as it relates to the financial markets, is through "margin debt," and in particular, the level of "free cash" investors
have to deploy. In periods of "high speculation," investors are likely to be levered (borrow money) to invest, which leaves
them with "negative" cash balances.
While margin balances did
decline in 2018, as the markets fell due to the Federal Reserve hiking rates and reducing their balance sheet, it is
notable that current levels of "leverage" are still excessively higher than they were either in 1999, or 2007.
This is also seen by looking
at the S&P 500 versus the growth rate of margin debt.
The mainstream analysis
dismisses margin debt under the assumption that it is the reflection of "bullish attitudes" in the market. Leverage fuels
the market rise. In the early stages of an advance, this is correct. However, in the later stages of an advance, when
bullish optimism and speculative behaviors are at the peaks, leverage has a "dark side" to it. As
I
discussed previously:
"At some point, a reversion
process will take hold. It is when
investor
'psychology
'
collides with 'leverage and the problems associated with market liquidity. It will be the equivalent of striking a
match, lighting a stick of dynamite, and throwing it into a tanker full of gasoline."
That moment is the "Minsky
Moment."
As noted, these reversion of
"bullish excess" are not a new thing. In the book, "
The
Cost of Capitalism,
" Robert Barbera's discussed previous periods in history:
The last five major global
cyclical events were the early 1990s recession -- largely occasioned by the U.S. Savings & Loan crisis, the collapse of
Japan Inc. after the stock market crash of 1990, the Asian crisis of the mid-1990s, the fabulous technology boom/bust
cycle at the turn of the millennium and the unprecedented rise and then collapse for U.S. residential real estate in
2007-2008.
All five episodes delivered
recessions, either global or regional. In no case was there as significant prior acceleration of wages and general
prices. In each case, an investment boom and an associated asset market ran to improbably heights and then collapsed.
From 1945 to 1985 there was no recession caused by the instability of investment prompted by financial speculation -- and
since 1985 there has been no recession that has not been caused by these factors.
Read that last sentence again.
Interestingly, it was
post-1970 the Federal Reserve became active in trying to control interest rates and inflation through monetary policy.
"In the U.S., the Federal Reserve has
been the catalyst behind every preceding financial event since they became 'active,' monetarily policy-wise, in the late
70's. As shown in the chart below, when the Fed has lifted the short-term lending rates to a level higher than the
2-year rate, bad 'stuff' has historically followed."
As noted above, "Minsky
Moment" crises occur because investors, engaging in excessively aggressive speculation, take on additional credit risk
during prosperous times, or bull markets. The longer a bull market lasts, the more investors borrow to try and capitalize
on market moves.
However, it hasn't just been
investors tapping into debt to capitalize on the bull market advance, but corporations have gorged on debt for unproductive
spending, dividend issuance, and share buybacks. As I
noted
in last week's MacroView
:
"Since the economy is driven by
consumption, and theoretically, companies should be taking on debt for productive purposes to meet rising demand,
analyzing corporate debt relative to underlying economic growth gives us a view on leverage levels."
"The problem with debt, of course, is
it is leverage that has to be serviced by underlying cash flows of the business. While asset prices have surged to
historic highs, corporate profits for the entirety of U.S. business have remained flat since 2014. Such doesn't suggest
the addition of leverage is being done to 'grow' profits, but rather to 'sustain' them."
Over the last decade, the
Federal Reserve's ongoing liquidity interventions, zero interest-rates, and maintaining extremely "accommodative" policies,
has led to substantial increases in speculative investment. Such was driven by the belief that if "something breaks," the
Fed will be there to fix to it.
Despite a decade long economic
expansion, record stock market prices, and record low unemployment, the Fed continues to support financial speculation
through ongoing interventions.
John Authers recently penned
an excellent piece on this issue
for
Bloomberg:
"Why does liquidity look quite so
bullish? As ever, we can thank central banks and particularly the Federal Reserve. Twelve months ago, the U.S. central
bank intended to restrict liquidity steadily by shrinking the assets on its balance sheet on "auto-pilot." That changed,
though. It reversed course and then cut rates three times. And most importantly, it started to build its balance sheet
again in an attempt to shore up the repo market -- which banks use to access short-term finance -- when it suddenly froze
up in September. In terms of the increase in U.S. liquidity over 12 months, by CrossBorder's measures, this was the
biggest liquidity boost ever:"
While John believes we are
early in the global liquidity cycle, I personally am not so sure given the magnitude of the increase Central Bank balance
sheets over the last decade.
Currently, global Central Bank
balance sheets have grown from roughly $5 Trillion in 2007, to $21 Trillion currently. In other words, Central Bank balance
sheets are equivalent to the size of the entire U.S. economy.
In 2007, the global stock
market capitalization was $65 Trillion. In 2019, the global stock market capitalization hit $85 Trillion, which was an
increase of $20 Trillion, or roughly equivalent to the expansion of the Central Bank balance sheets.
In the U.S., there has been a
clear correlation between the Fed's balance sheet expansions, and speculative risk-taking in the financial markets.
Is Another Minsky Moment Looming?
The International Monetary
Fund (IMF) has been issuing global warnings of high debt levels and slowing global economic growth, which has the potential
to result in Minsky Moment crises around the globe.
While this has not come to
fruition yet, the warning signs are there. Globally, there is roughly $15 Trillion in negative-yielding debt with asset
prices fundamentally detached for corporate profitability, and excessive valuations on multiple levels.
"How else can one explain that the
risky U.S. leveraged loan market has increased to more than $1.3 trillion and that the size of today's global leveraged
loan market is some two and a half times the size of the U.S. subprime market in 2008? Or how else can one explain that
in 2017 Argentina was able to place a 100-year bond? Or that European high yield borrowers can place their debt at
negative interest rates? Or that as dysfunctional and heavily indebted government as that of Italy can borrow at a lower
interest rate than that of the United States? Or that the government of Greece can borrow at negative interest rates?
These are all clear
indications that speculative excess is present in the markets currently.
Sign me up to
receive email newsletters from
Advisor Perspectives
However, there is one other
prime ingredient needed to complete the environment for a "Minsky Moment" to occur.
That ingredient is
complacency.
Yet despite the clearest signs that
global credit has been grossly misallocated and that global credit risk has been seriously mispriced, both markets and
policymakers seem to be remarkably sanguine. It would seem that the furthest thing from their minds is that once again
we could experience a Minsky moment involving a violent repricing of risky assets that could cause real strains in the
financial markets."
Desmond is correct. Currently,
despite record asset prices, leverage, debt, combined with slowing economic growth, the level of complacency is
extraordinarily high. Given that no one currently believes another "credit-related crisis" can occur is what is needed to
allow one to happen.
Professor Minsky taught that
markets have short memories, and that they repeatedly delude themselves into believing that this time will be different.
Sadly, judging by today's market exuberance in the face of mounting economic and political risks, once again, Minsky is
likely to be proved correct.
At this point in the cycle,
the next "Minsky Moment" is inevitable.
All that is missing is the
catalyst to start the ball rolling.
Talk about Minsky moment started in 2017 and as of 2021 the bubble did not burst. Warning
from Keynes to short sellers: Market can stay irrational longer then you can stay solvent.
The mere mention of a "Minsky moment" -- a sudden crash of markets
and economies that are hooked on debt -- is enough to send shudders through policy makers. The
theory stems from the work of Hyman Minsky, a U.S. economist who specialized in how excessive
borrowing fuels financial instability. Record debt levels around the world, coupled with
sky-high financial market valuations, have kept Minsky's theory prominent, drawing warnings
from the International
Monetary Fund and others. Before taking over the U.S. Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen
described his work as "
required reading ." 1. What makes a Minsky moment?
The term refers to the end stage of a prolonged period of economic prosperity that has
encouraged investors to take on excessive risk, to the point where lending exceeds what
borrowers can pay off. At that point, Minsky wrote, there's an increase in "speculative and
Ponzi finance." When a destabilizing event as simple as an increase in interest rates occurs,
investors are forced to sell assets to raise money to repay loans. That in turn sends markets
into a spiral amid a demand for cash. There have been attempts to distinguish between a Minsky
moment and a Minsky process that leads up to it. To continue reading
C
C Cook SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago The unanswered question is not if there are a lot of other
Archegos, no doubt there are. But what are the big banks going to do? When one bank gets burned
and execs fired, other bank execs and investors get nervous. Maybe unwind similar investor
deals. Maybe quickly.
There is never just one rat in the basement...
K Kevin H SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago The argument we hear as every bubble inflates is that "this
time is different". Perhaps the reason each bubble deflates is different, but irrational
investor psychology seems to be the driving force behind each lap on the rollercoaster.
Admittedly, the search for yield of any kind has forced many investors to stay more heavily
in the market than they might otherwise consider doing. While risk free (or close to risk free)
returns are usually at least somewhat uninspiring, they're virtually non-existent right
now.
So, the search for any type of yield could be fueling the market's fire for at least a while
longer. Even with that said, the wildly speculative behavior I'm seeing lately does make me a
bit nervous.
It reminds me of the dot com era, and the housing bubble... both were times when people
repeatedly reassured each other with the thought that "it's different, this time".
J James Webb SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago John, an old market saying I'm sure you're familiar with,
"the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Plus identifying market tops are far more difficult than identifying market bottoms. March
2020 was EASY!
A crash will come. This year? Next year? 5 years from now? 20 years from now?
I've gone through four crashes in my life. 1987, 2001, 2008, 2020. 1974 was also during my
life but way before I even knew what the stock market was.
The 1987 and 2020 were very short lived, deep and scary, but were over very quickly. 2001
and 2008 were scary and felt never ending.
Pick an allocation, rebalance and live life. When a crash comes, BUY!
B BA Byron SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago @ LANCE
Because most people see an insane increases in the market as a wonderful thing, rather than
a worrisome trend. They congratulate themselves for buying high in a bull market and they never
learn from their mistakes - because they refuse to admit they made any. It is always those
greedy "others" who did this to them.
It goes like this:
Bull market = " Buy! I'm a genius! "
Bear market = " Sell! Bad luck! "
Rinse wash repeat.
"Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. And if they
insist on trying to time their participation in equities, they should try to be fearful when
others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful. " - Warren Buffett
Like thumb_up 2 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
C Charles Bromley SUBSCRIBER 16 hours ago The old joke: There are two steps that can be
taken to be absolutely sure of making $1M on Wall Street. First Step......start with $2M......
R Richard Hightower SUBSCRIBER 23 hours ago At some point the revelation will be clear, in
all probability after the fact, that the trade Archegos had on, in one variant or the other, is
the same trade that is on in every corner of the markets, and on a global basis. The "trade" is
simple and works like magic to its practitioners, some of whom are quite unwitting.
The underlying is an asset class steadily rising in price devoid of valuation consideration
, levered by leverage upon leverage, and contingent upon low and lower rates - financing rates,
carrying costs, discount rate assumptions, and market derived interest rates. If rates are low
and lower, bravo. If rates rise, the trade unwinds.
The unwind has already started, slowly at first and then spectacularly.
It will truly be a Minsky Moment, with a Dornbusch footnote. Look it up.
Like
thumb_up 17 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
A Anin Nathan SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago The derivatives, options, swaps, margin investing are
effective instruments to skim the cream and leave the traditional investors to sit on the foam.
You may hate to hear that, but that is how the system works. Like thumb_up 8 Reply
reply Share link Report flag
J John Goldin SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago Interesting how everyone frets about "unsophisticated"
individual investors distorting the market, while so called "sophisticated" investors are the
ones with much higher leverage. Individuals levering up is a risky personal choice.
Multi-billion dollar hedge funds levering up 10x (or more) is a systemic risk.
"... That was up 49% from one year earlier, the fastest annual increase since 2007, during the frothy period before the 2008 financial crisis. Before that, the last time investor borrowings had grown so rapidly was during the dot-com bubble in 1999. ..."
"... Significant increases in value without corresponding increases in earnings is the sign of a bubble. The entire S&P 500 has been significantly overvalued for several years now. The cyclically adjusted PE ratio is several times it's historical mean. Historically markets have ALWAYS reverted back to the mean. ..."
As of late February, investors had borrowed a record $814 billion against their portfolios,
according to data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street's
self-regulatory arm. That was up 49% from one year earlier, the fastest annual increase
since 2007, during the frothy period before the 2008 financial crisis. Before that, the last
time investor borrowings had grown so rapidly was during the dot-com bubble in 1999.
... some analysts say
run-ups in margin debt contribute to bubbles, and they fear that today's levels of
borrowing will hurt investors if the market has a downturn.
... Leverage combined with internet hype can be dangerous, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission said in a notice to investors Tuesday.
...It is unclear how many other investment firms have obtained Archegos-style levels of
leverage. Little disclosure is required in the market for total return swaps, which Wall Street
banks privately tailor for clients.
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
P Peter Hayes SUBSCRIBER 8 hours ago (Edited) In the year prior to CoVid the S&P grew
21%, from 2,775 to 3,380, meaning it already factored in robust future growth. It plummeted to
2,305 in March 2020, and has since rebounded to 4,080. Are we saying the economy is 20% better
than it was right before CoVid? Are we kidding ourselves? While things in general are much
better than they were last summer, there are still huge segments of the economy which have been
utterly devastated by the shutdowns, i.e. commercial real estate, tourism, hospitality and
restaurant industries, and countless mom-and-pop businesses. The hot housing market masks the
huge number of mortgages which have been forbeared since April 2020, and will continue so to
the end of this year. There's going to be a day of reckoning for all this, probably sooner than
later. The S&P should probably be in the range of 3,000 right now, not 4,000, meaning it's
at least 33% overvalued. Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Share
link Report flag
K Kim Jady SUBSCRIBER 9 hours ago Remember the Duke brothers in Trading Places? "Margin
call gentlemen." ike thumb_up 3 Reply reply Share link
Report flag
B Bill Payne SUBSCRIBER 10 hours ago Only one thing gives a stock any value; the underlying
company's ability to generate an income stream into the future. If the price/earnings ratio
increases significantly it means that the stock is increasing in value for some reason other
than earnings. There is no valid reason for the stock price to increase other than through
increased earnings. Significant increases in value without corresponding increases in
earnings is the sign of a bubble. The entire S&P 500 has been significantly overvalued for
several years now. The cyclically adjusted PE ratio is several times it's historical mean.
Historically markets have ALWAYS reverted back to the mean. Even though the Fed has kept
the market artificially propped up there will be a massive correction coming at some time
probably followed by a recession. Historically it has always worked this way. We had better
watch out. It's not only limited to one sector of the market like it was in 1999 or 2008. It's
the entire market.
A ANDREW BLENCOWE SUBSCRIBER 12 hours ago 1927 returns
Benjamin Strong cut the Fed's discount rate 0.5% in 1927
So -- it would appear -- the world is currently two years away from its 1929
Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag
K Kamalesh Banerjee SUBSCRIBER 17 hours ago (Edited) The total market capitalization of the
US stock market now is about $41 trillion (that is trillion with a t). Total margin debt of $
814 billion is not a large percentage of the total market cap (under 2%). Thus it is misleading
to say that margin debt is fueling the bull market. Yes, some investors (individuals and hedge
funds) may be over leveraged but the market as a whole is not. Some pockets of the market are
frothy but the market as a whole is not. This is not the roaring 1920s. - yet! Like
thumb_up 2 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
P Paul Smith SUBSCRIBER 9 hours ago (Edited) Interesting! Curious what it was prior to
great depression and great recession, and if similar why was margin blamed, to a great extent,
for great depression? EDIT a quick read indicates in 1928 margin of 2 to 1 was allowed, and
many margin calls wiped people out resulting in a spiralling downward of share prices. So seems
that margin issue perhaps causes an outsize amount of market risk despite it's low overall
percent. Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag MARK JURECKI SUBSCRIBER 8 hours ago That's an astute observation. The
potential damage of widespread margin calls is the destruction of the 'buy side' of stock
transactions.
The Great Depression was sometimes described as a failure of the Demand Side. Deflation
causing potential investors to hold onto cash and wait for a better deal. Quashing the market.
R Richard Hightower SUBSCRIBER 23 hours ago At some point the revelation will be clear, in
all probability after the fact, that the trade Archegos had on, in one variant or the other, is
the same trade that is on in every corner of the markets, and on a global basis. The "trade" is
simple and works like magic to its practitioners, some of whom are quite unwitting. The
underlying is an asset class steadily rising in price devoid of valuation consideration ,
levered by leverage upon leverage, and contingent upon low and lower rates - financing rates,
carrying costs, discount rate assumptions, and market derived interest rates. If rates are low
and lower, bravo. If rates rise, the trade unwinds.
The unwind has already started, slowly at first and then spectacularly.
It will truly be a Minsky Moment, with a Dornbusch footnote. Look it up. Like
thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report flag
P PJ L SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago Stocks are up and everyone is buying on margin to get in on the
unprecedented bull market, more millionaires are being created than ever in the entirety of
history.
in the fanatical exuberance disconnected to reality, Every company begins overproducing
goods to fill a demand because look how high the market is! We're in an economic boom, everyone
is going to buy OUR stuff. Make more!
Credit is so cheap, you're missing out if you don't lever up and get in on all this sweet
action...
Sound familiar? Oh wait that's what led to the crash of 1929 and the great depression
thereafter...
As Meme Stock Mania Fizzles, Wall Street Sees 'Big Reckoning'
by
Bailey
Lipschultz
,
4/6/21
The day-trading Reddit crowd turned the first quarter of 2021 into one of the wildest periods of stock market mania in
modern history. Books -- plural -- will undoubtedly be dedicated to the topic in years to come.
But after these small-time speculators banded together to drive up dozens of obscure stocks by hundreds or even thousands
of
percent
--
and in the process burned a few hedge-fund barons betting on declines -- the movement appears to be petering out. An index
that tracks 37 of the most popular meme stocks -- 37 of the 50 that Robinhood Markets banned clients from trading during
the height of the frenzy -- is essentially unchanged over the past two months after soaring nearly 150% in January.
Talk to Wall Street veterans and they'll tell you that this flat-lining is the beginning of what will be an inexorable move
downward in these stocks.
It's not so much about the poor fundamentals of the companies. At least not in the short term. The day-trading zealots have
shown a surprising ability to ignore those facts. It's more that as the pandemic slowly winds down and the economy starts
to open up, many of them will leave their homes and start going back into offices and out to restaurants and embarking on
trips near and far. And as they do, they may stop obsessing about their Robinhood accounts.
Their collective sway on the meme-stock universe, in other words, will wane.
"People are going to be doing other things," said Matt Maley, chief market strategist at Miller Tabak + Co. There will be a
"big reckoning" at some point, he said. "There's no question in my mind."
Of course, the Wall Street set has, broadly speaking, misread the Reddit crowd for weeks earlier this quarter, and it's
possible their analysis is wrong again now. Preliminary data, though, suggests they're right.
Recent reports suggest vaccinated Americans are planning long-awaited vacations with searches for "
Google
flights
" reaching a peak popularity score of 100 this week, according to a Google Trends tracker. The opposite is being
seen for terms like "
stock
trading
" and "
investing
"
which have plunged, Google Trends shows.
"The stimulus check impact on retail trading is waning," said Edward Moya, senior market analyst at Oanda. "Many Americans
are looking to go big on attending sporting events, traveling across the country, vacationing, visiting family and friends,
and revamping wardrobes before going out to restaurants, pubs and returning to the office."
Gamestop Juggernaut
Video-game retailer GameStop Corp. became the poster child for retail traders looking to rage against the hedge fund elite.
However, the stock's
2,460%
roller coaster
alongside other favorites touted on Reddit's WallStreetBets thread caused as much pain as it did joy.
The stock's more than 900% surge this year has drawn a wary eye from the Wall Street analysts that follow it. The average
12-month price target implies the stock will lose more than three-quarters of its value from current levels. Only Jefferies
holds a price target near Thursday's $191.45 close and that call came with the warning that shares are "subject to
volatility beyond fundamentals."
But any sense of GameStop trading on fundamentals has been ignored since it first captivated Wall Street and Reddit users
in the back half of January. Bulls are more than happy to tout their bets on forums as a move to stick it to short sellers
as they buy into a company rebirth delivered by activist investor Ryan Cohen.
Given AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc.'s position as a movie theater many Americans went to at some point, it's not a
complete surprise as to why Reddit users rushed to the company's aide. #SaveAMC trended on Twitter and amateur investors
appeared more than happy to fight against Wall Street's skeptics despite most movie theaters being closed due to the
ongoing pandemic.
The chain's latest rally came amid plans to continue reopening cinemas, however, Wall Street is skeptical. None of the nine
analysts tracking the company rate it a buy and the average price target implies the stock will lose 63% of its value in
the coming year.
Retail euphoria leaked over to a broader range of securities from cult-favorites like Bitcoin, Tesla Inc., and the ARK
Innovation ETF to smaller companies like the clothing retailer Express Inc. Chinese tech company The9 Limited is among the
group's best performers this year with an 860% surge.
Sign me up to receive email newsletters from
Advisor
Perspectives
The company's rally has been fueled by recent moves to ride the Bitcoin wave alongside peers like Future FinTech Group Inc.
and Ault Global Holdings Inc.
Zomedica Corp., a small-cap animal health company, has become a cult favorite among retail investors chasing stocks with
low share prices. The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based company started the year worth less than a quarter, but had soared as high
as $2.91.
Trading volume of the company has accelerated this year with an average of 174 million shares changing hands per session,
more than four times the average over the course of 2020. A mention from Tiger King's Carole Baskin helped it go viral in
mid-January.
Bloomberg News provided this article. For more articles like this please visit
bloomberg.com
.
The good news is that you can obtain the historical perspective missing from Billion
Dollar Loser with a reading list that is every bit as much fun . Start with
The Smartest Guys in the Room by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, the story of the
Enron con. Then travel back into the Roaring Twenties with Frederick Lewis Allen's description
of Samuel Insull's electrical utility empire in The Lords of Creation , then finish up with Edward Chancellor's nonpareil Devil Take the Hindmost , which describes Neumann's most remote business ancestors,
John Blunt of the South Sea Company and the nineteenth century English railway titan, George
Hudson. Finally, for sheer moral turpitude, nothing beats John Carreyrou's exposition of the
Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos disaster, Bad Blood.
Not only will you be entertained, but the WeWork, Enron, Insull, Hudson, Blunt, and Holmes
narratives will alert you to the signs of impending catastrophe: lofty rhetoric, millennial
predictions, and public adulation that almost inevitably give rise to overweening hubris. With
luck you'll be able to immunize your portfolios against the siren song of the never-ending
parade of entrepreneurial heroes served up by your colleagues, your clients, and a breathless
financial press.
Elon Musk and TSLA, anyone?
William J. Bernstein is a neurologist, co-founder of Efficient Frontier Advisors, an
investment management firm, and has written several titles on finance and economic history. He
has contributed to the peer-reviewed finance literature and has written for several national
publications, including Money Magazine and The Wall Street Journal. He has produced several
finance titles, and four volumes of history, The Birth of Plenty, A Splendid Exchange, Masters
of the Word, and The Delusions of Crowds about, respectively, the economic growth inflection of
the early 19th century, the history of world trade, the effects of access to technology on
human relations and politics, and financial and religious mass manias. He was also the 2017
winner of the James R. Vertin Award from CFA Institute.
We all know
that the economy moves in cycles; boom is followed by bust is followed by boom seemingly forever. A question we'd all like the
answer to is: "Where are we now in the cycle?" Economist Hyman Minsky's "financial instability hypothesis" helps answer this
question.
Classical Economics Assumes the Market is Fundamentally Stable
An assumption
underlying classical economic theory is that the economy is fundamentally stable and seeks equilibrium. The theory holds that
as excesses occur, rational market actors see the excesses and act to make money or avoid losing it, and thereby move the
economy back toward equilibrium.
According to
this theory, bubbles and crashes are caused by external shocks to the economy such as disease, wars, and technological
discoveries. While external shocks, such as the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s or the current pandemic, certainly have
significant economic effects, they don't adequately explain the sequence of booms and busts that we have seen. The dotcom bust
of 2000 and the financial crisis of 2008 weren't caused by external shocks; they illustrate that the economy is not
fundamentally stable.
Minsky Proposed that the Market is Fundamentally Unstable
Hyman Minsky
was an economist at Washington University in St. Louis from 1965 to 1990. He proposed a theory he labeled the financial
instability hypothesis, which holds that the economy creates its own bubbles and crashes. The gist of his theory is that
stable economies sow the seeds of their own destruction because stability, seeming safe, encourages people to take risks. That
risk-taking creates financial instability that eventually results in panic and crisis.
Unfortunately,
during his lifetime, neither Minsky nor his hypothesis was taken seriously. He died in 1996, before the dotcom bubble and the
Great Recession, both of which gave credence to his ideas. His theory is now accepted as a primary explanation for the
boom-and-bust cycles in the economy.
The financial
instability hypothesis is rooted in swings between excessive risk-taking and the panic that follows when the risk-taking
overheats and the economy collapses. Increased risk in the economy can be seen in the terms on which debt is incurred. Minsky
hypothesized three stages of lending he dubbed hedge, speculative, and Ponzi.
During the
hedge stage, lenders and borrowers are cautious because of the losses they incurred in the prior recession. Borrowers are wary
of leverage, and lenders make loans in modest amounts with stringent credit requirements. During this stage, the amount of
debt in the system is reasonable.
In the
following speculative stage, market participants become more confident of a recovery. Borrowers take on greater amounts of
debt, and the economy begins to boom. Lenders grant credit based on ever-lower standards, assuming that asset prices will
continue to rise. During this stage, borrowers can cover the interest on the loans, but become less able to repay the
principal.
By the final
Ponzi stage, lenders and borrowers have forgotten the lessons of the prior crisis. Everyone is sure that asset prices will
continue to rise, and debt is granted with repayments based on that assumption. The economy becomes over-leveraged; debt and
risk-taking have created a financial house of cards.
Finally, a
"Minsky Moment" -- as the Paul McCulley of PIMCO dubbed it -- occurs. Market insiders take profits, everyone panics, and a crash
ensues before the cycle starts over.
The key insight
of Minsky's model is that stability itself is destabilizing (see figure below) because during times of economic stability,
healthy investments lead to speculative euphoria, increasing financial leverage, and over-extending debt, eventually resulting
in a Minsky Moment, which leads to a recession or even a financial crisis.
Minsky's Cycle of the Economy
IMAGE
SOURCE: THE ST. LOUIS TRUST COMPANY
Paradoxically, Minsky's hypothesis teaches us that the time of greatest investment risk is when everything seems good, and
investing is actually least risky when, as Baron Rothschild once put it, there is "blood in the streets."
How Minsky Can Help Us Be Better Investors
Minsky's
financial instability hypothesis is an essential mental model for us to have in our toolkit. Each cycle has its own
characteristics and length. Euphoria and panic can both last longer than we might expect. And outside shocks such as a
pandemic or geopolitical events can have big effects as well. So, we can't predict with precision when the economy will
transition from one part of the cycle to the next.
But knowing
roughly where we are in the cycle can inform good strategies for investors and business owners. As the economy and markets
move from boom to euphoria, it's essential to have a healthy margin of safety in the form of cash and high-quality bonds.
Smart businesses will increase their cash to shore up liquidity and resist the temptation to take on more debt. Then when the
profit-taking and panic occur, they can redeploy their safety margin into bargain-priced risk assets.
The most
important lesson to take from Minsky's hypothesis is not to get caught up in the fear that comes with the panicky part of the
cycle, or the greed that accompanies the euphoria. While it's not possible to accurately time the tops and bottoms of the
market, knowing roughly where we are in the cycle may help you stick with your investment strategy and avoid following the
herd at full speed into a bust.
https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/cacheableShow?aid=Yj2fRrCPpu&templateId=OTXWKFJL53QM&templateVariantId=OTVHN4ZSSNY5S&offerId=fakeOfferId&experienceId=EXWS41VWG3FD&iframeId=offer_6f89429c2a934bc2daf2-0&displayMode=inline
Twitter
or
LinkedIn
.
Check
out
my
website
.
John Jennings
I am the chief strategist and president at
The
St. Louis Trust Company
, a multi-family office and boutique trust company that serves wealthy families across the
U.S.
Roubini said that a climb above 2% for the benchmark 10-year Treasury note
TMUBMUSD10Y,
1.628%
,
which
is used to set rates from everything from mortgages to auto loans, could foster further investor blowups.
Rising yields have propelled investors to sell more speculative wagers because higher yields imply that borrowing costs are also
climbing for investors, making such speculative wagers less economically attractive.
Known as "Dr. Doom" in some circles for his bearish predictions, Roubini has been persistently downbeat on his outlook for markets
and the economy since the pandemic took hold in earnest in the U.S. last year. Last year, he said that the V-shaped bounce "is
becoming a U, and the U could become a W if we don't find a vaccine and don't have enough stimulus."
Like thumb_up 10 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
S Sandeep Jain SUBSCRIBER 1 day ago This article is missing the whale in the stock markets.
Individuals borrowing Billions on margins is insignificant compared to corporations borrowing
in the Trillions. US corporate debt now exceeds $22 Trillion. A significant portion of this
debt is used to buy back stock.
C C Cook SUBSCRIBER 17 hours ago ....inside players can use cheap money from the Fed to
lever up 10, 20 times as Archegos did. Where is the SEC? Where are the banking regulators? Are
those investors/speculators that much smarter than all the Ivy lawyers working in the
government?
The Hedges have paid off the DNC to keep the government at bay and the tax preferences safe.
Look who funded Hillary and Biden campaigns.
One week ago, in our initial take on the biggest hedge fund collapse since LTCM, we explained that - in our view - the
catalyst for the failure of the Archegos hedge fund, which had as much as 10x leverage allowing it to hold some $100BN in
positions, was Morgan Stanley and Goldman breaking ranks with their fellow prime brokers, and sparking the biggest margin call
since Lehman and AIG.
Turns out we were right.
In the most detailed account yet of what happened in the fateful 24 hours between March 25 and 26, when many -
but
not all
- of Archegos' big prime brokers starting dumping blocks of Bill Hwang's margined stock,
CNBC's
Hugh Son
writes that "the night before the Archegos Capital story burst into public view late last month, the fund's
biggest prime broker quietly unloaded some of its risky positions to hedge funds, people with knowledge of the trades told
CNBC."
That prime broker was Morgan Stanley and to avoid what could have been up to $10 billion in losses, the bank sold about $5
billion in shares from Archegos' holdings in media and Chinese tech names to a small group of hedge funds late Thursday, March
25, roughly around the time a last ditch negotiation between prime brokers including Credit Suisse failed to reach a
compromise to avoid a firesale.
Morgan Stanley's scramble to "be first" is a previously unreported detail that shows the extraordinary steps some banks took
to protect themselves from incurring losses from a client's meltdown. The moves, Son reports, benefited Morgan Stanley, while
banks that were slow to react such as Credit Suisse and Nomura have seen billions in losses and widespread C-Suite layoffs.
Credit Suisse said Tuesday that it took a $4.7 billion hit after unwinding losing Archegos positions; the firm also cut its
dividend and halted share buybacks.
It was also not previously known that
Morgan Stanley had the blessing of Archegos
itself to shop around its stock late Thursday.
The bank offered the shares at a discount, telling the hedge funds
that they were part of a margin call that could prevent the collapse of an unnamed client.
Alas, all those hedge funds that bought Archegos holdings late on Thursday are now deep underwater on their positions. That's
because Morgan Stanley had information it didn't share with the stock buyers: as CNBC details, the basket of shares it was
selling, comprised of eight or so names including Baidu and Tencent Music,
was merely
the opening salvo of an unprecedented wave of tens of billions of dollars in sales by Morgan Stanley and other investment
banks starting the very next day.
And now, it is Morgan Stanley's other clients - those who bought the Archegos positions when approched by the mega broker -
that are furious at the bank for having been betrayed and not receiving that crucial context, according to one of the people
familiar with the trades. The hedge funds learned later in press reports that Hwang and his prime brokers convened Thursday
night to attempt an orderly unwind of his positions, a task which we reported last week proved to be impossible especially
once word of the conclave got out.
That means that at least some bankers at Morgan Stanley knew the extent of the selling that was likely and that Hwang's firm
was unlikely to be saved, CNBC's sources claim. And, as we explained one week ago in "
Goldman
And Morgan Stanley Broke Ranks
", it was that knowledge that helped Morgan Stanley and rival Goldman Sachs avoid losses
because the firms quickly disposed of shares tied to Archegos.
Morgan Stanley had another reason why it had to be
first,
smartest or cheat:
it was the biggest holder of the top ten stocks traded by Archegos at the end of 2020 with
about $18 billion in positions overall, its prime broker going crazy in how much leverage it allowed Hwang to put on via Total
Return Swaps. Credit Suisse was the second most exposed with about $10 billion, these sources noted. According to CNBC,
that
means that Morgan Stanley could've faced roughly $10 billion in losses had it not acted quickly.
"I think it was an '
oh shit
' moment where
Morgan was looking at potentially $10 billion in losses on their book alone, and they had to move risk fast,"
the
person with knowledge said. Meanwhile, for those who missed it, this is
how
Credit Suisse lost $4.7 billion
.
And while Goldman's sale of $10.5 billion in Archegos-related stock on Friday, March 26 was widely reported after the bank
blasted emails to a broad list of clients, Morgan Stanley's move the night before went unreported until now because the bank
dealt with fewer than a half-dozen hedge funds, allowing the transactions to remain hidden.
Needless to say, all those hegde funds would like nothing more than inflicting major pain on James Godman's bank, although in
retrospect, their losses are their own fault: the clients which comprise a subgenre of hedge funds dubbed "equity capital
markets strategies," don't have views on the merits of individual stocks.
Instead,
they'll purchase blocks of stock from big prime brokers like Morgan Stanley and others when the discount is deep enough,
usually to unwind the trades over time.
Alas, that deep discount would prove to get much more deep in coming days.
After Morgan Stanley and Goldman sold the first blocks of shares with the consent of Archegos, the floodgates opened. Prime
brokers including Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse then exercised their rights under default, seizing the firm's collateral
and launching a full blown firesale on Friday as CNBC details:
In a wild session for stocks on that Friday in late March came another twist: Some of the hedge fund investors who had
participated in the Thursday sales also bought more stock from Goldman, which came later to market at prices that were 5%
to 20% below the Morgan Stanley sales.
While these positions were deeply underwater
that day, several names including Baidu and Tencent rebounded, allowing hedge funds to unload positions for a profit.
"It was a gigantic clusterf--- of five different banks trying to unwind billions of
dollars at risk at the same time, not talking to each other, trading at wherever prices were advantageous to themselves,"
one
industry source said.
While Morgan Stanley exited most Archegos positions by Friday, March 26 it had one last holding: 45 million shares of
ViacomCBS, which it shopped to clients on Sunday. The bank's delayed disposal of Viacom shares has sparked questions and
speculation that it held onto the stock because it wanted a secondary offering run by Morgan Stanley the week before to close.
A clusterfuck indeed.
Yet in a repeat Wall Street irony, while many funds are furious at Morgan Stanley they will get over it quick: as CNBC
concludes, despite leaving some of its hedge fund clients feeling less-than-thrilled, Morgan Stanley isn't likely to lose them
over the Archegos episode because the funds want access to shares of hot IPOs that Morgan Stanley, as the top banker to the
U.S. tech industry, can dole out.
In other words, half Boiler Room, half Margin Call.... which is a good excuse as any for us to end with one of the best Wall
Street movie clips in the past decade, one which in 2011 predicted with uncanny accuracy everything that would happen to
Archegos and its prime brokers...
delta0ne
16 hours ago
(Edited)
if
this isn't the most obvious case for Insider Trading to avoid big losses than I don't know what Insider
trading is.
The
difference is some boys are allowed to do it, while the rest aren't.
sabaj49
15 hours ago
all those hedge funds that bought Archegos
holdings late on Thursday are now deep underwater on their positions.
isn't that called insider trading and ripe for lawsuits against the MORGAN STANLEY
should be as they WITHHELD VITAL INFORMATION
hey it's not that big risk - we just need to raise more CASH FOR COLLATERAL
of course we didn't mention other 10 banksters needing to unload same
Paul Bunyan
10 hours ago
Sold
$10B of bad investments hours before the margin call. If that's not an inside track I don't know what is.
Not sure what you do for a living yuri, but it ain't trading.
overbet
13 hours ago
Inside
information has nothing to do with order flow knowledge.
Paul Bunyan
10 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
Bro
you think MS figured out what hours before a margin call? Order flow knowledge? Do you think the
traders are rain man? They aren't. They are coked out frat boys trying to get any advantage they can,
and Wall Street leaks like a sieve.
Simple1
13 hours ago
The
bankers are the law, they run the government, the markets and print your money.
2+2 ≠ 5
10 hours ago
Morgan
Stanley did a classic pump n' dump with the hedge fund monies!
JR Wirth
14 hours ago
Morgan
Stanley was smart. The fine will be about 500m, the settlements will be about $ 2 Billion. They saved 7.5
billion that night.
BorisTheBlade
7 hours ago
remove
link
I
wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a similar back-of-the-envelope guesstimate hours prior at the
board meeting.
The Ordinal Numbers
PREMIUM
15 hours ago
And
people wonder why we clap when we hear of bankers jumping from buildings.....
Chipper609
15 hours ago
Much
like a bank run....if there is a line....you're too late.
Stackers
16 hours ago
remove
link
"
They
dont lose money. They dont care if everyone else does, but they dont lose money
"
~Will
Emmerson
jamesblazen62
15 hours ago
A
gigantic cluster**** that sent the market to all-time highs.
Overpowered By Funk
15 hours ago
Serious Alice in Wonderland **** going on these days.
pashley1411
14 hours ago
(Edited)
When
facing 11 digit losses; lawyers are cheap, politicians cheaper.
gunner1867
15 hours ago
(Edited)
Why
would those clients continue to do business with Morgan Stanley. MS had to know it was the beginning of the
selling and not a "clean up" situation. They decided that reputation was less important than money.
beaker
15 hours ago
Hence
the truth in the term, "No honor amongst thieves."
GRDguy
9 hours ago
Sociopathic financiers will gang up when it benefits them, but rip each others' face off when need be. Easy
to do when there's no empath nor conscience. Just be first. The movie Margin Call is classic.
mjl975
12 hours ago
Dear
lord..how can you risk $10 billion on any one customer..let alone one with the history of Hwang/Archegos
spanish inquisition
15 hours ago
remove
link
This was a controlled demolition
.
I am guessing they figured out the scam and that it was going to collapse. All that is left is to create an
official narrative.
It
was also not previously known that
Morgan
Stanley had the blessing of Archegos itself to shop around its stock late Thursday.
anti-bolshevik
15 hours ago
It
was also not previously known that
Morgan
Stanley had the blessing of Archegos itself to shop around its stock late Thursday.
Wait a
minute, and this is the salient point here:
Was
Archegos the Stock Owner or were these Security-based Swaps (SBS) / Total Return Swaps (TRS) with Morgan
Stanley as the Counterparty? Morgan also granted leverage to Archegos??
x_Maurizio
15 hours ago
And
therefore the SP500 soared 130 pts...
tobagocat
4 hours ago
Cracks
are beginning to appear in this fraud we call a financial system. Counterfeiting and rigging are losing
their effect. Illusion soon to turn into reality...look out below
Long
story short, Banks and risk managers learned nothing from the financial crisis ....
Meanwhile the SEC is monitoring reddit and Congress was calling diamond hands to testify cuz wrong folks
made money. House of cards.
Just_Sayin_To_Save_Ya
13 hours ago
(Edited)
SEC is
happily and conviniently turning blind eyes to whole Archegos saga. Archegos was actually created and
sponsored by MS & other criminal banks, is quite obvious. The Archegos entiry is to trade off books and off
market in a black box. Now if you think, FED is doing the same thro these banks and playing in this
markets.
The
problem is, no body can invoke margin call on FED. Not main street, not wall street not precious metals or
commodities or bonds or $. They all are in together to squeeze out little guys and make them work for that
retirement dream :) LOL.
Sound of the Suburbs
5 hours ago
Why is it so easy for bankers to
make lots of money?
Henry
Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice
of two types of holdings: long-term bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up
to 100%. Simons saw this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of secondary forms of
money."
Existing financial assets, e.g.
real estate, stocks and other financial assets, are traded and bank credit is used to fund the transfers.
This inflates the price.
You
end up with a ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices that will collapse and feed back into the financial
system.
At the end of the 1920s, the US
was a ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices.
The
use of neoclassical economics and the belief in free markets, made them think that inflated asset prices
represented real wealth accumulation.
1929 –
Wakey, wakey time
Why did it cause the US
financial system to collapse in 1929?
Bankers get to create money out of nothing, through bank loans, and get to charge interest on it.
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is where they get into
serious trouble.
Banking requires prudent lending.
If
someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use
bank loans to inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
As the
real estate and stock market collapsed the banks became insolvent as their assets didn't cover their
liabilities.
They
could no longer repossess and sell those assets to cover the outstanding loans and they do need to get most
of the money they lend out back again to balance their books.
The
banks become insolvent and collapsed, along with the US economy.
When banks have been lending to
inflate asset prices the financial system is in a precarious state and can easily collapse.
What was the ponzi scheme of
inflated asset prices that collapsed in Japan in 1991?
Japanese real estate.
They
avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They
killed growth for the next 30 years by leaving the debt in place.
What was the ponzi scheme of
inflated asset prices that collapsed in 2008?
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super
leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed
throughout the world"
All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
They
avoided a Great Depression by saving the banks.
They
left Western economies struggling by leaving the debt in place, just like Japan.
It's
not as bad as Japan as we didn't let asset prices crash in the West, but it is this problem has made our
economies so sluggish since 2008.
The last lamb to the slaughter,
India
They
had created a ponzi scheme of inflated asset prices in real estate, but it collapsed.
The
movie Margin Call is first and foremost the story of what happened in 2008 when investment banks unloaded on
their unsuspecting clients Mortgage Backed Securities they knew had become worthless.
ToSoft4Truth
13 hours ago
The
Big Short (2015) - Brownfield Fund and Scion Capital unload short positions [HD 1080p]
And the CEO who once called for the US to raise taxes on the rich and adopt more explicitly socialist policies to expand access to
higher education, housing and child care, praised the federal government's response to the economic crisis caused by the COVID
pandemic. Consumers who are now flush with savings will help drive an economic boom,
Dimon
wrote in his 34K-word missive.
"I have little doubt that with excess savings, new stimulus savings, huge deficit spending, more QE, a new potential
infrastructure bill, a successful vaccine and euphoria around the end of the pandemic, the US economy will likely boom," Dimon
said.
"This boom could easily run into 2023 because all the spending could extend well into
2023."
"Ascertaining the quality of the government's spending will take years, Dimon said, but he has little doubt that "spent wisely,
it will create more economic opportunity for everyone," he said.
Although equity valuations are already "quite high", Dimon aid a multi-year boom may help to
justify current levels, because markets are pricing in economic growth and excess savings that may soon be poured into the market.
Dimon, who built the biggest and most profitable bank in the US, warned shareholders in his industry that disruption by big tech had
finally arrived, as shadow lenders have gained ground, having the benefit of being unconstrained by strict capital requirements that
have forced big banks to hold more capital in reserve.
"Banks have enormous competitive threats - from virtually every angle,"
Dimon
said.
"Fintech and Big Tech are here big time!"
Echoing Jerome Powell and other senior Fed officials, Dimon offered an oblique reference to "froth and speculation" in the market,
but didn't point to any specific areas he saw as threats. He also offered some thoughts on yields and the inflation outlook that,
unlike comments from Jerome Powell, raised the possibility that the rise in inflation might be more than "transitory."
"Conversely, in this boom scenario it's hard to justify the price of US debt (most people
consider the 10-year bond as the key reference point for US debt),"
Dimon said.
"This is because of two factors: first, the huge supply of debt that needs to be absorbed, and second, the not-unreasonable
possibility that an increase in inflation will not be just temporary."
"We need to properly invest, on an ongoing basis, in modernizing infrastructure,"
Dimon
wrote.
"Virtually everyone agrees that we have done a woefully inadequate job investing in our infrastructure – from highways, ports and
water systems to airport modernization and other projects. One study examined the effect of poor infrastructure on efficiency
(for example, poorly constructed highways, congested airports with antiquated air traffic control systems, aging electrical grids
and old water pipes) and concluded this could all be costing us hundreds of billions of dollars per year."
However, while Dimon said he's bullish about the future of the US, some challenges remain, including our increasingly polarized
society. In closing, he wrote: "While I have a deep and abiding faith in the United States of America and its extraordinary
resiliency and capabilities, we do not have a divine right to success. Our challenges are significant, and we should not assume they
will take care of themselves. Let us all do what we can to strengthen our exceptional union."
jamesblazen62
10 hours ago
remove
link
Dimon knows
massive deficit spending can't and won't continue forever. The short-term earnings benefit is more than offset by
the long-term damage to the nation's balance sheet.
He doesn't
care. Cheerlead the cocaine high and leave the consequences to somebody else.
same2u
10 hours ago
Stock market is the food stamps program and UBI for the rich....
And they had it better than ever before over the past 40 years...
Working is for fools...
Brazillionaire
28 minutes ago
Our leaders should be selected from an acceptable pool of globalist elite, that's all. Hard to understand
why the proles would see the need to question that. Seems easy enough to understand. <s>
GreatUncle
32 minutes ago
He does say it eloquently ...
Although
equity valuations are already "quite high"
Just means more 0's added to the number keep 'em coming now where is my stimmy check because I want to see
the more 0's added to that too.
Then he says populism on the left or right should not be allowed to drive policy ... in other words left and
right ...
"you ain't getting what you want so screw you."
Lordflin
10 hours ago
How
these demonic creatures can talk about an economic boom on one hand, and continuing lock downs of the
economy with the other is a marvel...
They
really believe they control the narrative with their media and their celebrity...
Sadly,
in some parts of the country they still do...
In
others the anger is building to an explosive level...
gatorengineer
10 hours ago
I
don't see any anger just sorrow and misery here in pa
Rise Of The Machines
9 hours ago
Take
the FED away and show me the boom!
yogibear
9 hours ago
Dimon
is a bankster/crook, why believe anything he says?
artless
1 hour ago
Well as much as I despise Dimon as a criminal he is the smartest bankster out there and he does tend to
get some things correct like the idea that there will be a boom and it will last until 2023 or so. That
is very likely. Of course the comedown from that high will probably be extraordinarily horrible but...as
the say hedge accordingly.
No
way they will let the thing crash just too soon. Gotta cement the new regime and make the sheeple think
all is going well and that THIS time the folks in charge REALLY care about them and are working in there
interests. There is still a ton of wealth to be extracted from the country-trillions of dollars yet and
these parasites are not going to end their program just yet and miss out on that. I mean, what's M1 these
days again? We are in full fledged LaLa land.
You
have to read all of it and parse out the stuff that indicates his and the rest of the bankster crowd's
intentions then work off that.
But
otherwise, yes, Jamie Dimon should be strung up from the street posts.
FiscalBatman
1 hour ago
Of course the economy will "expand" through 2023. They did everlasting damage with the lockdowns. It
has nowhere to go but up, for now. Until it implodes.
Peak Finance
2 hours ago
remove
link
Didn't
even read his non-sense
remember this guy would literally be a dour-faced walmart greeter if not for the bailouts
this
"master of the universe" has no clothes and clay feet
OldNewB
1 hour ago
Give a
man a gun and he can rob a bank.
Give a
man a bank and he can rob the world.
MommickedDingbatter
1 hour ago
Fed
member bank( JPM for one) gets money for next to nil at a key stroke, loans out said money to XYZ small
bank. As an asset, now loans out said money to hedge fund FUD. As another asset, lends again to 3rd world
country in a derivative contract. Meanwhile, flipping it over in an overnight swap. How this hasn't exploded
is beyond comprehension.
LJC
9 hours ago
"And
then finally, when there's nothing left, when you
can't
borrow
another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You
light
a
match"
Goodfellas
Bdubs
9 hours ago
I'm
with you... at least in feudal societies, the landed aristocracy has skin in the game, will saddle up and
lead their regiment into the fray.
Dimon
and ilk have an air of vulture.
efrustrated
2 hours ago
Dear
Mr. Dimon,
You
are the living embodiment of everything that has gone wrong with the American economy.
Yours,
The
rest of the world.
Drink Feck Arse Girls @ edifice
1 hour ago
"
China's
leaders believe America is in decline..."
China's leaders might be correct.
2banana
10 hours ago
remove
link
So the
$1 Trillion in obama "shovel ready jobs" was a sham? Who knew?
"We
need to properly invest, on an ongoing basis, in modernizing infrastructure," Dimon wrote. "Virtually
everyone agrees that we have done a woefully inadequate job investing in our infrastructure – from
highways, ports and water systems to airport modernization and other projects.
Be of Good Cheer
10 hours ago
Who is
the "everyone"? Who decided that our infrastructure needed more money? This sounds like COVID rationalizing
all over again. I think our roads and bridges are fine enough, at least the ones I travel. Stop spending.
Buzz-Kill
9 hours ago
Infrastructure Con Job: Only 10% of Bidens stimulus will go into this category.
The
other 90% goes into Green New Deal & Reparations Projects.
But, don't tell anyone the truth about the new scam.
Globalistsaretrash
53 minutes ago
remove
link
America is in decline due to people like Dimon
.
PGR88
1 hour ago
Dimon
says that America's oligarchs and politicians are to blame for intense polarization - with no sense of irony
whatsoever.
MontCar
PREMIUM
1 hour ago
While
the music's playing ya gotta get up n dance. When it stops, turn out the lights.
yerfej
2 hours ago
A
society cannot succeed when it doesn't enforce the rules on half the people because of some level of wealth
or cult affiliation. People who visit the US are astonished at the number of brain dead idioyts wandering
around, they should be in zoo's. Although its as bad in France. When society hands out unlimited free
shyyyit with nothing asked in return it gets the quality of fhreaks the US now produces.
Zeus123
9 hours ago
Is
this Jamie Dude HIGH?
ChromeRobot
9 hours ago
High on himself. He'll do whatever is necessary to make money for his sleazeball bank.
toady
1 hour ago
"We need to properly invest, on
an ongoing basis, in modernizing infrastructure,"
Dimon wrote.
The
first thing that needs to happen is the definition of "infrastructure"... Dimon goes on and on about planes,
trains, and automobiles, while Bribe'm's "infrastructure" bill plows trillions into his cronies pockets,
then throws 10 or 20 billion at "racist highways".
se48s2t8sn
1 hour ago
Jamie
Dimon doesn't understand how hated he is.
t0mmyBerg
1 hour ago
Dimon
supports the same policies that have killed America. Trading with China ==> the hollowing out of the
economy, massive financialization of the economy ==> unproductive debt, skewing of law favoring big
business over small
ThomasJefferson69
2 hours ago
States
"excess savings" and then "
30%
of Americans don't have enough savings
to deal with unexpected expenses that total as little as $400"
This dumbass can't remember the lies he starts with.
onemorething
2 hours ago
(Edited)
JPMorgan's Dimon Admits "
Something
Has Gone Terribly Wrong
" In America...
some people stole something
John
Pierpont Morgan has been dead for 108 years but he still keeps ******* us over.
Jamie
Dimon saying
Something Has Gone Terribly Wrong,
is
like Captain Renault decrying gambling in Casablanca.
(((here are your winnings, sir)))
Francis Uwood
2 hours ago
How
about a wealth tax on people like Dimon and Bezos. They are all for increasing taxes but their wealth is
not based on their salaries. How about a wealth tax on their assets.
JoePesci
2 hours ago
(Edited)
****
yeah, I'm thinking 95% on everything above $1Billion dollars. Nobody is worth more than that. You get a
billion dollars you can use your time to do things other than accumulate wealth, which at that point you
will only continue to do so at the destruction of everyone else.
ChromeRobot
9 hours ago
remove
link
Jamie
D comes on tv and smiles I reach back to make sure I still have my wallet. It's a reflex.
Machido
32 minutes ago
(Edited)
35 K
words. Another 'Das Kapital'
These
guys manipulated markets to get where they are, Now they are all invoking socialism/communism so they can
take charge of looting whats left.
shepnkc
PREMIUM
1 hour ago
remove
link
Always trying to pump the markets....probably hasn't gotten all his shorts in place yet....
Evil-Edward-Hyde
2 hours ago
Dimon
says somethings wrong in the USA
I
don't think the Mega Banks like Chase Bank had anything to do with that 😂
Look
in the Mirror Mr Dimon .
radical-extremist
2 hours ago
Jamie
Dimon has as much authority to weigh in on the Socio-political issues of our time as does the CEO of Coke or
Delta Airlines or MLB. Stay in your lane banker boy.
Verrick
2 hours ago
Although equity valuations
are already "quite high", Dimon aid a multi-year boom may help to justify current levels, because markets
are pricing in economic growth and excess savings that may soon be poured into the market.
"Quite
high" phhh. You sir, are quite high
mickeydouglas
2 hours ago
Jamie
Dimon was the butt boy of Sandy Weill, the man who destroyed the US economy so he could acquire Citigroup.
Herdee
5 hours ago
(Edited)
remove
link
This
guy is nothing but a f * c king crook and a gangster. They just paid a fine of a BILLION dollars for
manipulating the Gold Market. And they even give time for this shyster to even speak?
jamesblazen62
10 hours ago
remove
link
Dimon
is in greed's grasp and he can't escape. He's had 2 brushes with death (cancer and emergency heart
surgery). You'd think a billionaire with more money than he can ever need or want has something better to
do in his life than conniving for more money and playing big corporate games of manipulation and deceit.
Evil-Edward-Hyde
50 minutes ago
J P
Morgan is a crime Syndicate.
They
constantly Break the Laws.
No
Problem for Them,
They
Just Pay The Fines.
Their
secret is they make much much more money on the scam did they have to pay in fines.
FiscalBatman
1 hour ago
remove
link
It's
amazing how out of touch these guys are. They just don't get it. Dimon will be swaying back and forth with
the rest of them at this rate
newworldorder
1 hour ago
(Edited)
The US
Political class is not investing Govt funds, to bolster America and Americans, - the are however investing
in WOKEISM, EQUITY AND DIVERSITY, based on skill color, gender and sexual orientation.
Truce
1 hour ago
remove
link
Rich
man tells nation: if you all work together really well you can make me richer.
Tomdelay
1 hour ago
'And, I've been a big supporter of all the radical Lefties in the Dem party. My tribe contributes 50% of
the annual budget of the DNC & me & my banking Zionists at the Fed have been steadily undermining the USA
for over 100 years. So if you believe a word of the BS I just laid on you, then you haven't been paying
attention and deserve the servitude or death that awaits you.'
Rubicon727
2 hours ago
The
monster problem in the US is: people like Dimon, and all the other ultra-rich-multi-billionaires who have
absolute power. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM and have been since the early 1990s.
Leroy Whitby
2 hours ago
(Edited)
Biden's infrastructure plan is a tax hike plus
USD
180bln for research and development (ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY BILLION fluffy accounting Bull$#!+)
USD
85bln for public transit (probably Bull$#!+)
USD
80bln for Amtrak and freight rail (Bull$#!+ and Berkshire Hathaway)
USD
174bln to encourage EVs via tax credits and other incentives to companies that make EV batteries in the
US instead of China (ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR BILLION pretend to compete with China while taking their
bribes Bull$#!+)
USD
100bln for broadband (tech sector Bull$#!+)
USD
300bln to promote advanced manufacturing (THREE HUNDRED BILLION Elon Musk type with a dash of hypocrisy
Bull$#!+)
USD
400bln spending on in-home care (FOUR HUNDRED BILLION socialist wet fantasy level Bull$#!+)
USD
46bln in fed procurement programs for government agencies to buy fleets of EVs (environmental crazy type
Bull$#!+)
USD
35bln in R&D programs for cutting-edge, new technologies (Elon Musk squared level Bull$#!+)
USD
50bln in dedicated investments to improve infrastructure resilience (probably Bull$#!+)
USD
16bln program intended to help fossil fuel workers transition to new work (Bull$#!+ from the government
teat)
USD
10bln for a new "Civilian Climate Corps." (stinking piles of utter Bull$#!+)
Anything left for roads and bridges and airports after the ONE TRILLION spent on home care, EV's, and
research?
Bay of Pigs
9 hours ago
Legs
Dimon has always been a serial liar.
He's
incapable of being honest.
One Moment Please
9 hours ago
My
neighbors and I are not experiencing any of this 'economic boom' he speaks of.
Maybe
we abide in some mysterious economic dead zone?
Mr..Lucky
10 hours ago
"Stock
prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau," Yale economist Irving Fisher.
"... Lasser said that equates to approximately 59 square feet of shopping center space per U.S. household, less than 62 square feet in 2010. That number is expected to plunge by 2026 as online shopping dominates. ..."
"... UBS estimates 9% of all retail stores will shutter operations by 2026, or about 80,000 retail stores. ..."
"... The bankster crash took tons of auto dealerships with it too. Very little is rising to replace any of it, unless it can be tied to an overpriced underdelivering data-mined subscription. ..."
The retail apocalypse has been well documented for readers (see:
here &
here &
here ) over the years as tens of thousands of brick and mortar stores nationwide have shuttered their doors. The problem today
- is that millions of jobs lost during the pandemic are never coming back - in a consumer-based economy - this sets up for even more
store closures.
UBS analyst Michael Lasser told clients this week that a whopping 80,000 retail stores are estimated to close in the next five
years as the virus pandemic has deeply scarred the economy and resulted in a permanent shift in how consumers shop, that is, online
.
"An enduring legacy of the pandemic is that online penetration rose sharply ," wrote Lasser.
"We expect that it will continue to increase, which will drive further rationalization of retail stores , especially as some
of the unique support measures from the government subside," he said.
UBS found at the end of 2020, there were 115,000 shopping malls, compared with 112,000 in 2010 and 90,000 in 2000.
Lasser said that equates to approximately 59 square feet of shopping center space per U.S. household, less than 62 square feet
in 2010. That number is expected to plunge by 2026 as online shopping dominates.
UBS estimates 9% of all retail stores will shutter operations by 2026, or about 80,000 retail stores.
Lasser assumes during this period that e-commerce sales will jump to 27% of total retail sales by then, up from 18% today.
UBS said many retail stores have been on life support following cheap government loans and a supercharged consumer via
stimulus checks . The short-term artificial boost will be short-lived, which will lead to even more store closures.
Many of the closures will be retailers who sell clothing and accessories. UBS believes 21,000 closures from this industry will
be by 2026. Office supplies and sporting goods businesses are other retailers that will be hit hard.
The good news is that auto parts, home improvement, and grocery retailing will be less susceptible to the retail apocalypse.
However, there is more bad news. The labor market recovery is not robust. The economy is still short 8 million jobs and 19 million
people are collecting some form of unemployment insurance . This is a large swath of the population who have fallen into financial
hardships and are increasingly unlikely to return to their jobs (and thus, absent UBI, in a vicious cycle can no longer spend like
pre-COVID times). play_arrow
RKDS 38 minutes ago (Edited)
Not surprising. The feeling I've been getting more and more is that civilization is receding. My town had a KMart for most,
if not all, of my life. After the Jamesway next town over closed, decades ago, it was the only general merchandise store for 20
miles in either direction. Now it's gone. Schools, grocery stores, power plants, gas stations, you name it, it's closing.
So many stores I used to shop in are gone, general and specialty. The toy stores are all gone. Best Buy is the last (lousy)
electronics retailer standing.
Books, forget about it, may as well go to the library. Art/craft stores are mostly gone except
I guess Michaels which was always the weakest selection.
Want to rent a movie? Too bad. Almost as hard to go watch a movie with
so many theatres having gone under even before the plandemic. Put together a computer or buy software? You're joking, right?
When
that WSB bubble bursts, GameStop will be a dead man walking.
Sears and JCP locations sit idle everywhere. Not even sure where
I'd buy shoes/sneakers if I had to go to a store. The bankster crash took tons of auto dealerships with it too. Very little is
rising to replace any of it, unless it can be tied to an overpriced underdelivering data-mined subscription.
I used to have to order specialty items online. Now it's like everything is online or bust. Even Target and Walmart don't bother
to stock their shelves most of the time. Then we've got that clown of a postmaster general going "herp derp I's gon' raise da'
prices cuz I's don't gots no udder ideas!1" Everything in this country is engineered to maximize problems for working people.
Nothing has been able to shake the new bull market in recent weeks -- not a still elevated 10-year Treasury yield or
threats of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations by the Biden administration.
But the one thing that has powered the S&P 500 beyond a record 4,000 -- data that indicates a strong post COVID-19
economic
recovery is rapidly building -- may turn out to ruin the rally. And it could play out within three months, warns widely followed
Deutsche Bank Chief Strategist Binky Chadha.
"Very near term, we expect equities to continue to be well supported by the acceleration in macro growth, and see buying
by systematic strategies and buybacks driving a grind higher. But we expect a significant consolidation (-6% to -10%) as growth
peaks over the next three months," Chadha wrote in a new research note on Tuesday.
Chadha calls out peaking ISM data -- which has been coming in hot of late -- as the potential trigger point for a steep market
pullback.
"Our house economics forecast implies a flattening out of the ISMs at elevated levels beginning in Q2 (64) and continuing into
Q3 (63). There are a number of considerations though that suggest the monthly ISMs peak more sharply over the next three months and
slow in keeping with the historical inverted-V shaped pattern. We look for discretionary investor equity positioning to be pared
with a peak in the ISMs and do not expect retail to buy the dip. We then see equities rallying back as our baseline remains for strong
growth but only a gradual and modest rise in inflation," explains Chadha.
Thus far, investors are hardly positioned for any sizable spring/early summer swoon in stocks -- with good reason as the economic
data has been impressive.
The
U.S. economy created 916,000 jobs in March , the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. That crushed Wall Street estimates
for a 660,000 increase. The gain has some economic forecasters telling
Yahoo Finance Live the economy could be on the verge of creating a million jobs a month very soon.
Nothing has been able to shake the new bull market in recent weeks -- not a still elevated 10-year Treasury yield or
threats of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations by the Biden administration.
But the one thing that has powered the S&P 500 beyond a record 4,000 -- data that indicates a strong post COVID-19
economic
recovery is rapidly building -- may turn out to ruin the rally. And it could play out within three months, warns widely followed
Deutsche Bank Chief Strategist Binky Chadha.
"Very near term, we expect equities to continue to be well supported by the acceleration in macro growth, and see buying by systematic
strategies and buybacks driving a grind higher. But we expect a significant consolidation (-6% to -10%) as growth peaks over the
next three months," Chadha wrote in a new research note on Tuesday.
Chadha calls out peaking ISM data -- which has been coming in hot of late -- as the potential trigger point for a steep market
pullback.
"Our house economics forecast implies a flattening out of the ISMs at elevated levels beginning in Q2 (64) and continuing into
Q3 (63). There are a number of considerations though that suggest the monthly ISMs peak more sharply over the next three months and
slow in keeping with the historical inverted-V shaped pattern. We look for discretionary investor equity positioning to be pared
with a peak in the ISMs and do not expect retail to buy the dip. We then see equities rallying back as our baseline remains for strong
growth but only a gradual and modest rise in inflation," explains Chadha.
Thus far, investors are hardly positioned for any sizable spring/early summer swoon in stocks -- with good reason as the economic
data has been impressive.
The
U.S. economy created 916,000 jobs in March , the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. That crushed Wall Street estimates
for a 660,000 increase. The gain has some economic forecasters telling
Yahoo Finance Live the economy could be on the verge of creating a million jobs a month very soon.
Meanwhile, data from
IHS Markit
and the
Institute for Supply Management on activity in the services sector on Monday blew the doors off analyst estimates as the ISM's
activity index surged to a record high, as Yahoo Finance's Myles Udland wrote in the
Morning Brief
newsletter. IHS Markit's reading was the best in seven years, noted Udland.
And last but not least,
corporate profit estimates for the first quarter have continued to trend noticeably higher amid the acceleration in economic
data.
But if economic data moderates as Chadha expects, the stock market could lose a key catalyst. That's not lost by Chadha's peers
on Wall Street.
"Our view coming into 2021 was that earnings will drive markets higher and valuations will take a backseat, and actually be flat
to down for the year. But the good news is actually starting to get priced in here, and we think it's going to become more challenging
for investors and trickier," said Saira Malik, global equities chief investment officer and global portfolio manager at Nuveen...
That makes Jamie brilliant. play_arrow 5 play_arrow 1
zorrosgato 10 hours ago
"flush with savings"
HA!
Yen Cross 10 hours ago
Jack, ****, Dimon? Which one was it Z/H Google moderator?
I donate at Christmas.
Basil 20 minutes ago
whats gone wrong is the cancer of progressiveism. wokeism, social justice nonsense.
Gadbous 29 minutes ago
Don't you want to just slap these people?
MuleRider 18 minutes ago
You misspelled decapitate.
GrandTheftOtto 2 hours ago
"It was a year in which each of usfaced difficult personal challenges"
boundless hypocrisy...
Mr. Rude Dog 2 hours ago remove link
" Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong, and they blame this country's
leadership: the elite, the powerful, the decision makers - in government, in business and in
civic society," he wrote.
"This is completely appropriate, for who else should take the blame?"
Lets see if he projects the problem back on the citizens...Let's see what happens.
"But populism is not policy, and we cannot let it drive another round of poor planning
and bad leadership that will simply make our country's situation worse."
I knew the so called elites could not take the blame... You know populism always makes bad
decisions with the economy, our monetary system, our infrastructure and just managing our tax
money in general...Yes I knew Jamie could not take the blame..LOL.!!!!
QE4MeASAP 2 hours ago
So Dimon is giving the state of the union instead of Biden?
Budnacho 2 hours ago
Jamie Dimon....Friend of the Little Guy....
Tomsawyer2112 PREMIUM 11 hours ago
He doesn't believe a word of what he just said. But he knows that if he wants his bank to
continue to be an extension of the government and curry favor then he needs to tow the line.
I am sure he also has his eye on a future role as Fed Lead or US Treasurer but might be tough
since he's not a diversity candidate.
oknow 2 hours ago
Someone turn off his mike, dont need your sorry *** confession
Just confiscate his wealth and make him do 9 to 5 jobs for the rest of his life.
ChromeRobot 9 hours ago remove link
This guy is a rarity in the banking industry. He's a billionaire. Running a bank I was
often told in my early years in finance was foolproof. Everybody needs money and they have
it. Hard to fk up. Somehow this "titan" has gamed it to do really well doing something
incredibly easy. Positioning yourself to be a SIFI helps too! Too big to fail has it's
perks.
a drink before the war 10 hours ago
What Jamie is really saying without saying it is " I get paid in stock options however
since the pandemic JPM and other banks haven't been allowed to do stock buy back but come
June we get back to the NORMAL and with the FED printing money and giving it to us we going
to talk this stock WAY up no matter what because I got almost two years of stock options I
gotta get paid for!"
lay_arrow 2
archipusz 10 hours ago
If you want to get to the top, you must speak the party line narrative.
The truth is something different altogether.
Eddie Haskell 10 hours ago
If you want to be a state-approved oligarch you've gotta suck the right dickie. Good
job.
Detective Miller 38 minutes ago
"Jaimie Tells Bagholders To 'Buy Buy Buy!!!'"
Onthebeach6 38 minutes ago
The US is addicted to helicoptor money.
The world looks fine to an addict until the supply is cut off.
sbin 41 minutes ago
Off shore industry
Steal pension funds
Laundering drug money
Regulatory capture.
Jimmy going to lock himself in jail and forfeit his assets?
34k of jerkoff.
Nuk Soo Kow 2 hours ago
How magnanimous of Jamie to blame elitists and civic "leaders" for the structural problems
in America. It was the banksters that pushed NAFTA and helped China engineer it's currency
against the dollar, which led to massive outflows of productive capital. It was the banksters
via the use of financial legerdemain who engineered the collapse in 2008 (not to mention
every other banking panic and collapse prior to). It's high time to throw out this den of
vipers once and for all.
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 2 hours ago
He lost me at.....
We need more cheap immigrant labor...... housing is unaffordable for many.
No **** moron!......you suppressed our wages and increased demand for housing.
PT 10 hours ago remove link
I always consult the fox when I want to know about the state of the hen house.
QuiteShocking 10 hours ago
Economic boom?? Is really just trying to get back to where we were previously before the
pandemic hit with things opening back up etc... More people have been working from home so
different spending patterns are developing.. but could change... Supply chain chaos makes it
seem like shortages and inflation etc... It may only last through 2023?? but with Dems in
charge this is not a given with their anti business slant??
same2u 11 hours ago
UBI for the rich= stock market...
Hope Copy 3 hours ago (Edited)
Jamie knows that the core of Crypto is at the CIA and that the pseudo Republic has far to
much Fascist politics at the core .. There has been a competitive failure at most all levels
of the government in recent times with a 'winner take all' at the cost of keeping competitive
practices alive (not to mention kickbacks).. Of course China is laughing even though they
have a history of cutting corners (and outright fraud) in every economic sector.
Mario Landavoz 20 minutes ago
Banker. That's all ya need to know.
Just a Little Froth in the Market 40 minutes ago
But the CEO was very candid about China...
"China's leaders believe America is in decline... The Chinese see an America that is
losing ground in technology, infrastructure and education – a nation torn and
crippled . . . and a country unable to coordinate government policies (fiscal, monetary,
industrial, regulatory) in any coherent way to accomplish national goals
This is correct.
Joe A 55 minutes ago
He is just mocking and taking a piss at everybody. That America is such a mess is because
of people like him with his scorched earth robber baron rogue capitalism. But there is a way
to redeem yourselves. Just make all your assets available to the American people. And oh,
blow your own brain out.
Abi Normal 3 hours ago remove link
What else is he supposed to say? As long as things don't go bad for Jamie it's cool.
OrazioGentile 3 hours ago
The Banksters, after years of mismanagement, borderline fraud, and endless bailouts now
see that investments in unicorn startups, selling mindless BS to each other, and the quick
buck lead to a burned out husk called America?!? Now?!? Let all of them live in the great
paradise called the Cayman Islands that they helped build and see how far they get selling
"capital instruments" to each other. The last 20 years have taught most Americans that hard
work is meaningless to get ahead IMHO.
Nothing has been able to shake the new bull market in recent weeks -- not a still elevated 10-year Treasury yield or
threats of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations by the Biden administration.
But the one thing that has powered the S&P 500 beyond a record 4,000 -- data that indicates a strong post COVID-19
economic
recovery is rapidly building -- may turn out to ruin the rally. And it could play out within three months, warns widely followed
Deutsche Bank Chief Strategist Binky Chadha.
"Very near term, we expect equities to continue to be well supported by the acceleration in macro growth, and see buying
by systematic strategies and buybacks driving a grind higher. But we expect a significant consolidation (-6% to -10%) as growth
peaks over the next three months," Chadha wrote in a new research note on Tuesday.
Chadha calls out peaking ISM data -- which has been coming in hot of late -- as the potential trigger point for a steep market
pullback.
"Our house economics forecast implies a flattening out of the ISMs at elevated levels beginning in Q2 (64) and continuing into
Q3 (63). There are a number of considerations though that suggest the monthly ISMs peak more sharply over the next three months and
slow in keeping with the historical inverted-V shaped pattern. We look for discretionary investor equity positioning to be pared
with a peak in the ISMs and do not expect retail to buy the dip. We then see equities rallying back as our baseline remains for strong
growth but only a gradual and modest rise in inflation," explains Chadha.
Thus far, investors are hardly positioned for any sizable spring/early summer swoon in stocks -- with good reason as the economic
data has been impressive.
The
U.S. economy created 916,000 jobs in March , the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. That crushed Wall Street estimates
for a 660,000 increase. The gain has some economic forecasters telling
Yahoo Finance Live the economy could be on the verge of creating a million jobs a month very soon.
Nothing has been able to shake the new bull market in recent weeks -- not a still elevated 10-year Treasury yield or
threats of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations by the Biden administration.
But the one thing that has powered the S&P 500 beyond a record 4,000 -- data that indicates a strong post COVID-19
economic
recovery is rapidly building -- may turn out to ruin the rally. And it could play out within three months, warns widely followed
Deutsche Bank Chief Strategist Binky Chadha.
"Very near term, we expect equities to continue to be well supported by the acceleration in macro growth, and see buying by systematic
strategies and buybacks driving a grind higher. But we expect a significant consolidation (-6% to -10%) as growth peaks over the
next three months," Chadha wrote in a new research note on Tuesday.
Chadha calls out peaking ISM data -- which has been coming in hot of late -- as the potential trigger point for a steep market
pullback.
"Our house economics forecast implies a flattening out of the ISMs at elevated levels beginning in Q2 (64) and continuing into
Q3 (63). There are a number of considerations though that suggest the monthly ISMs peak more sharply over the next three months and
slow in keeping with the historical inverted-V shaped pattern. We look for discretionary investor equity positioning to be pared
with a peak in the ISMs and do not expect retail to buy the dip. We then see equities rallying back as our baseline remains for strong
growth but only a gradual and modest rise in inflation," explains Chadha.
Thus far, investors are hardly positioned for any sizable spring/early summer swoon in stocks -- with good reason as the economic
data has been impressive.
The
U.S. economy created 916,000 jobs in March , the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. That crushed Wall Street estimates
for a 660,000 increase. The gain has some economic forecasters telling
Yahoo Finance Live the economy could be on the verge of creating a million jobs a month very soon.
Meanwhile, data from
IHS Markit
and the
Institute for Supply Management on activity in the services sector on Monday blew the doors off analyst estimates as the ISM's
activity index surged to a record high, as Yahoo Finance's Myles Udland wrote in the
Morning Brief
newsletter. IHS Markit's reading was the best in seven years, noted Udland.
And last but not least,
corporate profit estimates for the first quarter have continued to trend noticeably higher amid the acceleration in economic
data.
But if economic data moderates as Chadha expects, the stock market could lose a key catalyst. That's not lost by Chadha's peers
on Wall Street.
"Our view coming into 2021 was that earnings will drive markets higher and valuations will take a backseat, and actually be flat
to down for the year. But the good news is actually starting to get priced in here, and we think it's going to become more challenging
for investors and trickier," said Saira Malik, global equities chief investment officer and global portfolio manager at Nuveen...
House prices are seriously insane. Even my kind of crappy little place went up $85k on
zillow in the last two months!
The only people I see buying are people from out of state (mostly Calif, NY and
Oregon---unfortunately) and local government employees who never missed a paycheck during this
entire ****show.
The people selling are private sector economic losers who are down sizing. Even the Family
Doc down the street is selling his business is so slow because people are afraid to sit in an
office+insurance reimbursements are down.
The entire USA economy is now more topsy turvey then ever in my life time.
The International Monetary Fund upgraded its global economic growth forecast for the second
time in three months, while warning about widening inequality and a divergence between advanced
and lesser-developed economies.
The global economy will expand 6% this year, up from the 5.5% pace estimated in January, the
IMF said in its World Economic Outlook published on Tuesday. That would be the most in four
decades of data, coming after a 3.3% contraction last year that was the worst peacetime decline
since the Great Depression.
Market surges on 80,000 retail outlet closings optimism.
[Apr 05, 2021] Financial crises get triggered about every 10 years -- Archegos might be right on time by 14 major U.S. financial institutions. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. Exactly a decade later, too much leverage by some of those very institutions, and the bursting of a U.S. real estate bubble, led to the near collapse of the U.S. financial system. Once again, big banks were deemed too big to fail and taxpayers came to the rescue. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. The trend? Every 10 years or so, and they all look different. Are we in the early stages of a new crisis now, with the blowup at the family office Archegos Capital Management LP? A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data. A family office, for the uninitiated, is a private wealth management vehicle for the ultra-wealthy. Here's what I mean by ultra-wealthy: Consulting firm EY estimates there are some 10,000 family offices globally, but manage, says a separate estimate by market research firm Campden Research, nearly $6 trillion. That $6 trillion is likely far higher now given that it's based on 2019 data.
Here's the potential danger. Family offices generally aren't regulated. The 1940 Investment Advisers Act says firms with 15
clients or fewer don't have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. What this means is that trillions of dollars
are in play and no one can really say who's running the money, what it's invested in, how much leverage is being used, and what
kind of counterparty risk may exist. (Counterparty risk is the probability that one party involved in a financial transaction
could default on a contractual obligation to someone else.)
The problem is that only about a third of that, or $10 billion, was its own money. We now know that Archegos worked with some
of the biggest names on Wall Street, including Credit Suisse Group AG
CS,
+1.59%
,
UBS Group AG
UBS,
+1.01%
,
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
GS,
-1.25%
,
Morgan Stanley
MS,
-0.28%
,
Deutsche Bank AG
DB,
+0.74%
and Nomura Holdings Inc.
NMR,
+1.87%
.
But since family offices are largely allowed to operate unregulated, who's to say how much money is really involved here and
what the extent of market risk is? My colleague Mark DeCambre reported last week that Archegos' true exposures to bad trades
could actually
be closer to $100 billion
.
Danger of counterparty risk
This is where counterparty risk comes in. As Archegos' bets went south, the above banks -- looking at losses of their own -- hit
the firm with margin calls. Deutsche quickly dumped about $4 billion in holdings, while Goldman and Morgan Stanley are also said
to have unwound their positions, perhaps limiting their downside.
So is this a financial crisis? It doesn't appear to be. Even so, the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened a
preliminary investigation into Archegos and its founder, Bill Hwang.
One peer, Tom Lee, the research chief of Fundstrat Global Advisors, calls Hwang one of the "top 10 of the best investment
minds" he knows.
But federal regulators may have a lesser opinion. In 2012, Hwang's former hedge fund, Tiger Asia Management, pleaded guilty
and paid more than $60 million in penalties after it was accused of trading on illegal tips about Chinese banks. The SEC banned
Hwang from managing money on behalf of clients -- essentially booting him from the hedge fund industry. So Hwang opened Archegos,
and again, family offices aren't generally aren't regulated.
Yellen on the case
This issue is on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's radar. She said last week that greater oversight of these private corners
of the financial industry is needed. The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which she oversees, has revived a task
force to help agencies better "share data, identify risks and work to strengthen our financial system."
Most financial crises end up with American taxpayers getting stuck with the tab. Gains belong to the risk-takers. But losses --
they belong to us. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, family offices -- a multi-trillion dollar industry largely allowed to operate in the
shadows in a global financial system that is more intertwined than ever -- are of the super-wealthy, by the super-wealthy and for
the super-wealthy. And no one else.
The Archegos collapse may or may not be the beginning of yet another financial crisis. But who's to say what thousands of
other family offices are doing with their trillions, and whether similar problems could blow up?
Softpanorama
REPLY JOHN S IGNORED 06/28/2021 at 1:21 pm
7:20
9:18
10:10
Dale Jackson
Patrick Armstrong says: May 27, 2021 at 5:13 pm
Steve Goldstein
3:39
8:24
Generating absolute returns
The bottom line
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/spyversusgoldfutures-5d61ceca11724db3826a4aed3b43c87c.jpg)
Ms No PREMIUM 2 hours ago
odb 2 hours ago
Generating
absolute returns
The bottom
line
