Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Mike Whitney — Jill Stein in the Cross-Hairs

The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals
Jumping the shark?
How long are American liberals going to put up with this nonsense? How long before they wash the mud from their eyes and acknowledge what should be as plain as the nose on their face; that their precious investigation of Donald Trump is nothing more than a witch hunt designed to intimidate or destroy political rivals?
The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. The New York Times even admits as much.
Why is there still no evidence of wrongdoing after more than a year of non-stop investigations? Why are there just accusations, allegations and baseless claims?
Take a hard look at the Stein case and you’ll understand why. The meat-puppet senators who are conducting these wretched show trials don’t give a damn about the truth. They know the case against Stein is completely fabricated. They also know they can carry on with complete impunity because the big money powerbrokers who pull their strings and order them about, are beyond the reach of the any legal accountability. That’s what’s really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary’s lost election. It’s payback time for the Clinton Mafia....
The Unz Review
Jill Stein in the Cross-Hairs
Mike Whitney

Nothing new, actually.

Counterpunch (August 5, 2016)
Smearing Stein: Media as Propaganda
Peter A. Lavenia

rjs — 3rd quarter GDP revision, November income and outlays, durable goods, new home construction, new and existing home sales


Modest improvements overall.

Marketwatch 666
3rd quarter GDP revision, November income and outlays, durable goods, new home construction, new and existing home sales
rjs

John Aziz — Bitcoin Is Failing As Money—But Bitcoin Cash Isn’t


There's a huge amount being written about Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and blockchain with the focus on Bitcoin volatility. so I am going to be selective in posting. John Aziz is a good analyst and MMT-friendly. He sorts through some of the complication.

azizonomics

Thomas Hon Wing Polin — “Xi the Dictator:” a Myth Born of Ignorance and Prejudice


Don't believe what you read in Western media. Polin explains how China's neo-Mandarin political system actually works.

The problem with Western analysis of non-Western peoples is two-fold. 

First, the West assumes its exceptionalism and attempts to impose in on the world in order to fulfill "the white-man's burden" as a rationale, but the real agenda is permanent Western world dominance. The end justifies the means, even it involves destroying countries to "save" them.

Secondly and related, most Westerners cannot think outside the box of their own frame of reference and so they completely misunderstand other peoples and where they are coming from. The result is caricature rather than actual analysis.

Gilbert Doctorow — Herman Gref in "The Financial Times": a grave warning that merits our full attention

For all of these reasons, 2018 will be a year for vigilance and attention to detail in a world that is very troubled and moving towards disorder.
US getting back at Russia for the defeat in Syria? The obvious outcome is that the US is on track to lose Europe.

Une parole franche
Herman Gref in "The Financial Times": a grave warning that merits our full attention
Gilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd.

Jackson Lears — What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking


Good summary of the narrative manufactured to distract from Democratic failures and to discredit the 2017 US general election. This is the sort of behavior previously seen almost exclusively in banana republics.
What are the consequences of the spectacle the media call (with characteristic originality) ‘Russiagate’?
The most immediate consequence is that, by finding foreign demons who can be blamed for Trump’s ascendancy, the Democratic leadership have shifted the blame for their defeat away from their own policies without questioning any of their core assumptions. Amid the general recoil from Trump, they can even style themselves dissenters – ‘#the resistance’ was the label Clintonites appropriated within a few days of the election. Mainstream Democrats have begun to use the word ‘progressive’ to apply to a platform that amounts to little more than preserving Obamacare, gesturing towards greater income equality and protecting minorities. This agenda is timid. It has nothing to say about challenging the influence of concentrated capital on policy, reducing the inflated defence budget or withdrawing from overextended foreign commitments; yet without those initiatives, even the mildest egalitarian policies face insuperable obstacles. More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders’s supporters.
For the DNC, the great value of the Russian hack story is that it focuses attention away from what was actually in their emails. The documents revealed a deeply corrupt organisation, whose pose of impartiality was a sham.… 
The Democratic Party is still rushing headlong over a cliff as it descends deeper into McCarthyism and attempts to isolate its progressive wing. This is a trajectory toward irrelevance.
The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies....
I would contest that this is a new outlook on the world. It began with Jimmy Carter and the policy cohort of the Democratic Party embraced Zbigniew Brzezinski as the Democratic Henry Kissinger. While both were cold warriors, Zbig was a foreign policy idealist who embraced liberal internationalism rather than being a foreign policy realist like Kissinger, whose strategy was based on national interest and balance of power. Carter was followed by Regan, under whom the neocons came to power. Since then, US foreign and military policy has been dominated by neoconservatism on the GOP side and liberal interventionism on the Democratic side. Both frames are unipolar and based on permanent US global hegemony through economic and military dominance.

Donald Trump contested that view with a resurgent realism and sought the advise of Kissinger. This was arguably a key factor it has victory over Clinton, since many progressive Democrats were tried off by the wars and war-mongering. The deep state, comprised of the foreign policy and military policy cohorts that predominantly embraced either neoconservatism or liberal internationalism, along with the politicized intelligence services, allied against Trump and has been attempting a soft coup since the election.
Having come of age during the Vietnam War, a calamitous consequence of that inflated definition of national interest, I have always been attracted to the realist critique of globalism. Realism is a label forever besmirched by association with Henry Kissinger, who used it as a rationale for intervening covertly and overtly in other nations’ affairs. Yet there is a more humane realist tradition, the tradition of George Kennan and William Fulbright, which emphasises the limits of military might, counselling that great power requires great restraint. This tradition challenges the doctrine of regime change under the guise of democracy promotion, which – despite its abysmal failures in Iraq and Libya – retains a baffling legitimacy in official Washington. Russiagate has extended its shelf life....
The London Review of Books
What We Don’t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking
Jackson Lears | Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers University

See also
The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.
Moon of Alabama
From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media
b


Monday, December 25, 2017

Scott Ritter — Propaganda Exercise Aiming to Prove Iran Supplied Missiles Backfires


Did Nikki Haley lie to the world about Iranian missiles being used against Saudi Arabia by Houthis of Yemen? Or was Haley played like Colin Powell was? Scott Ritter argues in the affirmative.

(Why it would make a difference if true eludes me when almost all the weapons being used against Yemen are of US origin.)

The American Conservative
Propaganda Exercise Aiming to Prove Iran Supplied Missiles Backfires
Scott Ritter

Geoff Mulgan — Cognitive Economics: How Self-Organization and Collective Intelligence Works

The study of self-organizing groups points toward what could be called a cognitive economics.

Evonomics
Cognitive Economics: How Self-Organization and Collective Intelligence Works
Geoff Mulgan is chief executive of Nesta, the UK’s National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, and a senior visiting scholar at Harvard University’s Ash Center

David Sloan Wilson — The Invisible Hook: How Pirate Society Proves Economic Self-Interest Wrong

Pirate bands are radically democratic and egalitarian: Hayek and the evolutionary imperative.
Evonomics
The Invisible Hook: How Pirate Society Proves Economic Self-Interest Wrong
David Sloan Wilson | SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University and Arne Næss Chair in Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo

Gilbert Doctorow — Kissinger’s Fingerprints on the Trump Security Doctrine, 2017


Gilbert Doctorow is generally positive about the 2017 National Security Strategy that was recently released by the White House. It indicates a shirt toward foreign policy realism and away from the foreign policy idealism that characterized US policy since Ronald Reagan's presidency under neoconservative and liberal internationalist influence in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Une parole franche
Kissinger’s Fingerprints on the Trump Security Doctrine, 2017
Gilbert Doctorow | European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd.

Some views on distinguishing critics from cranks and quacks


Some views on distinguishing critics from cranks and quacks.

ChrisAuld
18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics
Chris Auld

Unlearning Economics
18 Signs Economists Haven’t the Foggiest

Information Transfer Economics
18 signs you are not having a productive conversation about economics
Jason Smith

Dani Rodrik's Weblog
The Economics Debate, again and again
Dani Rodrik

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Will Hutton - Bitcoin is a bubble, but the technology behind it could transform the world



An interesting article about Bitcoin in the Guardian today by Will Hutton. He seems to like it but he says it will never be quite the same as regular money as it is far too volatile for that.

But blockchain changes everything. It becomes a means to transfer digital cash – or crypto-currencies, of which the best known is bitcoin – in vast amounts, across any border, instantaneously. The blockchain makes sure bitcoin is spent once; indeed, blockchain was first invented by the originators of bitcoin to make sure there was no fraud. No £30 limits. No credit or debit card necessary; no central bank or government needed to guarantee the value of the money. Just buy your bitcoin from an online broker and you have buying power in your digital wallet: better still, it may go up in value, giving you more buying power still. The whole analogue apparatus of the financial system could be as severely challenged as newspapers and retailers are by online reading and internet shopping.
The question is whether banks are going to reinvent themselves using the blockchain as a key tool and become crypto-currency brokers before others. The trouble is that bitcoin, like other crypto-currencies, is not a reliable way of storing value – a key function of money – when its price can nearly halve in a week, as it did last week. Better not to think of bitcoin as money; rather, as a commodity that uses blockchain to make settlements faster, but it can’t – and never can – be a way for the mass of workers to get paid or make their purchases. It could take millions of transactions away from banks and badly wound them, but it’s unlikely to replace them.
But it could still represent a huge shock. Blockchain will administer similar shocks to insurance, healthcare and all mass payment systems. Intermediaries in the service industries will face a new world in which their routine functions will be performed by machines, programmed by artificial intelligence, while the blockchain becomes the new means to do business safely, faster and less riskily. There will be new concentrations of economic power because, like the Fangs, the blockchain economic model is more efficient and more effective the larger the network. Moving ever more economic activity into this universe, with its anonymised transactions and secret keys, may please the ultra libertarians – but there remains a public interest in ensuring accountability, justice and fairness. We have, in short, to understand and shape this new world before it shapes us. There are precious few signs of that.
The Guardian

Jeet Heer - The Dangerous Incoherence of Trump’s Russia Policy

The president wants a partnership with Vladimir Putin, but his national security leaders are pursuing aggressive containment.





Jeet Heer seems to believe the propaganda that Russia is a dangerous adversary, but this is an interesting article in that he believes Trump is still going against his administration by trying to improve relations with Russia and China.  Heer says that to balance Trump's conciliatory words towards Putin, his administration may take a more hard line position to reassure America's European allies. In other words, the Military-Industrial Complex has been whipping up non existent fears about Russia to keep the arm sales going.

On Monday, the Trump administration released its national security strategy, which portrayed Russia and China as rival superpowers. The document made the argument shared by centrist Democrats and Republicans, that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government tried to subvert American democracy:

A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life.

And yet, in a speech introducing this document, Trump veered off of his prepared remarks and spoke about the need to “build a great partnership” with Russia and China. Trump also described a friendly conversation he had with Putin, who thanked the United States for recently helping to thwart a planned terrorist attack against Russia by the Islamic State. “That’s a great thing, and the way it’s supposed to work,” Trump said.

As Thomas Wright, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, told Politico, there was a “surreal” disjunction between the explicit strategy and the president’s gloss. “The National Security Strategy and the president’s speech to launch it were worlds apart,” Wright observed. “The strategy described the Russian and Chinese challenge in great detail, but Trump barely mentioned them. Instead he made an impassioned plea for partnership with Putin, demanded allies directly reimburse the United States for protection provided, and blamed the country’s ills on immigrants and trade deals.” A White House spokesman acknowledged that he couldn’t say if Trump had read the National Security Strategy.

The divergence between Trump and his national security staff could lead both sides to become even more extreme. To balance Trump’s conciliatory words toward Putin, Mattis and Tillerson might feel the need to take more hardline positions, if only to reassure America’s European allies. And Trump, to counter this, might praise Putin even more effusively.

New Republic

Jeet Heer - The Dangerous Incoherence of Trump’s Russia Policy




UK Wants to Boost Trade with Russia – Boris Johnson

Trade between Russia and the United Kingdom is growing despite sanctions, said British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, adding that London is confident on that upward trend.
“I’m delighted that trade is increasing in spite of difficulties, in spite of the sanctions regime. We certainly want to see more of that,”Johnson said on Friday after talks with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Moscow.
“I think we are exporting about five million pounds’ worth to Russia at the moment and it’s good news that Russian customers are now buying loads of British goods, from crisps to Bentleys, and I would in no way discourage that,” he said.
According to the Russian Trade Envoy Boris Abramov, trade between Russia and the UK has grown this year for the first time since 2014. It increased by 25 percent during the first nine months of 2017 to $9.3 billion, he said, adding “We see a significant rise in both exports and imports.”
Russian exports to the United Kingdom in January-September grew by 29.4 percent and were worth $1.4 billion.
In 2016, the volume of trade between the countries fell by 7.3 percent compared to 2015, with exports falling 7.1 percent and imports dropping 7.8 percent.
Trade relations have been affected by the international sanctions imposed on Moscow following the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014.
The European Union has introduced several rounds of restrictive economic measures against Russia since then. In response, Moscow launched a food embargo that includes a ban on European meat, poultry, and fish, dairy, fruit and vegetable imports.
CaribFlame

Trey Popp — On Simon Patten


History of economics.

Michael Hudson
On Simon Patten
Trey Popp

Gavin Kennedy — Lost Legacies Stance of the Invisible Hand Is Endorsed

Weekend reading.
Michael Emmett Brady, California State University, published in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) he takes giant steps to demolishing Samuelson’s myth. Michael Emmett Brady writes the most significant contribution to the invsisible-hand debate since 1948:
“Who Taught Paul Samuelson the Myth of the “Invisible Hand” at the University of Chicago? The most likely answer is Jacob Viner or fellow student George Stigler” .
 Its author takes the invisible-hand debate onto another level. Brady’s paper is available free via: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3078415
I highly recommend that readers visit the SSRN web site and read Michael Brady’s paper.There is no substitute for reading Michael Emmett Brady’s relatively short paper. It would be invidious for me to attempt to summarise that which is down-loadable in full from SSRN. I shall quote from Brady’s thoughtful contribution below, but I urge readers to follow his whole argument from its SSRN original….
The paper is 24 pages and an easy read.

Adam Smith's Lost Legacy
Lost Legacies Stance of the Invisible Hand Is Endorsed
Gavin Kennedy | Professor Emeritus, Heriot Watt University

Saturday, December 23, 2017

ALAN NASSER - How Inequality Kills

Poverty leads to increases in drug and alcohol use as well as suicide, but it also increase violent behavior. Some poor people who feel they have low status may find they can gain respect gang culture. If they feel no good at anything - like they failed at school and ended up low paid jobs - they might decide that at least they can be the worse and most notorious, and so by becoming the 'scariest' and the 'bad-est' they feel can get respect that way even if it is a disastrous way to do it.  If these people feel 'diss-ed' in any way, they may then turn to extreme violence to try to maintain their status. Some gangs in American now prefer to use machetes rather than guns because it makes them feel even meaner.       
How Neoliberal Austerity Kills
There is decisive evidence that neoliberalism’s widening inequality tends to generate uncommon rates of physical and mental health disorders. (7) A Princeton study found that middle-aged non-Hispanic white Americans suffered a great increase in mortality between 1998 and 2013. (8) This was the first such case in American history. The increase is entirely concentrated among persons with a high school degree or less, a reliable criterion of poverty. Among whites with any college experience, mortality rates have declined during this period. And disease is not the issue. The predominant causes of death are suicide, chronic alcohol abuse and drug overdoses. Paul Krugman has noted that these statistics mirror “the collapse in Russian life expectancy after the fall of communism.” (9) The Princeton study labels these mortalities “deaths of despair.” It is noteworthy that among the population in question, wages have fallen by over 30 percent since 1969. (10) In a detailed study of the health effects of austerity, based on data from the Great Depression, Asian countries during the 1990s Asian Financial Crisis, and European countries suffering austerity policies after the 2008 crisis, researchers found that the more austerity was practiced in a country, the more people became ill and the more people died. (11)
Homicide and murder are also strongly related to inequality. The World Bank reports that inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between the U.S. and other countries and the FBI notes that of U.S. murders for which the precipitating reason is known over half stem from the agent’s sense that he had been “dissed.” (12) Persons shoot someone who has cut them off in traffic or beat them to a parking spot.
In connection with the high number of homicides associated with dissing, i.e. challenging a person’s sense of self-respect or personal worth, the psychologist and neuroscientist Martin Daly documents the intimate connection between inequality and loss of personal and social status. He shows that inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable.” (13) In America, status is determined by how much a person has, and having is a matter of the standard of material living one enjoys, competitively conceived in terms of how one compares with others. And the admired standard is one’s level of material comfort, determined for the non-wealthy by a good job and the ability to support a family or the ability to enjoy a comfortable and independent standard of living as a single person. These makers of social status and self-respect are unavailable to those at the lower ends of the income hierarchy and the unemployed. Self-respect is one of men’s (and most homicides are male-on-male) most prized goods, and self-respect, as much as income and wealth, is unequally distributed. In a society where there are structurally determined winners and losers, if one is a loser one’s social reputation is all one has, all one can brandish, in order to maintain a sense of self-respect and personal worth. A diss is a blow to both social reputation and self-respect, and if one has nothing else, the threat looms disproportionately large.
While gang murders are not the majority of murders by the poor, they display in stripped-down form the way in which dissing translates to a social put-down and social denigration makes for personal humiliation and devaluation. The disser becomes a deadly rival. The research I cite in this essay shows that this syndrome is by no means limited to gang culture.
Most recently, David Ansell, a physician and social epidemiologist, has demonstrated in an exhaustive study that the acceleration of inequality between high and low socioeconomic groups over the past three decades has resulted in higher mortality rates for the poorest strata of the working class. He concludes that “[I]nequality triggers so many causes of premature death that we need to treat inequality as a disease and eradicate it, just as we seek to halt any epidemic.” (14) Capitalism, in its post-welfare-state form, kills.

Brad DeLong — John Maynard Keynes: Essays In Biography


Brad rates this as a should-read. For anyone interested in Keynesianism, Post Keynesianism and MMT, the history of economics, or economic theory, it is a must-read.

Conventional economists have apparently concluded that they don't need to read it if they even thought about, which most probably haven't, being under the spell of the "normal paradigm" in spite of its poor results empirically.

Washington Center for Equitable Growth
John Maynard Keynes: Essays In Biography
Brad DeLong

Here is a link to download Keynes's Essays in Biography (1933) as a PDF.

Another must-read from Brad.
 I think the very smart Jeffrey Friedman gets this… not quite right. The case for the empirical benefits of capitalism is very strong—but only if one is willing to remove libertarian blinders and focus on eliminating the market failures (in distributions, in aggregate demand, in externalities, in information, etc.) that keep the function the market maximizes from being a good proxy for societal well-being. And once one has the market properly supported and disciplined, the philosophical discussion can commence: Jeffrey Friedman: What’s Wrong with Libertarianism: “Libertarian arguments about the empirical benefits of capitalism are, as yet, inadequate…
From the Marxian and Institutionalist points of view,  economic liberalism, of which contemporary Libertarianism is a variant, provides the philosophical framework for bourgeois capitalism. Its fundamental weakness is prioritizing economic liberalism over social and political liberalism, which gives rise to many paradoxes of liberalism that result in illiberality such as have been pointed out many time here at MNE.

Brad also provides another keeper Keynes quote.

Here is an excerpt:
But, above all, individualism, if it can be purged of its defects and its abuses, is the best safeguard of personal liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it greatly widens the field for the exercise of personal choice.
Individualism as the pursuit of self-interest does not lead to the greatest good for the greatest number the spontaneous emergence of natural order, unless "natural order" is conceived as the outcome of social Darwinism. This result is so grossly unfair that overtime it becomes unstable politically.

Keynes is saying here that individualism only works as a guiding principle of liberalism if collective consciousness is sufficiently high, which is manifested in a society's culture and institutions. The fact that civil and criminal law are needed goes to show that collective consciousness alone is not that high presently. In addition, the level of social and political dysfunctionality in liberal countries shows that the culture and institutions of the society are insufficient to bridle narrow self-interest to the degree necessary to generate a harmonious society and balanced social, political and economic conditions.

This is a design problem.

Jeffrey Friedman: What’s Wrong with Libertarianism

More from BDL:

Three Books for 2017: Economics for the Common Good, Janesville, Economism

Weekend Reading: Richard Thaler: Behavioral Economics

Friday, December 22, 2017

Lars Syll — If only Trump had read Abba Lerner!


Keeper Lerner quote.

I would not limit it to Trump, but extend it to almost the entire economics profession and policy advisers. If they get it wrong, politicians are unlikely to get it right.

Lars Syll's Blog
If only Trump had read Abba Lerner!
Lars Syll

Noah Smith — Economists Lose Credibility When They're Too Certain

They made this mistake by claiming free trade had no downsides.
I wouldn't say it is just free trade. 

This is what happens when ideology trumps scientific rigor, and scientific credibility is used to push a political agenda.

Economists appear to fall into this trap often enough to have destroyed their public credibility. It's another form off fake news. 

As Noah Smith points out, they know better, but do it anyway. Now they and we, are reaping the whirlwind of rabid populism as the working class bites back.

Col Wilkerson's speech 31 Aug 2017

Col. Wilkerson for president, I say. He's a Republican but he sounds like a social democrat. Just listen to the opening of part 2 to see if you're going to like it.



Kaivey - Epigenetics and Neuroplasticity.

Why Trump has got it wrong (and the Social Darwinists 101) 


Investing in people will reap in rewards for society and create a wealthier nation.

Why working class people are on average just as bright, ambitious, and capable as middle and upper class people. Just give people a good chance in life with a good education, good jobs, and sufficient benefits to help them through hard times and reap the rewards. No underclass, more entrepreneurs, less alcohol and drug problems, less crime, safer communities, less money spent on police and social services, lower taxes -  better everything.

And all this before we even start on neuroplasticity, the other key component to how we become who we are - where our brains physical adapt and change according to our environment and early life experiences. 

Epigenetics: Why Inheritance Is Weirder Than We Thought




Neuroplasticity






Nicholas Carlson - Rich People Talk About How Happy Money Makes Them — What They Say Will Both Offend And Reassure You

If I had the choice of being a world class top physicist or mathematician or being a billionaire I would go for maths or science any day. Bill Binney is awesome!
There's an oft-cited study out there that says money does buy you happiness — but only up until a certain point. It says that after you make $75,000 per year, increasing your income is not going to make you any "happier."
But the truth about wealth and happiness is more complicated than any study can say.
Take the case of Evan Spiegel, the 23-year-old CEO of a startup called Snapchat.
Last month, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that Spiegel turned down a $3 billion acquisition offer from Facebook. When people read these reports, they thought Spiegel was crazy.
But here's the thing. Spiegel comes from a wealthy family. His dad lives in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the Los Angeles area. Also, Spiegel was able to sell some of his stock in Snapchat to investors for millions of dollars.
So the fact is, when he turned down Facebook's $3 billion offer, Spiegel was not saying "no" to being rich. He was already rich twice over.
And what did that money — his father's and his own — buy him?  It bought him a relatively risk-free chance to spend the rest of his life running a global technology company. It bought him a pursuit.
Having a pursuit that means something to you is not the same thing as having happiness, but it's something like it that can't quite be quantified in a study.
Many people in the tech industry know that, and appreciate Spiegel's decision.
Not everyone, though. One tech executive I met with last week shook his head in bewilderment when Snapchat came up. He said that Spiegel was "taking food out of the mouths of generations of Spiegels."
Business Insider

Press TV - US bank JPMorgan linked to Malaysia money laundering

The Swiss division of J.P. Morgan "seriously breached" anti-money laundering rules relating to the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, Switzerland's financial market regulator said Thursday.
The agency, FINMA, said the Wall Street bank's local unit had "failed to adequately identify" increased money-laundering risks linked to the "allegedly corrupt" sovereign wealth fund at the center of a massive embezzlement scandal.
FINMA said it concluded enforcement proceedings against J.P. Morgan in June, and was not imposing any penalties — in a possible sign that any profits gained by the bank in the alleged breaches were not significant.
J.P. Morgan was the seventh case in the Swiss regulator's investigation of 1MDB, or 1Malaysia Development Bhd.
FINMA spokesman Vinzenz Mathys declined to identify any institution involved.
Investigators in Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong and the United States have been probing allegations that people close to Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $1 billion from the fund.

McConnell back on bank reform


Looks like McConnell not getting caught up in all the tax cut hoopla and dropping the ball wrt bank reform; looks like he is on it:




Higher risk of a big negative development without it.


Fed lights the fuse


You can see here that as early as November 2007 the Fed created the initial credit contraction by quickly reducing the rate at which they were purchasing Treasury securities by $300B per some measure of time while keeping the total amount of system reserves constant:





Quickly tossed the task of dealing that amount over to the depository institutions to then have to finance. This started the whole thing till eventually they shut the whole system of finance down by adding reserve assets at the rate of approx $100B/month in September 2008.

Peter Schiff says bitcoin is going to zero. That's exactly why you should buy every dip.

Peter Schiff, the guy who has been so wrong about everything, is now saying that bitcoin is going to zero. This is why you should probably buy every single dip.

Remember Schiff's predictions?

QE will cause hyperinflation.
The Chinese will stop "lending" to us and interest rates will skyrocket.
Gold is going to $10,000.

And more.

Bitcoin is not a bubble. It's a symptom of the world's desire to "de-dollarize." And while it will not become any kind of mainstream currency anytime soon because of its highly finite nature (like a gold standard or fixed FX regime, only worse), it reflects the desire on the part of people, institutions and nations to diversify out of the dollar.

The need to move away from the dollar has been prompted by increasingly aggressive and antagonistic policy emanating out of Washington. It's policy that is intended to use the dollar and the global, dollar-based, clearing and transaction system as a weapon.

No nation, not even one that is a U.S. ally, can afford to have the risk of being shut out of that system so the search is on for alternatives. Witness--bilateral, non-dollar trade agreements in yuan between Russia and China. Venezuela accepting yuan for payment of oil. Yuan-based oil trading, etc.

Technology (blockchain, etc) and need (US policy) have created the impulse behind bitcoin. There will be other cryptocurrencies emerging and, like I said, none of them will end up being the new global currency, but the desire to diversify into non-dollar units of account is very real and that means bitcoin is not a bubble.

Trump is the weakest president in American history.

Despite all his tough talk and bravado, Trump is the weakest president in American history. He has lamely, and in record time, become the most malleable puppet of the neocon, military/security state. He is the embodiment of what Eisenhower warned against. Even the meek and thin-skinned Obama wasn't this bad. Obama at least pushed back. sometimes. He had limits. Trump? A total puppet.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Zak Mir - Could the 'Bitcoin Rush' trigger the next financial crash?



At one stroke, there is a new asset class which is an easily divisible store of value.

A decade since the "global financial crisis" in 2007, everyone from analysts to market commentators (to people who actually know what they're talking about) have been pondering what will end the quantitative easing (QE) fuelled rescue package?

Apart from the moral hazard, the madness of ultra-low interest rates and the injustice of savers receiving next to nothing, it was always known that short-term step back from the abyss was the equivalent of knowingly stepping on a plane with no landing gear.

Of course, we have also had all the factors which were supposed to deliver the next crash happened as well.

These include, in no particular order, ridiculous real estate prices, painfully low wages for the masses, deflation, threats of collapses in the bond market, and even the odd nuclear weapon from North Korea.

Ironically, even the mighty hedge fund legend George Soros lost money in betting against Trump and the US stock market. However, many of the imbalances caused by QE, ultra-low interest rates and the expansion of personal and sovereign debt not only remain, but have accelerated with all the metrics going into overdrive.

The pending disaster has been even worse the most pessimistic of observers might have anticipated – yet the day of reckoning has stubbornly refused to dawn. But perhaps, as we wait for the inevitable – the collapse of the banking system again – who is the culprit? Cryptocurrency of course.

Although cryptocurrency/Internet cash has been around for much of the post-global financial crash period, it has only been in the last year that it has captured the imagination. Indeed, one could argue it has "come of age" due to fiat money becoming exactly the kind of (central bank printed) "funny money" that Bitcoin is accused of being by its detractors.

The reality is, that central banks are increasingly draconian in terms of attempting to control money supply (especially cash) while Bitcoin, and its cousins are valued by market forces at their most pure.

They say that you do not hear the bullet that kills you. But as far as Bitcoin and its crypto cousins, we have seen fiat currency being exchanged for this new form of money, at such a pace that it is difficult to imagine if anything in the financial markets will ever be the same again.

It is not just peer-to-peer transfer money in an anonymous way which is revolutionary. At one stroke, there is a new asset class which is an easily divisible store of value – taking the crown from gold, and can be moved around at the click of a mouse.

Perhaps most of all, these new currencies are regarded as long-term investments, as genuine as buying a house or an equity portfolio. Against such a "tsunami", and given the sheer weight of money, one would expect repercussions.

Even without the blockchain phenomenon, there were bound to be the kind of upheavals which could lead to a crash in the markets.

Bitcoin and cohorts could very well be the trigger that sends us over the edge.

International Business times

Zak Mir - Could the 'Bitcoin Rush' trigger the next financial crash?

Professor Sir Keith Burnett - Capitalism that works for everyone? Beware fake news

Policymakers must stop pretending they can fix broken markets with more and more regulation. 
Tory slogans are a gift to those who want to see everything nationalised. They had been ranting about wanting a capitalism ‘that works for all’, now it’s an economy that is ‘fit for the future’.
What does that tell our young people about what we have now? It tells them that even the Tories are worried about seeing capitalism ‘red in tooth and claw’, particularly in our privatised public services.
But let’s get real; this Government has made this problem itself, by pretending we can use markets to solve problems in the public sector.
They have done this by building fake markets for public services with regulatory sticking plasters. In doing so, they have given capitalism a bad name. The public gets crosser, the politicians get more grief and the left says, ‘Nationalise the lot’.
Why did they do that? Good intentions, of course. We see the extraordinary quality of products that a market system can provide.
So, what spoils it? Why can’t you create a market for any old public service and use regulation to keep it fair? Why do consumers continue to feel ripped off until the politicians get tired of the complaints and start meddling?
We have seen plenty of evidence of this in recent weeks, particularly in today’s Autumn Budget – on housing and rent, rail tickets, tuition fees and the duty paid on fuel.
We all want to know how much it has cost to make something and we don’t want to pay any more than that. It is not unreasonable for us to want “transparency and value for money”.
The problem is that capitalism and real markets just don’t work that way. The price will be what people are willing to pay, not what they would like to pay. If you try to fix prices at the ‘fair price’, the system freezes. You can see this in something everyone moaned about, the cost of electricity.
Take electricity, for example. The Government is being criticised for the enlarged £20 billion cost of building Hinkley Point C – a vital piece of our energy-generating infrastructure – and its impact on our energy bills.
Electricity generation used to be the job of the Central Electricity Generating Board, (CEGB). The nuclear part was run by another state-owned juggernaut, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
The CEGB dinosaur was criticised by many for its investment policies and the high – too high – price for its electricity. The ‘solution’ was to break it up and make different parts compete against each other. So that is what they did.
Now, breaking up an integrated national power-generation and -distribution system and then getting the separate bits to compete against each other was bound to create problems. It did, for sure, but it also created a whole new bunch of company boards with their Chief Executives.
And these boards had, by law, to care more about the interests of the new owners, the shareholders, than that of the UK and its people. That is capitalism at work, supposedly.
But the Tory government of the time weren't fools; they knew that a real market was a try-on so they added a regulator. What did the regulator do? It struggled to convince the consumer that they were not being ‘ripped off’, but just paying the fair costs.
What were those costs? Salaries, including fat cat ones; costs of oil, gas, nuclear fuels; construction and maintenance of new power plants, Wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal links etc.; the cost of subsidising green power and innovation. And, of course, dividends paid to shareholders.
The regulator, Ofgem, tried to do its job and show what we were paying is reasonable but we still moaned.
The British public moaned that there wasn’t real competition between the providers. We moaned about profits and dividends.
We moaned so much that the regulator tightened the screws and the private companies found it harder and harder to justify innovation and new investments to their shareholders, who now often come from outside the UK.
The result is a system sailing close to the wind, where we could lose power in winter ahead. And look what a mess we have had with Hinkley Point C.
The energy price cap, revived by the Prime Minister this year, is a sign that the Government’s meddling – in markets that were never meant to be – has reached tipping point.
My suggestion?
Stop trying to pretend there are sound markets where there are not. And please stop pretending that you can fix broken markets with more and more regulation.
And don’t say that all you need is a binding shareholder vote on executive pay. The shareholders are the people who want the maximum rip-off factor.
Capitalism does work but not like you would like it to. That's why we need to decide carefully when its undoubted powers should be unleashed and when it is more important to keep hold of the reins. What may be a good model for food or cars is not necessarily true for long term essential services such as clean water, education, health and transport.

Public services should be run for the public benefit and our national infrastructure should run for a national purpose; only then can we stop giving capitalism a bad name.
Professor Sir Keith Burnett CBE is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield and President of the UK Science Council.
International Business Times