sábado, 30 de noviembre de 2019

ND NOV 30 19 SIT EC y POL



ND  NOV 30 19  SIT EC y POL 
ND denounce Global-neoliberal debacle y propone State-Social + Capit-compet in Eco


ZERO HEDGE  ECONOMICS
Neoliberal globalization is over. Financiers know it, they documented with graphics


Since the start of the Fed's T-Bill purchases, the S&P500 is up on the 7 weeks when the Fed's balance sheet also increased. It was down just once: the week when the Fed's balance sheet declined.
After a month of constant verbal gymnastics by the Fed - and its army of sycophants who can't think creatively or originally and merely parrot their echo chamber in hopes of a blue checkmark and likes/retweets - that the recent launch of $60 billion in T-Bill purchases is anything but QE (whatever you do, don't call it "QE 4", just call it "NOT QE" please), two weeks ago one bank finally had the guts to say what was so obvious to anyone who isn't challenged by simple logic: the Fed's "NOT QE" is really "QE."

But was it QE? Well, in his October FOMC press conference, Fed Chair Powell said "our T-bill purchases should not be confused with the large-scale asset purchase program that we deployed after the financial crisis. In contrast, purchasing Tbills should not materially affect demand and supply for longer-term securities or financial conditions more broadly." Chair Powell also gave a succinct definition of QE as having two basic elements:(1) supporting longer-term security prices, and (2) easing financial conditions.

Here's the problem: as we have said since the beginning, and as Bank of America wrote, "the Fed's T-bill purchase program delivers on both fronts and is therefore similar to QE," with one exception - the element of forward guidance.

The upshot to this attempt to mislead the market what it is doing according to Bank of America, is that:
  1. the Fed is continuing to "ease" even though rate cuts are now on hold, which is supportive of growth, higher interest rates and higher equities, and
  2. the Fed is loosening financial conditions by increasing the availability of, and lowering the cost of, leveragewhich broadly supports asset prices potentially at the cost of increasing systemic financial risk.

And while we have repeatedly argued why we think that, stripped of all its semantic veneer, the Fed's latest asset purchase program is, in fact, QE, BofA effectively confirmed why we are right.

Which brings up a tangential, if just as important question: Why is the Fed so concerned about not signaling QE, and why are so many Fed fanboys desperate to parrot whatever Powell is saying day after day? Simply said, there are several reasons why the Fed is making a great effort to let the world know that its security purchases are not QE and are not reflective of any change in monetary policy stance.


The reason we bring up this especially critical topic again today, is because we now have almost two full months of data since the start of NOT QE, which IS QE, and which conveniently gives us a snapshot of how the market - not we, not Bank of America, not pro or anti-Fed pundits - are responding to the expansion in the Fed's balance sheet, which between repos, term repos, and permanent open market operations, has grown by $293 billion in just under the past three months.
See Chart:
FED Reserve Balance Sheet

The simple answer is the following: whether one wants to call it QE or not QE, ever since the Fed announced on Oct 11 that it would start purchasing $60 billion in T-Bills each month until "at least into the second quarter of 2020" - being careful to note that "these actions are purely technical measures to support the effective implementation of the FOMC's monetary policy, and do not represent a change in the stance of monetary policy", i.e., this is not QE, the Fed's balance sheet has grown for 7 out of 8 weeks.

The market's response? Just like during the POMO days of QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and QE3, stocks have risen on every single week when the Fed's balance sheet increased, following the three weeks of declines that led to the October 11 announcement. What about the one week when the Fed's balance sheet shrank? That was the only week in the past two months since the launch of "NOT QE" when the S&P dropped.
See Chart:
Weekly Change in S&P 500  vs, Weekly Change in FED Balance Sheet

One final point for all those who despite the above, will still claim that just because the Fed is not purchasing coupon Treasuries, and thus is not changing either the duration of securities in the open market or investor risk preference, it is not, not, not QE, here is a snippet of what JPMorgan's Nikolaos Panagirtzoglou wrote in his latest Flows and Liquidity newsletter:

... we see the Fed likely to conduct some of its balance sheet expansion next year via Treasuries.

Translation: some time in 2020, the Fed will stop pretending it is "NOT" QE.
Case closed.
….
----
----

The US dollar is itself just another tool of the banking cabal, and tools sometimes lose their usefulness over time...
====


US  DOMESTIC POLITICS
Seudo democ duopolico in US is obsolete; it’s full of frauds & corruption. Urge cambio

...what could go wrong?
====

THE WAR for PEACE HAS STARTED:
Tulsi Gabbard is our candidate for 2020 election
It doesn’t matter the Party-name & the partner she adopted in her campaign
Hugo Adan  Nov 30-2019

Our mission is to serve the Public Need, not the Private Greed .
We deserve a  NEW AMERICA  free of wars
TULSI is a real candidate for this mission.
The bipartisan War Party has done its best to wreck America and plenty of other nations too. Gabbard is courageously challenging the Democrats in this coalition, who have become complicit in Washington’s criminal wars...

“HOW  is Tulsi distinguishing herself from the rest of candidates?  What  really  matters to her?”

The answer is FOREIGN POLICY “REALLY MATTERS” since we’re at risk of WW3
HERE selected extracts from:
“TULSI GABBARD: WAKE UP AND SMELL OUR $6.4 TRILLION WARS”

“Gabbard recognizes that George W. Bush is not the only simpleton warmonger who’s plunged the nation into conflict, causing enormous harm. In the last Democratic presidential debate, she explained that the issue was “personal to me” since she’d “served in a medical unit where every single day, I saw the terribly high, human costs of war.” Compare her perspective to that of the ivory tower warriors of Right and Left, ever ready to send others off to fight not so grand crusades.

“The best estimate of the costs of the post-9/11 wars comes from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The Institute says that $6.4 trillion will be spent through 2020. They estimate that our wars have killed 801,000 directly and resulted in a multiple of that number dead indirectly. More than 335,000 civilians have died—and that’s an extremely conservative guess. Some 21 million people have been forced out from their homes. Yet the terrorism risk has only grown, with the U.S. military involved “ in counter-terrorism” in 80 nations.

Obviously, without American involvement there would still be conflicts. Some counter-terrorism activities would be necessary even if the U.S. was not constantly swatting geopolitical wasps’ nests. Nevertheless, it was Washington that started or joined these unnecessary wars (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) and expanded necessary wars well beyond their legitimate purposes (Afghanistan). As a result, AMERICAN POLICYMAKERS BEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR MUCH OF THE CARNAGE.”

Continue reading about the human costs of war and think about WHAT TO DO IF TULSI IS PREVENTED TO RUN IN ELECTION 2020?. 
My suggestion is:

1-Of course the 1st option is to continue the impeachment of Trump who has to be accused of crimes against humanity  (migrant kids & family destruction) and war crimes in Syria in alliance with Saudi terrorists. Trump is the war monger leader that is putting our Nation & the whole humanity at risk of WW3.
This 1st option  includes to vote for B Sanders, but IF and only IF he demand respect to the candidate Tulsi Gabbard. If he don’t care about this issue we should no vote him, we instead must go to the 2nd option. 

2- We MUST demand ABSTENTION with peaceful street meetings. And if Tulsi is detained or jailed we will proceed to direct BOICOT of ELECTION. There are many ways of doing it peacefully and all of them imply going to the ballot-box  & mark it FRAUD or placed stikers with the word ‘fraud’ in it. IF Tulsi is jailed we must proceed accordingly (T for T without causing human damaged ).

3- We must not confront the police, save your energy to delegitimize the new fraudulent elected  government. His governability has to be peacefully destroyed in alliance with other political forces.

THE WAR for PEACE HAS STARTED: We will go to election if Tulsi Gabbad is candidacy a respected. We deserve a new America free from wars. WW3 is ad portas and we must close the door to all war-mongers (either REPS & DEMs). Our mission is to serve the Public Need, not the Private Greed . For a NEW AMERICA Tulsi is our candidate.
VENCEREMOS!  PEACE WILL WIN.
VOTE for TULSI GABBARD whoever the party & the partner she selected to go with.
----
===


You can depose him, kill him, or win the election... For the Democrats, the third alternative is probably the hardest.
….
OTRAS OPCIONES DE PODER ENTRE LOS DEMS
Hugo Adan Nov 30-2019

Esta es una respuesta al art:
You can depose him, kill him, or win the election... For the Democrats, the third alternative is probably the hardest.
                ….
                ….
Primero debo decir que estamos perdiendo tiempo  con el “impeachment to depose Trump”, ya deberiamos haber iniciado la 2da  y 3ra etapa (crimes against humanity & warcrimes).  La opción ‘depose” .. no funciona.

Kill TRUMP is not an option, COMO LO SUGIERE EL art de arriba, al menos que un billonario del 1% (ultra billonaire) pague por ello. Yo no creo que los mayores beneficiarios de las politicas de Trump lo hagan, pero puede haber uno. Lo mas posible es que billonarios ingresen  a las elecciones con la intención de dividir a los Dems Y YA TENEMOS UNO.

Dentro de los progresistas  la única opción que podría parar a Trump es la Union de B Sanders con E-Warren como VP o a la inversa (Warren a la Presi y Sanders VP, si Sanders  aceptar ser VP). Si no ocurre esta Unión y van divididos pierden.

Pero aun divididos hay la posibilidad de que si uno de ellos lleva a Tulsi Gabbard como VP  y se presiona para que el otro se retire, asi si se podría derrotar  a Trump.

Asi vistas las cosas la formula ideal seria Warren-Gabbard y esta unidad si podría derrotar a Trump, si Sanders se retira, y si no lo hace queda como divisionista y culpable de la derrota.

Por otro aliado de Warren no votaríamos muchos Latinos. Y es el voto Latino  el que esta vez va a decidir las elecciones (son mas de 12 Mll de votantes).

La posibilidad de dos mujeres en el poder del USA seria una linda sorpresa mundial pues cancelaria el patriarcalismo político al que nos acostumbraron. Seria un cambio muy inspirador a nivel mundial.

Hay también la opción de un latino entre los DEMS, pero él no tiene el peso anti-guerra que si tiene Tulsi G. Y el factor guerra es sin duda el que más va a pesar en estas elecciones.     
----
----

US-WORLD  ISSUES (Geo Econ, Geo Pol & global Wars)
Global depression is on…China, RU, Iran search for State socialis+K-, D rest in limbo


While much of Europe has taken a sharp turn right in recent years, today's shocking announcement by Merkel's coalition partner sees the SPD take an unexpected turn to the left, one which threatens Germany's government.
====
El pasado nazi no la abandona
“Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost, but freedom of expression has limits,”
====
...member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda - escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarisation of space and countering China’s rise.
====


SPUTNIK and RT SHOWS
GEO-POL n GEO-ECO  ..Focus on neoliberal expansion via wars & danger of WW3

----
----

NOTICIAS IN SPANISH
Lat Am search f alternatives to neo-fascist regimes & terrorist imperial chaos

RT EN ESPAÑOL
 
BOL:  Evo apuntó bien   César Manzanos Bilbao
-BOL: Premio Nobel de la Paz, sobre el golpe de Estado en Bolivia: "Detrás de todo esto está la política de EE.UU."  https://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/335390-premio-nobel-paz-golpe-bolivia-eeuu
----
====
VIENTO SUR

Uruguay:  La derrota del partido de gobierno  Ernesto Herrera
Canada Suicidios: La más alta tasa del mundo  Helen Epstein
Am Lat: derechas radicales Am-Lat ante la ola reaccionaria global  M M
FEM:   Neoderechas y antifeminismo   Judith Carreras
Mundo árabe   Revoluciones a la luz de la historia  Alain Gresh y JP Sereni
----
----

GLOBAL RESEARCH
Geopolitics & Econ-Pol crisis that leads to more business-wars from US-NATO  allies

----
----

PRESS TV
Middle East n world news

----
===

OTRAS OPCIONES DE PODER ENTRE LOS DEMS



OTRAS OPCIONES DE PODER ENTRE LOS DEMS

Hugo Adan Nov 30-2019

Esta es una respuesta al art: 

You can depose him, kill him, or win the election... For the Democrats, the third alternative is probably the hardest.
                ….
                ….

Primero debo decir que estamos perdiendo tiempo con el “impeachment to depose Trump”, ya deberiamos haber iniciado la 2da  y 3ra etapa (crimes against humanity & war crimes).  La opción ‘depose” .. no funciona.

Kill TRUMP is not an option, COMO LO SUGIERE EL art de arriba, a menos que un billonario del 1% (ultra billonaire) pague por ello. Yo no creo que los mayores beneficiarios de las politicas de Trump lo hagan, pero puede haber uno. Lo mas posible es que los billonarios ingresen  a las elecciones con la intención de dividir a los Dems Y YA TENEMOS UNO.

Dentro de los progresistas  la única opción que podría parar a Trump es la Union de B Sanders con E-Warren como VP o a la inversa (Warren a la Presi y Sanders VP, si Sanders  aceptar ser VP). Si no ocurre esta Unión y van divididos pierden.

Pero aun divididos hay la posibilidad de que si uno de ellos lleva a Tulsi Gabbard como VP  y se presiona para que el otro se retire, asi tambien se podría derrotar  a Trump.

Asi vistas las cosas la formula ideal seria Warren-Gabbard y esta unidad si podría derrotar a Trump, si Sanders se retira, y si no lo hace queda como divisionista y culpable de la derrota.

Por otro aliado de Warren NO votaríamos muchos Latinos. Y es el voto Latino  el que esta vez va a decidir las elecciones (son mas de 12 Mll de votantes).

La posibilidad de dos mujeres en el poder del USA seria una linda sorpresa mundial pues cancelaria el patriarcalismo político al que nos acostumbraron. Seria un cambio muy inspirador a nivel mundial.

Hay también la opción de un latino entre los DEMS, pero él no tiene el peso anti-guerra que si tiene Tulsi G. Y el factor guerra es sin duda el que más va a pesar en estas elecciones.     
----
----