Daily Digest

Image by johnny choura, Flickr Creative Commons

Daily Digest 9/24 - Why Oil Prices Won't Stay Low, Do Robots Dream Of Wealth?

Saturday, September 24, 2016, 12:53 PM

Economy

Harvard Endowment drops 2% in 2016, worst since financial crisis (lambertad)

The pullback, the largest since a 27.3% loss during the last financial crisis, is the latest setback for an institution that has struggled with leadership changes and lagging performance when compared with its Ivy League peers. Harvard Management’s board is currently searching for its fourth chief executive in a decade following the July departure of Stephen Blyth, who left after 18 months in the top job.

The Elite Solution: Three New Ways To Get Inflation (thc0655)

Helicopter money results when governments run larger deficits and central banks print the money to cover the deficits. Central banks have been printing money since 2008. The problem is banks won’t lend it and people won’t spend it. Helicopter money cuts out the middleman. Governments just borrow and spend the money directly without waiting for the banking system to do the job. Central banks pick up the tab.

What The Fed And BOJ Decisions Mean For Markets (Alex B.)

The BOJ’s move away from negative interest rates on the longer end is a tacit acknowledgement that NIRP is deflationary. This is why we’re seeing negative yielding currencies strengthen because steepening the yield curve is a form of stealth tightening. We should expect the ECB and SNB to follow suite in the months ahead. This is why I expect the dollar to weaken in the near-term as markets wake up to this fact.

Do Robots Dream Of Wealth? (Tiffany D.)

However, most people under 30 don’t look at the world like this. Digital technology has been with them since they were born. Their world is populated with computers, cellphones, tablets, streaming music and movies. Seeing technological change unfold year after year is the only way they’ve experienced the world.

Can a Police-Misconduct Lawsuit Lead to Reform? (jdargis)

The particulars of the settlement are not beyond public concern. The Bland family’s case is one of several legal battles surrounding widely publicized police-related deaths over the last two years. More families may soon follow suit after this summer saw a string of officer-involved shootings and subsequent protests. Future cases could generate similar public criticism, but according to Ranjana Natarajan, director of the Civil Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, both sides make faulty arguments.

Why Oil Prices Can’t Stay Low For Much Longer

For many oil companies, the current downturn in oil is a back-breaker, but some have adapted to the falling prices and are fighting each day to survive and benefit from the higher oil prices that lay at the end of this dark tunnel.

Mothballing the World's Fanciest Oil Rigs Is a Massive Gamble (jdargis)

The ships are owned by a company called Transocean Ltd., the biggest offshore-rig operator in the world. And while the decision to idle a chunk of its fleet would seem logical enough given the collapse in oil drilling activity, Transocean is in truth taking an enormous, and unprecedented, risk. No one, it turns out, had ever shut off these ships before. In the two decades since the newest models hit the market, there never had really been a need to. And no one can tell you, with any certainty or precision, what will happen when they flip the switch back on.

Puerto Rico Blackout Enters Second Day - Entire Island Of 3.5 Million People Without Power (Wendy SD, reflector)

Per the WSJ, it's unclear how much damage the fire caused or where the power company would obtain the money to repair and/or replace the damaged equipment. In addition to Puerto Rico's efforts to restructure $70BN of public debt, the utility is also struggling with $9 billion of its own debt that it too hopes to restructure amid corruption allegations.

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 9/23/16

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

17 Comments

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2244
Will Hillary cancel out of 1st Presidential debate on Monday?

I'm curious about whether Hillary is well enough to participate in the 1st Presidential Debate, scheduled for this Monday 9/26/16.  Here's one article I found that is also asking this question i (I'm not sure how good the source is, but this is more about the question being asked): http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-health-debate-5-days-cancel/

Today, political insiders believe Hillary is about to drop out of the first debate against Donald Trump! As a conservative leader told Gateway Pundit:

“Hearing smart guys say that Hillary may cancel the debate on Monday … Hillary may be trying to run out the clock because she thinks she is ahead.”

Maybe Hillary is concerned about having another attack or problem on stage that her staff couldn’t hide?

If Hillary is as un-well as she appeared in the video where she had to leave the 9/11 event early, and as has been speculated based on other symptoms people have observed/reported, then I can't help but wondering if this is  real possibility?  If she is un-well as some think, then her campaign must be facing a real dilemma.  Do they cancel out and pour fuel on the speculative fire that she isn't fit to run?  Or does she participate and take the risk of having another episode and proving that she isn't fit to run? 

Of course, the other possibility is that she isn't as un-well as evidence seems to indicate, and her health isn't that big of a concern in terms of her participating in the upcoming debate.  But based on seeing the video of Hillary after the 9/11 event, and other things I've seen/read about symptoms she's exhibited, I suspect that there are real health issues that are being down-played by her staff.

Thoughts anyone?  I'm just kind of surprised that I'm not seeing this question being asked more.  Maybe the assumption is that since her campaign hasn't canceled-out already, that her participation in the debate on Monday is a given. 

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1615
Charlotte riots

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 252
Substitution In The Final 10

AND...will Andrew Cuomo step-in and up?

He would be the perfect anti-Trump and probably win.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
You do understand that...

You you are now spreading propaganda.....

 

I 99% appreciate your intentions but....I find in this situation, you're  making  assumptions, and spreading your BELIEFS before knowing all of the FACTS.  And as you well know, assumptive FACTS are many times different than actual FACTS when it comes to the US POLICE forces.

 

 

thc0655 wrote:

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2832
Spreading propaganda

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Preserving eggs.

Something different. 

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1891
The Saker: Impact of the 9/11 Truth Movement

I just became aware that the Saker published a retrospective review of the impact of the 9/11 Truth movement on the world political landscape.  The number of people willing to defend the official story is very low now.  The GWOT myth used by The Empire must run on momentum and apathy now.

http://thesaker.is/the-911-truth-movement-15-years-later-where-do-we-stand/

I firmly believe that any person who does not understand what really happened 15 years ago is also by definition unable to understand everything and anything which has happened since. 9/11 was the seminal event which ushered in our current era and, just for that reason only, it is probably also the single most important event in our recent history.

I was showing my father, a retired mechanical engineer, the picture of the Shanksville hole and explaining to him with a straight face that an airplane hit the field at such a high speed that it passed in its entirety through the soil "like a marble through water."  He burst out laughing.

Much of his professional career was spent analyzing fluid flows through the structures in nuclear reactors. The soil-behaving-as-a-low-viscosity-low-density-highly-compressible-liquid was most unconvincing to him.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1891
Preparing the Public Mind for First Nuclear Strike on Russia

Though I rarely watch TV, tonight while visiting family I suffered through part of 60 Minutes.  A segment, "Risk of Nuclear Attack Rises"  was very alarming to me.

I heard 2 very noteworthy things:

Several times it asserted that Russia had invaded Crimea.  It did not mention the coup in Ukraine where the CIA overthrew the elected leader and installed a Neo-Nazi presidency, nor the election where the Russian ethnic majority living in Crimea overwhelmingly voted to voluntarily rejoin Russia.

It then carefully and repeated implied that Putin was mad.  They cited "declassified documents" showing that Russia was considering nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional warfare and repeated the theme that Russian was ready to use nuclear weapons at any time.  It also asserted that Putin was eager to expand Russian territory and was an "opportunist."

It did not mention the numerous articles where western think tanks recommend preemptive nuclear first strikes and the integration of tactical nuclear weapons into conventional battlefield tactics.  (Search "Foreign Affairs Nuclear First Strike").

We came to the conclusion that this was a propaganda piece designed to ready the American public mind to tolerate a nuclear first strike on Russia.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2832
Re: First Strike

Not sure whey they would even bother with preparing the minds of the American public for a first strike nuclear attack against Russia.

Even a limited retaliatory strike, say 10-20% of peak effective, will end most of the population of North America. Heading into winter, the power grid simply won't withstand it and commodity transport will shudder to a crawl.

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5418
first strike?

SP-

I don't think this is about a first strike at all.  I think this is about funding the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, and before you can build them, you have to justify them first.  Throughout history, the mechanism has always been to terrify people first.

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/

First there was the bomber gap, which didn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap

And then there was the missile gap, which also didn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap

And that got us to 25,000 nuclear warheads deployed to 'defend the country'.

Its simply about money - specifically, a trillion dollars to be handed to the military-industrial complex because "our nuclear weapons don't work."

Realistically speaking, as long as those submarines are still quiet and the missiles aboard can still be launched - just test-fire one every few years to make sure, and I think we're good.

But that's just me.

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2832
Perhaps
davefairtex wrote:

I don't think this is about a first strike at all.  I think this is about funding the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, and before you can build them, you have to justify them first.  Throughout history, the mechanism has always been to terrify people first.

Perhaps you are right.

Perhaps you are wrong.

Perhaps the current crop of TPTB have simply lost touch with humanity, life and the living Earth in a psychopathic lust for power and domination.

US hopes to get a World War started in Syria before Nov 8th elections (TapNewsWire)

I'd imagine that World War started some time ago. About 16 years ago, actually.

Tim Ladson's picture
Tim Ladson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks Dave

Dave,

Thanks for deescalating my stress level. I too got caught up in the hysteria of the rush to war. I hope upon hope that you're right that the propaganda has done it's job and now we only have to worry about the residual effects of an out of control military on us tax mules. Nuclear War as opposed to National Bankruptcy - no sweat. 

I still have respect for T2H's position and don't disagree with his opinion about the first major blow in the neocon's psychopathic plan to make the world bend to their will, they are obviously still driving the boat with the full support of the military.  

Tim 

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1891
Latvia and Estonia: Isolated, Surrounded by Russian Tanks

The brief portion of the 60 Minutes segment, Risk of Nuclear Attack Rises, that seemed to aimed more at the need for NATO to include use of nuclear weapons was the portion on Latvia and Estonia.  (The first strike portion of what I said wasn't correct.  I should have said the inclusion of tactical nukes on a conventional battlefield.)

From the segment:   A Rand Corporation think tank representative showed a map of Europe with NATOs "newest members" Latvia and Estonia isolated, far from the bulk of NATOs ground forces.  It then showed the surrounding Russian tanks and explained that Russia could invade L&E and overwhelm them.  Yet NATO ground forces were 36 hours away.  It would be impossible to defend them......

What was not directly said was that if that mad man Putin is willing to casually use nuclear weapons as a part of conventional battlefield tactics, that maybe we will be forced to use them too.

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 252
How Reasonable

Are you pandering to a racist? or just trying to reason with one.

People who think that police killings of black men, women and children is about the color of the perpetrator are racist. 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/police_killings_wont_stop_20160925

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5418
first use vs first strike

Yes, there is a huge distinction between "first use" and "first strike."  First use just means we reserve the option to use a nuke to destroy a big tank formation because if we didn't, we'd be totally outnumbered and defeat would be certain.  This stuff was standard policy during the cold war.  US reserved the right to use nukes first - because NATO was always and ever outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact conventional forces.

This all feels like a re-tread of cold-war-speak war 20 years later.  RAND must be delighted to be back in the business of "thinking about the unthinkable" once again.

I read recently that Incirlik (that NATO airbase in Turkey whose Turkish base commander was arrested for allegedly participating in the recent coup) had 50 US B-61 nuclear gravity bombs stored there.  Post-coup, supposedly the US has started transporting them elsewhere.  Romania, allegedly.  Seems like a bad idea to have nukes stationed in Turkey.

This is a decent article on the deployment and issues of use here, as well as one part of the expensive modernization program.

http://stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/B61-Life-Extension-Program.pdf

Hmm, so why drag out all these old cold war strategies at this particular point in time?  Let's see.  We will have a new president in about four months.  I don't think the timing of this is accidental.

My guess: this is just jockeying for a slot in the new President's first year budget.  That "sequester" has been annoying for the contractors, I'm sure.  I'm also guessing that Obama made it clear he didn't want to fund the nuke programs, but with a new person in the office, who knows what you might be able to get.  Trump says "nukes don't work" - sounds like he's already on board with the trillion-dollar project.  And if Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, its Goodies for Everyone in the defense industry.  We have a massive new threat we have to spend a whole lot of money to defend ourselves against.

TechGuy's picture
TechGuy
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 13 2008
Posts: 419
davefairtex wrote: "I don't

davefairtex wrote:

"I don't think this is about a first strike at all. I think this is about funding the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, and before you can build them, you have to justify them first. Throughout history, the mechanism has always been to terrify people first."

I don't think so. the US has been pressuring Russia, because Russia won't "play ball" with Washington. The US has been trying to force Russia into a conflict, via a series of proxy war: First in Georgia, than in Ukraine, Turkey and in southern 'stans nations. The primary driver of anti-Russia policy originates with the state department.

It appears that the US witht the US state dept leading the way, is bent on bringing "democracy" to the world. There has been a big effort in the Middle East & Africa to bring "democracy" which has only resulted in anarchy and war lords taking control. After the failures in Libya, Eygpt, Yemen... they switched focus to Syria. 

If the US intention was to gain support for an arms buildup, it need not look further that China, which switching from industial keynesium to military keynesium as its industrial expansion has collapsed due to over capacity. China is increasing pressuring its neigbors (Japan, Phillipines, Vietnam, Korea) by building miltary bases or conducting miltary naval drills just (ie saber rattling). The US doesn't need to make up a fake enemy when it has a real one.

Bottom line what ever the reason is: is that once again the world is being lead by a group of crazies. The last time was during the 1930s with the rise of fascism, and communism. The the people in power have no real sense of the risks of a global war, and will continue to move towards another global war, unless they are remove from power, which seems unlikely.

 

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5418
nukes vs state department

TG-

I do agree the state department has a bee in its bonnet - those 50 people signing a letter whining about Obama being too much of a peacenik tells you all you need to know.  My jaw dropped when I read about that protest.  It feels like there's this group there that kind of run the place and they feel like the darned civilians always get in the way of what needs to be done.  (With the exception of Hillary, of course - she's a good egg about that sort of thing).

But again, why is this nuclear issue coming up now?  I find it convenient that there is a trillion-dollar plan to modernize our nuclear forces that is as yet unfunded - and it just so happens we are seeing 60-minutes episodes about nukes.  And there's a new President about to be elected.  Without popular support for the program, it might just not get funded.

As soon as I saw the nuclear modernization program with the trillion-dollar price tag, I just assumed that the usual suspects would be pulling out all the stops to get the program approved.  This just seems to be one of those stops, at least to me.

That's not true about the coup in Ukraine, or the stupidity in Syria - but I do think its true about the nuke issue.  That just feels like justifying a defense procurement to me.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments