Saturday, October 12, 2019

Look For Rumors Not Just Of War, But Also Recession, Trial, And Tribulation

You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

This caution by Jesus to His disciples stands as one of the most eloquent reminders that bad things happen, and whatever else one must not panic. Not every piece of bad news is a sign of imminent Rapture.

"Don't Panic" is good advice even without mentioning End Of Days or Climate Change (no apologies to Saint Greta of Thunberg, who delights in calling for panic). Very little that is either productive or helpful arises from panic.

Yet we should not confuse calm with complacency. We should remain calm, always, but we must also acknowledge we have plenty about which to be concerned.

We have war, of course: Not only is there seemingly endless war in Syria even as President Trump seeks to disengage from that perpetual conflict, but Iran and Saudi Arabia are enjoying endless proxy war, lately expressing itself in tit for tat strikes--Iran's tankers have been attacked in the Red Sea just weeks after Saudi Arabia's main oil processing facility was attacked by Iranian drones and cruise missiles.

We have rumors of war, particularly in Hong Kong, as Chinese President Xi Jinping hints at but stops short of threatening the pro-democracy protesters .there with an invasion. We have the foreign minister of Pakistan prattling about "accidental war" with neighbor and sworn enemy India.

Yet these are merely the most superficial layer of distressing news. Peel these back and we such much, much more.

Worried about epidemic disease? We have the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Africa spreading from the Congo all the way to Dar es Salaam on the coast of Tanzania. Also, the so-called "Pig Ebola" (African Swine Fever) outbreak in China is putting a serious strain on China's food supply.

War, Famine, and Pestilence.  The rumor mill is churning out three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Looking for rumors of looming if not imminent financial collapse? We have those in abundance, as both the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve engage in monetary madness.

That is not even considering the many warning signs that global recession is either upon us, about to be upon us, or perhaps never truly left us. Not only is small business formation in the United States in serious decline, but the soon-to-be-completed Brexit process of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union is projected to inflict significant job loss continent-wide. South Korea's exports--primarily of semiconductors and microprocessors--are in significant decline. Germany's manufacturing base appears to be in full blown recession and is already pulling the rest of the EU along with it.

Wars. Rumors of war. Rumors of just about everything else, as well--recession threats, trials, and tribulations abound.

You will be forgiven if you were not aware of some of these items. With the exception of the situation in Hong Kong and the flare-up of violence in Syria, very little of this has received front-page attention by the legacy media. The Tales of Trump, including the latest installment of the Democrats' impeachment drama, "Russian Collusion 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo" has been the chosen narrative of the moment. The sad and sober truth of the legacy media is that narratives involving President Trump are more revenue-enhancing than other, arguably more serious and consequential stories, of which I have outlined but a few.

Perversely, even just highlighting some of these news items might seem to be a call to panic, because without the mass publication of these stories by the legacy media, the call to attention easily becomes the call to alarm. Yet a moment's reflection suffices to demonstrate this is not so. The call to attention is merely the constant reminder that, to be well and truly informed, one must get the facts.

Indeed, if there is one thing about which we should be alarmed it is that these rumors of recession, trial, and tribulation, these reminders that the Four Horsemen are never far behind us, are studiously ignored by the legacy media. Deliberately, they choose to hype the Tales of Trump and Democrat Impeachment Coup nonsense.

How else to explain The New York Times rolling out yet another installment of the "Trump Is Crazy" canard, invoking yet again the mysterious magic of the 25th Amendment to allow Democrats to overrule the voters?

How else to explain that presumably "conservative" and "pro Trump" Fox News published a poll purporting to show broad support for impeaching President Trump and removing him from office, a poll so skewed, so obviously biased and even manufactured, even Fox commentators such as Greg Gutfeld were compelled to call it out as an example of "Fake News"?

How else to explain McClatchy's repeated decision to run demonstrably false anti-Trump news stories as a means to prop up the newspaper chain's failing finances?

Rather than report facts, the legacy media promotes "narrative". They peddle propaganda. They hype hysteria. They promote panic. Indulgence in alliteration notwithstanding, this is not an exaggeration nor an hysterical suggestion. The facts support this--and only this--logical assessment of the legacy media.

The legacy media has made panic the center of its clickbait business model. I submit it is for this reason they make a media sensation out of 16-year old Greta Thunberg and her obsessions with climate change, without regard to her complete lack of substantive commentary on the topic.  I submit it is for this reason the legacy media chooses to dwell on their reality-show-news political dramas "The Tales of Trump" and "Russian Collusion 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo" rather than give any serious attention to any of the news stories I have mentioned here. 

The legacy media want you to panic. They want you to believe that the United States government is crumbling under the assault of Donald Trump and his fascist family. They want you to believe the Earth will burst into flames at any minute. They want you to believe that behind every smile of every person past a certain age lies unspeakable hatred, anger, and violence. They want you to obsess over the Tales of Trump and ignore these other, more relevant, more meaningful news stories.

They want you to panic. I want you to not panic.

Fight back against the media-manufactured hysteria. Fight back against the media's call for panic. Fight back by not panicking. 

Fight back by calmly reading and listening to entire stories. Fight back by asking questions,  Fight back by pursuing all worthy stories--and fight back also by developing a keen eye for when a news story is not backed up by the facts. Fight back by learning the facts.

Above all, fight back by seeking out the stories the media does not want to tell you, the stories the government does not wish you to know. Learn the contexts, seek out the nuance. Look for the rumors not just of war, but also recession, trial, and tribulation. Look for those rumors, those neglected stories, and take the time to research the actual facts behind those stories. 

Read, observe, and, most especially, think. Lead the media where you want the reporting to go. Demand they report on the stories that are relevant to you. Demand they report on the rumors, not just of war but also recession, trial, and tribulation.

Never panic. Never trust. Always verify instead.

Sunday, October 6, 2019

Not Only A Lost Decade, But A False Decade

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed that “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” A great many notable economists from Ludwig von Mises and Friederich Hayak to the progressive (and frequently pandering) Paul Krugman have commented at length on the intersection of economics and politics, and of the correlation between a free society and a free marketplace, culminating in the Friedman quote just cited.

If we are to have a free society, we must have free markets. If we are to have free markets, we must have a free society.

Thus it is when the Federal Reserve's policy statements and forward guidances on interest rates are treated with scorn by financial markets, we should pay attention. When central banks around the world pursue interest rate policies that are demonstrably harmful to the world's banking systems, we should pay attention. When the Federal Reserve appears to talk out of both sides of its institutional mouth, we should pay attention.

We should ask questions. We should seek answers.

What we should not do is trust the media. As has become all too apparent, the media is less interested in informing than it is in entertaining. Narrative has displaced even a biased presentation of facts, and many of the media narratives have been shown to be demonstrably false.

Thus, when I witness the nonsensical statements that have been made by officials of the Federal Reserve, such as Fed Chairman Jay Powell's disingenuous statement recently that the economy "is in a good place" even as the Fed mounted emergency "repo" operations to inject liquidity into financial markets--emergency actions are not my notion of a "good place"--or Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Raphael Bostic proclamation the US economy is not headed into a recession, glossing over the aforementioned "emergency" actions by the Fed, the desire to research and answer the question "what the heck is going on here?" becomes overpowering.

In an essay I posted on LinkedIn last year, I argued that the essential question in any analytical framework is "does this make sense?" Any explanation for anything has to make sense or it is of no value. The logic has to be consistent, it has to be complete, and it has to be comprehensible; when it is neither consistent, nor complete, nor comprehensible, the one conclusion we must draw is that more research is needed.

Accordingly, after reading on ZeroHedge and other sites various criticisms of Federal Reserve monetary policy--all of which had compelling arguments behind them--it had become clear that a greater familiarity with the actual data underpinning reports of that policy was needed. While I am no professional economist, I do believe in doing my own research on important matters, and so I set out to perform a bit of research and analysis on my own, using only raw data, independent of any other analysis or report.  This post is the results of that research.

The data sets I used were the historical M1 money supply data downloaded from the Federal Reserve, going back to January 1 1997, the historical monthly CPI numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics going back to the same date, and the historical Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 stock indices, reported monthly and also going back to January 1, 1997.

Those wishing to review my source data may download a file with the data sets gathered together in either Excel format or in CSV format.

The questions in my mind were as follows:
  • How did the Federal Reserve find itself confronted with a crisis of liquidity during the month of September, 2019?
  • How is it that, after more than a decade of near zero interest rates and "quantitative easing" by the Federal Reserve, inflation has not ever materialized in the US economy (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter)?
I began by focusing on the reported size of the money supply from the Fed, looking at both the M1 and M2 numbers. The M1 money stock figure is that amount of money readily available for spending--physical currency and deposits in various on-demand bank accounts--whereas the M2 figure includes "near money" accounts such as various money market accounts and time deposit instruments. There had been a third figure, the M3, which included an even broader array of money equivalents, but reporting of that figure was discontinued by the Federal Reserve in 2006.

The M1 and M2 charts are fairly mundane and even predictable.

One point that is fascinating about the M2 curve was that there was no dramatic spike up beginning in 2008/2009, when the Federal Reserve instituted quantitative easing policies in response to the 2008 financial crisis. "Quantitative Easing" is broadly defined as an expansion of a central bank's open market operations, which are specifically intended to increase the money supply. There is an upward trend in the the M1 figure, but in moving from the M1 measure to the M2, the increase in money effectively disappears.

In part, this is almost certainly due to more rapid expansion of the M2 money stock vs the M1. Going back to at least 1997, the differential between the two figures is steadily increasing.

If we look at just the M1 in isolation, we do see a significant upward trend beginning in 2009, which is exactly what quantitative easing would produce.
But here is also the first surprise. The official Fed pronouncements on quantitative easing declared the quantitative easing programs to be fully ended on October 29, 2014. Yet the pace of money creation did not show any signs of diminishing until 2017. There is at most a brief pause in 2014-2015, after which the pace of money creation resumed.  This presumably was during a time of gradual tightening by the Federal Reserve. Either the Federal Reserve is greatly misinformed about the impacts of its various operations, or it was greatly deceptive in describing the same.

The initial rationale for quantitative easing was easy enough to understand: with stock markets plummeting and financial markets seizing up, the Federal Reserve wanted to avoid a repeat of the mistakes in an earlier era, when the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink dramatically following the 1929 stock market crash, producing the deflationary downward spiral known as the Great Depression. Based on that rationale, and based on the behavior of the stock market indices in the wake of the Fed QE policy, quantitative easing certainly appears to have been a success, in that it prevented complete stock market collapse. This, at least is what the performance of the S&P 500 stock index shows.

After giving up all of the gains made between 1997 and 2008, the S&P began climbing steadily starting in 2008, and has largely kept on climbing.

Another curious aspect of the Fed's quantitative easing program was that it failed to produce significant inflation.  As this chart from Trading Economics shows, inflation during the past ten years has only rarely been above 2%, and only briefly below 0% (deflation) during 2008/2009.

The Consumer Price Index--the change in which is the primary benchmark for inflation--shows the same lack of inflation.

In monetarist economic theory--the primary developer of which was Milton Friedman--expanding the money supply ultimately produces inflation, as too many dollars end up chasing too few goods and services. The lack of inflation after 2008 would appear to discredit much of this.

Or did it?

(If you have hung with me this long, I promise this is where we get to the point of this entire post).

If we set the money supply, the CPI, and various stock market indices to a baseline value of 100, thereby eliminating differences in scale and units of measure, we can look at all of the values together. When we do, something interesting and unexpected shows up.

Prior to 2008, CPI and the M1 track very closely together, with only minor and transient deviations. The stock market indices, however, show absolutely no correlation to changes in the money supply.  The stock bubbles of 2000 and 2008 occurred without any dramatic expansion in the M1 money supply.

After 2008, however, the exact opposite is true.  The stock indices move along roughly the same upward slope as the M1 money supply, and the CPI continues on its same roughly linear trajectory completely divorced from the money supply. Only in 2017 do the stock indices show any sign of breaking free from the M1 trajectory.

What do we make of this? How do we explain this?

To my layman's eye, what this is showing is the reason why the Fed's quantitative easing strategies did not produce measurable inflation--the increase in the money stock never filtered out into the broader economy, but was completely soaked up by financial markets. Within financial markets, we see exactly the sort of inflation we would expect to see when the money supply expands.

There is something else that this chart suggests, something which is fairly disturbing. It suggests that much, if not all, of the economic growth posted during Barack Obama's Presidency was merely inflation--that there was no real growth at all

This is further suggested if we reset the baseline to January 1 2008:

The deflationary sag in 2008 is of course the consequence of the financial crisis in that year and the onset of the "Great Recession". Yet the deflationary "sag" never really disappears, as both the CPI and the stock indices run below the M1 growth level, and to an increasing degree over time. The influx of dollars into the economy did not produce a corresponding level of inflation even within financial markets. Moreover, if we were to flatten out the M1 chart (i.e., express the money supply in terms of constant dollars), we would see the stock indices as well as the CPI declining.  This would be especially true after the formal end of quantitative easing, where we see the M1 trend line essentially unchanged but the S&P 500 and DJIA lines appear to flatten out for a time

In other words, quantitative easing only served to mask deflation that was triggered by the 2008 financial crisis.

Only in recent years do we see this trend change.  Resetting the baseline to 2016, we see the stock indices finally running above the M1 curve, showing a rise in asset prices in real term, and not just due to the inflationary effects of growth in the money supply.

Real economic growth did not occur in the United States, it seems, until around 2016-2017. The policy of monetary stimulus begun in 2008 almost completely failed to stimulate, in large part because the money created by the Fed never trickled out into the general economy. Rather, it remained bottled up in the financial markets, which is to say it was parked on the balance sheets of the nation's banks--nominally there, but completely idle.

Thus we have a preliminary answer to the questions posed at the beginning. The Federal Reserve found itself facing a liquidity crisis over the past few weeks because the financial markets have been fundamentally illiquid since 2008, with banks essentially sitting on all the new money created. By the same token, quantitative easing never produced core inflation because the money created never made it into the general economy.

This also means that quantitative easing could not have had any material impact on the general economy, and only a muted impact on financial markets. The monetary stimulus of quantitative easing fundamentally failed to stimulate.

Having arrived at that conclusion, the next step was to test the conclusion using an independent metric.  For this I downloaded the reported Real GDP data from the St Louis Federal Reserve for the same time period, January 1, 1997 to the present, and charted it against money supply growth, again using a baseline of January 1, 1997.

Two things at once leap out. First, prior to 2008 there was rough correlation between money supply, inflation, and GDP growth. Second, beginning in 2008, the money supply decoupled from GDP growth. There is no comparison to be made between the two measures after 2008.  Drilling into the GDP and CPI numbers, however, is insightful.  Notice what happens when we set a baseline of January 1, 2008 for both metrics:

For most of the decade since Janaury 1, 2008, the CPI inflation curve is above the real GDP curve. Thus, even while the economy was technically growing, inflation was growing faster, and the economy overall was losing ground to inflation.  Only when we reset the baseline to January 1, 2016, do we see the real GDP curve rising above the CPI.
From January, 2008, until approximately July, 2017, the CPI curve lies above the GDP curve, yielding the same conclusion that a comparison of the money supply and stock indices produces--that there was little to no actual economic expansion under Barack Obama, and it is only during the past two years that the economy has expanded in real terms at all.  All previous GDP "growth" from 2008 onward can be ascribed almost entirely to inflation.

A further note on Real GDP and inflation: the Real GDP data is "real" because it has already been adjusted to account for inflation, using "deflator" factors calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (these deflator factors are similar in concept to CPI but differ in computation). The Real GDP data currently available from the St Louis Fed reports Real GDP in "chained 2012 dollars". 

Yet if Real GDP is already adjusted for inflation, there should be no correlation between Real GDP and the CPI (the benchmark measure for inflation). Real GDP is supposed to reflect economic growth independent of inflation, and independence precludes correlation. We should no more see Real GDP and CPI following similar trend lines from a common base year than we should see stock market indices and the money supply following similar trend lines. Yet we see both. 

These graphs show that, since 2008, there is a strong and persistent correlation between Real GDP and inflation via the CPI. Only very recently do the graphs deviate from each other. If Real GDP fully accounted for inflation, we should see significant variations between the trend lines, and we do not. We see this lack of correlation between 1997 and 2008, but the trend lines converge in 2008.

As the earlier graphs show, when we start from 2008 and 2016, Real GDP and CPI lie on very similar lines, and only in 2017/2018 do we begin to see any significant variation.

Thus, the conclusion from above is confirmed: The monetary stimulus of quantitative easing fundamentally failed to stimulate. It certainly did not stimulate the general economy. Looking at the trend line in GDP growth, very little if anything has had a stimulative effect on the economy. Stimulus would show as fluctuations in the trend line, appearing as the stock market bubbles did in the early 2000's, rising above the money supply only to drop back down again when the bubbles burst. The trend lines on GDP growth have been almost linear since the Great Recession.

Again quoting Milton Friedman, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." The policies of the Federal Reserve might have been well intentioned, but, looking at the data those policies produced, looking at the results, can we truly say those policies have been appropriate, effective, and successful?

No, we cannot.

These data sets tell a story vastly different from what the legacy media has reported, and continues to report. The legacy media argues that, after the "Great Recession", economic growth resumed and has continued on largely the same trajectory under President Trump as under President Obama. However, that assertion ignores the fact that inflation overcame almost all of the economic growth of the Obama years. While CNN crowed that Barack Obama had been one of the "best" Presidents for the stock market, most if not all stock market gains appear to have been the result of the Federal Reserve printing money during his term of office.

Much like Russian Collusion, the Obama Recovery appears to have been a long, drawn-out hoax foisted upon the American people by a corrupted and co-opted legacy media, pushing a particular narrative without regard for what the objective facts themselves indicate. Not only has the United States gone through a demonstrable "lost decade" of economic stagnation from which it has only recently and still briefly emerged, but it has endured a "false decade" of media denials that such stagnation was even occurring. While the legacy media paints a picture of the US economy being rescued from collapse by the bold efforts of then Fed Chairman Benjamin Bernanke and President Obama, the real story is considerably less flattering: given that Ben Bernanke arguably triggered the 2008 financial crisis with a series of interest rate hikes in 2006, his program of "quantitative easing" failed to clean up the economic mess he helped cause, while the best that can be said of Barack Obama is that he did not make things measurably worse.

The real story is that, in many regards, financial markets have truly not recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, and we are seeing the after-effects of that massive correction reverberate more than a decade on. We are seeing financial markets dependent upon constant streams of new liquidity just to function normally day to day.  We are seeing banks still failing "stress tests" that examine how their loan portfolios respond under "worst case" assumptions. We see large banks such as JP Morgan pulling cash out of their balance on deposit with the Fed in response to the Fed taking steps to trim its own very large balance sheet (the more the Fed sheds its portfolio of bonds acquired in the aftermath of 2008, the more cash banks pull out of the reserves on deposit with the Fed), thus triggering the September liquidity crunch.

The real story is that the Federal Reserve, and perhaps all of the world's central banks, have lost what little control over money supplies, interest rates, and financial markets they ever had. 

The real story is that even as the legacy media covers the real story, it continues to bury the lede, and assure the world that all is well.

The real story is that central banks are locked into a perpetual cycle of money creation, and woe betide the currency whose central bank opts to stop the printing presses. 

The real story is that the great unanswered question even now, more than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, central banks still do not have an answer to the question "what happens when the music stops....again?"

Is the US headed for a repeat of 2008? It is quite possible--and there is no way to know for certain. The financial crisis of 2008 had its origins in the US, but first boiled over in Europe. Perhaps that history will repeat itself. Europe certainly has its share of banking and economic challenges, with the ECB arguably intentionally poisoning European banking systems with negative interest rates, even as Europe slides into recession and a chaotic Brexit looming on the horizon. It hardly requires a degree in economics or finance to envision a global banking crisis originating in Europe and spreading to the rest of the world.

What is certain is that central bank money printing cannot continue indefinitely. There is a limit, beyond which people lose faith in fiat money, where the printing presses simply will not suffice.

What is also certain is that the "too big to fail" big banks are inextricably tied to the Fed's current liquidity problems just as they were tied to the 2008 financial crisis.

And what is also certain is that this story, as with so many other relevant stories, has been and will continue to be underreported and misreported by the legacy media. There will be no crisis acknowledged until the crisis is too big to be avoided.

Saturday, October 5, 2019

All The World's A Stage

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players
As You Like It, Act 2, Scene 7

In order to understand the serial hysterias of the past few years, one must dispense with the notion that the news is actually the news. As I opined in my last posting, what we get from the legacy media is not "news", but merely "infotainment", scripted dramatics calibrated to titillate, enrage, possibly entertain, definitely distract, but never ever inform the public.

Armed with this understanding, the seemingly insane actions of government officials and politicians becomes immediately sane and rational.  Since the media is only interested in providing entertainment, everyone is merely playing out their assigned role. Much like the manufactured dramatics that are the stock in trade of "reality" television, the poses and phony outrage of Democrat and Republican alike are merely the latest scripted pseudo-controversy. 

The proof? Consider this latest breathless reveal, courtesy of Breitbart, that the so-called "whistleblower" within the US Intelligence Community amazingly failed to disclose to the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson his interactions with Adam Schiff's staffers on the House Intelligence Committee. Not only is this a rather amazing failure to follow the established process, it is also either an amazing lack of due diligence by the ICIG in failing to ask the rather obvious question "To whom have you spoken about this matter?", or an amazing bit of deceit by the whistleblower, who would have had to have lied in response to that question. In order to accept either of these narrative arcs one must have a willing (and even naive) suspension of disbelief.

For the record, I am not willing to suspend disbelief and I do not consider myself naive.

Further, we have The Washington Post somewhat sanctimoniously assigning Adam Schiff "four Pinocchios" for his proven lies regarding said whistleblower. Schiff even went so far as to read into the Congressional Record a "parody" of Donald Trump's telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky--perhaps instead of four Pinocchios Schiff should be nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Performance in a Phony Political Drama.

Yet not all the theatrics come from Democrats. In his never-ending quest for headlines and presumably some relevance, alleged Republican Mitt Romney lashed out against Donald Trump for suggesting China investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, calling it "wrong and appalling", suggesting the push for investigations were motivated solely by politics. Romney's theatrical chops were on full display, as he managed to gloss over the very obvious and very real potentials for significant conflicts of interest that exist in Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. Are we seriously supposed to believe that a former venture capital financier such as Mitt Romney has never dealt with the legal realities of conflict of interest, or the standard that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is to be avoided?

Again, I am not naive and I am not willing to suspend my disbelief.

However, if this is all a charade, a media drama concocted to entertain the mass audience, and Messrs Atkinson, Schiff, and Romney are merely furthering the narrative arc along, then these poses, these postures, these outrageous and scarcely credible lies, all start to make sense. If, instead of being serious participants in serious political and legal process, they are merely bad actors reading from a worse script, we can see that they are merely poor players gamely attempting to hold the audience' attention. 

Impeachment? Just another story hook.

Collusion and conspiracy with the Ukraine? Also just another story hook.

Scandal erupting over House Biden's nepotism and insider trading? Still just another story hook.

Investigations? Farces all, with each and every committee hearing just another spontaneous example of theater of the absurd.

As veteran newsman Ted Koppel pointed out in a media symposium this time last year, "CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump". Ultimately, the legacy media has adopted a clickbait strategy to eke out a few more years before their business model collapses completely. When the Mueller Report failed to produce the hoped-for incriminations and indictments leading to President Trump's impeachment, CNN and MSNBC experienced precipitous ratings drops--once the show ended, the audience left and went in search of new diversions and amusements. 

Is it any wonder that we are now being presented with a fresh "scandal" modeled on the same narrative premise, that of Donald Trump seeking and perhaps receiving undue foreign influences on America's electoral politics? Is it any wonder that we are being treated to "Russia 2.0"?

Give credit where credit is due. The clickbait business strategy appears to be working. Donald Trump is the single most popular political figure in the news media, and has been since he announced his candidacy for President. Pick any time period, and Donald Trump dwarfs the entirety of the Democratic field in search interest, as this sample of Google Trends for 4 September through 11 September shows. Donald Trump is not merely "very, very good for baseball," as Ted Koppel put it; Donald Trump is the entire game.

Give Donald Trump credit as well. His one definitive insight into American politics has been to realize that the legacy media has reduced political news coverage to an ongoing reality television show that bears more than a passing similarity to Donald Trump's own TV show "The Apprentice." His great tactical masterstroke has been to embrace this, to be a true "reality television" President, and to make that work as a means for advancing his policy agenda

But give criticism where criticism is due. The clickbait strategy ignores news items that are less dramatic, less emotionally charged, but arguably even more relevant than whether Donald Trump did or did not misbehave on a phone call with the Ukrainian President.

While the legacy media drives attention to the tweets and antics of Donald Trump, the Federal Reserve is quietly restarting quantitative easing, even as Jay Powell proclaims the economy to be "in a good place." One would think that the possibility of looming recession and economic distress might be of interest to more than just a few people.

While the American public is being distracted with the latest tales of Trump, the people of Hong Kong are still braving the displeasure of the police and their erstwhile political masters in Beijing, demanding that their democracy, liberty, and freedom be preserved and respected. One would think that the struggle for freedom and independence would be inherently of interest to Americans.

Give Donald Trump his earned criticisms as well. His tweets incite more than they inform, and much more than they inspire. He is a willing player in the ongoing reality show the legacy media presents as politics in America--if the media is shirking its traditional role of informing the public, Donald Trump is surely guilty of encouraging this lassitude. Rather than rising above the theatrics, Donald Trump is as guilty of creating them as the legacy media.

Between the credit and the criticism lies an important truth: being aware and informed is the responsibility of the individual. Our world is defined not by narrative but by facts, and though the media may be vested in promoting narrative, it is incumbent upon each of us to ferret out the facts. Only when we know the facts can we make reasoned and informed choices about the world in which we live, and the world in which we want to live.

Read broadly. Read critically. Read skeptically. Read always with one question in mind: "What are the facts?"

And it just may be that, if we emphasize the pursuit of facts over the consumption of narrative, we may yet inspire the media--be it the legacy media seeking to survive or the alternative media seeking to prove its worth--to prioritize facts over narrative. 

All the world may be a stage, but ultimately we are never merely just players. We are also the playwrights. We should at least strive to write a worthy play.

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Bread And Circuses.

Panem et Circenses. Bread and Circuses.

Once again, the media is proving that shallow spectacle--"infotainment"--is all they have to offer. Rather than inform and facilitate sober and serious contemplation of the day's pressing issues, the legacy media offers only a steady diet of what is charitably described as "political porn"--click bait meant only to titillate.

President Trump's likely impeachment is the clown act du jour. Why is he being impeached? That is an excellent question. Apparently, Democrats are upset that he spoke on the telephone with the recently elected President of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, and are in high dudgeon that he requested the Ukrainian government look into possible corruption and malfeasance involving former Vice President (and current Democratic Presidential front-runner) Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Predictably, Republicans are outraged that the Democrats are outraged. President Trump is outraged that the Democrats are outraged, and even more outraged that the legacy media is airing its sympathetic outrage over the Democratic outrage over President Trump's outrageousness.

Did you catch that important bit of news about people being outraged?  

Did you catch any other useful bit about the particulars of the incident and presumed offenses by Donald Trump? Probably not, because the facts only dribble out quite by accident.

Consider the latest breathless, pearl-clutching headlines over President Trump's phone call.

In "The Week That Everything Changed" the columnist assures us that the narrative has suddenly shifted, that the Democrats are finally on offense while the Republicans are finally on defense. She neglects, of course, to make mention of all the high dudgeon expended last summer over President Trump's seeming inability to properly berate Russian strongman Vladimir Putin in public over Russia's presumed meddling in the 2016 election--a narrative which I observed at the time was notable for the complete absence of factual support.

The author of "As Fox News goes, so goes Trump" earnestly assures us that the troglodytic commentators at the "conservative" Fox News are President Trump's only defense against the forces of Truth and Justice, but even Fox grasps the gravity of the situation, and thus is bolstering its array of talking heads with ex politicians who have a clear understanding of all that is at stake. The irony of looking to politicians to deliver clear and objective analyses of issues escapes him completely.

In "The Truth About Trump’s Insane Ukraine ‘Server’ Conspiracy", whose author is a "Senior National Security Correspondent", he pans Trump's request of President Zelensky and his mention of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, treating as ludicrous any notion that Crowdstrike might have erred in its forensic examination of the Democratic National Committee servers after the alleged Russian hack which purportedly resulted in volumes of DNC data being publicized via WikiLeaks. Unfortunately, this "Senior National Security Correspondent" manages to completely overlook the fact that Crowdstrike's assessment of the alleged hack, in particular the role of a pseudonymous hacker known as "Guccifer 2.0", was directly and categorically refuted in the only indictments issued over that hack, those being the indictments secured by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July of 2018. While the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity is not a universally acknowledge body of intelligence expertise or forensic analysis, it is disingenuous for this "Senior National Security Correspondent" to gloss over the fact that VIPS made public their full analysis and the relevant source data. 

On the other side of the aisle, in "Anti-Trump media doing their best to get president impeached" we have dogged insistence that all the fracas is just a media conspiracy whose sole purpose is to get President Trump thrown out of office. President Trump, after all, is heaven sent to save America from itself. While I actually am inclined to agree with the charges of bias, having already commented at length about it with regards to the Russian Collusion Hoax and the fiasco known as the Mueller Investigation, the notion of the media being decidedly anti-Trump no longer qualifies as newsworthy. The aftermath of Robert Mueller's anti-climactic report establishing no collusion or conspiracy between President Trump's election campaign and Russian spies was littered with examples of the media promoting factually false narratives with complete disregard for facts very much in evidence at the time.

The reader will note that I do not mention these authors by name, nor do I highlight the publications from which these articles came. This is not an oversight. It is a protest of sorts--perhaps a silly one, unlikely to be an effective one, certainly a personal one. It is my way of saying "enough!" on this endless cycle of propaganda and Fake News. The articles in question I have archived on The Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine", a service which caches web content against future deletion and modification, in part to deny these sources the benefit of any more click-thrus.

The criticism I have is simple: people need facts in order to decide the truth of any matter. We need to know the Who, the What, the Where, and the When. We need to be able to puzzle out the How and the Why. In my "day job" in Information Technology, I constantly encourage my technical support staffs to focus on these basic interrogatory questions when gathering information about a problem. Gathering the data is the first and most essential step in any problem-solving paradigm.

The role of the media--be it the legacy media or the up and coming "alt-media"--is to gather and present those facts. Even a blog such as this, which focuses on presenting analyses of various issues, has a duty to itself to focus on facts. Facts are what have credibility, not the people presenting them; we gain our credibility by borrowing that of the facts--and if we are respectful of the facts, and guide our reasonings and logic in accordance with the facts, we may hope that some of the credibility enjoyed by the facts will permanently adhere to us.

The media has long since abandoned the task of presenting facts. Where Donald Trump is concerned, the media were openly scornful of even the pretense of objectivity as early as August of 2015, while he as just getting his Presidential election campaign started.

What is to be done? Gather the facts. Amazingly enough--and probably quite by accident--the facts are out there. Even the legacy media occasionally slips and manages to release verifiable factual information. Each person, each reader of this blog or of any information source, must take the time to gather facts, to question what others are saying, and the conclusions others are reaching.

As I have advised previously, "Do not trust. Verify instead." Do not accept a pronouncement merely because it comes from some presumed "expert" in the media, legacy or otherwise. Read. Think. Judge for yourself. Read my essays and decide for yourself if I am insightful or insane--and feel free to tell me which you think I am. Challenge prevailing wisdom. Take every comment made on all sides with a grain of salt.

Above all, be mindful of this one basic truth about what the legacy media especially offers: it is all just bread and circuses, a clown show designed to entertain and distract while generating ad revenue and mouse clicks. It cannot be stated too much that the media has no interest in informing you; they wish only to entertain you.

Do not trust. Verify instead.

Monday, September 16, 2019

No Deal Brexit A Disaster? Currency Markets Cry "Bollocks!"

Since the Brexit Referendum was announced in 2016, the legacy media has been full of the dire prognostications of the many trials and tribulations that would befall the United Kingdom should they actually up and quit the EU.

Despite the best efforts of the naysayers of Project Fear, Brexit passed with a healthy margin.

And still the naysayers kept up their drumbeat of depressive doomsday declarations.

Theresa May turned what ostensibly were relatively straightforward "divorce" proceedings into the stuff of tabloids, and then the naysayers felt vindicated. As her Brexit deal was voted down an embarrassingly three times, the naysayers gloated.

Then Theresa May resigned as Prime Minister, and on July 24, 2019, Boris Johnson moved into 10 Downing Street. How the narrative has shifted!

During the first five days of August, the Brexit headlines were talking up the "inevitability" of Boris Johnson having to negotiate a proper Brexit Deal, despite all his chest-thumping rhetoric, as this random sampling of news sources demonstrates:
The conventional wisdom during those five days was quite definitely tilted towards there being a Brexit deal of some sort--either a revision to Theresa May's proposal, a Brexit delay followed by a deal, or Boris Johnson would whip up an entirely new deal at the eleventh hour to save the day and the country.

However, during the next five days, the tone of the news shifted. Slowly, perhaps even grudgingly, the legacy media conceded that Boris Johnson might not be bluffing after all, that he might actually push to crash the UK out of the EU in a "No Deal Brexit" on October 31st--the ultimate "Trick Or Treat" for All Hallows' Eve:

With yet more vindication in hand, surely the Brexit naysayers are gloating over the Brexiteers as the markets begin to punish Britain for the folly of separating itself from Europe.....right?


The chart at the top is the changes in currency valuation, the Euro vs the British Pound, over the last two months (from 17 July to 16 September).  Notice how the Euro peaked on August the 10, at £0.93927? Notice how the Euro has steadily declined against the British Pound since that date? Even before the potential "Black Swan" events of September 14-15 (the Iranian/Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities and resultant loss of half of the Kingdom's production capacity), the currency markets were shifting away from the Euro and towards the British Pound. This is the exact opposite of the movement one would expect if the currency markets were betting against the British Pound.

Intriguingly, the Euro against the US Dollar shows a similar peak on August 10, followed by a persistent decline, although in the case of the Dollar the shift is more erratic and more pronounced. While there may have been the beginning of a Euro recovery against the dollar starting in September, the aforementioned "Black Swan" moment appears to have squelched that bounceback.

When comparing the US Dollar to the British Pound, the two currencies were more or less moving sideways during August, and then the dollar fell against the pound starting on September 3, and only beginning to regain ground on September 14--quite likely a "flight-to-safety" reaction to the Iranian/Houthi attack.

Full Disclosure: I am not a currency trader nor a financial analyst, and none of this is to be taken as investment advice or guidance.

In business especially, actions always speak louder than words. The words of the legacy media have been that Brexit, and particularly a "No Deal" Brexit, will be a disaster for the UK. The actions of the world's currency speculators, who are literally betting fortunes on the next economic ripple within the worlds leading economies, has been in the past month a somewhat derisive "Bollocks!" (apologies to any actual British folk if I am using the colloquial expletive incorrectly). Currency markets are steadily bidding up the British Pound and bidding down the Euro as the deadline for Brexit draws closer; it may lack a certain dramatic flair, but it is nevertheless a solid vote of confidence in Brexit, even in the "No Deal" Brexit.  The Euro would not be steadily losing ground to the Pound if the currency markets had any misgivings about Brexit.

When China let the bottom fall out of the yuan during the last few days of August, I noted that while much was made of the yuan's fall against the dollar, very few financial commentators even noticed a seemingly synchronous drop of the euro against the dollar, despite the absence of any negative EU news at the time. At the time, I offered up the following conclusion:
The one thing that seems certain about the legacy media's prognostications about the state of the world is that they have the narrative all wrong. With respect to China and Europe, they have it provably wrong, which only begs the question what else do the chattering class "experts" have completely wrong?
There will be no final answers until November 1, if then, but, if the current currency market trends hold through October, we quite possibly could add Brexit coverage to the list of things the chattering class "experts" within the legacy media have gotten very wrong.

Note: the currency graphs are courtesy of and were obtained using the following search parameters at the time of writing:
  • Euro to British Pound:
  • Euro to US Dollar:
  • US Dollar to British Pound: