Arnold Böcklin The Isle of the Dead III 1883
I don’t know, Nomi. The whole thing just spells out to me how ridiculous things have become because of the powers the Fed has been given. The only sensible thing anyone can do, including Powell, is to retreat and let the market be reborn. Until then, any talk about ‘the market(s)’ has no meaning.
One of the major drags on the market, besides trade wars, has been uncertainty about whether the Fed will raise rates this month. Despite the verbal bravado of Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome Powell, over how strong the U.S. economy is, he doesn’t live in a vacuum. Powell’s borne the brunt of President Trump’s recent accusations that the Fed’s hikes are what’s hurting the stock market and threatening the economy. That lead to a media debate over whether Powell would “cave” to Trump or demonstrate that the Fed is the independent body that it’s legally designed to be, and continue with planned hikes anyway. Powell’s recently indicated again that he planned to go ahead with another 0.25 rate hike when the Fed meets Dec. 19, which would be the fourth increase this year.
But on Nov. 28, he revealed something in his speech at the Economic Club of New York that I’ve been predicting. He dialed back talk about rate hikes. He said that rates were “just below” neutral. That contrasted sharply with his comments from Oct. 3rd when he said “We are a long way from neutral at this point.” In other words, he’s turned dovish. That’s a major shift in less than two months’ time. But why the change? It likely had much less to do with pressure from Trump than deteriorating economic and market conditions. Heavy market volatility was just starting to return when he his Oct. 3 comment. It’s only gotten worse since then. At some point, the wobbling in the financial markets must have gotten to him. As the Daily Reckoning’s, Brian Maher said, single-day losses of 300, 500, 700 — 800 points — seem almost commonplace now. “The stock market is a wreck of nerves these days,” he said, “like a man walking point in a dark enemy jungle.”
After long deliberation with his spin doctors, lawyers and PR guys, Macron has decided to gamble on the protests being all about money. If handing out the billions he announced yesterday calms things down, even if it takes France out of the EU budget comfort zone, the protests were never about anything real. But if the yellow vests’ Act V next Saturday is anything like the first 4, he’s in deep doodoo.
Also: he was MIA for 10 days or so. And then his speech yesterday was pre-recorded. He still hasn’t communicated live with the French people.
Emmanuel Macron has bowed to pressure from the street to announce a catalogue of emergency measures aimed at pacifying the gilets jaunes after weeks of civil unrest in France. In a long-awaited address on primetime television, the president tried to talk the protesters out of further action, promising a rise in the minimum wage and tax concessions. In a mea culpa, Macron said he had heard and understood protesters’ anger and indignation, which he said was “deep and in many ways legitimate”. He admitted he had not been able to provide solutions quickly enough since his election. “I may have given you the impression that this was not my concern, that I had other priorities. I take my share of responsibility. I know I have hurt some of you with my words,” he said.
The president began his pre-recorded 13-minute declaration saying the past few weeks of protests had “profoundly troubled the nation”, and that legitimate demands had led to “a series unacceptable violence”. He said the anger went back 40 years, but he added: “No anger justifies attacking a police officer, a gendarme, or damaging a shop or public building. When violence is unleashed, freedom ends.” Macron, elected on a centrist reforming programme 18 months ago, said he understood the anger and “distress” of those struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month who felt ignored and economically squeezed: “It is as if they have been forgotten, erased. This is 40 years of malaise that has risen to the surface. It goes back a long way, but it is here now.”
To help struggling workers, he said the government had been ordered to introduce “concrete measures” from 1 January, including increasing the minimum wage by €100 (£90) a month. Overtime would be exempt from tax and social charges, and a planned tax on pensions under €2,000 a month would be cancelled. All employers “who can” were asked to give workers a tax-free bonus at the end of the year. Macron said there would be greater public consultation on issues, but he would not go back on his wealth tax reforms. However, things would not “go back to normal … as if nothing has changed,” he said.. He concluded: “We are at a historic moment in our country. With dialogue, respect, and engagement, we will succeed. My only concern is you, my only combat is for you – our only battle is for France.”
It may just make them madder.
Groups of “yellow vest” protesters across France responded scathingly to the “crumbs” offered by President Emmanuel Macron in a speech intended to defuse their revolt, but others acknowledged his efforts. “Nonsense,” “a charade”, “a bluff” and “a drop in the ocean,” were among the immediate reactions that greeted the head of state’s televised speech Monday evening announcing an increase in the minimum wage and a range of other financial measures. At a roundabout in the southern town of Le Boulou, some 150 “yellow vests” gathered around a loudspeaker listened carefully to the president’s words before starting to shout in chorus. “He is trying to do a pirouette to land back on his feet but we can see that he isn’t sincere, that it’s all smoke and mirrors,” said Jean-Marc, a car mechanic.
“It’s just window dressing, for the media, some trivial measures, it almost seems like a provocation,” said Thierry, 55, a bicycle mechanic who donned the yellow vest a fortnight ago. “All this is cinema, it doesn’t tackle the problems of substance,” he told AFP before taking part in blocking the Boulou turnpike on the French-Spanish border. “We’re really wound up, we’re going back to battle,” he said. Less than an hour after the presidential address, the A9 toll booth from Spain was completely paralysed, an AFP photographer said. “Maybe if Macron had made this speech three weeks ago, it would have calmed the movement, but now it’s too late,” said Gaetan, 34, one of the “Rennes Lapins Jaunes” (Yellow Rabbits of Rennes). “For us, this speech is nonsense.”
Theresa May is as out of touch with her people as Macron is.
The main event yesterday in the Commons was a guy picking up the ceremonial mace, a 17th century piece of metal. Just to show how out of touch the politicians, and their entire nation, are.
Well, that and May annoucing she was going to flee the country. But why would the EU change its stance, or the deal May signed, just to save her career?
Theresa May has sparked anger across the Commons by refusing to say when MPs will vote on her Brexit deal, as she prepared to head to Brussels to plead with EU leaders for further concessions. The showdown was dramatically delayed, almost certainly until the new year, after the prime minister admitted a Tory revolt meant she was heading for a crushing defeat “by a significant margin”. But condemnation of Ms May for pulling back rose when Downing Street failed to set a new timetable for the vote, arguing it depended on when she could “get the assurances” from the EU to pass the deal. Government sources admitted a quick breakthrough was unlikely, suggesting the vote would be shelved until the new year and refusing to say it would even be held next month.
In extraordinary scenes, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle was ejected from the House of Commons for seizing the ceremonial mace in protest at the formal deferral of the vote by the government whips. Mr Russell-Moyle swung the antique symbol of parliamentary authority from its holder as Tory MPs screamed “expel him”. He was promptly asked to leave the chamber by John Bercow, the speaker. His intervention came moments after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn secured an emergency debate on the delay on Tuesday.
If May had had any actual opposition, this farce would have been long over.
Nicola Sturgeon has appealed to Jeremy Corbyn “work together” to topple Theresa May’s government after a crucial vote on the prime minister’s Brexit deal was abandoned, promising the SNP will support a motion of no confidence if it is tabled by Labour. The Scottish first minister said delaying the vote was “pathetic cowardice” and vowed that her party would stand with Labour if it follows through with its plan to bring down the government with a confidence vote on Tuesday. It comes amid chaotic scenes in Westminster, where reports that the meaningful vote was being shelved broke just moments after a Downing Street spokeswoman told reporters it would go ahead.
Ms Sturgeon posted on Twitter: “So @jeremycorbyn – if Labour, as official opposition, lodges motion of no confidence in this incompetent government tomorrow, @theSNP will support & we can then work together to give people the chance to stop Brexit in another vote. “This shambles can’t go on – so how about it?” The Labour leader has not responded to her offer but the first minister’s comments will ramp up the pressure on the beleaguered prime minister, as she faces one of the biggest challenges of her premiership.
Parity with the USD in early 2019?!
The pound has dropped to its lowest level for almost two years amid the growing risks to the British economy from political paralysis over Brexit and on a no-deal scenario. Theresa May’s decision to delay the parliamentary vote on her Brexit plan to avoid an embarrassing defeat for the government sent sterling tumbling by more than 1.3% against the dollar and by almost 1% against the euro on the foreign exchanges. The pound slumped below $1.26 to the lowest level since April 2017 after the prime minister said her Brexit plan would have been rejected by a “significant margin” in a Commons vote pencilled in for Tuesday. Sterling was worth $1.2563 against the dollar late on Monday and €1.1062 against the euro.
They now have a solid reason to push for a no-deal Brexit.
A pair of hedge funds owned by prominent Brexit supporters have made significant bets against companies exposed to the British consumer including big high street names. Odey Asset Management, part-owned by Crispin Odey, and Marshall Wace, part-owned by Sir Paul Marshall, have declared short positions against consumer-exposed companies, including retailers, estate agents and banks, equivalent to £149m and £572m respectively – as rising political uncertainty threatens the economy. The retail sector is facing particular scrutiny from short sellers, who in effect wager significant sums on certain shares falling in value. Uncertainty among consumers, with the Brexit process reaching a crunch point, comes at a time when retailers are already struggling to adjust to the move from physical shops to online.
The hedge fund run by Odey, one of the most outspoken of the Brexit-backing hedge fund managers, holds a short position in Intu – the owner of shopping malls including the Trafford Centre in Greater Manchester – that represented £33m worth of shares in the company at the end of last week. He also holds a position against struggling department store Debenhams that is worth £5.3m. The firm also appears to be betting that Britons’ appetite for cars will fall, in line with surveys showing hesitation over big-ticket purchases. The firm has short positions against Lookers, a large dealership chain, and Auto Trader, the online used-car directory.
Watergate started with a crime. Russiagate did not. It started with a dodgy dossier.
The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging that hackers, linked to the Russian government, stole emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016. The details have never been released, no U.S. law enforcement agency has ever seen the server or scene of the crime, and Mueller’s dramatic indictments of said hackers, released as Trump met with Putin in Helsinki, will never be heard of again, or challenged in court, as none of his defendants will ever leave Russia. Meanwhile, despite contemporaneous denials of the same, is it somehow now accepted knowledge that the emails (and Facebook ads!) had some unproven major effect on the election.
The origin story for everything else, that Trump is beholden to Putin for favors granted or via blackmail, is opposition research purchased by the Democrats and carried out by an MI6 operative with complex connections into American intelligence, the salacious Steele Dossier. The FBI, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, then sought warrants to spy on the nominated GOP candidate for president based on evidence paid for by his opponent. Yet the real spark was the media, inflamed by Democrats, searching for why Trump won (because it can’t be anything to do with Hillary, and “all white people and the Electoral College are racists” just doesn’t hold up).
Their position was and is that Trump must have done something wrong, and Robert Mueller, despite helping squash a Bush-era money-laundering probe, lying about the Iraq War, and flubbing the post-9/11 anthrax investigation, has been resurrected with Jedi superpowers to find it. It might be collusion with Russia or Wikileaks, or a pee tape, or taxes, packaged as hard news but reading like Game of Thrones plot speculation. None of this is journalism to be proud of, and it underlies everything Mueller is supposedly trying to achieve. [..] The core problem—at least that we know of—is that Mueller hasn’t found a crime connected with Russiagate that someone working for Trump might have committed. His investigation to date hasn’t been a search for the guilty party —Colonel Mustard in the library— so much as a search for an actual crime, some crime, any crime.
Even if he’s legally right, what are his odds of winning?
Jerome Corsi, a conspiracy theorist and Roger Stone associate, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of illegally searching his phone records and leaking grand jury information. Corsi, an avid supporter of President Donald Trump, recently claimed he faces indictment by Mueller. Attorneys for Corsi, 72, filed the lawsuit Sunday night in U.S. District Court in Washington. In addition to Mueller, it targets the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the FBI and the CIA. The attorneys are demanding $100 million in “general and compensatory damages” and $250 million in “punitive damages” from the agencies.
In the complaint, Corsi’s lawyers argue that their client’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable or unwarranted government searches and seizures was violated when “each and every one” of the defendants looked through his digital records without a warrant and probable cause. The complaint also accuses Mueller of directing his staff to leak information from his grand jury about Corsi to the media. Special counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined CNBC’s request for comment on the court filing. Mueller’s team has reportedly investigated for months whether Corsi learned in advance that WikiLeaks had received Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, which U.S. intelligence services have concluded were stolen by Russian intelligence officers.
[..] Corsi also accuses the special counsel of trying to make him lie under oath that he was a liaison between Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in the publication of stolen Democrats’ emails.
Flynn’s revenge on Mueller?
Gen. Flynn may actually have the goods on the fraud behind his own prosecution — namely, proof of exactly how he was set up by Mr. Obama, in particular his own tapes of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that would show something different than the transcripts Mr. Mueller used to entrap him on Lying-to-Federal-Prosecutors rap. That theory raises the question: why did he not use it in his own defense. The answer may simply be that he didn’t want to rack up $2.5 million in billable hours for defense attorneys and chose instead to tough it out for nearly two years until he could use the information he has. And that means he must wait until final sentencing when his case is complete.
That appears in the offing, perhaps even before Mr. Mueller releases his much panted-over final report. Of course, Mr. Mueller may have absolutely no idea what Gen. Flynn has got on him — hence the speculation about why the charging memo was so lenient. But that line of reasoning suggests that Gen. Flynn will just forget about the disgrace Mr. Mueller put him through and let bygones be bygones. That’s not how warriors roll. More likely, Gen. Flynn has something more severe in mind. For all of his horse-faced gravitas in the photos of his fleeting sightings, Mr. Mueller does not look to me like a man in a comfortable situation.