Fake News After Mueller
April 6, 2019 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 1:54 pm Primers Tagged with: Assange, Axios, collusion, Facebook, fake news, Guardian, Luke Harding, MSM, Mueller, New York Times, ProtectJulian, Putin, Trump, Woodward 6 Responses »
Raphael The school of Athens 1509-11
Allow me to start with a question: Has anyone seen any of the main newspapers and networks who went after Donald Trump for 3 years accusing him of colluding with "the Russians", apologize to either Trump, or to their readers and viewers, for spreading all that fake news now that Robert Mueller said none of that stuff was real, that they all just made it up?
I've seen only one such apology, albeit a very good and thorough one, from Sharyl Attkisson for The Hill. But one is a very meager harvest of course. With over 500,000 articles on collusion published on the topic, as Axios said -leading to 245 million social media 'interactions', shouldn't there be more apologies, if only so people can hold on to their faith in US media for a while longer?
Apologies to President Trump
With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order. However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties. In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump. Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump's presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along. Yet, each time Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him.
We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be "lies," although they had no evidence to back up their claims.We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence. We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump's "treason."
As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump's detriment. And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin's puppet that the technical details hardly mattered. So, a round of apologies seem in order.
It's a shame Attkisson refrains from labeling the whole decrepit circus as "fake news", even if she says it's just that, in different words. It's a shame because the term "fake news" can this way remain connected to Trump, something the mainstream media really like. Because it allows for the media to cast doubts on the Mueller report, and for the Democrats to cast doubt on AG Bill Barr.
But they, the MSM, CNN and the NYT, are the ones who, as Robert Mueller has proven, have been spreading fake news all that time, not Trump. And if you would suggest they apologize, they'll tell you that you're too early, wait for the report to be released, or that Bill Barr is holding tons of stuff back, or that Mueller didn't have access to elementary info, or that Trump is a really bad person or or or.
Their reputations would be lost forever if they issue a mea culpa, and apologizing constitutes a mea culpa, so that's not going to happen. And they all think their credibility remains sound and alive, because they live in echo chambers where they don't have to listen to anyone prepared to cast any doubt on their credibility.
I first said it years ago: in the new -digital, social- media age, the mainstream media have only one chance of survival: report the naked truth, and be relentless about that. There are a billion voices who can write up rumors, slander, smear and other falsities, but none have the organizations to find out the truth.
Well, it looks like they gave up on that one chance. Russiagate has made it crystal clear that the MSM would rather make a quick buck than investigate, that money and political views trump veracity any day where they operate. So stick a fork in them and turn them over; they're done.
April 1 was the perfect moment to add it all up, and the Babylon Bee did exactly that:
CNN Publishes Real News Story For April Fools' Day
Fooling thousands of readers in a prank that the cable news organization said was "just for fun," CNN published a real news story for April Fools' Day this year. The story simply contained a list of facts, with no embellishment, editorializing, or invented details. The story also didn't cite shaky "anonymous sources" and only quoted firsthand witnesses to the event. It was completely factual without any errors whatsoever. Baffled CNN fans immediately knew something was up.
"I was reading this story, and I was like, 'Wait, what is this?'" said one man in New York who relies on CNN for his fake news every morning. "They really got me good. Then I looked up at the calendar and I realized I'd been duped. A classic gag!" "Those little rascals!" he added, shaking his head and laughing goodnaturedly. "As long as they return to their regularly scheduled fake news tomorrow, we're good. We're good."
We could stop right there. What's to add? It sums up America to the core. Then again, perhaps not quite yet. How about we add this from the BBC?
Is Facebook Winning The Fake News War?
For the people contracted by Facebook to clamp down on fake news and misinformation, doubt hangs over them every day. Is it working? "Are we changing minds?" wondered one fact-checker, based in Latin America, speaking to the BBC. "Is it having an impact? Is our work being read? I don't think it is hard to keep track of this. But it's not a priority for Facebook. "We want to understand better what we are doing, but we aren't able to."
[..] While there are efforts from fact-checking organisations to debunk dangerous rumours within the likes of WhatsApp, Facebook has yet to provide a tool – though it is experimenting with some ideas to help users report concerns.
Right, Facebook Fights Fake News. Right. 533,074 web articles on Trump-Russia collusion pre-Mueller report according to Axios, and 245 million 'interactions' -including likes, comments and shares- on Twitter and Facebook. Let's say 100 million on Facebook.
How much did they catch as fake news in their valiant efforts? Not "the Russians" spreading fake news, but the New York Times? How about none? How many times did Facebook shut down the New York Times? Rachel Maddow? None. But Robert Mueller says all those articles about collusion were fake news.
Those reputations are gone forever. Nobody serious will ever again believe anything these people say. Oh, their own subscribers will, but they don't count as serious people. They swallowed all the nonsense for all of that time. Get real.
Talking about reputations: I decided to try and follow the trails of the Steele dossier earlier, because I think if you figure out the road that dossier has traveled, who has been pushing it etc., you can get a long way towards finding out how how Russiagate came about.
I turned to Wikipedia first, where "Steele dossier" automatically becomes "Trump-Russia dossier". I read the intro, and it was already so clear where Wikipedia stands on this: not on Trump's side. Impartiality does not count as a virtue there either. And I know that this stuff is written by third parties, but does Jimmy Wales really want to devalue his life's work for party politics?
Right below the intro of the very long entry, a familiar name pops up: Luke Harding, and I'm thinking HAHAHAHA!
Luke Harding, after making a mint with his book Collusion, which Robert Mueller has singlehandedly moved into the Fiction section of the bookstore, and co-writing Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange In Ecuadorian Embassy last November, which Mueller fully discredited, is presented as a source for an entry about collusion? Oh boy.
A few paragraphs down I come upon the name Victoria Nuland, and again of course I think HAHAHAHA, what kind of source is she? Nuland became notorious for colluding with John McCain on Maidan Square in Kiyv, and she has less credibility than Harding, if such a thing is possible. A Nuland quote from the Wikipedia article:
"In the middle of July [2016], when he [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our purview'." "This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's something for the FBI to investigate."
The entry continues:
It has remained unclear as to who exactly at the FBI was aware of Steele's report through July and August, and what was done with it, but they did not immediately request additional material until late August or early September, when the FBI asked Steele for "all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos — some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI."[57][56]
According to Nancy LeTourneau, political writer for the Washington Monthly, the report "was languishing in the FBI's New York field office" for two months, and "was finally sent to the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.", in September 2016.[65]
Meanwhile, in the July to September time frame, according to The Washington Post, CIA Director John Brennan had started an investigation with a secret task force "composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI". At the same time, he was busy creating his own dossier of material documenting that "Russia was not only attempting to interfere in the 2016 election, they were doing so in order to elect Donald Trump … [T]he entire intelligence community was on alert about this situation at least two months before [the dossier] became part of the investigation."
Ergo: the fully deranged Nuland, then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, gets the dossier to the FBI, where nothing happens with it despite Nuland's insistence that it shows terrible things going on, until someone (McCain?!) gets it to Brennan, and then the ball gets rolling.
There's all these people in the Hillary sphere of influence who pick it up, in the media, the House, and the FBI and CIA. Because the campaign decides a story about prostitutes peeing on a bed where Obama once slept can a be a winner, and by July 2016 a few nerves had started twitching. The entire machinery shifted into gear right then and there.
The index to the entry contains some 350 links to articles, almost all by the usual suspects and with the usual angles. It all oozes collusion. An exception is Bob Woodward in January 2017:
'Garbage Document': Woodward Says US Intel Should Apologize Over Trump Dossier
Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" the dossier was a "garbage document" and that Trump's point of view on the matter is being "under-reported."Woodward said the dossier should never have been presented at an intelligence briefing and it was a mistake for U.S. intelligence officials to do so. "Trump's right to be upset about that … Those intelligence chiefs, who were the best we've had, who were terrific and have done great work, made a mistake here.
And when people make mistakes, they should apologize," said Woodward. Meantime, Woodward's former partner in reporting on the Watergate scandal, helped report the news about the dossier on CNN last week. Carl Bernstein defended the reporting on the dossier, dismissing Trump's contention that it was "fake news." Bernstein argued that U.S. intelligence saw fit to present the material to President Obama and President-elect Trump.
"Mistakes" by the intelligence chiefs? Hard to believe, if you've followed Brennan, Clapper, Comey in the past 2 years.
Not sure I'm going to finish reading that Wikipedia entry on the Steele dossier. What's the point? It's fantasy advertized as fact in order to make money. It's misleading, it's fake and it seeks to damage people. It would appear we'd be better off discussing what fake news is (and what is not), and to not stick the label to everything Trump says, or the $50 million spent on the Mueller probe will have been entirely wasted.
What we can learn from it is that we can no longer trust the media we once had confidence in. Those days are gone and they won't be back. They've been lying for a long time for their 30 pieces of silver, and once your credibility is gone, it's gone for good.
That, by the way, is why we need Julian Assange so much, because we know he doesn't lie. But of course that little fact has also already been buried in a big pile of fake news.
Orwell would be delighted.
Debt Rattle September 21 2018
September 21, 2018 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:09 am Finance Tagged with: Assange, Brexit, Chequers, collusion, fossils, glaciers, Greece, Growth, Macron, OECD, Trump, Woodward 6 Responses »
Vincent van Gogh Green field 1888
• Global Economic Growth Has Peaked, Warns OECD (G.)
• Why Trump's Stock Market Cheering Is Dangerous (Colombo)
• Post Crisis Measures Have Failed To Tame Derivatives Risks (Yves Smith)
• Woodward: "No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Looked Hard" (DV)
• Brexit: It's A Border In The Irish Sea Or The Customs Union (G.)
• Emmanuel Macron Calls Brexit Campaign Leaders 'Liars' (Ind.)
• 'Not Enough Time' To Hold Referendum On Final Deal Before Brexit Day (G.)
• Historical Monuments and Museums Moved to Greece's Privatization Fund (KTG)
• Propping Up Glaciers To Avoid Cataclysmic Sea Level Rise (AFP)
• 558 Million-Year-Old Fossils Identified As Oldest Known Animal (G.)
• Assange's Last Interview Before Blackout (RT)
Presented as a surprise.
The west's leading economic thinktank has warned that the expansion in the global economy may have peaked after cutting its growth forecasts for an array of rich and developing countries. In its latest update on the health of the world economy, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said the outlook for both 2018 and 2019 was less good than it had predicted in May. The Paris-based OECD called for immediate action to halt the "slide towards protectionism", noting that trade tensions were already having an impact on confidence and investment. "The expansion may now have peaked," the OECD said in its interim economic outlook. "Global growth is projected to settle at 3.7% in 2018 and 2019, marginally below pre-crisis norms, with downside risks intensifying."
The OECD said it was cutting its 2018 forecast by 0.1 percentage points and its 2019 forecast by 0.3 points. Britain has had its growth forecast shaved by 0.1 points in both years to 1.3% and 1.2%, respectively – with the OECD saying the squeeze on living standards was affecting consumer spending and uncertainty about Brexit leading to soft investment. [..] The US is expected to be the fastest growing of the G7 group of industrialised countries in both 2018 and 2019, and the OECD said that in contrast to the broad-based expansion in late 2017 there were widening differences in growth performance between countries.
You break it, you own it.
The S&P 500 hit another all-time high today and president Donald Trump tweeted, in his usual fashion, "S&P 500 HITS ALL-TIME HIGH Congratulations USA!" Though I am a conservative myself, president Trump's stock market cheerleading angers me because he's fanning the flames of a dangerous asset bubble, which is extremely irresponsible. I believe that the current stock market bubble will cause severe damage to the economy and our society when it ultimately pops. Imagine if George W. Bush constantly touted how surging U.S. housing prices were making Americans rich in the mid-2000s? We all know how that ended. Well, that's what president Trump is doing with his stock market cheerleading – history will not look kindly upon it.
To make matters worse, Donald Trump knew that we were in a dangerous stock market bubble back in 2016 before he became president – he even called it a "big, fat, ugly bubble." Now, the S&P 500 is 35% higher (and even more overvalued), but Trump is acting as if it's an organic, sustainable boom rather than the debt-driven bubble that it really is. This is disingenuous behavior, plain and simple. The S&P 500 has surged over 300% since March 2009 due to the Federal Reserve's pro-asset inflation policies:
[..] According to the U.S. stock market capitalization-to-GDP ratio (also known as Warren Buffett's "favorite indicator"), the market is more overpriced and inflated than it was during even the dot-com bubble:
"..the crisis was a derivatives crisis, and not a housing crisis, as it is too commonly depicted."
One of the frustrating aspects of the orgy of "ten years after Lehman" stories is that writers and pundits, many of whom are old enough to have missed the credit excesses that were evident in 2006 and 2007, are now screeching "A crisis is nigh" without necessarily focusing on likely triggers. As an aside, we are already in the midst of emerging market crises. The IMF agreed to give yet another monster bailout to Argentina. Pakistan is seeking an IMF rescue (or more accurately, trying to get shored up by any one other than the IMF but keeping the agency on the front burner in case other options fail). Turkey is still on the ropes. So calling a crisis is trivial because they are on now.
However, many of these writers are presumably anticipating something more like the global financial crisis, and too often are looking in the wrong places. There is a difference between market crashes that don't impair the financial system, like the dot-com bust, because the assets that fell in price weren't highly leveraged. You get real economy damage but not a financial crisis. You can also have lots of loans go bad and not impair the banking system because the credit risk was either well distributed among banks and/or significantly shifted onto investors who losses aren't leveraged back to the financial system. However, one of the sources of systemic risk being overlooked is derivatives. That is particularly worrisome since the crisis was a derivatives crisis, and not a housing crisis, as it is too commonly depicted.
Even though the US and other housing markets were certain to suffer a nasty bust, a housing crisis alone would have resulted in something like a bigger, badder saving and loan crisis, not the financial coronary of September and October 2008. Derivatives allowed speculators to create synthetic exposures to the riskiest subprime housing debt that were 4-6 times its real economy value. Those bets wound up heavily at systemically important, highly leveraged financial institutions like Citigroup, AIG, the monolines, and Eurobanks.
"'I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard..'
After two years of exhaustive research for his book, Woodward says that he has found no evidence of collusion between Putin's government and Donald Trump's campaign in 2016. Zilch, nada, zero. And Woodward strained very hard looking for it. This largely ignored blockbuster admission came in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt reported by Real Clear Politics [..] "In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, 'Fear,' he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it 'hard' and yet turned up nothing.
"'Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?' Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward. "'I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard,' Woodward answered. 'And so you know, there we are. …..' "'But you've seen no collusion?' Hewitt asked again to confirm. "'I have not,' Woodward affirmed. "Hewitt would once again ask Woodward about collusion at the conclusion of the interview. "'Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?' Hewitt asked. "'That is correct,' Woodward said."
"The most important lesson of the Brexit negotiation is that it is not a negotiation.."
"..no amount of diplomatic politesse can conceal Brexit's reality: one part of the UK will be economically split from another."
Donald Tusk's clear rejection of Theresa May's Chequers plan at the Salzburg summit yesterday should not come as a surprise. The most important lesson of the Brexit negotiation is that it is not a negotiation, and never has been. Blessed with superior size, wealth and power, the EU has been able to dictate the framework and substance of the talks, and has refused any deviation from its red lines. The second most important lesson of the Brexit negotiation is that the EU will prioritise its economic and political cohesion above all else. That cohesion rests on two key outcomes: an undivided single market and an open border on the island of Ireland. It is these principles that have led us to Salzburg. The EU will not accept the Chequers plan, which proposes a single market in goods but not in services, capital or people.
It will also not accept any possibility of border infrastructure in Ireland, which is anathema to Dublin and, according to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, presents a credible risk of sectarian violence. That has duly paved the way for the Brexit endgame, which EU negotiator Michel Barnier has now confirmed: there will be a border for goods in the Irish Sea. The EU does not, however, want to antagonise or humiliate the UK, and has scrambled to defuse the drama of this development. Barnier stresses that most checks between Britain and Northern Ireland will take place in offices and warehouses, and only live animals and food products will need to be examined at ports themselves. But no amount of diplomatic politesse can conceal Brexit's reality: one part of the UK will be economically split from another.
"..they left the day after so as not to have to deal with it."
Emmanuel Macron has branded the leaders of the campaign for Brexit "liars", in an extraordinary attack at the close of the Salzburg summit. The Leave victory was "pushed by those who predicted easy solutions", the French president said, adding: "Those people are liars. They left the next day so they didn't have to manage it." At the press conference, Mr Macron also made clear he would not accept a "blind deal" – which would leave the nature of the UK's future trading relationship with the EU to be decided after departure day. The stance is another blow to Theresa May, given that the EU's rejection of her Chequers plan has increasingly left a "blind Brexit" as the only possible agreement.
Mr Macron did not name the "liars" behind Brexit, but he targeted those who had promised that leaving the EU would "bring a lot of money home". The Vote Leave campaign, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, infamously pledged it would deliver an extra £350m a week for the NHS – a claim now widely discredited. "Those who explain that we can easily live without Europe, that everything is going to be alright, and that it's going to bring a lot of money home, are liars," Mr Macron added. "It's even more true since they left the day after so as not to have to deal with it." Mr Macron made clear the prime minister would need to come up with fresh proposals by the next summit in October. "We all agreed on this today, the proposals in their current state are not acceptable, especially on the economic side of it. The Chequers plan cannot be take it or leave it."
Someone's going to take this to court.
A referendum on the Brexit deal would take at least six months to organise legally, making it very difficult to have a second vote before the UK is scheduled to exit the EU on 29 March next year, constitutional experts have said. As EU leaders including the Czech prime minister, Andrej Babis called on Theresa May to change firm government policy and put a vote to the people, academics said there was not enough time if article 50 is enacted as scheduled. There are indications that a delay to the enactment of article 50 could be acceptable to the EU, but without this agreement time stands in the way of a second referendum, experts believe.
"It is just possible to hold one within six months, but the shorter the timescale, the higher the chance of the question or other aspects of the referendum being challenged over their legitimacy," said Prof Robert Hazell of the constitution unit at the department of political science, University College London. Fresh legislation, testing of the question by the Electoral Commission and a 10-week regulated period for a campaign are all required before a referendum can take place, he pointed out. David Cameron's Brexit referendum took just over a year to get to the ballot box.
Liquidation. But: "Monuments are protected by the Constitution, they cannot be transferred or be sold.."
Archaeologists and sites Guards are up in arms after the Greek Finance Ministry issued a decision ordering the trasnfer several historical sites and buildings, museums, monuments and historical buildings to the Super Privatization Fund. "They belong de facto to the state and are off any trade," the Greek Archaeologists Association said in a statement with the title "No to sale of the country's monuments" issued on Wednesday. According to the archaeologists a total of 10,119 archaeological sites, museums and historical buildings have been transferred to the Privatization Fund, many of them from the area in and around Chania on the island of Crete.
"Monuments are protected by the Constitution, they cannot be transferred or be sold," the Association said, adding that this unprecedented transfer became known when the catalogue of the monuments in and around Chania became public. Among those monuments and museums in Chania are the new Archaeological Museum, the archaeological museum located inside the St Francis Church, the National Museum Eleftherios Venizelos, the Historical Archive of Crete, several Venetian and Byzantine moats, fortifications and bastions as well as properties where important Minoan architectural remains have been discovered. "Is Acropolis next?" the Association of Guards at archaeological sites said in an equally angry statement on Thursday adding that also land plot where excavations take place have been transferred. They threaten with strikes.
"Our response will be very tough. Our cultural heritage belongs to all Greeks, no government has the right to negotiate about it or transfer ownership," they said in their statement.
Yeah, smart species.
As global warming outpaces efforts to tame it, scientists have proposed building massive underwater structures to prevent an Antarctic glacier the size of Britain from sliding into the sea and lifting the world's oceans by several metres. The more modest of two engineering schemes — which is still on the scale of a Panama or Suez Canal — to shore up Thwaites Glacier would require the construction of Eiffel Tower-sized columns resting on the seabed to support the glacier's ocean-facing edge, or ice shelf. Option Two is a 100-metre tall underwater wall, or berm, running 80-100 kilometres (55-60 miles) beneath the ice shelf to block bottom-flowing warm water that erodes the glacier's underbelly, rendering it unstable.
The ambitious projects, detailed Thursday in the European Geophysical Union journal The Cryosphere, reflect a gathering awareness that slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions — while essential — may not happen quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts. "Thwaites could easily trigger a runaway ice sheet collapse that would ultimately raise global sea levels by about three metres," said lead author Michael Wolovick, a researcher at Princeton University's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Nor will reducing carbon pollution be enough: any credible pathway to a world in which global warming is capped below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (3.6º Celsius) — the target enshrined in the 2015 Paris climate treaty — depends on sucking large quantities of CO2 out of the air.
In the beginning there was nothing.
A fossilised lifeform that existed 558m years ago has been identified as the oldest known animal, according to new research. The findings confirm that animals existed at least 20m years before the so-called Cambrian explosion of animal life, which took place about 540m years ago and saw the emergence of modern-looking animals such as snails, bivalves and arthropods. The new fossils, of the genus Dickinsonia, are the remains of an oval-shaped lifeform and part of an ancient and enigmatic group of organisms called Ediacarans. These creatures are some of the earliest complex organisms on Earth, but their place within the evolutionary tree has long puzzled scientists. Suggestions as to what they were have ranged from lichens to failed evolutionary experiments to bacterial colonies.
Now, by identifying the remains of organic matter on newly discovered Ediacaran fossils as ancient cholesterol, the scientists have been able to confirm Dickinsonia was an animal, which makes it the oldest known animal. "It is the exact type and composition of that fat that was the giveaway that Dickinsonia was in fact an animal", said Jochen Brocks of the Australian National University, one of the authors on the study. He added that the study solves "a decades-old mystery that has been the holy grail of palaeontology". The fossils were discovered on two surfaces on a cliffside in the remote wilderness of north-west Russia by PhD student Ilya Bobrovskiy, who is lead author on the paper, published in the journal Science.
Dickinsonia fossils found in north-west Russia. Composite: Ilya Bobrovskiy/Ilya Bobrovskiy/ANU
"This generation being born now… is the last free generation.."
Before his links to the world was cut by his Ecuadorian hosts, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gave an interview on how technological advances are changing humankind. He said global surveillance will soon be totally unavoidable The interview was provided to RT by organizers of the World Ethical Data Forum in Barcelona. Assange, who is currently stranded in the Ecuadorean embassy in London with no outside communication except with his legal team, has a pretty grim outlook on where humanity is going. He says it will soon be impossible for any human being to not be included into global databases collected by governments and state-like entities.
This generation being born now… is the last free generation. You are born and either immediately or within say a year you are known globally. Your identity in one form or another –coming as a result of your idiotic parents plastering your name and photos all over Facebook or as a result of insurance applications or passport applications– is known to all major world powers. "A small child now in some sense has to negotiate its relationship with all the major world powers… It puts us in a very different position. Very few technically capable people are able to live apart, to choose to live apart, to choose to go their own way," he added. "It smells a bit like totalitarianism – in some way."
September 5, 2018 Posted by Raúl Ilargi Meijer at 9:18 am Finance Tagged with: Brexit, buybacks, Carney, extinction, flash crashes, Google, haircut, macaw, meddling, Mueller, social unrest, Trump, Woodward 6 Responses »
Henri Matisse Luxury, calm and pleasure 1904
• JP Morgan Warns Next Crisis To Have Flash Crashes And Social Unrest (CNBC)
• Share Buybacks Boost Earnings (Roberts)
• Mueller To Accept Written Answers From Trump In Russia Probe (Ind.)
• Senior Diplomat Exposes US Meddling In Russian Election (ZH)
• Google Bosses Expected To Snub Senate (BBC)
• Mervyn King Attacks 'Incompetent' Brexit Approach (BBC)
• Angela Merkel Admits Collapse Of Brexit Talks Cannot Be Ruled Out (G.)
• Mark Carney Willing To Stay On As BoE Governor To Help 'Smooth' Brexit (Ind.)
• US 'Could Have Forced A Greek Debt Haircut' – Ashoka Mody (K.)
• Eight Bird Species Are First Confirmed Avian Extinctions This Decade (G.)
Yeah, I know, the Woodward book. No objective views available. Lots of sensational quotes subject to interpretation. Tons of voices saying for instance that Trump wanted Mattis to kill Assad, even ordered him to. But Woodward writes that Trump said: "Let's fucking kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the fucking lot of them..". That doesn't sound like an order. That's a first reaction from someone who's been fooled by his own staff into believing Assad was responsible. Normal first reaction. Not an order. We'll get some more balance, but it won't come from the MSM.
Liquidity, volatility, fighting in the streets.
Sudden, severe stock sell-offs sparked by lightning-fast machines. Unprecedented actions by central banks to shore up asset prices. Social unrest not seen in the U.S. in half a century. That's how J.P. Morgan Chase's head quant, Marko Kolanovic, envisions the next financial crisis. The forces that have transformed markets in the last decade, namely the rise of computerized trading and passive investing, are setting up conditions for potentially violent moves once the current bull market ends, according to a report from Kolanovic sent to the bank's clients on Tuesday. His note is part of a 168-page mega-report, written for the 10th anniversary of the 2008 financial crisis, with perspectives from 48 of the bank's analysts and economists.
Kolanovic, a 43-year-old analyst with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, has risen in prominence for explaining, and occasionally predicting, how the new, algorithm-dominated stock market will behave. The current bull rally, the longest in modern history by some measures, has been characterized by extended periods of calm punctuated with spasms of selling known as flash crashes. Recent examples include a nearly 1,600 point intraday drop in February and a 1,100 point decline in August 2015. "They are very rapid, sharp declines in asset values with sharp increases in market volatility," Kolanovic, the bank's global head of macro quantitative and derivatives research, said in a recent interview. But those flash crashes occurred during a backdrop of a U.S. economic expansion; the new market hasn't been tested in the throes of a recession, he said.
"If you have these liquidity-driven sharp sell-offs that come at the end of the cycle, or maybe even causes the end of the cycle, then I think you can have a much more significant asset price correction and even more significant increase in market volatility," Kolanovic said. [..] Kolanovic closes his report on an ominous note: "The next crisis is also likely to result in social tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968."
Tyler labeled it the graph of the decade. That may be a bit much, but it's good to point out that earnings rise ONLY because there are so many fewer outstanding shares. Buybacks don't only raise share prices, they raise earnings numbers too.
[..] while top line SALES fell, bottom line revenue expanded as share buybacks and accounting gimmickry escalated for the quarter. The question is whether sales dramatically expanded in Q2? Given some of the recent economic data, we have our doubts and expect a smaller increase. (I will update this chart when S&P updates the sales/share figure for Q2) As shown in the chart below, the biggest support for earnings expansion in Q2 continues to be the dramatic decline in shares outstanding.
Of course, such should not be a surprise. Since the recessionary lows, much of the rise in "profitability" have come from a variety of cost-cutting measures and accounting gimmicks rather than actual increases in top-line revenue. While tax cuts certainly provided the capital for a surge in buybacks, revenue growth, which is directly connected to a consumption-based economy, has remained muted. Since 2009, the reported earnings per share of corporations has increased by a total of 353%. This is the sharpest post-recession rise in reported EPS in history. However, the increase in earnings did not come from a commensurate increase in revenue which has only grown by a marginal 44% during the same period and declined from 49% in Q1.
The reality is that stock buybacks create an illusion of profitability. If a company earns $0.90 per share and has one million shares outstanding – reducing those shares to 900,000 will increase earnings per share to $1.00. No additional revenue was created, no more product was sold, it is simply accounting magic. Such activities do not spur economic growth or generate real wealth for shareholders. However, it does provide the basis for with which to keep Wall Street satisfied and stock option compensated executives happy.
if Mueller does anything in the public eye before the mid terms are over, expect chaos.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller will accept written answers from President Donald Trump on whether his campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 US election, but Mr Mueller is not ruling out a follow-up interview on that issue, Mr Mueller's offer to accept written responses from the president on questions about possible collusion was contained in a letter that Mr Trump's lawyers received on Friday, a person familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. Mr Trump's legal team and Mr Mueller's investigators have been negotiating for months over whether the president will be formally interviewed in the probe.
The president's team have not yet answered the letter. After receiving the written responses, Mr Mueller's investigators would decide on a next step, which could include an interview with Mr Trump, the person said. The letter was first reported by the New York Times. It was not immediately clear what those conditions mean for other avenues Mr Mueller is exploring, including whether the president sought to obstruct the Russia investigation through actions such as the firing last year of former FBI Director James Comey.
And there is Google.
As Russian citizens prepare to head to the polls on Sunday to vote in regional elections, a senior Russian diplomat has revealed that Moscow has uncovered a US interference effort involving a Silicon Valley tech giant and activists opposed to the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following a briefing on the matter, senior Russian diplomat Andrey Nesterenko told Russia's Interfax news agency that the US "certainly does" meddle in the Russian electoral processes, as RT reported. The revelation followed reports that Russia has resumed a major airstrike of a reputed terrorist stronghold in Idlib province over the objections of President Trump, who warned that such a strike would be a humanitarian disaster.
"Our collective opinion is that electoral sovereignty is a principle that all civilized nations should respect" the diplomat said, adding that Moscow will notify "our American partners that the actions of their media outlets allow us to state that they are close to breaking Russian law." Specifically, Nesterenko was referring to a possible violation of Russian election laws by Google parent Alphabet, which hosted advertisements for an illegal campaign rally organized by Russian opposition leader Aleksey Navalny. Navalny is calling for protests to denounce the vote, which he believes is biased. To help spread the word, Navalny's public movement is using paid ads on Google services like YouTube. However, holding an event dedicated to an election campaign on the same day as the vote goes against Russian law.
The Russian Central Election Commission, media watchdog Roskomnadzor, and the Russian Anti-monopoly Service have reportedly informed Google about these illegal activities being carried out on its platform. "Living in a proper law-abiding nation, we expect every actor to play by the rules. Especially an informed player. If the opposite happens, I believe we have tools at our disposal [to address that]," Andrey Kashevarov, the deputy head of FAS, said.
It's like an all-out power game.
When Silicon Valley companies once again appear in front of the US Senate on Wednesday, there will be one major absentee: Google. The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted to hear from Sundar Pichai, Google's chief executive, or his boss Larry Page, the chief executive of Google's parent firm, Alphabet. Barring a dramatic, last-minute change of plan, the BBC understands neither will attend. It would mark the first time a technology firm has refused to comply with the wishes of Congress since the wide-reaching inquiries into misinformation and meddling began in the wake of the 2016 election. Google had instead hoped to send Kent Walker, one of its top lawyers. The offer was abruptly shut down by the committee.
Its vice chairman, the Democratic Senator Mark Warner, said an empty chair would be left out to represent Google's non-appearance. Eventually, senators may issue a subpoena, forcing an appearance under the threat of prosecution. "If Google thinks we're just going to go away, they're sadly mistaken," said Senator Warner, speaking to Wired magazine. The hearing, scheduled to begin at 09:30 (13:30 GMT), is entitled "Foreign Influence Operations' Use of Social Media Platforms". As well as Google, Twitter and Facebook have been called to appear. Twitter will be represented by its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, while Facebook is sending its chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg. It will be the first time either executive has faced a congressional committee.
[..] The affair risks becoming a public relations crisis for Google, which just last week was doing its best to bat back claims from President Donald Trump that it was censoring conservative news outlets in its search results. The White House did not provide any evidence to support the president's complaints, but the topic may well come up at Wednesday's hearing. "I don't know if it's because [Page] wants to avoid being asked about those things or because they think they're so important and so powerful that they don't need to provide congressional testimony," said Republican Senator Marco Rubio, speaking to the Washington Post. He also told the newspaper: "They should be careful with that. When a company gets too big to become accountable, they become a monopoly."
Former Bank of England governor Lord King has blasted Brexit preparations as "incompetent". The Brexit supporter said it "beggared belief" that the world's sixth-biggest economy should be talking of stockpiling food and medicines. This left the government without a credible bargaining position, he said. "A government that cannot take action to prevent some of these catastrophic outcomes illustrates a whole lack of preparation," he said. "It doesn't tell us anything about whether the policy of staying in the EU is good or bad, it tells us everything about the incompetence of the preparation for it." Lord King said the 11th-hour preparation for a no-deal Brexit had undermined the government's negotiating position.
He added: "We haven't had a credible bargaining position, because we hadn't put in place measures where we could say to our colleagues in Europe, 'Look, we'd like a free-trade deal, we think that you would probably like one too, but if we can't agree, don't be under any misapprehension, we have put in place the measures that would enable us to leave without one.'" He predicts that we will find ourselves with what's been dubbed as Brino – Brexit in name only – which he said was the worst of all worlds. It's also a state of affairs that he fears could drag on for years. "I think the biggest risk to the UK, and this is what worries me most, is that this issue isn't going to go away, you know the referendum hasn't decided it, because both camps feel that they haven't got what they wanted."
Lord King expressed regret and surprise that it was more difficult for a single country to present a united front than the other 27 EU members. He said: "They must have been really worried that they had 27 countries to try to corral, how could they have a united negotiating position, they were dealing with a country that was one country, made a clear decision, voted to leave, it knew what it wanted to do, how on earth could the EU manage to negotiate against this one decisive group on the other side of the Channel? "Well, the reality's been completely the opposite. The EU has been united, has been clear, has been patient and it's the UK that's been divided without any clear strategy at all for how to get to where we want to go."
Maybe at this point Merkel should be more outspoken?
Angela Merkel has warned her country's business leaders that the Brexit negotiations are in danger of collapse. With talks in Brussels at an impasse with just months to go before a deal needs to be agreed, the German chancellor made a rare intervention at a conference in Frankfurt. She told major players in the world of German finance on Tuesday: "We don't want the discussions to break down. We will use all our force and creativity to make sure a deal happens. We don't want these negotiations to collapse. But we also can't fully rule that out because we still have no result." The EU says it needs a deal to be struck on the withdrawal agreement covering citizens' rights, the £39bn divorce bill and the Irish border, along with the political declaration on the future deal, by November at the latest.
The German chancellor has generally played a backseat role in the talks, preferring to intervene only at crunch points at EU summits. EU leaders are due to meet in Brussels in October, but an emergency summit is being pencilled in for 13 November in case the negotiations require an extra few weeks for agreement to be made. The leaders will be gathering at a summit in Salzburg later this month where the EU27 are planning a "carrot and stick" approach to Brexit, offering Theresa May warm words on the Chequers proposals to take to the Conservative conference alongside a sharp warning that they need a plan for Northern Ireland within weeks.
Using the words 'Brexit' and 'smooth' in one sentence is just comedy. Wonder what they had to promise him. Knighthood?
Mark Carney told MPs on Tuesday that he was willing to stay on as governor of the Bank of England beyond his planned departure date in order to "smooth" the Brexit process. Mr Carney had planned to step down in June 2019 after six years in Threadneedle Street's top job, two years fewer than BoE governors normally serve. But, asked by MPs on the Treasury Committee whether he would stay, Mr Carney said: "Even though I have already agreed to extend my time to support a smooth Brexit, I am willing to do whatever else I can in order to promote both a smooth Brexit and effective transition at the Bank of England."
"The chancellor and I have discussed this. I would expect an announcement to be made in due course." The comments come after mounting speculation in recent days that the Treasury would like Mr Carney to stay on in his role, providing more continuity during uncertain economic times. There are fears that few candidates will put themselves forward for the job as the Brexit negotiations reach a critical stage.
"What was the basic demand of SYRIZA? To tie debt repayments to GDP and so reduce the level of austerity. Any good economist will tell you that was a very reasonable starting point for the negotiation."
"The fundamental reason why the Greek crisis lasted so long was the extreme level of austerity that was imposed." That is the verdict of Ashoka Mody, visiting professor in International Economic Policy at Princeton University, a former deputy director of the IMF's European Department and one of the most eloquent critics of the policies of the troika in Greece and elsewhere. Mody, who recently published a long-form version of these critiques in his book "EuroTragedy: A Drama in Nine Acts", spoke to Kathimerini about the Greek crisis and those to blame for it. We began by discussing what many consider the original sin of the bailout period: the decision not to restructure Greece's debt in May 2010. What should the IMF have done?
"It should have insisted, it should have made the restructuring a condition of its participation," the Indian-born economist said, mentioning that the staff report all but admitted the debt was unsustainable and that Dominique Strauss-Kahn later said he was in favor of debt relief. "The reason it didn't happen was the ideological opposition of the European Central Bank – in this case supported by the US Treasury. Strauss-Kahn did not want to offend either the Americans or the Europeans. The stance of the US Treasury was critical – if its representative on the Executive Board had come out in favor of a restructuring, it would have happened. Instead, it sided completely with the European viewpoint – the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, believed that there should never be a restructuring in the midst of a crisis."
Regarding the argument that the problem in Greece (compared with other bailout countries) was there was no ownership of reforms, Mody said: "It is indeed the case that IMF programs only succeed when there is ownership. The question is what were Greeks asked to own. The arithmetic of austerity was relentless, cruel. Whatever the Greeks did, with austerity on such a scale they could not have escaped the collapse in gross domestic product. And then things became even worse, because the recession led to targets being missed, which led to more measures! The IMF published studies at the time showing what a terrible idea it was to impose further austerity in a recession, how it worsens the debt-to-GDP ratio. Yet the IMF kept doing it in Greece, ignoring all its internal studies!"
[..] The conversation turned to 2015. How does he think the creditors should have handled SYRIZA differently? "Look, even before SYRIZA came to power, Wolfgang Schaeuble said that elections do not matter. On January 31, 2015, six days after the election, Erkki Liikanen, the head of the Finnish central bank, says that if the new government does not accept the program, the ECB will cut liquidity support for Greek banks. Four days later, the ECB withdraws the waiver [which allowed the banks to borrow cheaply from it, using Greek government bonds as collateral]. And in June, the Europeans close down the banks. What was the basic demand of SYRIZA? To tie debt repayments to GDP and so reduce the level of austerity. Any good economist will tell you that was a very reasonable starting point for the negotiation."
More of my friends are leaving every day. Some don't even say goodbye.
Spix's macaw, a brilliant blue species of Brazilian parrot that starred in the children's animation Rio, has become extinct this century, according to a new assessment of endangered birds. The macaw is one of eight species, including the poo-uli, the Pernambuco pygmy-owl and the cryptic treehunter, that can be added to the growing list of confirmed or highly likely extinctions, according to a new statistical analysis by BirdLife International. Historically, most bird extinctions have been small-island species vulnerable to hunting or invasive species but five of these new extinctions have occurred in South America and are attributed by scientists to deforestation.
Stuart Butchart, BirdLife International's chief scientist, said the new study highlighted that an extinction crisis was now unfolding on large continents, driven by human habitat destruction. "People think of extinctions and think of the dodo but our analysis shows that extinctions are continuing and accelerating today," he said. "Historically 90% of bird extinctions have been small populations on remote islands. Our evidence shows there is a growing wave of extinctions washing over the continent driven by habitat loss from unsustainable agriculture, drainage and logging." More than 26,000 of the world's species are now threatened, according to the latest "red list" assessment, with scientists warning that humans are driving a sixth great extinction event.
The Brazilian Spix's macaw, as seen in the children's movie Rio, is one of the eight birds to become extinct Photograph: Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation