Showing posts with label Seriously. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seriously. Show all posts

Monday, March 31, 2014

SOTT FOCUS: "Raw meat could be the cause of dead dogs!" - Seriously?!?

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



SOTT FOCUS: "Raw meat could be the cause of dead dogs!" - Seriously?!?

Thursday, January 23, 2014

200-Year-Old Scroll Very Seriously Presents Japanese Characters In A "Fart Battle" (NSFW)

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


200-Year-Old Scroll Very Seriously Presents Japanese Characters In A "Fart Battle" (NSFW)

Thursday, January 16, 2014

How Seriously Should We Take Ed Gillespie?



Former RNC Chairman and Bush adviser Ed Gillespie announced today that he will challenge Mark Warner for the Virginia Senate seat that Warner won in 2008. This has set off a lot of speculation. After all, Warner is thought to be largely invulnerable. The congealing conventional wisdom is that (1) because of Warner’s immense strength in the state, (2) Gillespie is trying to set himself up for a future run, probably for governor in 2017. (Terry McAuliffe is term-limited, which means there will be an open seat race that year.)


I don’t find that explanation particularly convincing. Now, to be clear, I do believe that Gillespie is aware that losing a statewide race has been a steppingstone to the governorship in the past. In particular, Mark Warner ran a very competitive race against Sen. John Warner in 1996, losing by only five points to someone who was thought of as unbeatable. So (2) is certainly part of the calculus.


My quibble is more with (1), both generally speaking and (especially) as it relates to (2). The 1996 campaign was good for Mark Warner because he took a race that was thought to be unwinnable and turned it into a winnable one. That convinced party officials that he wasn’t just a tech magnate and that he would be able to win on a more favorable playing field.


But underlying that was an important fact: John Warner was well liked, but he was nowhere near as invulnerable as people thought. In fact, if the national environment had been a bit less favorable for Republicans, and had Mark Warner spent more time courting rural voters (as he did during his successful 2001 gubernatorial campaign), he might have won.


Put differently, if (1) were true, why would we expect Gillespie to get into the race? Losing by, say, 20 points to Warner, a la Jim Gilmore in 2008, would do nothing to advance his electability.


I think the better read on this is that Gillespie has reason to believe that (1) isn’t as true as we assume, and that this race is winnable. The thinking probably proceeds in two steps: The Free Beacon — an admittedly conservative polling outfit — released polling on the Gillespie/Warner matchup (among others) in mid-November. It found that people do, generally speaking, have a favorable opinion of Warner (57 percent to 34 percent, to be precise) and approve of the job he is doing (57 percent to 37 percent).


But it also found that, consistent with exit polling from the 2013 gubernatorial races, both the Affordable Care Act and President Obama have net negative approval ratings in the state. It also found Warner dancing around the 50 percent mark when matched up against a variety of opponents, though with large leads. This is similar to where public polling had the George Allen-James Webb matchup in July 2006.


Now, the “50 percent rule” is certainly more of a heuristic for determining potentially vulnerable incumbents than a solid rule of thumb. But I suspect that if Warner were at, say, 60 percent in those matchups, Gillespie would have avoided the race.


So there is evidence of softness in Warner’s numbers. Gillespie is probably betting that he can soften them further by emphasizing Warner’s support for Obamacare, for the defense cuts in the sequestration law, and for gun control legislation (the polling showed support for any of these positions would tighten the race). The idea is that the Virginia public thinks of Warner as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat. By tarnishing that image, they would be less likely to support him.


But even that would probably not be enough to win the seat. Gillespie likely needs either a self-inflicted wound by Warner, further deterioration in the national environment for Democrats, or a drop-off in Democratic turnout. Remember, Democrats very nearly lost the state Senate when one of their candidates held on by a handful of votes in a district that had voted for Obama by 15 points in 2012. The drop-off is a very real, consistent phenomenon, and if Warner ends up with something that looks more like the 2009 electorate than the one in 2012, he really could lose.


Of course, none of this is to predict a Gillespie victory. He has his own issues that will be exploited by Democrats. The national environment may improve or (more likely) stay roughly the same, rather than deteriorate further. And Warner is still above 50 percent. In other words, Gillespie has his work cut out for him.


But neither is the race the Sisyphean venture that others have projected. For my money, it probably starts out somewhere between “Lean” and “Likely” Democrat. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



How Seriously Should We Take Ed Gillespie?

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Nouriel Roubini Seriously Misguided on Gold, on Equities, on Economic Growth, on Money

I just finished reading Nouriel Roubini’s seven point analysis on the Bursting of the Gold Bubble in which Roubini’s asks and answer the question “Gold skyrocketed to over $ 1,900 per ounce in the fall of 2011 from $ 800 in early 2009, but has since collapsed by around 27%. Why?


I offer a point-by-point rebuttal.


Roubini: First, tail risks are lower. Gold tends to spike when the global economy faces severe economic, financial and geopolitical threats; but, thanks to a variety of policy actions, the tail-risks argument for holding gold is less compelling today than at any time since the start of the financial crisis in 2007.


Mish: Japan is flirting with a Yen crisis thanks to Abenomics. Nothing has been fixed in regards to structural problems in the eurozone. A US recession is at hand. A China slowdown is baked in the cake. Trade wars loom between China and Europe. A full scale housing bust is underway in Australia. The UK threatens to leave the EU. The eurozone is unlikely to survive in its current state. Tail risks are enormous (and growing). I would have thought tail risks were so obvious that any serious economist would notice them. I was mistaken.


Roubini: Second, inflation is low and falling. Gold does best when there is a risk of high inflation, as it is a traditional store of value against inflation. But, despite the very aggressive monetary and quantitative easing from many central banks, global inflation is actually low and still falling as growth in most of the global economy remains below trend.


Mish: Gold actually does well in periods of deflation, in periods of credit risk, in periods of stagflation, and in periods of hyperinflation (the latter is obvious). Price inflation fell from 2000 to 2013 and gold rose from $ 250 to $ 1900. When was there risk of high inflation in that time-frame?


To be fair, one also needs to look at the disinflationary period between 1980 and 2000 when the price of gold collapsed from $ 850 to $ 250. Yet, in disinflationary periods in the last decade, gold soared. The difference? Credit risk and global distrust of fiat currencies. It’s easy to cherry pick a timeframe and say gold does this or that, when other timeframes and other factors disprove the thesis.


Roubini: Third, other assets provide better returns. Now that the global economy is recovering, other assets, such as equities or even real estate, are performing much better than gold.


Mish: Lovely! The same sort of argument regarding housing could have been presented in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, and in 2005. Yes, other assets are performing better, for now. But for how long? Is the current trend supposed to last forever? Has Roubini suddenly become a momentum trader in what is performing best?


Roubini: Fourth, exit from ZIRP will be bearish for gold. Real interest rates and gold prices are highly inversely correlated. Although real rates are still negative, the more positive outlook for the U.S. and global economy implies that the Fed and other central banks will gradually exit from QE and ZIRP. Real rates will rise over time rather than fall.


Mish: Precisely when is the Fed supposed to end ZIRP? Tomorrow? Next Month? Next year? A decade? If “real rates rise” won’t that be a sign of increasing inflation?  Is increasing inflation good for gold or not? Roubini attempts to make a case that rising inflation and falling inflation are both bad for gold and both are about to happen simultaneously. Let me also point out that Roubini thinks ‘QE’ won’t end for another two years! He can’t have it both ways. 


Roubini: Fifth, highly indebted countries are planning to sell their gold. Some argued that a world full of highly indebted sovereigns would push investors into gold as government bonds would become more risky. Instead, these countries are likely to dump their gold reserves to reduce their debts, or at least are considering doing so.


Mish: Roubini’s thesis has gone from circular silliness to the point of complete absurdity. Other than Cyprus (and Cyprus was forced at gunpoint) what central banks are dumping gold? And what central banks are buying gold? ZeroHedge reports Russia, Greece, Turkey, Other Central Banks Buy Gold

Russia, Greece, Turkey, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan expanded their gold reserves for a seventh straight month in April, buying bullion to diversify foreign exchange reserves due to concerns about the dollar and the euro.

Russia’s steady increase in its gold reserves saw its holdings, the seventh-largest by country, climb another 8.4 metric tons to 990 tons, taking gains this year to 3.4% after expanding by 8.5% in 2012, International Monetary Fund data show.


Kazakhstan’s reserves grew 2.6 tons to 125.5 tons, taking the increase to 8.9% this year after a 41% expansion in 2012, data on the website showed.


Turkey’s holdings rose 18.2 tons to 427.1 tons in April, increasing for a 10th month as it accepted gold in its reserve requirements from commercial banks.


Belarus’s holdings expanded for a seventh month as did Azerbaijan’s.


Interestingly, Greece’s gold holdings climbed for a fourth month, according to the IMF data. Cyrus has about 14 tons of gold. If Cyprus sold all of it, the addition by Turkey alone would cover all of it.


Roubini: Sixth, U.S. dollar appreciation is bearish for gold. There is usually an inverse relationship between the value of the U.S. dollar and the dollar price of commodities, including precious metals like gold. Looking ahead, the relative strength of the U.S. economy and of U.S. asset prices compared with those of other DMs suggests that the dollar may appreciate—as it has done recently—against a basket of DM currencies.


Mish: The biggest gold rally of all time (1979) occurred while the dollar was going sideways with a slight upward bias. The dollar and gold both rose in 2005 as well. If the dollar were all-important for gold, it would never rise in terms of foreign currencies, but it definitely does do that.


Roubini: Seventh, gold has been hyped for irrational political reasons. Some extreme politically conservative gold bugs think that all government is evil, that there is a government conspiracy to expropriate most private wealth and that gold is the only hedge against this risk. This group also believes that we will return to the gold standard as central banks “debase” paper money and as hyperinflation ensues. However, inflation is falling globally and gold is not in any way a currency.


Mish: Yes gold has been hyped by many hyperinflationists. The same was true two years ago, five years ago, and 10 or more years ago.


That makes Roubini’s own hype all the more laughable. Roubini ends his hype with this statement: “The price of gold may temporarily go higher in the next few years, but it will be very volatile and trend lower over time as the global economy slowly mends itself. RGE expects gold to go to $ 1,300 by end-2013 and $ 1,000 by 2015. For the most part, it is time to offload and underweight Keynes’s barbarous relic.


People ask me all the time where the price of gold is headed. I do not pretend to know, especially in the short-term.


However, I understand the fundamentals and Roubini clearly doesn’t.


Nor does Roubini have a clue about money or what causes economic growth. His statement “It is time to offload and underweight Keynes’s barbarous relic” is quite telling.


Can Printing Money Create Wealth?


Clearly Roubini believes that printing money creates wealth. The average 7th-grader (not yet influenced by Keynesian and Monetarist clown teachers) can easily figure out the fallacies of such ridiculous economic theories.


Who benefits from printing? The answer is those with first access to money (the banks, the already wealthy, and the government). Printing money does nothing but exacerbate the trend of income inequality. This is so obvious that Roubini cannot see it.


Buying gold is a perfectly rational reaction to the crazy central bank and governmental policies that Roubini advocates.


Precious Metal Fundamentals


Those interested in a primer on precious metal fundamentals can find it in Precious Metals – An Update by Pater Tenebrarum on the Acting Man Blog.


Those who think Fed asset levitation can and will last forever need to consider John Hussman’s June 3, 2013 article Following the Fed to 50% Flops.


Finally, those who wish to see a brilliant takedown of Roubini’s recent bullishness might enjoy “Dr. Doom” Becomes “Dr. Boom” – 1,000 SPX Points Too Late, also on the Acting Man Blog.


Things Roubini is Wrong About


  • Gold

  • Tail Risk

  • Benefits of monetary printing

  • Benefits of fiscal stimulus 

  • On what causes economic growth

  • Inflation

  • Stock market risk

That is one heck of a lot of things to be wrong about!


Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com


Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis



Nouriel Roubini Seriously Misguided on Gold, on Equities, on Economic Growth, on Money