Category Archives: Corporate Welfare

Alberta’s Carbon Tax Is Just More Corporate Welfare

AlternativeFreePress.com

Yesterday oil executives, First Nations, academics, and environmentalists stood with the provincial government to announce a carbon tax for Alberta… but where will the money go?

Trevor Tombe, an economist with the University of Calgary, is estimating a $2.8-billion subsidy to the largest emitters. That is almost half of the estimated $6 billion revenue.

According to the CBC and Michal Moore, an economist with the University of Calgary’s school of public policy, the plan for industry is a hybrid of a straightforward carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system that allows the buying and selling of carbon credits enabling large corporations to make money trading permits.

In other words…. Alberta’s carbon tax is just more corporate welfare.

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Alberta’s Carbon Tax Is Just More Corporate Welfare by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Sources: Alberta’s climate-change plan: Breaking down the numbers

RELATED:
Harper commits Canada to contribute corporate welfare

Canada’s Corporate Cannabis Takeover Continues As Pharmacies Look Poised To Distribute

AlternativeFreePress.com

The future of legalized Cannabis in Canada is bleak if the Liberals continue the Harper regime’s push to corporatize Cannabis. Based on the vague rhetoric promised by Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party platform, that is exactly what we should expect.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) is preparing for further corporatization by “reviewing its existing policies to ensure its policy position regarding pharmacist dispensing of medical marijuana reflects patient safety in this evolving area”.

The CPhA has no business distributing Cannabis. If Cannabis is removed from the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act (CDSA), there is no legal justification to restricting distribution to pharmacies. Cannabis is a benign plant with many uses, which gardeners and farmers should be allowed to grow and sell at farmer’s markets freely. Of course, it seems unlikely that Cannabis will be removed from the CDSA, the Liberal version of legalization sounds a lot like prohibition with increased penalties for unlicensed distribution.

Cannabis is medicine, it can be very expensive medicine, so calls for insurance coverage are understandable… but Cannabis is only expensive because of prohibition. Cannabis can be grown for less than $1/gram, but invested MMPR interests want to keep the cost high to cash in on the corporate welfare windfall of health insurance covering medical marijuana.

If Trudeau and the Liberals are serious about “real change” and evidence-based policy then they need to regulate Cannabis based on the potential harm caused by the plant. Cannabis is safer than coffee and energy drinks. Teens have died consuming energy drinks, but they are sold in convenience stores without age restrictions. Nobody has ever died from consuming Cannabis.

Dana Larsen details 7 key things needed before we can consider Cannabis prohibition to be truly over. (here is a brief summary:)

#7. Don’t increase penalties

In some of their campaign literature, the Liberals were promising to create “new, stronger laws, to punish more severely” people who sell cannabis to minors, or to anyone operating outside of their undefined new system.

Considering we already have Harper’s strict mandatory minimums for cannabis offences, we do not need to be punishing anyone “more severely” for anything related to cannabis.

#6. Allow personal growing

Any model of legalization must include the right to grow some cannabis for personal use. People with a doctor’s recommendation for cannabis should be allowed to grow whatever quantity they need for medical purposes. The Conservatives tried to shut down the current home-garden program for patients, but were stopped by a court injunction. That injunction needs to remain, and be expanded to make it easier for patients to grow their own when needed.

If home cultivation is not allowed, then cannabis is not truly legalized in Canada. Canadians must have at least as much right to grow their own cannabis as they do to brew their own beer and wine.

#5. Allow dispensaries

The Liberals need to recognize the important role that community-based dispensaries are playing, and to incorporate them into any legal access system.

Any system of legalization that tries to shut down the existing network of cannabis dispensaries will face strong opposition from Canada’s cannabis community.

#4. License more producers

Whatever the details of the system, it is important that there is equal access to the cannabis market, and that anyone who meets the quality standards can legally grow and sell cannabis.

Ultimately, the federal government should get out of licensing large-scale production and leave that to the provinces. But whoever the regulating and licensing authority is, the system needs to be fair and equal. Any attempt to limit production to a few major companies or create some kind of monopoly or cartel will be met with resistance, and will ultimately fail.

#3. Ditch the medical program

Cannabis is a wonderful medicine with a wide range of therapeutic benefits, but we don’t need a specialized medical cannabis system in Canada. Cannabis extracts should be available as non-prescription drugs for all Canadians to access.

When cannabis or a cannabis extracts is prescribed by a doctor then it should be exempt from GST, like other prescription drugs. But we don’t need the current complex system of restricted access for medical patients once all Canadians have access to legal cannabis.

Doctors should become more knowledgable about cannabis medicines, and legalization should mean that all sorts of new cannabis extracts are readily available for research and medicine. But since cannabis is generally safer than products like aspirin, most cannabis medicines should be sold over the counter, without a need for a prescription.

#2. Amnesty for past convictions

Legalization of cannabis must also include an amnesty for past cannabis convictions, so that those criminal records are erased from the system.

#1. Don’t overtax it

Legal cannabis needs to be cheaper and better than what is currently available, or else no-one is going to buy it. The only way to extinguish the black market is to substantially reduce the price of cannabis.

Any plan for legalization must not include extremely high or punitive taxes, as the result will be a thriving black market and no real change to the status quo.

If Trudeau’s Liberals stick to these 7 principles then legalization will be a success.

But if they try to legalize cannabis in the form of a highly taxed product grown only by big corporations, while banning home gardens and increasing penalties for underground dealers, then legalization will not succeed, and we will still have to keep fighting for a better system.

Jonathan Page is the co-founder of Anandia Labs and an Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia. He co-led the Canadian team that reported the first sequence of the cannabis genome and his work has helped elucidate the biochemical pathway leading to the major cannabinoids. Mr Page wrote an article at Lift, here is a very brief summary of a few of his points:

Like Liberal governments before him, Justin Trudeau practiced Big Tent politics to obtain a majority. Similarly, legalization has to offer a Big Tent so that the disparate parts of the existing industry – Licensed Producers (LPs), dispensaries and MMAR growers – are included. Health Canada and the 25+ LPs can be justifiably proud they have created a system to grow and distribute pharmaceutical-grade cannabis. But the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) are viewed as a failure by many for their inability to create a system that both serves patients and creates a viable industry. The Allard injunction, the proliferation of Vancouver dispensaries, the logjam of LP applicants and the slow patient growth for LPs are indicators of systemic problems.
It is possible to safely grow cannabis at many scales from small outdoor gardens to massive indoor factories.The 2013 Liberal Party draft marijuana policy paper (PDF) suggested that production encompass “very small farms to medium size and large-scale operations”. Jamie Shaw of the Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (CAMCD) wrote a blog post proposing that the cannabis production could resemble Canada’s brewing industry where industrial behemoths like Molson Coors co-exist with craft breweries.

It is difficult to contemplate a system that allows purchase of cannabis but not personal growing. I favour six plants (in flowering stage) with a cap on total plants in a household. The judge’s decision on the Allard case, which revolves around the right of patients to grow their own medical cannabis, now has added importance as legalization is contemplated.

In my opinion cannabis sits somewhere between a controlled substance and an NHP in the regulatory landscape but I don’t think it is productive to treat cannabis as either. Nor is it useful for it to be lumped with alcohol or tobacco. It is simply and uniquely cannabis. Amending laws created for prohibition is not likely to work as they were created to demonize cannabis. Let’s give cannabis its own laws and regulations that allow it to exist simultaneously as a medicine and a social (recreational) drug. Is the solution a pragmatic federal Cannabis Act or even a Psychoactive Substances Act for a new, post-prohibition era?

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Canada’s Corporate Cannabis Takeover Continues As Pharmacies Look Poised To Distribute by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jim Balsillie warns that Canada has “been outfoxed” & the TPP will cost Canada billions

Jim Balsillie fears TPP could cost Canada billions and become worst-ever policy move

By Andy Blatchford
The Canadian Press : November 8, 2015

Jim Balsillie warns that provisions tucked into the Trans-Pacific Partnership could cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars — and eventually make signing it the worst public policy decision in the country’s history.

After poring over the treaty’s final text, the businessman who helped build Research In Motion into a $20-billion global player said the deal contains “troubling” rules on intellectual property that threaten to make Canada a “permanent underclass” in the economy of selling ideas.

Last month, in the middle of the election campaign, the Conservative government put Canada’s signature on the controversial 12-country pact. The Pacific Rim agreement, which includes the massive American and Japanese economies, has been described as the world’s largest-ever trade zone.

But Balsillie said parts of the deal will harm Canadian innovators by forcing them to play by rules set by the treaty’s most-dominant partner: the United States.

The fallout could prove costly for Canada because technologies created by these entrepreneurs have the potential to create huge amounts of wealth for the economy, he says.

“I’m not a partisan actor, but I actually think this is the worst thing that the Harper government has done for Canada,” the former co-chief executive of RIM said in an interview after studying large sections of the 6,000-page document, released to the public last week.

“I think in 10 years from now, we’ll call that the signature worst thing in policy that Canada’s ever done…

“It’s a treaty that structures everything forever — and we can’t get out of it.”

Balsillie’s concerns about the deal include how it would impose intellectual property standards set by the U.S., the biggest partner in the treaty.

He fears it would give American firms an edge and cost Canadian companies more money because they would have to pay for someone else’s ideas instead their own.

On top of that, Balsillie believes the structure could prevent Canadian firms from growing as it would also limit how much money they can make from their own products and services.

Balsillie, who spent much of his time building RIM by negotiating agreements around the world, called the comprehensive final text a “brilliant piece of literature.”

“It’s such brilliantly systemic encirclement. I’m just in awe at its powerful purity by the Americans…

“We’ve been outfoxed.”

Negotiators ‘failed Canadians,’ says Balsillie

And unlike legislation passed in Parliament, he noted treaties like this one set rules that must be followed forever. This deal, he added, also features “iron-clad” dispute mechanisms.

“I’m worried and I don’t know how we can get out of this,” said Balsillie, who’s also helping guide the creation of a lobby group that would press for the needs of Canada’s innovation sector.

“I think our trade negotiators have profoundly failed Canadians and our future innovators. I really lament it.”

(read the full article at CBC)

Whistleblower Says USDA Protecting Pesticide Makers

Proof the USDA Would Rather Protect Pesticide Makers than Save the Bees

Derrick Broze
AntiMedia : October 29, 2015

On Wednesday, a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture filed a whistleblower complaint alleging his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on pesticides. The complaint follows calls for investigation of both the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the Washington Post, Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist and 11-year veteran of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed the complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren is well-known in the scientific community for previously alleging the USDA attempted to prevent him from speaking about his research for political reasons.

The Post reported:

“The trouble began after he published research and gave interviews about the impact that certain common pesticides were having on pollinators, according to a statement by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which filed the complaint on his behalf. The whistleblower complaint says Lundgren’s work showed the adverse effects of certain widely used pesticides, findings which have drawn national attention as well as the ire of the agricultural industry.’”

The USDA says Lundgren was suspended for submitting research to a scientific journal without proper approval and that he violated official travel policies related to lectures he gave in Philadelphia and Washington. Lundgren’s complaints say the article submission was not inappropriate and called the travel violations a paperwork error.

Lundgren previously published a study that found soybean seeds pre-treated with neonicotinoid pesticides “offer little benefit to soybean producers.” He also served as a peer reviewer in a report published by the Center for Food Safety. That study found further evidence that neonicotinoids adversely affect bees.

Laura Dumais, Staff Counsel for PEER, condemned the USDA’s decision to suspend Lundgren: “Having research published in prestigious journals and being invited to present before the National Academy of Sciences should be sources of official pride, not punishment. Politics inside USDA have made entomology into a most dangerous discipline,” she said

Scott W. Fausti, one of Lundgren peers, acknowledged the retaliation in the footnote of a paper recently published in Environmental Science & Policy:

“I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jonathan G. Lundgren’s contribution to this manuscript. Dr. Lundgren is an entomologist employed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). However, the ARS has required Dr. Lundgren to remove his name as joint first author from this article. I believe this action raises a serious question concerning policy neutrality toward scientific inquiry.”

This is the not the first time the USDA has been called out for putting politics before science. In early May of this year, TruthInMedia reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment sent a letter to officials with the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups said they were concerned about a report from Reuters that detailed threats to scientists who speak out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March asking for more protection.

PEER executive director Jeff Ruch told Common Dreams the petition was “based on the experiences of 10 USDA scientists.” The scientists allegedly faced backlash for research on neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate — an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide — as well as their investigation of other topics, including genetically modified crops.

The “neonics” are a class of pesticide that has previously been linked to declines in bee populations. Neonics were developed in 1991 and commercial use began in the mid-1990s. Around 2006, commercial beekeepers began reporting what is now known as colony collapse disorder — where entire colonies of bees die off with no obvious cause. The disorder has been reported in commercial colonies all over the world. Several studies have implicated neonics, which are used to kill insects harmful to crops.

In early September, Anti-Media reported that a federal appeals court issued a ruling that blocks the use of the neonicotinoid, Sulfoxaflor. In spite of this small victory, PEER’s letter to the EPA and USDA expressed deep concerns about the effects of the pesticide on animals and the environment:

“Bees, butterflies, birds and other critical pollinators are in great peril and populations are dwindling worldwide. A growing body of scientific evidence has implicated neonicotinoids as a leading driver of bee declines and glyphosate as a leading driver of the destruction of milkweed, the sole food source for monarch butterflies. Recently, the World Health Organization’s research arm, the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), updated its cancer determination for glyphosate, categorizing it as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2A) after reviewing scientific research from 17 of the world’s top oncology experts from 11 countries.”

A 2014 study published in the journal Nature found a strong correlation between pesticides measured in surface freshwater and lower population growth rates of 14 species of birds in the Netherlands. The study suggested the bird population might be drinking infected water or feeding infected insects to their offspring.

More recently, Swedish scientists conducted a study of neonics in the wild — the first of its kind. They examined 16 patches of land with canola seeds, half of which were sprayed with the pesticide. The other half was not sprayed. The researchers found that wild bees displayed negative health side effects while honeybee populations, which pollinate crops with assistance from humans, did not display the illness. A second study found that in laboratory tests, bees are not deterred by the pesticide and may actually prefer crops sprayed with the chemicals. This could indicate an addiction to the nicotine in the pesticides. Both studies were published in Nature.

Will the USDA be held accountable for allowing politics to dictate science? What role, if any, do corporations like Monsanto play in suppressing and discouraging science on pesticides? Let’s hope Jonathan Lundgren will continue speaking out about his findings. Unfortunately, it seems the USDA is yet another agency of the U.S. government in bed with corporations. While this news is disheartening, it is also a reminder that there has never been a better time to begin removing your support — both moral and financial — for the U.S. government and its corporate partners.

(The Anti Media cc)

The world has simply shifted private debt to the public balance sheet

October 21, 2015: Excerpted from Artemis Capital Management letter to investors

The arms race of devaluation is not free and has come at the cost of massive global debt expansion. There is no precedent in financial history for a robust economic recovery absent either debt reduction or rampant inflation. We never deleveraged, in fact we just doubled down. According to a recent McKinsey study the world has reached $200 trillion of debt in 2014 (286% of global GDP), which is a staggering 40% increase from 2007 levels (+$57 trillion). In China, debt has grown four times faster than GDP since 2007, and half of that debt is linked to their property market. The world has simply shifted private debt to the public balance sheet.

20151021_debt1_0

The private risk transfer to the public balance sheet can also be seen in the evolution of credit default swap pricing since 2007. Notice the sharp divergence between global sovereign CDS (red) and financial corporate CDS (blue) starting in 2013. The next major global crash will likely be driven by unhealthy sovereign credit rather than corporate credit. The next Lehman moment will be the financial collapse of a major developed country instead of a bank.

ddebt2_0

There are those who point to aggressive central banking of the late-1930s as the model for de-leveraging post-depression but this argument is highly flawed.

We didn’t financially engineer our way out of the Great Depression – we won a World War.

It’s extremely helpful in the de-leveraging process if you are the only capitalist industrial power left in the world untouched by utter and complete destruction. De-leveraging from the Great Depression had as much to do with the blood, sweat, and tears of American soldiers, the development of nuclear weapons, and the fact we were an ocean removed from the battlefield on both sides, as anything related to fiscal and monetary policy from the era.

I don’t think some investors are being radically honest when they omit this brutal truth in their analysis of late-1930s as model to argue for more quantitative easing. More quantitative easing is a great thing if you run a large risk parity fund but it will not help the American middle class.

Artemis Capital Management / Zero Hedge

Ten ways the TPP gives too much power to foreign investors

Gus Van Harten
rabble.ca: September 28, 2015

One of the most controversial parts of trade and investment agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the special status they give to foreign investors.

Foreign investor lawsuits under these agreements have exploded, growing from a few cases in the late 1990s to more than 600 worldwide today.

This explosion has happened partly because the lawsuits are extremely powerful and lucrative for companies and their lawyers, compared to other kinds of lawsuits against countries. They are so powerful, I would call them super-sized.

Thus, under the TPP, U.S., Japanese, Malaysian, and other foreign companies would get a new power to sidestep Canada’s legal system by bringing a TPP lawsuit against Canada.

Or, they could go to the courts in Canada to attempt to strike down a decision, while using the TPP to seek public compensation not otherwise available in Canadian law.

By the same token, the lawyers sitting as arbitrators under the TPP would have immense power to condemn Canada by ordering compensation for foreign investors.

The arbitrators’ awards of compensation do not have a monetary ceiling. They are available not only for the amounts actually invested in an economy but also for lost future profits. They are enforceable against a losing sovereign’s commercial assets around the world, making the awards more enforceable than any court judgment against a sovereign.

The arbitrators’ power — and by extension foreign companies — can get hidden or drowned in legal details, especially by lawyers who promote investment treaties.

I highlight 10 points below that give a sense of how far this power would go, using the TPP as an example.

1. After a TPP lawsuit is filed by a foreign investor, the arbitrators can review almost anything Canada has done on behalf of its people. There would be complex exceptions in the TPP that safeguard aspects of Canada’s sovereignty, but generally the arbitrators’ power is very broad.

2. Foreign investors would be able to challenge — and TPP arbitrators could then review — a decision by a government, a legislature, or a court. The usual principles of Canadian law requiring such disputes to be decided in a Canadian court do not apply.

3. Foreign investor lawsuits are not limited to the federal government alone. The decisions of a province or a territory or by a municipal or First Nation council can also be challenged. In international law, all bodies that exercise public powers are part of Canada as a unified entity.

4. TPP arbitrators would operate at a different level from Canadian courts. A decision by a court is a sovereign act of Canada. Thus, all court decisions would be subject to final review by TPP arbitrators, if challenged by a foreign investor.

5. TPP arbitrators would not be limited by Canada’s constitution or other parts of Canadian law. They would be subject to the TPP and relevant rules of international law.

6. To a far greater degree than other treaties — on human rights, anti-corruption, or the environment, for example — trade deals like the TPP lay out elaborate rights for private parties (here, foreign investors only) in clear, binding language and they make those rights highly enforceable.

7. Treaties like the TPP describe foreign investors’ rights in vague language, which arbitrators have often interpreted broadly as a basis for compensating a foreign investor.

8. TPP arbitrators would largely be a power unto themselves. Their awards are subject to little or no review in any court. In some cases, they can be reviewed on limited grounds by a panel of other arbitrators chosen by the president of the World Bank in Washington, D.C. In other cases, they can be reviewed on limited grounds in a court, albeit typically in a place chosen by the arbitrators themselves.

9. If Canada did not pay a TPP award, a foreign investor could take the award to other countries that have agreed to enforce arbitration awards in other treaties. The most important of these other treaties — the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965 — were originally created to back up arbitrations under contracts, not trade deals.

10. TPP arbitrators would have the power to order countries to pay backward-looking compensation to foreign investors. That is, the compensation against a country is calculated from the time of the country’s original decision that is later found to have violated the treaty. It is not calculated from the time of the arbitrators’ decision itself. So, countries can rack up massive liability without knowing if the original decision actually violated the treaty. This can give powerful leverage to large corporations with deep enough pockets to fund a TPP lawsuit.

Since the early 1990s, foreign investor lawsuits have led to billions of dollars in awards against countries.

On the other hand, a foreign company could not itself be sued and ordered to pay Canada under the TPP. The trade and investment treaties are structured one way. They give exceptionally powerful rights to foreign investors without any actionable responsibilities.

(read the full article at rabble.ca)

Selling Canada out, one deal at a time

Gus Van Harten
Toronto Star : September 30, 2015

Since winning his majority, Stephen Harper’s government has signed or finalized 23 new trade or investment deals.

The right trade agreements can create opportunities for Canada. But the Harper government has seemed more interested in getting lots of deals than in making sure each is good for Canada’s economy.

Of all the deals facing Canada, three are by far the most important. They are the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Europe, and the U.S.-led trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Considering the financial transfers they tend to create, a more precise name for these deals might be: A Locked-In Agreement to Transfer Public Money to Large Companies, Lawyers and Arbitrators.

The deal we know the most about is the FIPA with China. Of the big three, it is the only one that has been finalized.

Some details of the FIPA will illustrate my point that the government has been behaving like a salesperson who gets lots of orders by selling at a loss. For example:

1. The Harper government gave Chinese investors “market access” to Canada — meaning a right to buy what they want in our economy — without getting the same for Canadian investors in China.

That is the most lopsided concession I had ever seen by Canada or, for that matter, any other country across hundreds of similar agreements.

2. When he announced the FIPA, Harper said that a FIPA “ensures non-discriminatory treatment” for foreign investors. But the actual terms of the FIPA (Article 8(2)(a), to be exact) let China keep all its existing laws, policies, or practices that discriminate against Canadian investors.

No one could fact-check Harper’s misleading claim at the time because the text was kept secret for about eight months after he made it.

3. In the FIPA, the Harper government exposed Canada to potentially massive financial liabilities due to the generous protections it gives to foreign companies, including a right to seek uncapped amounts of compensation from governments directly before international tribunals.

The Mulroney government gave similar rights to U.S. companies in Canada under NAFTA. But NAFTA was concluded before anyone could predict the hundreds of costly claims brought by foreign companies against countries in the last 15 years.

Having looked closely at the FIPA, I also see cause for concern in the CETA and the TPP.

Harper was clearly desperate to finalize the CETA before the election. Several times he has announced it with fanfare. Yet, despite various concessions, he could not get it done in time. This is mostly because the Europeans looked closely at the deal’s generous protections for foreign investors and asked about the consequences for domestic courts, democracy, and public budgets.

There has been a similar debate in the United States over the TPP.

Worse, Harper is poised to compromise Canada’s dairy and auto industries in a bid to finish the TPP negotiations before the election. The Americans seem to have sensed his political vulnerability and played him to Canada’s expense.

(read the full article at Toronto Star)

When “Virtuous Debt” Turns Ferociously Vicious: The Mother Of All Corporate Margin Calls On Deck

Zero Hedge/Bawerk

Corporate foie gras

One of the arguments put forth in the bull vs. bear debate is that the solidity of US non-financial corporations have never been stronger. The amount of cash held by non-financial corporations has risen 150 per cent since the depth of the crisis in 2009. With such a massive cushion to stave off whatever the market may throw at them, they will be able to cope, or so it is held.

In addition, we know that financial corporations are flush with cash, or excess reserves held at the Federal Reserve. Throughout the various quantitative easing (QE) programs conducted by the Federal Reserve, commercial banks have been force fed cash as ducks on a foie gras farm. This has swelled their excess reserves to the unprecedented, and what would be thought unimaginable only few years’ back, level of US$2.6 trillion.

With all this cash the system should be, again according to the perma-bulls, more than ready to withstand the shock from the ongoing global deleveraging, a stronger dollar, emerging market blow-ups and the forthcoming US recession.

We beg to differ. When it comes to excess reserves they are most likely already “spoken” as a form of collateral in shadow banking chains. While the initial effect from QE on the shadow banking system was massive deflationary shock as all the high quality securities used in re-hypothecated collateral chains were soaked up by the Federal Reserve, it is a safe bet that excess reserves has to some extent filled that void.

In the non-financial sector on the other hand cash is, well, plain old cash. With more than US$1 trillion of the stuff on their balance sheet complacency is destined to be prevalent. And it is.

Credit market instruments, i.e., debt, have also risen at a tremendous rate. Net debt, that is credit market liabilities less cash, has actually never been higher. As the chart below shows, sitting at more than US$6.6 trillion, non-financial net debt outstrips even the high from 2008.

Now, if we express the gargantuan debt load as share of market value of non-financial equities outstanding things looks not only sustainable, but outright sound. At only 30 per cent the debt to equity ratio is at multiyear lows. We need to go all the way back to the peak of the dot-com folly to find today’s equal.

And it is exactly the folly of the dot-com (and went) that best epitomizes todays manic corporate debt issuance. According to Bloomberg more than US$2.7 trillion in stock buybacks has been effectuated over the last six years. We would be amiss if we didn’t mention that this spending spree, not on capital goods or R&D that will help propel future growth mind you, but on liability massaging, coincided with ZIRP.

Investors desperate for yield have more than happy to lend US Inc. trillions of dollars, even though it is used mainly to buy back own stock. Not surprisingly this also help goose the market value of equites outstanding; also known as the denominator in the ratio presented in our chart.

So more debt begets higher market value of equites which in turn improves the debt/equity ratio which gives the incentive to issue more debt ad infinitum. Or in a slightly simpler version, debt begets more debt.

We have seen the story before. In the shaded grey areas we highlight episodes when the virtuous relationship turns ferociously vicious. Remember, markets take the escalator up, but the elevator down. And the longer the escalator the further down the elevator goes.


Source: Federal Reserve Flow of Funds (Z.1), Bawerk.net

When the US recession hits (see here for more) the massive gap between the green and red line in our chart above will close in short order and the calamity will be even worse than last time, which incidentally was far worse than the time before that.

And this Ladies and Gentlemen is aggregate demand management in practice where, for some unexplained reason, the abundance of savings does not clear the market for investable funds not even at the zero lower bound.

The fact that central bank perverts capital markets and is to a large extent responsible for the very same secular stagnation central bankers believe they must fight, seems lost on today’s intelligentsia.

* * *

Back to ZH here, in addition to Bawerk’s explanation of what may be the biggest “non-financial sector” margin call ever on deck, we just wanted to underscore one of the main points made in the piece above, namely the stability – or rather lack thereof – of US Commercial banks, whose cash assets according to the most recent H.8 statement amounts to $2.8 trillion. The problem is that of this, over $2.5 trillion comes from the Fed’s excess reserves which at some point will be unwound, meaning the true cash level of US banks – when one excludes excess reserves – has not budged at all since the financial crisis, and has in fact declined to a pro forma level of just over $200 billion.


North Dakota Legalizes Police Using Weaponized Drones

First State Legalizes Taser Drones for Cops, Thanks to a Lobbyist

Justin Glawe
The Daily Beast : August 26, 2015

North Dakota police will be free to fire ‘less than lethal’ weapons from the air thanks to the influence of Big Drone.

It is now legal for law enforcement in North Dakota to fly drones armed with everything from Tasers to tear gas thanks to a last-minute push by a pro-police lobbyist.

With all the concern over the militarization of police in the past year, no one noticed that the state became the first in the union to allow police to equip drones with “less than lethal” weapons. House Bill 1328 wasn’t drafted that way, but then a lobbyist representing law enforcement—tight with a booming drone industry—got his hands on it.

The bill’s stated intent was to require police to obtain a search warrant from a judge in order to use a drone to search for criminal evidence. In fact, the original draft of Representative Rick Becker’s bill would have banned all weapons on police drones.

Then Bruce Burkett of the North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. “Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones.

Becker, the bill’s Republican sponsor, said he had to live with it.

“This is one I’m not in full agreement with. I wish it was any weapon,” he said at a hearing in March. “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period.”

Even “less than lethal” weapons can kill though. At least 39 people have been killed by police Tasers in 2015 so far, according to The Guardian. Bean bags, rubber bullets, and flying tear gas canisters have also maimed, if not killed, in the U.S. and abroad.

Becker said he worried about police firing on criminal suspects remotely, not unlike U.S. Air Force pilots who bomb the so-called Islamic State, widely known as ISIS, from more than 5,000 miles away.

“When you’re not on the ground, and you’re making decisions, you’re sort of separate,” Becker said in March. “Depersonalized.”

Drones have been in use for decades by the military, but their high prices have prevented police departments from obtaining them until recently. Money’s no problem for the the Grand Forks County Sheriff’s Department, though: A California manufacturer loaned them two drones.

Grand Forks County Sheriff Bob Rost said his department’s drones are only equipped with cameras and he doesn’t think he should need a warrant to go snooping.

(read the full article at The Daily Beast

Only The Date Is Unknown

economicnoise.com : August 11, 2015

The US and world economies are frauds that are coming unraveled. The Greek bailout is the most recent example of “kick the can down the road” solutions. The US housing bubble was an attempt to cover up/recover from the dot-com bust. Now the US is in a financial bubble engineered to recover from the housing bubble debacle. Soon this bubble will burst. Only the date is unknown.

Two predictions can be made with reasonable confidence:

  • The stock market is likely to be halved and that might be optimistic. Only the date is unknown.
  • The economy will eventually resemble the Great Depression. Only the date is unknown.

Nothing is ever certain. An experienced CFO told me at the beginning of my career that “even the impossible has a 20% probability.” In deference to him and years of empirical evidence, I put the the above two events as virtually certain, i.e., an 80% probability.

The Current Problem

Phoenix Capital provided reasons to expect horrible outcomes:dow death cross

  • The REAL problem for the financial system is the bond bubble. In 2008 when the crisis hit it was $80 trillion. It has since grown to over $100 trillion.
  • The derivatives market that uses this bond bubble as collateral is over $555 trillion in size.
  • Many of the large multinational corporations, sovereign governments, and even municipalities have used derivatives to fake earnings and hide debt. NO ONE knows to what degree this has been the case, but given that 20% of corporate CFOs have admitted to faking earnings in the past, it’s likely a significant amount.
  • Corporations today are more leveraged than they were in 2007. As Stanley Druckenmiller noted recently, in 2007 corporate bonds were $3.5 trillion… today they are $7 trillion: an amount equal to nearly 50% of US GDP.
  • The Central Banks are now all leveraged at levels greater than or equal to where Lehman Brothers was when it imploded. The Fed is leveraged at 78 to 1. The ECB is leveraged at over 26 to 1. Lehman Brothers was leveraged at 30 to 1.
  • The Central Banks have no idea how to exit their strategies. Fed minutes released from 2009 show Janet Yellen was worried about how to exit when the Fed’s balance sheet was $1.3 trillion (back in 2009). Today it’s over $4.5 trillion.

The cumulative effects of decades of interventions to mask economic weakness are harmful to the economy. Statistical manipulation and outright lies in government reporting of economic conditions suggest that times are becoming ever more desperate for the political class. There is not enough bailing wire in the world to hold this train wreck in check. Nor is there any way to solve the massive problems created over decades.

Mac Slavo believes we are already in a world-wide depression stating:

With stock markets in China having self destructed, Greece and Europe in another crisis, and corporate earnings for some of the world’s biggest corporations showing lackluster performance, it should be clear that the situation is rapidly deteriorating.

But for the last several years America has appeared to remain fairly insulated from overt crisis. We were told that a recovery had taken hold, jobs were returning and consumer confidence had reached new highs, propaganda which drove millions of investors back into stock markets and real estate. No one in the mainstream world, it seems, believes there’s anything to be concerned about.


Except there is.

Nassim Taleb described the problem:

Uncertainty should not bother you. We may not be able to forecast when a bridge will break, but we can identify which ones are faulty and poorly built. We can assess vulnerability. And today the financial bridges across the world are very vulnerable. Politicians prescribe ever larger doses of pain killer in the form of financial bailouts, which consists in curing debt with debt, like curing an addiction with an addiction, that is to say it is not a cure. This cycle will end, like it always does, spectacularly.

Each intervention has been bigger than the previous one. And they are needed more frequently. Bad times are here and have been despite what government says. Worse times lie ahead. Only the date is unknown.

(read the full article at economicnoise.com)