en "We're On Borrowed Time" - California Unveils "The Great ShakeOut" Statewide Earthquake Drill <p><strong>Seismologists believe the US state is decades<a href=""> overdue a &ldquo;Big One&rdquo; tremor</a> measuring magnitude 7 or greater on the Richter scale.</strong></p> <p><a href=""><em>The Daily Star reports, </em></a>a massive fault line zone in the Bay Area of Southern California is thought to be most at risk with <strong>experts giving a 72% chance of a large tremor within the next 30 years.</strong></p> <p>Now a <a href=""><strong>freak spate of deadly earthquakes that wreaked havoc in several regions throughout the Pacific has sparked fears California could be next.</strong></a></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>The Pacific &ldquo;Ring of Fire&rdquo; is living up to its name.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 560px; height: 282px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The 450 or so volcanoes that make up the ring outline have been unusually active this year, sparking evacuations on the Indonesian island of Bali and on the tiny island nation of Vanuatu.</strong> Parts of southwestern Japan, meanwhile, have been shaken by a series of earthquakes, unsettling the local population, in an area where the massive Pacific Plate grinds against other plates that form the Earth&rsquo;s crust, creating a 25,000-mile zone where earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are unusually common.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Three volcanos have either erupted, or are showing signs of an imminent eruption, across the region, according to a roundup published by the <a href="">Associated Press.</a></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>In the past 30 days alone, California has been struck by 671 earthquakes</strong>, according to Earthquake Track.</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//" width="560"></iframe></p> <p>David Schwartz, geologist for US Geological Survey, said <strong>the most worrying fault line passes through the &ldquo;most densely populated part of the Bay Area&rdquo;.</strong></p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 560px; height: 381px;" /></a></p> <p>More than 7.4 million people live near the Hayward Fault &ndash; one of many fault lines experts are concerned about.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&ldquo;The Bay Area is positioned in the middle of the boundary zone of the North American plate and Pacific plate,&rdquo;</strong> Schwartz said.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;The Bay Area has the highest density of faults per square mile in any urban centre.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Schwartz said since 1906, the region has had an unusually small amount of earthquake activity.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>But he added: <strong>&ldquo;I think to a degree we&rsquo;re on borrowed time.&rdquo;</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;All of these faults haven&rsquo;t moved in quite a while and have to catch up.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;I think in all probabilities &hellip;<strong> down the road almost inevitably faults will begin to move again.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>All of which probably explains why, <strong>tomorrow, Thursday October 19th - all citizens are encourged to take part in <a href="">The Great California ShakeOut </a>- a statewide earthquake drill held annually to prepare people to survive and recover quickly from major quakes</strong>.</p> <p><a href=""><img height="103" src="" width="560" /></a></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&quot;The recent earthquakes in Mexico are a sobering reminder of the kind of destruction an earthquake can quickly wreak,&quot;</strong> begins Santa Clarita Councilmember Bob Kellar, adding calmly, <strong>&quot;and like Mexico, California is prone to seismic activity.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>California has earthquake hazards throughout the state, from the southern San Andreas Fault to the northern Cascadia Subduction Zone.<strong> Given these circumstances, being prepared for earthquakes is a must when you live in the Golden State.&quot;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>When the earth shakes, you are encouraged to...Drop, Cover and Hold On:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Move only as far as necessary to reach a safe place.</li> <li>Take cover under a sturdy desk or table and hold on to it firmly.</li> <li>Be prepared to move with the shaking.</li> <li>Hold on until the ground stops shaking and it is safe to move.</li> <li>Do not go to a doorway as a place of safety&mdash;injury can occur due to doors swinging.</li> <li>If outdoors, find a spot away from buildings, trees, streetlights, power lines and overpasses. Drop to the ground until the shaking stops.</li> <li>Never run out of a building while the ground is still shaking.</li> <li>If in a vehicle, pull over at a clear location and stop. Stay in the vehicle, with the seatbelt fastened, until the shaking stops.</li> </ul> <p><img alt="" src="" style="width: 560px; height: 307px;" /></p> <p>Officials note that although we do not have the power to control these events, we can plan and prepare to minimize the damage when they do occur.</p> <p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="" width="560"></iframe></p> <p><strong>The Great California ShakeOut is an opportunity to prepare an emergency recovery plan with family members, coworkers and schoolmates</strong>.</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 560px; height: 382px;" /></a></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="593" height="325" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Disaster Earthquake Earthquake weather Environment Fault Geography of California Hayward Fault Zone Japan Mexico recovery Seismology Southern California southwestern Japan Submarine earthquake Thu, 19 Oct 2017 01:35:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605591 at Mike Krieger Is "Surprisingly Optimistic" About The Future... But There's A Catch <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,</em></a></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="5d52"><strong><em>To summarize, in just the last few years the world has invented a way to create software services that have no central operator. These services are called decentralized applications and they are enabled with crypto assets that incentivize entities on the internet to contribute resources?&mdash;?processing, storage, computing?&mdash;?necessary for the service to function.</em></strong></p> <p class="graf graf--p graf-after--p">&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><em>It&rsquo;s worth pausing to acknowledge that this is kind of&nbsp;miraculous. With just the internet, an open protocol, and a new kind of asset, we can instantiate networks that dynamically assemble the resources necessary to provide many kinds of services.</em></strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ndash; From Adam Ludwin&rsquo;s:&nbsp;<a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank">A Letter to Jamie&nbsp;Dimon</a></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>I&rsquo;m actually pretty optimistic about the future. I know some of you might be surprised to hear that, but it&rsquo;s true.</strong> This might not be the case if I had only five years left on the planet, but assuming I&rsquo;m fortunate enough to stay healthy for another few decades,<strong> I think the world will be a much better place when I leave it than when I came in.</strong></p> <p>The simple fact of the matter is this. For things to get substantially better from any situation, it&rsquo;s always easier to start from a pretty bad place. When I write articles describing the U.S. economy as a rent-seeking, oligarch controlled swindle, I don&rsquo;t do this to fill you with a sense of insurmountable dread. Rather, the purpose of those posts is to shake as many people as possible out of their slumber. There&rsquo;s simply no way we can come up with appropriate and conscious solutions to our problems unless we can identify the various scams that govern so much of life around us.</p> <p><strong>The most lucrative scams are simultaneously extremely bold and well hidden. As such, there&rsquo;s no greater scam on earth than the scam of the monetary system. </strong>A system where a small group of unelected technocrats (central bankers) are given power to create and distribute money at their discretion. The power that these people wielded during the financial crisis was historic in nature and dastardly in its results. Essentially, the monetary system was used as a weapon to bailout and further enrich those already entrenched in positions of power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. There&rsquo;s simply no way Donald Trump would be President today had it not been for the extraordinarily lopsided &ldquo;recovery,&rdquo; which was a direct result of government&rsquo;s extremely unethical and arguably criminal response to the financial crisis.</p> <p><strong>Having worked in the financial industry for a decade, I immediately saw the swindle for what it was.</strong> As such, I could no longer stomach working on Wall Street and resigned from my in January 2010. The next couple of years were dark ones for me. I saw what had happened, and I knew the kind of society that was being institutionalized as a result of bailing out and leaving some of the most vile, predatory people in U.S. society at the pinnacles of power. I felt an overwhelming sense of dread and couldn&rsquo;t see a way out. Then I learned about Bitcoin.</p> <p><strong>I don&rsquo;t want to overly repeat stuff I&rsquo;ve already written, but Bitcoin provided me with a sense of optimism I hadn&rsquo;t felt in years.</strong> I saw that some genius had created a monetary escape route for humanity, and that we would now have the technology to start creating the world of the future. A world&nbsp;increasingly characterized by decentralization and grassroots action, versus centralization and top down command and control. It&rsquo;s been five years since I started writing about Bitcoin, and I&rsquo;m more encouraged than ever. Not only has Bitcoin captured the imagination of the world, but decentralized applications are taking off in all sorts of different ways.</p> <p>To understand more about what I mean, I strongly suggest reading an article published by Adam Ludwin titled,&nbsp;<a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank">A Letter to Jamie Dimon</a>. Below are just a few select excerpts from this excellent piece:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong><em>To summarize, in just the last few years the world has invented a way to create software services that have no central operator. These services are called decentralized applications and they are enabled with crypto assets that incentivize entities on the internet to contribute resources?&mdash;?processing, storage, computing?&mdash;?necessary for the service to function.</em></strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><em>It&rsquo;s worth pausing to acknowledge that this is kind of&nbsp;miraculous. With just the internet, an open protocol, and a new kind of asset, we can instantiate networks that dynamically assemble the resources necessary to provide many kinds of services&hellip;</em></strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Centralized applications beat the pants off decentralized applications on virtually every dimension.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">EXCEPT FOR ONE DIMENSION.</strong></em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>And not only are decentralized applications better at this one thing, they are the only way we can achieve it.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>What am I referring to?</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">Censorship resistance.</strong></em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>This is where we come to the elusive signal in the noise.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Censorship resistance means that access to decentralized applications is open and unfettered. Transactions on these services are unstoppable&hellip;</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>Given how different they are from the app models we know and love, will anyone&nbsp;ever&nbsp;really&nbsp;use&nbsp;decentralized applications? Will they become a critical part of the economy? It&rsquo;s hard to predict because it depends in part on the technology&rsquo;s evolution but far more on society&rsquo;s reaction to it.</em></p> <div> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><em>For example: until relatively recently, encrypted messaging was only used by hackers, spies, and paranoids. That didn&rsquo;t seem to be changing. Until it did. Post-Snowden and post-Trump, everyone from Silicon Valley to the Acela corridor seems to be on either Signal or Telegram. WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. The press solicit tips through SecureDrop. Yes, the technology got a little better and easier to use. But it is mainly changes in society that are driving adoption.</em></strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>In other words, we grew up in the rainforest, but sometimes things change and it helps to know how to adapt to other environments.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>And this is the basic argument that the smart money is making on crypto assets and decentralized applications: that it&rsquo;s simply too early to say anything. That it is a profound change. That, should one or more of these decentralized applications actually become an integral part of the world, their underlying crypto assets will be extremely valuable. So might as well start placing bets now and see how it goes. Don&rsquo;t get to hung up on whether we see the killer apps yet.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>That&rsquo;s not a bad argument and I tend to agree.</em></p> </div> </blockquote> <p>The above is just a small fraction the post, but packs a ton of important information<strong>. What Adam is saying is that with the advent of Bitcoin and other decentralized applications, we now have an opt-out to centralization (and hence censorship) in some very important aspects of life, with the most significant to-date being with respect to a hopelessly corrupt monetary system.</strong></p> <p><a href=""><span id="more-48265"><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 374px;" /></span></a></p> <p><strong>As I described earlier, our global monetary system is essentially the greatest scam the world has ever seen. It allows money to be funneled to the worst of the worst, enriching people who don&rsquo;t add any real value to society, and actually exists to extract value from everyone else</strong>. Sure Bitcoin may never be as a efficient as some future centralized monetary system, but it&rsquo;s always likely to be far more transparent and honest. Plus, it&rsquo;s entirely voluntary. No one is forcing you to use Bitcoin, you participate in Bitcoin because you want to. If more aspects of human existence were defined by such qualities, the world would be a much better place. The great news is we already have some of the tools we need, and it&rsquo;s extremely likely many, many more will be developed in the years ahead.</p> <p>When it comes to the two key variables I think are necessary to create a better world, we&rsquo;ve already made considerable progress on one: technology. The other variable is awareness, and this element will take a bit more time. Ignorance and apathy are the enemies of progress, and our species still suffers from such afflictions in spades.</p> <p><u><strong>Unfortunately, I don&rsquo;t think we&rsquo;ll see sufficient change in this regard without hardship.</strong></u> This hardship is likely to occur as the old paradigm becomes more authoritarian and paranoid as it lashes out in an attempt to solidify and expand control. Of course, we&rsquo;re already seeing this all around us, but it&rsquo;s likely to get even worse in the years ahead. Don&rsquo;t be afraid of it, understand that it&rsquo;s coming and accept that this is all part of the change process. Did you really think control-freak authoritarians would give up without a fight?</p> <p>As Adam pointed out in his post, encrypted chat didn&rsquo;t take off until the public became aware of the extent of the lawless domestic surveillance state. The public became aware of this thanks to Edward Snowden, and armed with this knowledge began to demand and utilize a privacy technology which had already existed a long time. I suspect similar waves of awareness on additional issues will spur increased use of all sorts of other decentralized applications in the coming years. The major lesson from the Snowden affair is that government isn&rsquo;t going to do anything to protect you. Unfortunately, corruption in society is too institutionalized for government to reform in any meaningful way at this particular moment. It&rsquo;s up to us to take action.</p> <p><em><u><strong>To summarize, I expect the status quo to become increasingly authoritarian and crazed in the years ahead as its members instinctively feel they&rsquo;re losing control. This sounds crazy because the powerful appear to be more in control than ever before, but they&rsquo;re not. They already lost the plot in so many ways, crucially in the most important way of all. Namely, a meaningful percentage of the world&rsquo;s population already understands that something&rsquo;s off in a major way and that things aren&rsquo;t working. More will come around to this view in the years ahead, and those with the power will become increasingly panicky. This will create the window of opportunity for humanity to take a great leap forward. We have the tools, we just need the desire. We need the strength and awareness to say no. To demand better. I&rsquo;m certain that we can, and I think that we will.</strong></u></em></p> <p>*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p> <p><em>If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a&nbsp;monthly&nbsp;<a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff6600;">Patron</span></a>,&nbsp;or visit our&nbsp;<a href="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Support&nbsp;Page</a>&nbsp;to show your appreciation for&nbsp;independent content creators.</em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="745" height="464" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Alternative currencies Bitcoin Bitcoin Blockchains Corruption Cryptocurrencies Cryptography Decentralization Donald Trump Finance Financial technology Jamie Dimon Legality of bitcoin by country or territory Money open protocol privacy technology recovery Smart Money Thu, 19 Oct 2017 01:15:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605592 at FBI Informant "Threatened" After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case <p>While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America's uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour.&nbsp; </p> <p>As <a href="">The Hill</a> pointed out earlier this morning, the latest development in this sordid tale revolves around a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and beyond to build a case against a Russian perpetrator who ultimately admitted to bribery, extortion and money laundering.&nbsp; The informant, who is so far only known as "Confidential Source 1," says that when he attempted to come forward last year with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the scandal he was promptly silenced by the FBI and the Obama administration.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Working as a confidential witness, the businessman made kickback payments to the Russians with the approval of his FBI handlers and gathered other evidence, the records show.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Sources told The Hill the informant's work was crucial to the government's ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion. In the end, the main Russian executive sent to the U.S. to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear business, an executive of an American trucking firm and a Russian financier from New Jersey pled guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>“He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,”</strong> she said.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration's 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal</strong> and <strong>sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton's foundation.</strong> At the time, <strong>Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State</strong> on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval. </p> </blockquote> <p><img src="" alt="Victoria" width="600" height="335" /></p> <p>In the midst of the new discoveries revealed yesterday about the Uranium One case (see: <a href="">FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions</a>), "Confidential Source 1" has once again hired an attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get his story out.</p> <p>Sitting down with The Hill earlier, Toensing said that the <strong>last time her client tried to speak out "both his reputation and liberty" were "threatened" by the Obama administration in a effort to force his silence.&nbsp; </strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p><strong>“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” </strong>she said in an interview Tuesday.<strong> “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, 'This is wrong. What should I do about it?'” </strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The undercover client witnessed “a lot of bribery going on around the U.S.”</strong> but was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress, Toensing explained.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year,<strong> “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” </strong>she added.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Emails obtained by The Hill show that a civil attorney working with the former undercover witness described the pressure the Justice Department exerted to keep the client from disclosing to a federal court what he knew last summer.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>“The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,”</strong> the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, <strong>“As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint."</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary <a href="">Clinton Cash</a>, the Uranium One deal at the center of this scandal is believed to have netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and 'speaking fees' from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Russian Purchase of US Uranium Assets in Return for $145mm in Contributions to the Clinton Foundation - Bill and Hillary Clinton assisted a Canadian financier, Frank Giustra, and his company, Uranium One, in the acquisition of uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan and the United States. &nbsp;Subsequently, the Russian government sought to purchase Uranium One but required approval from the Obama administration given the strategic importance of the uranium assets. &nbsp;<strong>In the run-up to the approval of the deal by the State Department, nine shareholders of Uranium One just happened to make $145mm in donations to the Clinton Foundation. &nbsp;Moreover, the <a href="">New Yorker</a> confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time. </strong>&nbsp;Needless to say, the State Department approved the deal giving Russia ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium assets&nbsp; </p> </blockquote> <p>Meanwhile, the 'journalists' over at CNN are still trying to get to the bottom of exactly who spent the $100,000 on Facebook ads...</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="536" height="277" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> American people of German descent Bill Clinton Clinton Cash Clinton Foundation Clinton Foundation Colleges of the University of Oxford Committee on Foreign Investment Congress Corruption Department of Justice Department of State FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation Government Hillary Clinton Kazakhstan Obama Administration Obama administration Peter Schweizer Politics Racketeering Rodham family Russian government Senate Intelligence Committee United States Uranium Uranium Uranium One Victoria Toensing Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:55:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605594 at "Doing Better Each Day" - Missing Vegas Massacre Security Guard Resurfaces... <p><strong>The mystery is over.</strong> After<a href="The mystery is over. After vanishing since last Thursday, wounded Las Vegas security guard Jesus Campos has been found... On the set of 'Ellen'."> vanishing since last Thursday</a>, wounded Las Vegas security guard Jesus Campos has been found... <strong><em>On the set of &#39;Ellen&#39;.</em></strong></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" style="width: 600px; height: 305px;" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><em>As we noted previously, </em></a><strong>the general story of Campos&#39; disappearance appears to have been confirmed by <em>ABC</em> journalist Stephanie Wash,</strong> who tweeted Thursday evening:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;<em>Media scrum tonight as we learn security officer shot in Vegas attack, J<strong>esus Campos&rsquo; whereabouts are unknown.&rdquo;</strong></em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em>&ldquo;Jesus Campos was set to do 5 intvs tonight per union president, <strong>but they&rsquo;ve lost contact. &lsquo;We were in a room &amp; we came out &amp; he was gone,&rsquo;&rdquo; </strong>she also tweeted.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Then, David Hickey of the Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) told reporters Friday that<strong> he got a text the night before saying Jesus Campos was taken to a UMC Quick Care facility,</strong> though he did not specify where or whom the text came from.</p> <p><strong>A spokesperson at the UMC Quick Care, </strong>which has eight locations throughout the Las Vegas area, told Fox News on Monday that<strong> they had &quot;heard nothing&quot; about Campos visiting them.</strong></p> <p>And now, as Ellen herself tweeted this morning, we know where he is...</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Tomorrow, the first people to encounter the Las Vegas shooter are here &ndash; security guard Jesus Campos and building engineer Stephen Schuck. <a href=""></a></p> <p>&mdash; Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) <a href="">October 18, 2017</a></p></blockquote> <script src="//"></script><p>As <a href="">The LA Times reports</a>, Ellen DeGeneres&rsquo; television talk show is expected to broadcast the much-anticipated first interview with the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino security guard, who was the first shooting victim in the Oct. 1 massacre in Las Vegas.</p> <p>In a recording of his appearance on &ldquo;Ellen&rdquo; obtained by the&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Las Vegas Review-Journal</a>, <strong>Campos, who said he was &ldquo;doing better each day, slowly but surely,&rdquo; confirmed he had called in when he was shot - before the full rampage began.</strong></p> <p>But he gave few other details that would answer nagging questions about the response of hotel security and Las Vegas police.</p> <p>He said he called security dispatch to transfer his call to the building&#39;s engineers, who sent an engineer to examine the door.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&ldquo;At that time I heard what I assumed was drilling sounds,&rdquo; </strong>Campos said. (Officials have said that Paddock appeared to be drilling into a wall inside his room for unknown reasons.)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>As Campos walked down the hall, away from Paddock&#39;s suite, the outer door of the access room, which was unblocked, closed loudly behind him.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;I believe that&#39;s what caught the shooter&#39;s attention,&rdquo; </strong>Campos said.<strong> &ldquo;As I was walking down, I heard rapid fire, and at first I took cover.&rdquo; </strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The gunman was shooting through the door of his hotel suite. &ldquo;I don&#39;t know how he was shooting.&rdquo;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Campos felt a &ldquo;burning sensation&rdquo; and went to lift his pant leg up and, seeing blood, realized he&rsquo;d been shot.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&ldquo;That&#39;s when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired,&rdquo;</strong> Campos said. &ldquo;I was going to say that I was hit, but I got on my cellphone just to clear that radio traffic for &mdash; they can coordinate the rest of the call.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p><iframe height="366" src="//" width="650"></iframe></p> <p>The photo of Campos holding a cane on the set Tuesday shows him<strong> alongside maintenance engineer Stephen Schuck, who was also shot at by the gunman on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel.</strong></p> <p><a href=""><img height="323" src="" width="600" /></a></p> <p><strong>Schuck described hearing shooting and thinking, &ldquo;it was a jackhammer.&rdquo;</strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;As an engineer, I am like, we are not working up here this late at night. We wouldn&rsquo;t be doing that. I believe it was outside. It wasn&rsquo;t in the hallway yet.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>That&rsquo;s when Jesus leaned out and said take cover, take cover. Yelled at me and within millisecond, if he hadn&rsquo;t said that, I would&rsquo;ve gotten hit.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="1047" height="564" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Clark County, Nevada English-language films Fox News Las Vegas Las Vegas Las Vegas police Las Vegas Strip Las Vegas Valley Mandalay Bay Mandalay Resort Group MGM Resorts International Nevada Television The Ellen DeGeneres Show Twitter Twitter Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:40:56 +0000 Tyler Durden 605559 at $1 Trillion In Liquidity Is Leaving: "This Will Be The Market's First Crash-Test In 10 Years" <p>In his latest presentation, Francesco Filia of Fasanara Capital discusses how years of monumental liquidity injections by major Central Banks ($15 trillion since 2009) successfully avoided a circuit break after the Global Financial Crisis, but failed to deliver on the core promise of economic growth through the 'wealth effect', <strong>which instead became an 'inequality effect', exacerbating populism and representing a constant threat to the status quo. </strong></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="431" /></a></p> <p>Fasanara discusses how elusive, over-fitting economic narratives are used ex-post to legitimize the "fake markets" - as <a href="">defined previously by the hedge fund </a>- induced by artificial flows. Meanwhile, as an unintended consequence, such money flows <strong>produced a dangerous market structure, </strong>dominated by both passive-aggressive investment vehicles and a high-beta long-only momentum community ($8 trn and rising rapidly), oftentimes under the commercial disguise of brands such as behavioral Alternative Risk Premia, factor investing, risk parity funds, low vol / short vol vehicles, trend-chasing algos, machine learning. </p> <p>However as Filia, and many others before him, writes, only when the tide goes out, will we discover who has been swimming naked, and how big of a momentum/crowding trap was built up in the process. <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The undoing of loose monetary policies (NIRP, ZIRP), and the transitioning from 'Peak Quantitative Easing' to Quantitative Tightening, will create a liquidity withdrawal of over $1 trillion in 2018 alone</span>. </strong>The reaction of the passive community will determine the speed of the adjustment in the pricing for both safe and risk assets. </p> <p>And, <a href="">echoing what Deutsche Bank said last week</a>, when it warned that central bank liquiidty injections will collapse from $2 trillion now to 0 in 12 months, a "most worrying" turn of events, Fasanara doubles down that <strong>"such liquidity withdrawal will represent the first real crash-test for markets in 10 years.</strong>"<strong>&nbsp;</strong> </p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="445" /></a></p> <p>Filia concludes that "<strong>the big opportunity in today's markets is to position for such moment of adjustment, as it is totally priced out despite its potential for severe disruption, thus offering the most pronounced asymmetric profile.</strong>"</p> <p><em>Below are the key slides from Fasanara's presentation:</em></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="447" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="430" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="437" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="432" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href=""><img src="" style="width: 600px; height: 440px;" /></a></p> <p><a href=""><img src="" width="600" height="456" /></a></p> <p><em>The full, must read presentation is below (<a href="">link</a>):</em></p> <p><iframe src=";view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-BssapyR1TP8px5S6hCFj&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="974" height="430" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Business Central Banks Deutsche Bank Economic policy Economy Finance Financial crisis of 2007–2008 Financial markets Inflation machine learning Market liquidity Monetary policy Money Quantitative easing Systemic risk Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:40:44 +0000 Tyler Durden 605569 at Milton Friedman & Conservatives Are Wrong In Education <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,</em></a></p> <p><strong>Once upon a time, some conservatives used to call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education. </strong>Lamentably, conservatives today celebrate when a &ldquo;free-market advocate&rdquo; like multimillionaire Betsy DeVos is appointed U.S. Secretary of Education, and they get terribly excited when she speaks at conservative conferences.</p> <p><strong>Meanwhile, even while conservatives continue to pronounce their allegiance to their favorite mantra &mdash; &ldquo;free enterprise, private property, limited government&rdquo; &mdash; they continue to embrace not only public schooling itself but also their favorite public-schooling fix-it program, school vouchers.</strong></p> <p>Over the years, conservatives have developed various labels for their voucher program: a &ldquo;free-market approach to education,&rdquo; &ldquo;free enterprise in education,&rdquo; or &ldquo;school choice.&rdquo; They have chosen those labels to make themselves and their supporters feel good about supporting vouchers.</p> <p>But <strong>the labeling has always been false and fraudulent. </strong>Vouchers are nothing more than a socialist program, no different in principle from public schooling itself.</p> <p>The term &ldquo;free enterprise&rdquo; means a system in which a private enterprise is free of government control or interference. That&rsquo;s what distinguishes it from a socialist system, which connotes government control and interference with the enterprise.</p> <p><strong>A voucher system entails the government taxing people and then using the money to provide vouchers to people, which they can then redeem at government-approved private schools.</strong></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Does that sound like a system that is free from government control or interference?</strong></em></span> In reality, it&rsquo;s no different in principle from food stamps, farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other welfare-state program. The government is using force to take money from Peter and giving it to Paul. That&rsquo;s not &ldquo;free enterprise.&rdquo; That&rsquo;s the opposite of free enterprise.</p> <p>Conservatives say that their voucher system is based on &ldquo;choice&rdquo; because the voucher provides recipients with &ldquo;choices.&rdquo; But doesn&rsquo;t the same principle apply to recipients of food stamps, farm subsidies, Social Security, and other socialist programs? Sure, the recipient of the loot has more choices because he has more money at his disposal. But let&rsquo;s not forget that the person from whom the money was forcibly taken has been deprived of choices. After all, after a robber commits his dirty deed, he too has more choices with the money he has acquired. His victim, on the other hand, has been deprived of choices.</p> <p>In FFF&rsquo;s first year of operation, 1990, I wrote an article entitled &ldquo;<a href="">Letting Go of Socialism</a>,&rdquo; in which I pointed out that <strong>school vouchers were just another socialist scheme, one that was intended to make public schooling work more efficiently.</strong></p> <p><strong>Imagine my surprise to receive a critique from none other than Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who is the father of the school voucher program. </strong>Friedman leveled his critique in a speech he delivered that was entitled &ldquo;Say No to Intolerance,&rdquo; in which he took to task such libertarian stalwarts as Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand for adhering to principle.</p> <p>Interesting enough, Friedman&rsquo;s speech was recently reprinted in an issue of the <em>Hoover Digest,</em> a premier conservative publication. You can read it <a href="">here</a>.</p> <p>Friedman&rsquo;s critique of my article was nice enough. First pointing out that FFF was doing &ldquo;good work and making an impact,&rdquo; he addressed my criticism of vouchers:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>But am I a statist, as I have been labeled by a number of libertarians, because some thirty years ago I suggested the use of educational vouchers as a way of easing the transition? Is that, and I quote Hornberger again, &ldquo;simply a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently&rdquo;? I don&rsquo;t believe it. I don&rsquo;t believe that you can simply say what the ideal is. This is what I mean by the utopian strand in libertarianism. You can-not simply describe the utopian solution, and leave it to somebody else how&nbsp;we get from here to there. That&rsquo;s not only a practical problem. It&rsquo;s a problem of the responsibilities that we have.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>With all due respect to a Nobel Prize winner and a true gentleman, Milton Friedman was wrong on education then, and conservatives who continue to support vouchers are wrong today.</strong></p> <p>Notice something important, a point that conservatives have long forgotten: Friedman justified vouchers as a way to get rid of public schooling. For him, vouchers were a &ldquo;transition&rdquo; device &mdash; i.e., a way to get from here to there, with &ldquo;there&rdquo; being the end of public schooling.</p> <p><strong>That&rsquo;s not what conservatives say today. They justify vouchers by saying that they will improve, not destroy, the public-schooling system.</strong> I can&rsquo;t help but wonder what Friedman would say about that if he were still alive, given that his support of vouchers was based on the notion that it would serve as a way to get rid of public schooling. Would he still support vouchers if he knew that they would save public schooling and make it more efficient?</p> <p><strong>Why did conservatives end up rejecting Friedman&rsquo;s justification?</strong> They came to the realization that some people would be less likely to support vouchers if they were told that their real purpose was to destroy public schooling. Therefore, to get more people to support vouchers, conservatives shifted Friedman&rsquo;s justification to the exact opposite of what Friedman was saying. Conservatives began telling people that vouchers, by providing &ldquo;competition,&rdquo; would improve the public-schooling system. In fact, voucher proponents today, when pressed, will openly tell people that they are opposed to abolishing public schooling but only want to make it better by providing people with the means (vouchers) to leave the public-schooling system.</p> <p>Almost 30 years after Friedman leveled his critique at me, <strong>there is not one instance of where his system of school vouchers have served as a &ldquo;transition&rdquo; to educational liberty. </strong>Time has confirmed the point I pointed out almost three decades ago &mdash; that school vouchers, no matter how they are labeled, are nothing more than a socialistic program designed to make socialism (i.e., public schooling) work more efficiently.</p> <p>Friedman and conservatives have been proven wrong on education. There is only one solution to the educational morass in which Americans find themselves: <em><strong>Separate school and state, just as our ancestors separated church and state. Repeal all school compulsory-attendance laws and school taxes and sell off the school buildings. End all government involvement in education, including licensing of schools. </strong></em></p> <p><em><strong><img height="343" src="" width="600" /></strong></em></p> <p><strong>Establish a total free-market educational system.</strong></p> <p>*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p> <p><em>For more information on this issue, see FFF&rsquo;s award-winning book <a href="">Separating School &amp; State: How to Liberate America&rsquo;s Families</a> by Sheldon Richman.</em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="682" height="390" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Alternative education Betsy DeVos Conservatism in the United States Economics Economy Education Education Education economics Fiscal policy Freedom Foundation Ludwig von Mises Milton Friedman Milton Friedman None Reality School choice School voucher Separating School U.S. Department of Education Voucher Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:35:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605589 at "This Is Very Rare" - Apple Slashes iPhone 8 Supplier Orders By 50% As Demand Dries Up <p><a href="">Following reports this morning</a> that channel checks show <strong>iPhone 7 outselling iPhone 8</strong>, <a href="">Taipei-based Economic Daily News&nbsp;reports</a> that <strong>orders for iPhone 8 and Plus have been slashed by around 50% for November and December</strong>, citing an unidentified official at the supply chain.</p> <p>As we detailed earlier, a new report by KeyBanc Capital Analyst John Vinh, channel checks have revealed that <strong>Apple&#39;s older iPhone 7 models are outselling the recently launched iPhone 8 ahead of the early November debut of the premium iPhone X</strong>.</p> <p><a href=""><img height="320" src="" width="500" /></a></p> <p><strong>As traditionally new editions of the iPhone have sold quickly as fans queue for the latest upgrade, this time it&#39;s clearly different...</strong></p> <p><img height="303" src="" width="500" /></p> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong>As pent up demand for the iPhone X is clearly cannibalizing sales, and the surveys add to signs that the iPhone 8 is not proving as popular as its predecessors.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&quot;Many respondents indicated that a meaningful portion of customers are buying iPhone 7 in lieu of the new iPhone 8, given the lack of significant enhancements in the new phone,&quot; </strong>Vinh wrote in his research report, which relied on channel checks in the United States and United Kingdom.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>&quot;Feedback from stores indicate customers are waiting to purchase the iPhone X or to compare the iPhone X before buying the iPhone 8,&quot; </strong>wrote Vinh, who is rated four out of five stars by Thomson Reuters StarMine for his recommendation accuracy on the Apple stock.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Another reason for the slow uptick of the iPhone 8 could be the modest promotion by U.S. carriers, Vinh said.<strong> &quot;While carriers continue to offer promotions for the new iPhone 8, they have been much more modest compared to the iPhone 7 launch last year,&quot; </strong>he wrote.</p> </blockquote> <p>Which probably explains why <a href="">Economic Daily News reports</a> that <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Apple is now betting all-in on the iPhone X, cutting supplier orders on the iPhone 8 (and 8 Plus) drastically</strong></span>. [via Google Translate]</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>But the supply chain has said that &quot;this year is quite rare&quot;,</strong> the new product has just been mass production for about one to three months, <strong>was asked to begin to decline, &quot;is the first time in ten years.&quot;</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Supply chain sources revealed that iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus expectations of 11 - 12 months of<strong> shipments of 1 to 1.2 million per month will be substantially reduced, down nearly half of the range, </strong>shipment will be only 500-600,000.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, as we concluded earlier, with Apple bull hopes falling squarely on the shoulders of the iPhone X, a key unknown factor is <strong>what the price will be</strong>. The much-anticipated iPhone X, a glass and stainless steel device with an edge-to-edge display, will start shipping from Nov. 3 with the 10th-anniversary iPhone priced from $999,<strong> Apple&#39;s most expensive mobile till date.</strong></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="461" height="295" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Apple Apple Inc. Consumer electronics Draft:IOS 12 Google IOS IPhone IPhone 4 IPhone 5S IPhone 6 IPhone 7 Reuters Technology Technology United Kingdom Video Thu, 19 Oct 2017 00:15:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605596 at How The Elite Dominate The World – Part 3: 90% Of What You Watch On TV Is Controlled By Just 6 Giant Corporations <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,</em></a></p> <p><em><strong>How much is your view of the world shaped by what you see on television?&nbsp;</strong></em></p> <p><a href=""><img height="265" src="" width="449" /></a></p> <p><strong>On average, Americans spend <a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="153 hours">more than 150 hours</a> watching television every month, and it is called &ldquo;programming&rdquo; for a reason.&nbsp;</strong> If you allow anyone to pour ideas and information into your mind for five hours a day, it is going to change how you look at reality.&nbsp; Everyone has an agenda, and every single news program, television show and movie is trying to alter your views.&nbsp; Sadly, our society has become absolutely addicted to media, and the mainstream media is completely dominated by the elite.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In fact, about 90 percent of the programming that comes through your television is controlled <a href="" target="_blank" title="by just 6 gigantic media corporations">by just 6 gigantic media corporations</a>.</strong>&nbsp; Most of us are willingly plugging ourselves into this &ldquo;propaganda matrix&rdquo; that is completely dominated by the elite for several hours each day, and that gives them an enormous amount of power over the rest of us.</p> <p>In <a href="" title="Part I">Part I</a> and <a href="" title="Part II">Part II</a> of this series, I discussed how the elite use money as a tool to dominate the planet.&nbsp; Today, we are going to talk about how they use information.&nbsp;<strong> If you control what people think, then you control a society.&nbsp; And through their vast media empires, the elite are able to shape how we all think to a frightening degree.</strong></p> <p>Just think about it.&nbsp; What do we talk about with our family, our friends and our co-workers?&nbsp; To a large extent, those conversations are about movies, television shows, something that we just saw on the news or a sporting event that just took place.&nbsp; The reason why we talk about certain things is because the mainstream media gives those things attention, and other things we ignore because the mainstream media does not make them seem to be important.</p> <p>The mainstream media literally sets the agenda for our society, and it would be difficult to overstate the power that is in their hands.&nbsp; And as I mentioned above, the mainstream media is almost entirely controlled by just 6 colossal corporations.&nbsp; The following list of these 6 corporate giants comes from <a href="" title="one of my previous articles">one of my previous articles</a>, and this is just a sampling of the media properties that they each own&hellip;</p> <h3><u><strong>Comcast</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>NBC</li> <li>Telemundo</li> <li>Universal Pictures</li> <li>Focus Features</li> <li>USA Network</li> <li>Bravo</li> <li>CNBC</li> <li>The Weather Channel</li> <li>MSNBC</li> <li>Syfy</li> <li>NBCSN</li> <li>Golf Channel</li> <li>Esquire Network</li> <li>E!</li> <li>Cloo</li> <li>Chiller</li> <li>Universal HD</li> <li>Comcast SportsNet</li> <li>Universal Parks &amp; Resorts</li> <li>Universal Studio Home Video</li> </ul> <h3><u><strong>The Walt Disney Company</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>ABC Television Network</li> <li>ESPN</li> <li>The Disney Channel</li> <li>A&amp;E</li> <li>Lifetime</li> <li>Marvel Entertainment</li> <li>Lucasfilm</li> <li>Walt Disney Pictures</li> <li>Pixar Animation Studios</li> <li>Disney Mobile</li> <li>Disney Consumer Products</li> <li>Interactive Media</li> <li>Disney Theme Parks</li> <li>Disney Records</li> <li>Hollywood Records</li> <li>Miramax Films</li> <li>Touchstone Pictures</li> </ul> <h3><u><strong>News Corporation</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>Fox Broadcasting Company</li> <li>Fox News Channel</li> <li>Fox Business Network</li> <li>Fox Sports 1</li> <li>Fox Sports 2</li> <li>National Geographic</li> <li>Nat Geo Wild</li> <li>FX</li> <li>FXX</li> <li>FX Movie Channel</li> <li>Fox Sports Networks</li> <li>The Wall Street Journal</li> <li>The New York Post</li> <li>Barron&rsquo;s</li> <li>SmartMoney</li> <li>HarperCollins</li> <li>20th Century Fox</li> <li>Fox Searchlight Pictures</li> <li>Blue Sky Studios</li> <li>Beliefnet</li> <li>Zondervan</li> </ul> <h3><u><strong>Time Warner</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>CNN</li> <li>The CW</li> <li>HBO</li> <li>Cinemax</li> <li>Cartoon Network</li> <li>HLN</li> <li>NBA TV</li> <li>TBS</li> <li>TNT</li> <li>TruTV</li> <li>Turner Classic Movies</li> <li>Warner Bros.</li> <li>Castle Rock</li> <li>DC Comics</li> <li>Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment</li> <li>New Line Cinema</li> <li>Sports Illustrated</li> <li>Fortune</li> <li>Marie Claire</li> <li>People Magazine</li> </ul> <h3><u><strong>Viacom</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>MTV</li> <li>Nickelodeon</li> <li>VH1</li> <li>BET</li> <li>Comedy Central</li> <li>Paramount Pictures</li> <li>Paramount Home Entertainment</li> <li>Country Music Television (CMT)</li> <li>Spike TV</li> <li>The Movie Channel</li> <li>TV Land</li> </ul> <h3><u><strong>CBS Corporation</strong></u></h3> <ul> <li>CBS Television Network</li> <li>The CW (along with Time Warner)</li> <li>CBS Sports Network</li> <li>Showtime</li> <li>TVGN</li> <li>CBS Radio, Inc.</li> <li>CBS Television Studios</li> <li>Simon &amp; Schuster</li> <li>Infinity Broadcasting</li> <li>Westwood One Radio Network</li> </ul> <p><strong>If nobody tuned in to their &ldquo;programming&rdquo;, they would not have any power over us.</strong></p> <p>But according to a report put out by Nielsen, <u><strong>Americans are plugging into &ldquo;the matrix&rdquo; more than ever before.&nbsp;</strong></u> The following is how our daily use of media breaks down <a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="more than ever before">by device</a>&hellip;</p> <ul> <li>Live TV: 4 hours, 31 minutes</li> <li>Time-Shifted TV: 33 minutes</li> <li>Radio: 1 hour, 52 minutes</li> <li>DVDs: 8 minutes</li> <li>Video Game Consoles: 14 minutes</li> <li>Multimedia Devices (Apple TV, Roku, etc.): 13 minutes</li> <li>Internet on PC: 58 minutes</li> <li>Smartphone: 1 hour, 39 minutes</li> <li>Tablet: 31 minutes</li> </ul> <p><strong>When you total those numbers up, it comes to 10 hours and 39 minutes.</strong></p> <p>In essence, Americans are spending most of their waking hours plugged in to <strong>something</strong>.</p> <p>And if you only add together &ldquo;live television&rdquo; and &ldquo;time-shifted television&rdquo;, Americans are spending an average of more than five hours each day just watching television.</p> <p>Of course many of us spend countless hours on the Internet as well.&nbsp; It has <a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="has been estimated">been estimated</a> that 54,907 Google searches are conducted, 7,252 tweets are posted, 125,406 YouTube videos are viewed, and 2,501,018 emails are sent out <strong>every single second</strong>.</p> <p><strong>You may have guessed this already, but most of the news and information that we consume on the Internet is also controlled <a href="" rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="these numbers">by the elite</a>&hellip;</strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>Overall, the top 10 publishers &mdash; together owning around 60 news sites &mdash; account for 47% of total online traffic to news content last year, with the next-biggest 140 publishers accounting for most of the other half, SimilarWeb found.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The biggest online news publisher for the U.S. audience was MSN, owner of <a class="vglnk" href="" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title=""></a>, with just over 27 billion combined page views across mobile and desktop, followed by Disney Media Networks, owner of ESPN and ABC News, with 25.9 billion.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is why the &ldquo;alternative media&rdquo; is so important.&nbsp; All over America and all over the world, people are waking up and realizing that they aren&rsquo;t getting the truth from the mainstream media, and they are hungry for truly independent sources of information.</p> <p>The only way that we are ever going to be able to throw off <a href="" title="the insidious system of control">the insidious system of control</a> that the elite have established is by winning the information war.&nbsp; We are literally in a constant battle for hearts and minds, and the good news is that we have made a lot of progress.&nbsp; Over the past decade we have &ldquo;red pilled&rdquo; millions upon millions of people, but we still have a long way to go.</p> <p><strong>Faith in the corporate media is dwindling, and the elite are deeply concerned about this.&nbsp; </strong></p> <p>The Internet has allowed ordinary people like us to communicate on a mass scale, and this has never been the case before in human history.&nbsp; We have a window of opportunity to fight back against the elite, and we must not let this opportunity pass us by.</p> <p><em><u><strong>We are literally engaged in a battle for the future of this planet, and let us never waver in our pursuit of victory.</strong></u></em></p> <p>*&nbsp; *&nbsp; *</p> <p><em><a href="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Michael Snyder">Michael Snyder</a> is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho&rsquo;s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his <a href="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="official website">official website</a>. His new book entitled <a href="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="“Living A Life That Really Matters”">&ldquo;Living A Life That Really Matters&rdquo;</a> is available in paperback and for the Kindle on <a href="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title=""></a>.</em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="449" height="265" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> ABC News American Broadcasting Company animation Apple Business CBS Comcast Concentration of media ownership Congress Entertainment ETC Fox Broadcasting Company Google Mainstream media National Basketball Association NBCUniversal News media Nielsen Reality Showtime smartphone Television Television in the United States The Matrix Time Warner Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:55:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605588 at The Dollar Funding Shortage: It Never Went Away And It's Starting To Get Worse Again <p>Very quietly, in the last few weeks, cross currency basis swaps (CCBS) related to the dollar have reversed their rise and started moving deeper into negative territory&hellip; again. This might not be of much interest to buyers of global equity markets at this point, but it is signalling ominous signs of growing funding stress in the financial &ldquo;plumbing&rdquo;.</p> <p>As Bloomberg <a href="">notes <span id="cke_bm_447S" style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span><span style="display: none;">&nbsp;</span></a>&ldquo;cross-currency basis swaps, which money managers and corporate treasurers outside the U.S. can use to borrow in dollars, remain close to the widest levels since January even after quarter-end, when such financing strains typically dissipate. <strong>The market was a key indicator of stress during the financial crisis</strong>, and while it&rsquo;s nowhere near the alarming levels of that era, it&rsquo;s still garnering the attention of analysts.&rdquo;<span style="display: none;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></p> <p><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 281px;" /></p> <p>In simple terms, the CCBS is the cost in basis points (typically for three months) of swapping these currencies into dollars over and above prevailing interest rate differentials<strong>. In a benign environment the CCBS should trade at zero, not in negative territory. The latter implies a shortage of US dollar balance sheet (credit) offered by the global banking system</strong>. As the chart above shows, dollar liquidity became extremely tight in December 2016, especially for Yen borrowers, although it not nearly as bad as what <a href="">happened in May of 2015 </a>when we first brought attention to this little followed corner of the financial system. Despite the weakness in the dollar during much of the current year, the dollar liquidity issue never completely disappeared.</p> <p>There are several reasons why, like in recent years, financing in dollars is becoming more expensive.</p> <p><a href="">Among the reasons cited by strategists, </a>are the political tensions in Spain related to Catalonia&rsquo;s independence push and the slow pace of Brexit talks, which may be heightening the perception of credit risk for the region&rsquo;s banks. Combine that with the prospect that a U.S. tax overhaul could trigger dollar repatriation, and the outlook for monetary-policy divergence with the Federal Reserve starting to unwind its balance sheet, and analysts see the trend only worsening.&rdquo;</p> <p>&quot;This is keeping a lot of people feeling uneasy,&rsquo; said Gennadiy Goldberg, an interest-rate strategist at TD Securities in New York. &lsquo;This now seems more of a political story, with Catalonia, U.K. Brexit negotiations and potential U.S. tax reform and repatriation. Spreads could keep widening. While Republican efforts to get a tax plan through the Senate may be off to a <a href="" target="_blank" title="Tax Overhaul Off to Rocky Start as Senators Bicker Over Budget">rocky start</a>, any framework that spurs U.S. companies to repatriate cash could compound the scramble for dollar financing. Although that&rsquo;s probably a story that will play out in the second quarter, it may already be factoring into expectations.&quot;</p> <p>While we couldn&rsquo;t disagree, <strong>there&rsquo;s one important factor they&rsquo;re missing</strong>, the US Treasury&rsquo;s account (Treasury General Account) with the Federal Reserve.</p> <p>By running down this account by $400bn in the first quarter of 2017 (mainly due to the debt ceiling issue), the Treasury effectively increased dollar liquidity (bank reserves) by the same amount. This not only helped to ease the dollar funding problem, but was a factor in the dollar&rsquo;s weakness.</p> <p><strong>Since last month, the Treasury has rebuilt the balance in its account at the Fed from $38bn on 6 September 2017 to $170bn on 11 October 2017, for a net increase of $132bn&hellip;not insignificant. Obviously, if and when the Treasury rebuilds its account at the Fed to the previous level, dollar liquidity could become extremely tight again, <em>especially </em>if the Fed is tapering its balance sheet at the same time.</strong></p> <p>We have been wondering whether the Fed governors fully understand this, although some of the boys at 33 Liberty no doubt do. Credit guys also understand it &ldquo;there&rsquo;s another reason the strain is set to grow. <strong>The Fed is set to boost the pace of its balance-sheet roll-off each quarter, potentially putting upward pressure on U.S. rates relative to Europe and making it tougher for global investors to get dollar funding,</strong>&quot; according to Mark Cabana, head of U.S. short rates strategy at Bank of America Corp.&rdquo;</p> <p>Clearly the issue is attracting the attention of investors as BoA analyst, Cabana writes in a recent report, and explains that &ldquo;<strong>we have received a number of client questions recently about the outlook for banking reserves both in the near and medium term due to the Fed&#39;s balance sheet unwind and potential swings in Treasury&#39;s cash balance.</strong>&rdquo;</p> <p>In summary, Cabana expects <strong>a large reserve drain in Q2 2018 with banking reserves dropping by more than $1 trillion by the end of 2019</strong>, which &ldquo;highlights the potential for funding strains to emerge around Q2 next year and uncertainties around the Fed&#39;s longer-run policy framework&hellip; This reserve drain and the Fed&rsquo;s portfolio unwind <strong>should pressure funding conditions tighter through wider FRA-OIS and more negative XCCY (cross currency basis swaps) levels</strong>.&rdquo;</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 184px;" /></a></p> <p>Here are his views in more detail for the rest of this year, next year and 2019-20.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Reserves through Year End</strong>: The aggregate amount of reserves outstanding will decline only modestly between now and the end of the year, minimizing any near-term funding pressures. The $30 bn reduction from the Fed&#39;s portfolio this quarter along with near-term fluctuations in Treasury&#39;s cash balance due to the debt limit will result in only modest swings in overall reserve levels. Treasury&#39;s cash balance will need to decline ~$100 bn between now and December 8, but should rebound to ~$200 bn by year end via corporate tax receipts and ~$70 bn in bill supply during the last 3 weeks of the year.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Reserves in 2018</strong>: A more material drain of over $600 bn bank reserves during 2018 should occur due to the increased pace of Fed portfolio unwind and build in the Treasury cash balance post debt limit resolution. The Fed is projected to have $381 bn in Treasury and agency MBS roll off of their portfolio next year with the pace of reduction accelerating to $90 bn in Q2 and around $115 bn in each of Q3 &amp; Q4 (the Fed is expected to have monthly redemptions below the cap in these quarters).</p> </blockquote> <p>The sharpest reserve drain is likely to come from a boost in Treasury&#39;s cash balance after the debt limit resolution in March. Treasury will likely increase the cash balance to $350 - $400 bn early in Q2 through tax receipts and higher bill supply. This reserve drain and the Fed&#39;s portfolio unwind should pressure funding conditions tighter through wider FRA-OIS and more negative XCCY basis levels.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Reserves in 2019 &amp; 2020</strong>: Large reserve drains of $400 - $500 bn are expected in each of these years. This will primarily be driven by the expected $425 and $337 bn Fed portfolio reduction as well as growth in currency in circulation, which we project to average around 5% per year ($80-90 bn / yr). We also expect slightly lower usage of the Fed&#39;s reverse repo facilities as the Fed&#39;s balance sheet shrinks due to more attractive short-term investment opportunities amidst higher Treasury supply.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>We expect to see signs of reserve scarcity emerge at some point over the course of 2020 or in early 2021. While the total amount of required reserves is currently unknown we have previously estimated that <strong>required level of reserves in the system is likely between $600 bn - 1 tn</strong>. This is consistent with the NY Fed&#39;s surveys of primary dealers and market participants where the median respondent believes reserve balances will total $613bn, while the 75th and 25th percentile of responses were $1tn and $406 bn. As reserve scarcity is reached, we expect to see continued upward movement in LIBOR as well as higher rates and volumes in the fed funds / OBFR markets.&rdquo;</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 238px;" /></a></p> </blockquote> <p>Cabana finishes with a discussion about how bank reserves will fit into monetary policy and the potential appointment of a new Fed Chairman.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>Framework question</strong>: A key question in thinking about the longer-term outlook for reserves is the monetary policy operating regime that the Fed will employ, which will be heavily influenced by the next Fed Chair. As our economists recently noted, if Chair Yellen or Governor Powell leads the Fed they would likely be in favor of maintaining a &quot;floor&quot; regime (relying on IOER &amp; ON RRP). In contrast, Fed Chair contenders Warsh and Taylor would likely favor a &quot;corridor&quot; system that relies on a scarcity of reserves that would reduce IOER usage, increase fed funds trading activity, and require frequent open market operations to adjust reserves in order to hit the Fed&#39;s target.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>It seems current staff at the Fed have a strong preference to maintain a &quot;floor&quot; regime. The November 2016 FOMC meeting minutes noted a number of advantages of such a system and recent Fed research has highlighted that abundant reserves can smooth interbank payments, reduce daylight overdrafts at the Fed, and lead to less discount window usage. A &quot;floor&quot; system would also aid in satisfying bank LCR HQLA requirements while reducing the need for frequent open market operations to smooth volatility in Treasury and financial market utility deposits at the Fed. This regime would keep fed funds below IOER and likely ensure that the ON RRP remains a key fixture of the Fed&#39;s monetary policy well into the future.</p> </blockquote> <p>Negative cross currency basis swaps indicate that the structural tightness in dollar liquidity never disappeared despite the weaker dollar. If dollar funding markets get a lot tighter again, this won&rsquo;t be good news for EM markets with offshore (Euro) dollar debt in the region of $10 trillion. Rolling over dollar debt periodically will be uncomfortable, to say the least, for some of the region&rsquo;s banks.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="394" height="248" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Agency MBS Bank of America Bank of America Business Debt Ceiling Discount Window Economic policy Economics Economy Equity Markets Excess reserves Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System Finance Financial crisis of 2007–2008 Great Recession in the United States LIBOR Monetary Policy Monetary policy Money NY Fed Open market operation Open Market Operations Reverse Repo Senate Systemic risk Treasury Supply U.S. Treasury Volatility Warsh Yen Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:46:56 +0000 Tyler Durden 605595 at The Scandalous Truth About Obamacare Is Laid Bare <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Foundation for Economuc Education,</em></a></p> <p class="article-subtitle"><strong>A government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable.</strong></p> <p class="article-subtitle"><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 501px; height: 297px;" /></a></p> <p class="article-subtitle"><strong>It&rsquo;s not just that Obamacare is financially unsustainable. More seriously, it is intellectually unsustainable, </strong>even though this truth has been slow to emerge. This has come to an end with President Trump&rsquo;s executive order last week.</p> <div class="article-subtitle"> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">What does it do? It cuts subsidies to failing providers, yes. It also redefines the meaning of &ldquo;short term&rdquo; policies from one year to 90 days. But more importantly&ndash;and this is what has the pundit class in total meltdown&ndash;it liberalizes the rules for providers to serve health-coverage consumers. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In the </span><a href=""><span style="font-weight: 400;">words</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> of </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">USA Today</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">: <strong><em>the executive order permits a greater range of choice &ldquo;by allowing more consumers to buy health insurance through association health plans across state lines.&rdquo;</em></strong></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The key word here is &ldquo;<u><em><strong>allowing</strong></em></u>&rdquo; &ndash; not forcing, <u><em><strong>not compelling</strong></em></u>, not coercing. Allowing.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Why would this be a problem? </strong></span></p> <p><u><em><strong>Because allowing choice defeats the core feature of Obamacare, which is about forcing risk pools to exist that the market would otherwise never have chosen. If you were to summarize the change in a phrase it is this: it allows more freedom. </strong></em></u></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>The tenor of the critics&rsquo; comments on this move is that it is some sort of despotic act. </strong></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">But let&rsquo;s be clear: no one is coerced by this executive order. It is exactly the reverse: it removes one source of coercion. It liberalizes, just slightly, the market for insurance carriers. </span></p> <p><u><strong><span style="font-weight: 400;">Here&rsquo;s a good principle: a government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable. </span></strong></u></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The New York Times</span> <a href=""><span style="font-weight: 400;">predicts</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">: </span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Employers that remain in the A.C.A. small-group market will offer plans that are more expensive than average, and they will see premiums increase. Only the sickest groups would remain in the A.C.A. regulated risk pool after several enrollment cycles.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Vox</span><a href=""><span style="font-weight: 400;"> puts it</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> this way:</span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The individuals likely to flee the Obamacare markets for association plans would probably be younger and healthier, leaving behind an older, sicker pool for the remaining ACA market. That has the makings of a death spiral, with ever-increasing premiums and insurers deciding to leave the market altogether.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The </span><a href=""><span style="font-weight: 400;">Atlantic</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> makes the same point:</span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Both short-term and associated plans would likely be less costly than the more robust plans sold on Obamacare&rsquo;s state-based insurance exchanges. But the concern, among critics, is that the plans would cherry-pick the healthiest customers out of the individual market, leaving those with serious health conditions stuck on the Obamacare exchanges. There, prices would rise, because the pool of people on the exchanges would be sicker. Small businesses who keep the more robust plans&mdash;perhaps because they have employees with serious health conditions&mdash;would also likely face higher costs.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">CNBC </span><a href=""><span style="font-weight: 400;">puts</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> the point about plan duration in the starkest and most ironic terms. </span></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">If the administration liberalizes rules about the duration of short-term health plans, and then also makes it easier for people to get hardship exemptions from Obamacare&#39;s mandate, it could lead healthy people who don&#39;t need comprehensive benefits to sign up in large numbers for short-term coverage.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><u><em><strong><span style="font-weight: 400;">Can you imagine? Letting people do things that are personally beneficial? Horror! </span></strong></em></u></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Once you break all this down, the ugly truth about Obamacare is laid bare. <strong>Obamacare didn&rsquo;t create a market. It destroyed the market. Even the slightest bit of freedom wrecks the whole point. </strong></span></p> </div> <p>Under the existing rules, healthy people were being forced (effectively taxed) to pay the premiums for unhealthy people, young people forced to pay for old people, anyone trying to live a healthy lifestyle required to cough up for those who do not.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><u><strong>This is the great hidden truth about Obamacare.</strong></u> It was never a program for improved medical coverage. It was a program for redistributing wealth by force from the healthy to the sick. It did this by forcing nonmarket risk pools, countering the whole logic of insurance in the first place, which is supposed to calibrate premiums, risks, and payouts toward mutual profitability. Obamacare imagined that it would be easy to use coercion to undermine the whole point of insurance. It didn&rsquo;t work. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>And so the Trump executive order introduces a slight bit of liberality and choice. And the critics are screaming that this is a disaster in the making. </strong>You can&rsquo;t allow choice! You can&rsquo;t allow more freedom! You can&rsquo;t allow producers and consumers to cobble together their own plans! After all, this defeats the point of Obamacare, which is all about forcing people to do things they otherwise would not do! </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This revelation is, as they say, somewhat awkward.</span></p> <p><em><strong>What we should have learned from the failure of Obamacare is that no amount of coercion can substitute for the rationality and productivity of the competitive marketplace. </strong></em></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Even if the executive order successfully liberalizes the sector just a bit, we have a very long way to go. The entire medical marketplace needs massive liberalization. It needs government to play even less of a role, from insurance to prescriptions to all choice, over what is permitted to be called health care and who administers it. </span></p> <p><u><em><strong>Freedom or coercion: these are the two paths. The first works; the second doesn&rsquo;t. </strong></em></u></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="489" height="290" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> 111th United States Congress Death spiral Economy Finance Health insurance Health insurance marketplace Healthcare reform in the United States Internal Revenue Code Internal Revenue Service Meltdown Money New York Times Obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Presidency of Barack Obama Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:15:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 605587 at