Feed Aggregator Page 609
Rendered on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:30:36 GMT
In Scathing Attack, CIA Director Brennan Warns Trump To "Watch What He Says"
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:45:00 GMT
The departing CIA director John Brennan has launched a scathing attack on Donald Trump, warning the President-elect does not fully understand the threat posed to the US by Russia.
"I think Mr. Trump has to understand that absolving Russia of various actions it has taken in the past number of years is a road that he needs to be very, very careful about moving down."
As Reuters reports, Brennan's comments, during an interview on "Fox News Sunday," exposed the simmering tensions between the president-elect and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding.
"Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests and so therefore when he speaks or when he reacts, just make sure he understands that the implications and impact on the United States could be profound," Brennan said.
"It's more than just about Mr. Trump. It's about the United States of America."
"What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany," Brennan said. "I do take great umbrage at that."
Brennan also questioned the message it sends to the world if the president-elect broadcasts he does not have confidence in the United States' own intelligence agencies.
"The world is watching now what Trump says and listening very carefully. If he doesn’t have confidence in the intelligence community, what signal does that send to our partners and allies as well as our adversaries?"
"There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for 'leaking' information that was already available publicly,"
Speaking earlier on Sunday, President Barack Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough said the intelligence community was "staffed by an unbelievably cadre of professionals" and he dismissed the notion that they would seek to undermine Mr Trump's victory as the President-elect has suggested. As Jacob G. Hornberger warns:
In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of “being really dumb.”… for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you…. He’s being really dumb to do this.”
[…]
No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment […] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.
Kennedy… After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s murder.
Kennedy’s antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
[…]
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.
[…]
Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.
And, as we previously noted, to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.
It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.
The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.
The CIA director will likely be replaced by Mr Trump's pick Mike Pompeo next week.
Is $500 Enough to Start Investing in Stocks?
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:38:00 GMT
“Total Fiasco, Utter Circus!” Cried The CIO Asking "What's The Next Big Trade?"
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:20:05 GMT
Some always enlightening thoughts from the latest weekly letter by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
Hope all goes well… “Total fiasco, utter circus!” cried the CIO. “KGB videos, golden showers, kompromat, and his temper tantrum over that CNN reporter,” he continued, breathless. “Single worst press conference for a world leader in history. The $2bln Dubai deal. That random pile of manila folders. The dopey lawyer. Gimmicks, conspiracies, rambling bluster. We didn’t learn a single thing about policy. For the sake of our nation, pray The Donald sticks to Twitter.” And he paused, collected himself. “But the thing that upsets me most is that it didn’t spark a big enough correction to let me back into all my favorite Trump trades.”
“The Central Intelligence Agency will absolutely not resume using banned interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, if ordered to do so by President Trump,” explained Mike Pompeo, The Donald’s already-insubordinate nominee for CIA chief. But it’s only insubordination if our new Commander-in-Chief were to send those bearded-boys to the water-board. To get elected he said “torture works,” America should institute “harsher techniques.”
He said lots of things. He said almost everything. Which allowed us to see in him whatever we wanted, both good and bad, without knowing a single thing for sure. And naturally, every investor hopes he didn’t mean half of what he said.
“China building of islands and putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia taking Crimea from Ukraine,” declared Rex Tillerson, our PEOTUS’s already-assertive nominee for Secretary of State, pledging to block the Beijing Boys from their newly built bases. In one sentence, he angered the Russians, infuriated the Chinese, and placated our senators. The last time America threatened Asian shipping lines, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Which couldn’t possibly be what Trump wants.
But life gets more complicated when you transition from running to governing. More people get involved. The law of unintended consequences blossoms. “If you were to ask me three years ago, four years ago, when unemployment was still high and the economy was still digging out of a hole, I would have said, sure, fiscal policy would be great to help expedite getting back to full employment,” said SF Fed President Williams, challenging The Donald’s infrastructure agenda. “But today I don’t think we need short-term fiscal stimulus. What we need is really better policies, investments in the long-term health of the economy.”
And we carried on trading. Searching for the right prices. Reading into increasingly complex and contradictory comments whatever we want to believe.
* * *
“No one makes money in the chop,” said the CIO. “People make money on big moves.”
Trump held his press carnival, markets swung wildly. “The Yen was at 117 two days ago. Now it’s 114. Tomorrow it may trade 117. Will anyone make money?” A few will, most won’t.
“Nearly 100% of trading returns last year were made between November 8th and December 15th.” The dollar rallied 13% versus the Yen in that time. Ten-year treasury yields jumped 80bps. The Russell 2000 jumped 18%. Markets trended in uninterrupted fashion; a perspiration-free ride for the well-positioned.
“Those kinds of big moves are mandatory for hedge funds to make real money.” A few people profited from Japanese interest rates last year. Some nimble punters made money on Brexit. Trump provided the third real opportunity.
“You can’t make money in this business slicing nickels, you need to find $1,000 bills. Because prudent risk management precludes you from running positions at 100% of your fund assets, which means that even if you catch a 10% move, maybe you make 2% or 3% returns.” When you get really lucky, a Trump trade comes along, you’ve got the right positions, they correlate highly and you collect a few 2-3% profits at the same time.
“So the only question that really matters in this business is this: What’s the next big move?” he explained. “It’s probably a continuation of the Trump trade,” he said, pausing, considering the pain of 2016. “Last January, people were convinced the renminbi would blow up.” But it promptly rallied +3%, stopping most people out. If you held tough, or re-engaged the trade, you made a fortune. The renminbi fell -8% from those highs.
“The thing is, consensus trades have a nasty habit of working, just not exactly when you want them to.”
Another Reason for Fiat Chrysler Investors to Worry About Diesels
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:07:00 GMT
3 Bold Bets on the Future of Healthcare
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:02:00 GMT
7 Top Stocks Long-Term Investors Should Buy Next
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:02:00 GMT
This Bloomberg Editorial Claims Experts Are Necessary for Government - We Disagree
via by TDB on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:51:55 GMT
Via The Daily Bell
Sometimes the People Need to Call the Experts … The government about to take over in Washington has more billionaires than the Boston of Buckley’s time, but it seems willing to test the theory that academics can be dispensed with for the most part.
This article says that people ought to run the country except when “experts” do a better job, and that’s a lot of the time.
The article maintains that it “prefers citizens for broad questions of policy and society. The citizens are more likely to be in touch with the concerns of everyday life, and less likely to embrace utopian schemes. They are more likely to be politically and culturally diverse. Overall, they are more conservative in both the “small c” sense of that word and the more political sense.”
Not only that, but the article stresses that Democrats might make better decision-makers than Republicans and that having the people rule might result in a less immigration, less free trade, more law and order and more nationalism.
But – and there’s a big but – when it comes to the “the nuts and bolts of governance,” experts are preferable according to the article.
Typically I would prefer to be ruled by the Harvard faculty, even recognizing the biases of experts. They understand the importance of applying expertise to complex problems, and they realize many issues do not respond well to common-sense fixes.
The citizenry usually cannot make good decisions, or for that matter expert appointments, when technocracy is required. If I had to pick a single area where faculty rule would be most appropriate, it is the Federal Reserve. (The Environmental Protection Agency would be another candidate.)
The article goes on to defend this preference. Few citizens, it says, understand much about inflation, interest or shadow banking. And its no accident, it adds, that recent Fed chairman have come from toplevel academic environments.
In contrast, normal people would just talk about easy money or hard money. The article disapproves of such talk when it comes to specific problems. In fact, the article is concerned about the possibility the Fed is headed away from a reliance on expertise.
The article is also concerned about the trend away from acadmic advice generally. President-elect Donald Trump has seemingly emphasized business sucess above almost anything else.
Trump’s attraction to alternative views when it comes to vaccines is also “worrying.” Generally there’s a “time and place” for generalist viewpoints but such viewpoints have been overdone.
For us, the problem of the Federal Reserve is easily solved. It ought to be done away with. Vaccines ought to be entirely voluntary. And business success is not neccesarily better than other kinds of success. Again, when it comes to appointing people to office, the main priority ought to be offering fewer of them – a lot fewer.
Conclusion: The article stresses the considered opinions that academics can bring to the table. But outfits like the Fed are monopolies and surely not worth maintaining to begin with. Having academic commentaries on such things doesn’t make them better, it just obscures their essential worthlessness.
Other stories:
Trump Vaccine Experts Are Not Industry Types and Might Recommend Real Change
The Best Way for Economists to Stay Relevant Today Is to Go Out of Business
Danger Lurks As 'Extremes' Become The Norm
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:45:00 GMT
Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,
Extremes Become The Norm
There have been a litany of articles written recently discussing how the stock market is set for a continued bull rally. While Trump was initially expected to be extremely bad for the market, post-election he somehow became extremely good for it. The are some primary points in common among each of these articles which are: 1) interest rates are low, 2) corporate profitability is improving, 3) oil prices are rising, and; 4) Trump’s fiscal policies will supplant the Fed’s monetary policies.
While the promise of a continued bull market is very enticing it is important to remember, as investors, that we have only one job: “Buy Low/Sell High.” It is a simple rule that is, more often than not, forgotten as “greed” replaces “logic.” It is also the simple emotion of greed which fosters exuberance and extremes which ultimately reverts into devastating losses.
Therefore, if your portfolio, and ultimately your retirement, is dependent upon the thesis of a continued bull market you should at least consider the following charts which are a collection of current “extremes” in the market.
Extreme Valuations
It is often stated that valuations are still cheap. The chart below shows Dr. Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted P/E ratio. The shaded area is the current deviation of P/E’s above or below their long-term median P/E.
Currently, valuations are pushing levels only witnessed in 1928-1929 and 2000. However, it is often suggested the current valuations are nowhere near the “dot.com” level so obviously stocks are just mildly overpriced. The problem is current valuations only appear cheap when compared to the peak in 2000. In order to put valuations into perspective, I have capped P/E’s at 25x trailing earnings as this has been the level where secular bull markets have previously ended. I have noted the peak valuations in periods that have exceeded that level.
With valuations at levels that have historically been coincident with the end, rather than the beginning, of bull markets, the expectation of future returns should be adjusted lower. This expectation is supported in the chart below which compares valuations to forward 10-year market returns.
The function of math is pretty simple – the more you pay, the less you get.
Extreme Prices
I have often compared market prices to the equivalent of “stretching a rubber band.” Prices can only deviate so far from the long-term trend line before a mean reverting event eventually takes place. Much like a “rubber band,” prices can only be stretched so far before having to be relaxed to provide the ability to be stretched again.
The chart below shows the long-term trend in prices has compared to its underlying growth trend. The vertical dashed lines show the points where extreme overbought, extended conditions combined with extreme deviations in prices led to a mean-reverting event.
This is shown a bit clearer below which compares the deviation of the S&P 500 from the long-term growth trend. Currently, while only slightly below the peak of the 2000 “dot.com” bubble, the deviation is at levels that have ALWAYS coincided with a negative mean reverting event or very poor, and highly volatile, forward returns.
Extreme Allocations
Another argument I hear made consistently is that retail investors are only just now beginning to jump into the market. The chart below shows the percentage of stocks, bonds and cash owned by individual investors according to the American Association of Individual Investor’s survey. As you can see, equity ownership and near record low levels of cash suggest that the individual investor is already likely “all in.”
Extreme Leverage
Of course, with investors fully committed to stocks it is not surprising to see margin debt at record levels as well as investors leverage up to chase returns.
When we look at the levels of Margin Debt/GDP ratio as compared to the S&P 500, we find a high correlation between peak levels of debt and subsequent market returns. Not surprisingly, extreme levels have been more indicative of “ends” rather than “beginnings.”
Extreme Positioning
As we detailed yesterday, according to DB's calculations, the net short Treasury position is now a four sigma event, having grown to nearly four standard deviations away from mean, even after adjusting for open interest.
VIX futures are near record shorts.
Spec net short in Eurodollars also increased to a new record high of 2,442K (+326K) contracts.
Extreme Sentiment
Bob Farrell’s rule #9 states that when everyone agrees; something else is bound to happen. The next two charts show the level of “bullishness” of both individual investors (AAII Survey) and professional money managers (MarketVane, NAAIM & INVI Surveys). Surprisingly, investors are currently more exuberant than just about at any other time on record.
If we smooth the index with a 4-week average we get a better view of the current level of exuberance. Importantly, such levels of exuberance have been historically, once again, associated with short to intermediate-term, or worse, corrections.
When extremes become the norm, and are readily accepted as such, it has historically been associated with market bubbles.
- 1929 – Stock reach a permanently high plateau
- 2000 – This time is different
- 2007 – It’s a Goldilocks Economy
While I am not suggesting the markets are about to crash tomorrow, I am suggesting that future returns are likely to be much lower than currently estimated by the majority of the financial media.
“But Lance, since you are all ‘bearish and $#(%,’ you are all in cash and missed out on the markets advance.”
That would be incorrect.
As a money manager, I am currently long the stock market. I must be, or I potentially suffer career risk. However, my job as a portfolio manager is not only to make money for my clients, but also to preserve their gains, and investment capital, as much as possible. Understanding the bullish arguments is surely important, but the risk to investors is not a continued rise but rather the eventual reversion that will occur.
Unfortunately, since most individuals only consider the “bull case,” as it creates confirmation bias for their “greed” emotion, they never see the “train coming.”
Currently, with everyone on the “same side of the trade,” any exogenous event which triggers a movement in the opposite direction tends to result in a stampede. Hopefully, these charts will give you some food for thought.
Remember, every professional poker player knows how to spot a “pigeon at the table.”
Make sure it isn’t you.
This Is Interesting
I want to repeat this little blurb from Tuesday, only because it ties into last weekend’s newsletter as well.
“In ‘The Problem With Forecasts,‘ I noted the Dow is currently working on completing an advance of 5000 points over a 24-month span. The last time such a compressed advance occurred was during the 1998-1999 period.
But what about the S&P 500?”
“Following the 1994 market lull, the S&P 500 began its first serious bull market advance as a wave of investors flooded into the market due to the introduction of online trading and the official opening of the “Wall Street Casino.” From 1995 to its peak in March of 2000 the market advance (whole number basis only) by 1000 points over that 60-month period.
Of course, the subsequent correction of the “dot.com” mania reset the market by roughly 50% of that previous advance.
Following the crash, investors reluctantly began to return to the markets in mid-2003. As the Federal Reserve, and deregulation of Wall Street advanced, so did investors speculation in the markets as a real estate sub-prime lending took hold. Beginning in 2003, the market began a 60-month trek higher of 700-points before once again finding the limits of “fantasy and reality.”
So, here we are once again. Over the last 60-months the markets have advanced by 1100-points, and 1400-points over the last 84 months, as Fed-induced monetary stimulus and suppression of interest rates have once again led investors to believe “this time is different.”
Throughout history, as shown in the chart below, prices have ALWAYS, and I repeat ALWAYS, eventually found their limits. There has never been a “permanently high plateau” that inoculated investors from devastating consequences of misconceived and poorly managed investments.”
As I noted above, when “extremes become the norm” that is the point in time where “danger lurks.”
Technical Update
From a purely technical standpoint, there are a couple of things investors should be aware of as we head into next week.
First, as noted on Friday by Bespoke Investments:
We're currently at 64 trading days without a 1%+ decline, the 2nd longest streak of the bull market: https://t.co/JTc43hqrkZ pic.twitter.com/4FjQPNX6U3
— Bespoke (@bespokeinvest) January 12, 2017
Not surprisingly, given the period of advance without a 1% decline, which has pushed prices to an extreme deviation above the 200-dma, the volatility index has dropped to levels that have historically denoted short to intermediate-term market peaks.
On a very short-term, daily, basis, the market registered a “sell-signal” from a very high level, something I discussed several times previously. While such a sell-signal does not always translate IMMEDIATELY into a correctional process, it has done so, particularly from these levels, more often than not.
This suggests that profit taking is still advisable until a new “buy signal” is registered.
With Trump’s inauguration next week, and an immediate flurry of action promised within the first 100-days, there is a significant degree of risk that an action, combined with extremes of the market as discussed above, could send market participants running for cover.
Some caution is advised until there is better clarity on a risk/reward basis.
#PortfolioHedgesMatter
Pros and Cons of the 529 College Savings Plan
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:41:00 GMT
Will Trump Save Deutsche Bank?
via by Secular Investor on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:20:21 GMT
The focus of the investment community was recently fully aimed on the Italian banks. In just a few weeks time, we lived through the semi-failure of Banca Monti dei Paschi, the rescue of the bank (at least, for the next few months, as we wouldn’t be surprised to see the problems re-surface), and the nervousness surrounding the expected 13B EUR rights issue by Unicredit, a bank which is an even more vital link in the Italian banking sector.
Everything is unfolding rapidly, and it’s stunning to see how badly capitalized the European banks are. And obviously, the problems aren’t just situated in the periphery of Southern Europe. The mainstream media doesn’t seem to care to report on the new Basel IV capital requirements, and the negotiations surrounding these new capital rules.
There’s a very good reason why the national and supranational regulators have been able to agree to the final terms of the new capital requirements after negotiating for more than a year. Officially, the negotiations are still ‘ongoing’, but it’s not a huge secret the European banks and their American counterparties are heading towards a frontal collision.
The reason is very simple. In the past seven years since the Global Financial Crisis, the American banks have really done their best to get their acts together and the capital basis of most banks is very strong as most banks ‘saved’ their annual profits by adding them to the reserves, whilst the European Banks stubbornly continued to reward their shareholders by paying dividends and special dividends.
Source: Blogfinance.bearingpoint.com
Now, several years later, it’s time to review the capital requirements of the banks as the Banking supervising system (in this case the Basel Committee, at the BIS, the Bank for International Settlements) wants to restore the credibility of the financial sector. Arguably, the best way to achieve this is proving to their clients, customers and investors the capital ratio’s will prevent another total failure in the banking sector.
The American financial institutions have been pushing to increase the risk levels of the mortgage loans. Right now, the models assign a credit risk of 35% to residential mortgage loans, but the Americans wanted to increase this ratio to 45% for loans with an LTV of 80% and higher, and to 55% of loans with an LTV of in excess of 90%. An uniform system would prevent banks from ‘messing’ with their balance sheet to make it look like they are effectively meeting the capital requirements (as they can obviously make their internal models say what they want it to say).
Source: ecestaticos.com
This would have a huge impact on several major European banks, as the perceived risk on their mortgage portfolios would increase tremendously, requiring them to have 50% more capital available to meet the new capital ratio requirements. The Dutch, Belgian, Scandinavian and German banks would be hit the hardest, with ABN AMRO and ING Bank seeing their capital ratios fall to just 10% should they be required to boost their capital ratios.
And the biggest elephant in the room, Deutsche Bank, would be in deep trouble again, as independent estimates are pointing in the direction of a 125B EUR problem; as Deutsche Bank’s ‘risky assets’ would increase by just over 30%.
Source: marketrealist.net
This problem didn’t go unnoticed at all, and we aren’t the only ones who have identified this potentially huge problem. In a very recent research paper the Harvard International Law Review is shooting the Basel IV proposals down, calling it a ‘potential disruptive impact’ on the banking sector as banks will have to start hoarding more cash to ‘back’ the mortgage loans, which would reduce the banks’ willingness and ability to provide more credit to companies and other borrowers.
Source: strategyand.pwc.com
However, the fact the negotiations weren’t completed before the US elections in November might indicate a ‘softer’ approach is in the works. It would be surprising to see President Trump be a hardliner against banks (keep in mind several European banks are financing the mortgages on his buildings), and it will be interesting to see how ‘strict’ the Basel IV rules will turn out to be.
The total amount of Risk Weighed Assets could increase by 7T EUR. That’s right, 7,000 billion EUR. Good luck trying to fill that hole!
>>> Click here to read our Guide to Gold
Secular Investor offers a fresh look at investing. We analyze long lasting cycles, coupled with a collection of strategic investments and concrete tips for different types of assets. The methods and strategies are transformed into the Gold & Silver Report and the Commodity Report.
Follow us on Facebook @SecularInvestor [NEW] and Twitter @SecularInvest
Why Match Group Inc Stock Jumped 26% Last Year
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:23:00 GMT
Cable Plunges To October Flash-Crash Lows After May's "Clean & Hard Brexit" Headlines
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:17:01 GMT
As we warned earlier, following UK PM Theresa May's "clean and hard" Brexit comments, cable has tumbled very close to a 1.19 handle in very early (and illiquid) AsiaPac trading. This is the lowest level for sterling relative to the dollar since the October flash-crash...
It appears the New Zealand FX traders are active early...
Death Threats Force Opera Star Bocelli To Pull Out Of Inauguration Performance
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:15:00 GMT
"Andrea is very sad to be missing the chance to sing at such a huge global event but he has been advised it is simply not worth the risk..." according to a source close to blind opera singer Bocelli who had been determined to 'press ahead' and sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.
As The Daily Mail reports, when blind tenor Bocelli announced he would not sing at this Friday's celebration, it was widely reported it was because fans had said they would boycott his concerts and records.
But a source said the 58-year-old had been determined to 'press ahead' and sing but had pulled out on the advice of his security team after receiving threats to his life.
The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect's festivities after being threatened and branded an 'Uncle Tom'.
Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was 'determined' to sing for Trump despite voting against him.
She also denounced the abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.
Stars including Elton John and Celine Dion have declined invitations to sing at the ceremony.
Isn't it great just how 'non-violent' and 'accepting' Americans are (when they get their way)?
Apple Inc. Supplier Readying for Ramp-Up of New 10-Nanometer Tech
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:10:00 GMT
Bank of Marin's Free Checking Means Higher Profits
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:06:00 GMT
Detroit Auto Show: Why Toyota Took the All-New 2018 Camry in a New Direction
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:04:00 GMT
The Number One Concern For US Citizens Is... Terrorism!?
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:45:00 GMT
Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
Here’s an interesting graph from the World Economic Forum from their article Which countries are on the right track, according to their citizens?
Discontent spreads
Between October and November 2016, the percentage of people who believe things are on the right track in their country dropped by 2 percentage points to 37% globally.
China is bucking the trend with 90% of people expressing confidence in their country’s direction, followed by Saudi Arabia (80%). More than three quarters of Indians and just under six in ten people in Russia and Argentina also believe their country is on the right track.
Brazil is the notable exception among the BRICs nations with only 17% believing the country is heading in the right direction. In Asia, South Korea is an outlier too. Just 13% of its citizens have faith in the country’s trajectory.
Among the Western nations, Canadians are the only people with a predominantly positive outlook (54%).
The US is in the midfield, despite a small month-on-month drop in confidence from 37% to 35%. However, the survey was conducted before the presidential election, and the mood may have changed.
France and Mexico bring up the rear as their citizens have the least confidence in their country’s direction: 88% and 96% of the populace respectively believe that their country is on the wrong track.
A gender split suggests that, globally, men are more optimistic about their nations’ direction than women, with the biggest gender confidence gaps in the US, Israel and Russia.
Ipos MORI Poll
The poll was conducted by Ipos MORI with a strong emphasis on comparing the UK with the rest of the world.
Clicking on the above link downloads a set of charts in a single PDF file. Here are a two more charts.
Gender Gap
Most Worrying Issue
The most worrying issue in the US is terrorism. Isn’t that a hoot? How many in the US have died from terrorism?
How much terrorism has the US sponsored in other nations, including its own drone policy?
@ggreenwald If meddling is an act of war, McCain is personally involved, with tremendous blood on his hands. https://t.co/TQwmQ6gHfT pic.twitter.com/bYlqb9XkOU
— Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 7, 2017
The US warmongers sure have stirred up a lot of irrational fear of terrorism in the US.
4 Smart 401(k) Moves You Can Make in 2017
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:44:00 GMT
Beware of the Self Help Guru or Real Estate Seminar Business (Video)
via by EconMatters on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:19:05 GMT
By EconMatters
We discuss the profession of Real Estate Seminars and infomercials where they promise great wealth opportunities with little starting capital, experience, or business acumen in this video. Run like Hell from anybody driving up in a Lambo trying to Sell you Something!
© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle
Peter Thiel May Run For California Governor In 2018
via by Tyler Durden on Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:18:48 GMT
Outspoken Trump supporter and Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel is reportedly considering a 2018 bid for California governor. While Politico reports close Thiel friends are skeptical, the deeply-private entrepreneur's rare interview with the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd raised eyebrows and Thiel has conspicuously yet to rule out a bid.
As Politico reports, Thiel, who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, has been discussing a prospective bid with a small circle of advisers, including Rob Morrow, who has emerged as his political consigliere.
Those who have been in touch with the 49-year-old entrepreneur are skeptical that he’ll enter the race. He is a deeply private figure, and California is unfriendly territory for a Republican – particularly a pro-Trump one. The president-elect won just over 30 percent of the vote there.
But they add that Thiel has conspicuously yet to rule out a bid and that those around him continue to discuss it.
Adding fuel to the speculation: Thiel raised eyebrows this week when he granted a rare interview to the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. In the interview, he outlined his political worldview and explained his support for Trump.
At one point, Thiel said, perhaps jokingly, that he’d be “fine” with California seceding. “I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign,” he added.
Thiel said that Silicon Valley is "hyper-politically correct about sex" simply because "people there just don't have that much sex."
“On the one hand, the tape was clearly offensive and inappropriate. At the same time, I worry there’s a part of Silicon Valley that is hyper-politically correct about sex. One of my friends has a theory that the rest of the country tolerates Silicon Valley because people there just don’t have that much sex. They’re not having that much fun.”
On reconciling being gay with the perception that Trump's administration will pursue an anti-LGBT agenda:
“You know, maybe I should be worried but I’m not that worried about it. I don’t know. People know too many gay people. There are just all these ways I think stuff has just shifted. For speaking at the Republican convention, I got attacked way more by liberal gay people than by conservative Christian people.
On the concerns that Trump might provoke a war with his Twitter account:
“A Twitter war is not a real war."
On whether Russia is behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee:
“There’s a strong circumstantial case that Russia did this thing. On the other hand, I was totally convinced that there were W.M.D.s in Iraq in 2002, 2003.”
On Twitter's role in the election:
“I think the crazy thing is, at a place like Twitter, they were all working for Trump this whole year even though they thought they were working for Sanders.”
On Hillary Clinton's weakness:
"“If you’re too optimistic, it sounds like you’re out of touch. The Republicans needed a far more pessimistic candidate. Somehow, what was unusual about Trump is, he was very pessimistic but it still had an energizing aspect to it.”
On whether or not he'll regret his role in Trump's election:
“I always have very low expectations, so I’m rarely disappointed,” he says.
Finally, he confirmed there will be no slot for him in the Trump administration:
"I want to stay involved in Silicon Valley and help Mr. Trump as I can without a full-time position."
* * *
As Politico concludes, Thiel, who is worth an estimated $2.7 billion, would fill an important need: The ability to self-fund. Waging a gubernatorial bid in California, where campaigns are famously expensive, could cost over $100 million.
He isn’t the only billionaire who may run. Environmentalist Tom Steyer, a prolific giver to Democratic causes, is also seen as a possible contender.
With Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown term-limited, several high-profile Democrats including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and state Treasurer John Chiang have already launched campaigns.
One hurdle for Thiel might be his past support for Newsom. In July 2015, according to California election records, he contributed over $56,000 to Newsom’s 2018 campaign.
Neither Thiel nor a representative responded requests for comment.
