Last week at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Conference & Festival in Austin, Texas, freshman New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC, for short) pronounced capitalism as being “irredeemable.”
While I’m cautiously optimistic there will be a trade dispute announcement out of the proposed late March summit between President Xi Jinping and President Trump, it won’t be great.
In fact, it will probably be just enough of a positive kind of “we’re going to keep working on it and agree to agree” announcement, with lots of concessions and positives to move the markets up, possibly to new highs.
My optimism is based on the needs of both presidents to make nice for their own reasons.
President Trump wants the stock market to go a lot higher and knows clearing the economic forest of tariffs and uncertainty will do that.
President Xi desperately needs a deal because China’s economy is slipping into indebted slow-growth (and possibly stagnation) and exports are still China’s lifeblood.
But, there’s a big difference between the removal of tariffs and a comprehensive trade deal that covers what’s really at the bottom of the two nations’ “trade” dispute.
And the chance of that happening is exactly between slim and none.
Actually, there are tons of problems with the Fed.
Besides the fact that they shouldn’t exist at all, they are always behind the curve on everything.
Take interest rates, for example.
One of the biggest things the Fed does (the biggest is bailing out their too-big-to-fail bank constituents when they implode into insolvency from their greed) is manipulate interest rates.
The Fed’s original fake mandate was to manipulate rates to effect stable prices – in other words, to curb inflation when it reared its ugly head and guard against deflation when it cast a shadow on the economy.
Not that it matters, because it is what it is, but the Fed’s timing in manipulating rates is mostly what causes inflation or deflation.
Today, we’re going to talk about the wool that’s been pulled over everyone’s eyes, and what the Fed should be doing.
But first, I’m going to share something amazing and potentially very profitable.
Elon Musk, the founder, chief executive officer, and former chairman of Tesla Inc. (NasdaqGS:TSLA), is in trouble with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)…
This time, he’s in hot water for doing what he agreed not to do in the September 2018 settlement he made with the SEC over his infamous August 2018 “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured” tweet.
What happened this time and what led up to it isn’t just a problem for Musk, it’s a problem for Tesla.
The price of bitcoin rose 8.6% from the end of last week to yesterday, February 18, on news that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) was launching the first-ever major bank-backed cryptocurrency, JPM Coins.
Apparently, after Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chairman and CEO, called bitcoin a “fraud,” saying in October 2017, “If you’re stupid enough to buy it, you’ll pay the price for it one day,” the big bank honcho has had second thoughts.
Something changed for Dimon and JPMorgan Chase, and today I’ll tell you what a bank coming to market with its own coin means for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies – and it isn’t what you think.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE:DB)’s “troubles” aren’t just a concern for the survival of Germany’s largest bank; they’re the same troubles most European banks face.
Frighteningly, those troubles collectively threaten the future of the European Union and, by extension, global markets.
That makes Deutsche Bank Europe’s canary in the coal mine.
Bond and equity markets better be listening to the chirping noise coming from Frankfurt, because it’s getting louder.
Let’s talk about what’s ailing Deutsche Bank and what DB tells us about other European banks. Then we’ll get into how the European Central Bank (ECB) is the common thread in their flawed knitting, and what could happen to bond and equity markets if the canary croaks.
Last week, senators Chuck Schumer (D. NY) and Bernie Sanders of (D. VT) co-authored an opinion piece in the New York Times titled, “Limit Corporate Buybacks” with the subtitle “Corporate self-indulgence has become an enormous problem for workers and for the long-term strength of the economy.”
They’re right that buybacks should be limited, but wrong about their impact on workers and the economy.
So, today I’ll tell you what the senators got right, what they got wrong, and how buybacks should be treated.