Assymmetric Secret Servicing Initiative: Obama's Colombia Visit Found To Subsidize Local Alternative Monogamy Market

Obama may not be the most successful president when it comes to creating jobs at home, but when success is measured by the number of blowjobs outsourced abroad, he may be truly second to none, as his visit to Colombia proves before it has officially begun. According to the AP, "A dozen Secret Service agents sent to Colombia to provide security for President Barack Obama at an international summit have been relieved of duty because of allegations of misconduct." Relieved here being a perfectly randomly selected verb. Because according to a tip received by The Associated Press "the misconduct involved prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, the site of the Summit of the Americas. A Secret Service spokesman did not dispute that allegation." Or, as Goldman would call it, an "Asymmetric (Secret) Servicing Initiative" where much more than just inside information is leasked. Unfortunately, while he may be far more successful in generating jobs in Latin America than domestically, even those jobs have proven to be quite transitory, just like virtually all quickie temp jobs "created or saved" in the US in the past several years. Furthermore, just like in the US, we doubt that the incremental wealth benefits will trickle down to the local population. After all, unlike in the US, endogenous Colombian liquidity may be abundant everywhere but certainly not at the central bank, which is far, far tighter at a rate of 5.25% (and rising), compared to extra loose central planners the "developed" world over.

Econophile's picture

Ray Dalio released a study he did on deleveraging. The piece was featured prominently here at ZH. I am a fan of Dalio, but his analysis was surprising. His interpretation of the economy is, remarkably, based on a very conventional ideas and is shockingly wrong. For a guy who is known for thinking out of the box and has who has led Bridgewater to become the biggest hedge fund in the world, he has got the deleveraging process all wrong. 

Presenting The Truth Behind America's Fiscal And Employment Picture

Two weeks ago we penned "As US Debt Hits New Record, Fiscal 2012 Tax Revenues Are 10% Higher Than Debt Issuance" which unfortunately was very wrong: we completely forgot that tax revenues in the US are a two way street particularly from January through the end of tax season on April 15, when income and employment tax withholdings are offset by tax refunds as consumers rightfully claim (and in the process pad TurboTax revenues simply for having under-exempted themselves) what was overcollected by the government. Unfortunately, it also means that we showed the US in a far better fiscal light than it is in reality, because contrary to our conclusion that tax revenues are higher than debt issuance in fiscal 2012 (starting October 1, 2011), the reality is not only a mirror image, but worse, with total debt issued now surpassing net revenues (withholdings net of refunds) by a whopping 15%! In other words, for $710.7 billion issued in debt YTD (debt has risen from $14.79 trillion to $15.5 trillion), net tax revenues have risen only by $607 billion. Which means that contrary to conventional wisdom that the US collects in taxes modestly more than it issues, at least through the peak of tax refund season that is certainly not the case. It also means that little by little that neo-Keynesian ideal (where we hope we jest but are no longer sure) of all deficits being funded purely by debt issuance, is slowly coming true.

The Race To Debase In All Its Glory

Lest anyone forget what the real story is, here is a reminder. Thank you neo-Keynesian economics for making a mockery of non-scientific notation.

Econophile's picture

While Ben Bernanke has tried to exude confidence, he is now clearly discouraged. As well he should, since none of the Fed's "suite of tools" have worked as intended and almost every forecast the Fed has given since the Crash has been wrong. We are forecasting a stagnant economy and come the elections it is likely that unemployment will remain high. Like all Fed Chairmen, it will be hard for Dr. Bernanke to resist calls from politicians to "do something." He will earn his moniker as "Helicopter Ben" and unleash more quantitative easing, a dangerous and regressive policy.

Quaintance And Brodsky On "Change We Can Belive In" Or The Coming "Monetary" Revolution

That the two heads of QBAMCO, Lee Quaintance and Paul Brodsky, have traditionally been in the non-conformist camp is no secret. They are two of the fund managers who will, when all is said and done, save and probably increase their clients' purchasing power (we won't call it money because money's days in its current version are numbered), unlike the vast preponderance of momentum chasing sheep who only find solace in their great delusion in even greater numbers (aka the ratings agency effect: "we may be wrong, but we will all be wrong"). In their latest letter, the duo does not uncover any great truths but merely keep exposing ever more dirt in the grave of the current monetary system. They also make short shrift of all the neo-Keynesian hacks who pretend to understand the fault-lines of modern monetary theory: "We would argue a system built upon unreserved bank credit expansion is inequitable, regressive, opaque, the source of asset boom/bust cycles and the root of virtually all the financial, economic and political chaos we are experiencing today. We assume this is in the process of being more widely intuited by global societies. Those that understand monetary identities are best prepared to shift wealth in advance of the necessary de-leveraging that must take place to restore equilibrium." Just as interesting is their observation that the 10 Year only trades where it does (2.6%) due to the ability of the big market players to lever up their return by 10, 20 times. Devoid of all theoretical textbook mumbo jumbo, they may well have hit the nail on the head: "the majority of bond investors driving marginal pricing such as primary dealers, hedge funds and central banks are quite a bit more leveraged. We would argue the Note is not trading at 49 because levered investors have incentive to collect 25% or more in current income (2.74% x 10 or 20) while awaiting their annual bonus or performance fee (or, in the case of the Fed, propping up the economy)." Translated: take away infinite leverage (thank you ZIRP) and the 10 year would be priced more fairly around 12.13% (dollar price of $49.20). Needless to say, their observations on gold, which this week borrow heavily from David Rosenberg are spot on. In a process first used by Dylan Grice, the QBAMCO duo defines the concept of the Shadow Gold Price, and then derives what the fair value of the metal is: roughly $9,250.  All this and much more inside.

Meet David Rosenberg: Tea Partier

That David Rosenberg - the skeptic - threw up all over the Q2 (and revised Q1) GDP in his note to clients yesterday is no surprise. Even Joe Lavorgna did it (which makes us quietly wonder if America is not poised to discover cold fusion, perpetual motion, nirvana, a truly edible iPad, and peace on earth). That David Rosenberg - the deflationist - makes light fare ("ceiling will be raised") of the ongoing debt debacle is also no surprise: after all should the US default, the long bond strategy the Gluskin Sheff strategist has long been espousing will go up in a puff of smoke. What, however, is surprising, is the fact that as of yesterday's Breakfast with Rosie we get to put a political face to the financial man, and it very well may be... David Rosenberg - Tea Partier.

Gonzalo Lira Highlights The Contradictions In The Life Of A Keynesian Fluffer

The life of a fluffer like Brad DeLong is long and hard — and contradictory: Defending his master, Paul Krugman, from all bloggers and infidels, while at the same time attacking people like David Broder, for saying the exact same things that Krugman is saying. Here's my little examination of Brad DeLong — the poor, hapless fluffer in the porn movie known as Keynesian economics. —Gonzalo Lira.

Is The Fed TRYING To Force A Surge In Commodity Prices And Input Costs? Diapason Explains Why Hyperinflation Is Blackhawk Ben's End Goal

A Fed paper released in September, which we luckily missed as otherwise it would have led to the collective death through uncontrollable foaming in the mouth of the entire Zero Hedge staff, was "Oil Shocks and the Zero Bound on Nominal Interest Rates", in which author Martin Bodenstein (an econ Ph.D.) argues that oil price shocks (i.e., surges in the price of oil such as the one we are about to experience courtesy of a fresh trillion in liquidity about to be unleashed by the Fed) are... wait for it... beneficial to GDP and stimulative to the interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy. To wit: "In fact, if the increase in oil prices is gradual, the persistent rise in inflation can cause a GDP expansion.". Yes you read that right. The Fed is stealthily floating the idea that a surge in oil prices will be for the greater good. In essence, the Fed is telegraphing that while it acknowledges that oil is about to jump to over $100, it won't be as bad as those with a functioning brain dare to claim. And, as we show below, it will actually be a very good thing! While we would probably get a massive lethal subdural hemorrhage if told to argue a view so blatantly and stupefyingly demented, insane and, simply said, wrong, as that espoused by Bodenstein, we are glad that Sean Corrigan of Diapason has gone the extra mile to not only expose the Fed charlatans for their voodoo gimmickry in this narrow topic, and brings up an even more critical idea, which is that the Fed "actually welcomes the current surge in the prices of many of the staples of everyday life; that it actually exults in the drain being exerted on family budgets; that it revels in the squeeze on profit margins being suffered by already-struggling small businesses, because it imagines this will serve to lower the reckoning of the ethereal construct of a generalized, future real interest rate and that this alone will serve to shower riches upon all who are presently suffering, in comparison for the present woes." That nobody has reached this conclusion before is explainable - it is something only the brain of an illogical, demented, perverted genocidal madman's brain can come up with. Which is why we are now convinced the Fed is hoping for not only mild inflation, but an outright surge in prices.