US Presidential Race: Trump: Right on Trade - Peter Morici

Donald Trump has been savaged by economists and media aligned with establishment candidates for tough positions on trade — including a 45% tariff on imports to force China to the negotiating table.

Actually, he’s got it right.

Establishment Democrats and Republicans embrace free trade because it puts free markets first with benefits any decently trained economist should extol.

Unfortunately, trade with China and many nations is hardly market-driven. It actually hurts U.S. growth and victimizes America’s families.

Worse, deteriorating conditions in China threaten to derail the U.S. recovery. Beijing’s statisticians report China’s growth slowed to 6.9% in 2015, down from double digits a few years ago. Western estimates are as low as 4%.

Building apartments and office complexes that attract no tenants, as well as entire ghost cities, counts in China’s GDP statistics — but adds little to productivity. Wasteful outlays have boosted debt to 260% of GDP.

Nervous about a looming credit crisis, Chinese investors are heading for the doors—selling yuan for dollars to invest in overseas real estate and securities.

This makes global stock markets panic and pushes down the yuan against the dollar — making Chinese goods artificially more price competitive against American-made products than underlying costs warrant.

Trump: Right on Trade - The Globalist

Corporate Tax Evadors: US 'hits out at EU tax probes'

The United States has attacked high-profile EU tax probes into American companies as unfair and encroaching on the US government's right to tax them, the Financial Times reported Saturday.

The European Commission has cracked down hard on companies, including US icons such as Apple, Starbucks and Amazon, who worked out arrangements with EU member states allowing them to slash their tax bills.

EU Competition Commissioner Magrethe Vestager has made a point of testing these "tax rulings," which are legal in themselves, to see if they breach strict bloc competition rules by giving some companies an advantage over their rivals.

The FT said Robert Stack, a US Treasury official, met EU competition officials in Brussels on Friday to express Washington's concerns.

"We are concerned that the EU Commission appears to be disproportionately targeting US companies," Stack was quoted as saying.

Stack's visit came just one day after the Commission launched plans to stamp out tax avoidance by multi-national corporations.

"The days are numbered for companies that aggressively reduce their tax bills," EU Economics Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said.

The key proposal is that a company should report its profit country by country, rather than as now be allowed to shift earnings around into lower tax jurisdictions.

The plans were unveiled amid a storm of protest at a British government agreement for Internet giant Google to pay £130 million ($185 million, 170 million euros) in back taxes.

Critics denounced the deal as ridiculously low given Google's size and earnings but the company insisted the settlement was fair and that it complied fully with the tax laws in the countries where it operates.

Italy is meanwhile demanding Google pay some 200 million euros in back taxes and France reportedly wants 500 million euros after an investigation that included raids by police.

Google and Apple have complained they are being unfairly targeted by the European authorities.

Commission officials were not immediately available for comment on the report but Brussels has rejected charges of an anti-US bias in the past.

 Read more: Flash - US 'hits out at EU tax probes' - France 24

Multi-Nationals: Are multinationals starting to lose the tax battle?- by Katy Barnato

The battle between the world's leading multinationals and national governments looking for tax revenue has heated up over the past week following the row surrounding Google's bill in the U.K. and a pan-European push to combat corporate tax avoidance.

The new European Union proposals announced Thursday include legally binding measures to block the most common methods used by companies to avoid paying tax and help circulate tax information on multinationals among countries. They come at a time when U.S. multinationals, including Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and Google, are facing a renewed storm of criticism for their tax practices in Europe.

"Billions of tax euros are lost every year to tax avoidance — money that could be used for public services like schools and hospitals or to boost jobs and growth. Europeans and businesses that play fair end up paying higher taxes as a result. This is unacceptable and we are acting to tackle it," Pierre Moscovici, a European Commissioner and former French finance minister, said in a written statement on the new measures on Thursday.

Read more: Are multinationals starting to lose the tax battle?

The 50 richest people on earth - Shareable - by Samantha Lee

The wealthiest 50 people in the world control a staggering portion of the world economy: $1.46 trillion — more than the annual GDP of Australia, Spain, or Mexico.

That's according to new data provided to Business Insider by Wealth-X, which conducts research on the super-wealthy. Wealth-X maintains a database of dossiers on more than 110,000 ultra-high-net-worth people, using a proprietary valuation model that takes into account each person's assets, then adjusts estimated net worth to account for currency-exchange rates, local taxes, savings rates, investment performance, and other factors.

Its latest ranking of the world's billionaires found that 29 of the top 50 hail from the US and nearly a quarter made their fortunes in tech.

To crack this list, you'd need to have a net worth of at least $14.3 billion. And for the most part these people weren't born with a silver spoon. More than two-thirds are completely self-made, having built some of the most powerful companies, including Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, Nike, and Oracle.

From tech moguls and retail giants to heirs and heiresses, here are the billionaires with the deepest pockets around the globe.

For the complete listing click here: The 50 richest people on earth - Shareable - The Star, Port St. Joe - Port St. Joe, FL

The Netherlands: New CEO for European pensions giant APG

Gerard van Olphen is to join the APG Groep in the middle of March, the firm announced on January 28. He will be responsible for all the company’s business activities, including the administration and investment of Dutch pension schemes with assets totalling more than €400 billion.

Bart Le Blanc, chairman of APG’s supervisory board, said in the statement: “Together with his colleagues on the executive board, Gerard will need to steer APG through the coming years, when potentially far-reaching changes in the Dutch pension system will occur.”

He added: “These changes might trigger new requirements in the nature and the quality of APG’s services.”

ABP is the largest pension fund in Europe and makes up the bulk of APG’s assets. However, it also works with several smaller pensions which means it is responsible for the retirement income for one in five households in the Netherlands – equivalent to 4.5 million participants – and has 30,000 sponsoring employers.

“With his extensive experience in the financial world, Gerard will be of great value to APG, our customers and their participants,” said Le Blanc.

Van Olphen’s career in finance spans more than 25 years. In 2013, he became CEO of the newly-nationalised bank and insurer SNS Reaal in 2013, on request of the minister of finance, and successfully completed its restructuring. His most recent position was CEO of VIVAT Insurance, which ended in September 2015.

APG said his gross salary would be €500,000 with pension contributions of €66,000 a year. This would represent a 10% decrease in salary level compared with Sluimers.

Read more: New CEO for European pensions giant APG

Global Economy Forecast: Dr. Doom: Outlook 'so depressing' need to swim in beer - by Jacob Pramuk

It won't come as a surprise to market watchers that "Dr. Doom" Marc Faber isn't getting any more cheerful.

But the noted bear at least found a sense of humor on Wednesday into which he could channel his bleakness.

The publisher of the "Gloom, Boom & Doom Report" told attendees at the annual "Inside ETFs" conference that the medium-term economic outlook has become "so depressing" that he may as well fill a newly installed pool with beer instead of water.

Drinking up seems to be Dr. Doom's only answer for investors to get through this market.

The pool of beer quip was just the latest bad "cheers" that the 69-year-old offered at the Hollywood, Florida, ETF conference — Faber had said on Tuesday that he would not see another bull market in his lifetime.

On Wednesday morning, Faber argued that central bank policy intervention and slowing commodities demand in China have contributed to a low-growth environment globally. He said that China's economic influence has increased "dramatically," with the world's second-largest economy contributing to both boom and bust in natural resource–producing nations.

Faber's comments came as major U.S. stock averages waffled on Wednesday for much of the day, but faltered after the Fed announced its intentions to not raise rates and said it was "closely monitoring" the global outlook. Two earnings bellwethers with global exposure — Boeing and Apple — sank on Wednesday after weak quarterly outlooks.

In December, the Fed raised its target rate for the first time in more than nine years.

Read more: Dr. Doom: Outlook 'so depressing' need to swim in beer

Wall Street Casino Roller Coaster : Dow closes up triple digits as 3M climbs, oil bounces

U.S. stocks closed higher Tuesday, helped by a bounce in oil and some earnings beats, ahead of the release of the Fed meeting statement Wednesday.

"Again it comes back to our high correlation to oil," said JJ Kinahan, chief strategist at TD Ameritrade.

"I would say there's some short-covering to this rally and there's a little bit of expectation that Apple can help things with earnings tonight," he said.

he major averages closed off session highs but held more than 1 percent higher as oil topped $31 a barrel.

The Dow Jones industrial average outperformed, closing nearly 1.8 percent higher for its best day since December 4 as 3M surged on its earnings report.

"I think this is a lot of noise, a lot of volatility before we hear from the Fed," said John Caruso, senior market strategist at RJO Futures.

Despite Tuesday's gains, the major averages were still lower by almost 7 percent or more for the year so far and more than 10 percent below their 52-week intraday highs, in correction territory.

Note EU-Digest: The unregulated Wall Street Casino - up 200 one day - down 200 the next, as the manipulating management of this Casino. (the  financial Industry) laugh all the way to the bank.

Read more: Dow closes up triple digits as 3M climbs, oil bounces

Global Economic Change: Truly a New Economic Order - by Uwe Bott,

During the past few weeks, global financial markets have reacted with great volatility. The two key drivers are increasingly bad economic  news coming out of China as well as the anticipated increase in U.S. interest rates, the first such rise since 2006.

To cut right to the chase: The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States should not raise intere rates!

Central bankers who favor an increase in U.S. interest rates overlook that they no longer live in their parents’ world economy. As a matter of fact, too many policy makers and central bankers across the globe
still live in the 20th century.

They have not yet realized that we live in a radically altered world economy that will shape the 21st century for some time to come. That tardy realization is not just unfortunate. It is a bad omen.

The acumen of central bankers has to be put into serious question. They celebrated themselves for accomplishing the “great moderation” in inflationary expectations over the past decades or so, even though that outcome had next to nothing to do with central banks’ management ofmonetary policy.

Still, there are many observers who argue that an increase is long  overdue. After all, rates have been near zero since the financial crisis of 2008 and surely the U.S. economy is doing better, even if there is still a lot of room for improvement. Isn’t interest rate policy suppose to be anticipatory in nature?

That statement is both right and wrong at the same time. Yes,interest rate policy is to be anticipatory — and not reactive. But that alone would ignore the fundamental structural changes in the world economy.

During the past few weeks, global financial markets have reacted wigreat volatility. The two key drivers are increasingly bad economic news coming out of China as well as the anticipated increase in U.S.interest rates, the first such rise since 2006.

To cut right to the chase: The Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States should not raise interest rates!

Central bankers who favor an increase in U.S. interest rates overlook  that they no longer live in their  parents’ world economy. As a matter of fact, too many policy makers and central bankers across the globe
still live in the 20th century.

They have not yet realized that we live in a radically altered worldeconomy that will shape the 21st century for some time to come. That tardy realization is not just unfortunate. It is a bad omen.

The acumen of central bankers has to be put into serious question. They celebrated themselves for accomplishing the “great moderation” in\inflationary expectations over the past decades or so, even though that outcome had next to nothing to do with central banks’ management of monetary policy.

Still, there are many observers who argue that an increase is longoverdue. After all, rates have been near zero since the financial crisis of 2008 and surely the U.S. economy is doing better, even if there is still a lot of room for improvement. Isn’t interest rate policy supposed to be anticipatory in nature?

That statement is both right and wrong at the same time. Yes,interest rate policy is to be anticipatory — and not reactive. But that alone would ignore the fundamental structural changes in the world economy.

Read more: Truly a New Economic Order - The Globalist

Oil: Will Cheap Oil Kill Global Stability ? "No it won't say experts-Yes it will says Wall Street PR on steroids" - by Judy Dempsey

Kris Bledowski, Director of economic studies at the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation notes:

"The answer depends on how “stability” is defined. In political terms, one could see some instability creep in or deepen in countries where oil plays a disproportionately large fiscal role.

Yet this impact would be felt locally rather than globally, andmostly in countries with already-weak polities. Venezuela, Nigeria, or parts of the Middle East come to mind. It’s less likely  that potential conflicts could spill over outside domestic or localtheaters.

The economic impact has already been felt the world over. In the United States, mining activity has depressed industrial output, while in Canada the entire economy plunged into recession in 2015 as a result of sharply lower oil prices.

At the same time, income losses are being at least partly offset by gains on the consumer end. Shifts in relative prices of major inputs or outputs occur all the time,and the world economy is resilient enough to absorb them. Overall, oil and its derivatives make up a small and declining share of unit energy costs.

If global investment flows are more unpredictable, currencies more volatile, and changes in income more pronounced, other factors should be taken into account as well. Among them are differences in monetary policies (in the United States and the EU), private debt levels (in Brazil and China), and economic governance (in Russia and Saudi Arabia).

Ian Bremmer, President and founder of Eurasia Group says: 
"Did Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms kill Soviet stability? No. They hastened the melting of frozen instability. That’s the impact of cheap oil on the Middle East, in particular the Sunni Arab petrostates and the governments that rely on their largesse.

There’s already little domestic legitimacy keeping these regimes in place. The United States has little desire toact as the region’s policeman, and nobody else is going to pick up the baton.

Communication technologies allow disenchanted young men to more easily mobilize.

And there are scant few social, economic, and political reform efforts among the governments themselves; security solutions don’t address the underlying problems. Cheap oil makes those conflicts grow sharper. And faster."

Jan Cienski, Energy and security editor at POLITICO says:
"No, cheap oil won’t kill global stability—infact, it will bolster it. That doesn’t mean low oil prices aren’t terrible news for a host of countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, and other emerging markets that have built their budgets on oil exports. But as their revenues shrink, their largely autocratic rulers will have to focus more on keeping their people from rebelling over budget cuts and less on causing trouble abroad.

No, cheap oil won’t kill global stability—in fact, it will bolster it. That doesn’t mean low oil prices aren’t terrible news for a host of countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, and other emerging markets that have built their budgets on oil exports.

But as their revenues shrink, their largely autocratic rulers will have to focus more on keeping their people from rebelling over budget cuts and less on causing trouble abroad."

Deborah Gordon, Director of Carnegie’s Energy and Climate Program notes: "mighty global omnipotence is often attributed to oil. But it’s unclear whether low (or high) oil prices themselves can be squarely blamed for growing global instability. Increasing oil market volatility, however, could prove to be a stronger destabilizing force.

If oil prices continue to swing wildly back and forth in the years ahead, this could confound economic, technological, and geopolitical fundamentals."

Note EU-Digest: Wall Street and the financial Industry seem to be the only ones who are saying that lower oil prices will contribute to Global Economic and Political Instability , mainly because it hurts their energy investments and market portfolio's . The drop in oil prices, however, has been very beneficial  to consumers and the the economy in general.

EU-Digest

US Economy: Watch out for this $1 trillion stock bubble - by Elizabeth MacBride

As volatility in the stock market grows, a handful of experts are raising an alarm about the rise of index ETFs and mutual funds, which has never accounted for this much of the market before.

They warn that the unprecedented amount of index ETFs trading in the market — index ETFs accounted for nearly 30 percent of the trading in the U.S. equities market last summer — could magnify, or even cause, flash crashes.

In turn, that may put individual investors, who are increasingly invested in index funds, more at risk. And many may not realize how exposed they are to the risks of a relatively small group of stocks held in the major indexes, said experts.

Tim McCarthy, a former president of San Francisco-based Charles Schwab and Japan's Nikko Asset Management, has been a longtime proponent of index investing. But he now advises that investors diversify their investment styles as well as their asset classes.

He suggested investors move 25 percent to 50 percent of their equity portfolios into actively managed absolute return funds, preferably those with a 10-year track record and a relatively small amount of assets of between $1 billion to $2 billion. (Research has shown over the years that active managers stand their best chance of success before their assets under management grows too high.

As always, he said, investors should look for low fees.

A stock bubble in index funds

He said he has grown increasingly uneasy about the risks based on the hypergrowth of index funds, and the price difference between stocks outside and inside index funds.

From 2007 through 2014, index domestic equity mutual funds and ETFs received $1 trillion in net new cash and reinvested dividends, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Investment Company Institute. In contrast, actively managed domestic equity mutual funds experienced a net outflow of $659 billion, including reinvested dividends, from 2007 to 2014.

 Meanwhile, the price of the underlying equities in index funds is rising, though no one is sure exactly why. Research by S&P Capital IQ, as of Dec. 31, found stocks that were in the Russell 2000 were trading at a 50 percent premium to stocks that were not, up from 12 percent in 2006. The statistics are based on median price-to-book ratio.

That kind of price difference is seen by some as a kind of canary in the coal mine, indicating that there is a bubble in the stocks of companies held in index funds — and that their prices could come down further and faster than other stocks in a downturn. In turn, that could put pressure on the share prices of the index mutual funds and ETFs themselves.

"It's complicated, but it could be a very big problem," said David Pope, managing director of quantamental research at S&P Capital IQ. He and colleague Frank Zhao studied the liquidity in the market for the S&P 500 last summer and identified the 10 stocks that had the biggest difference in liquidity at that time, compared with the index. They included ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, General Electric, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and PepsiCo.

Read more: Watch out for this $1 trillion stock bubbl

US Economy: Buckle up! This economic doomsayer sees plenty more volatility- by Bryan Borzykowski

The stock market may be taking a breather from its big fall — the S&P 500 was up about 1.5 percent on Jan. 22 — but one economist thinks that we're going to see plenty more volatility in the next few months and another big correction in about two years.

Alan Beaulieu, economist and co-principal of ITR Economics, a New Hampshire-based economics consultancy firm, thinks that macroeconomic fears will make investors jittery for some time, at least until China's government intervenes with a stimulus program.

 Looking further into the future, we'll see another decline, of at least 10 percent, in late 2018, when U.S. interest rates reach 3.5 percent, he said. That will make it more difficult for the consumer to continue propping up the economy with spending.

Beaulieu, who runs the firm with his twin brother Brian, also an economist, has a history of getting calls right. He predicted the current drop back in 2009. He also called the recession, and according to him, their predictions have come true 95 percent of the time over the last 60 years.

The Beaulieus use a proprietary mathematical equation called cycle theory, but a big part of their work focuses on the rate of change in leading indicators — or how fast indicators change from one month or one year to the next.

Most of its predictions are short term — a year out — but it does make much longer calls, too. Its firm has given advice to major companies, such as Honda, Caterpillar, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo and more.

While he doesn't think we'll experience a more than 20 percent market drop like we did in 2008 — America is in a much better position than it was back then, he said — we will likely see some more large swings and increased volatility until at least the middle of the year. Why only until the middle of the year? Because market ups and downs are usually related to people's fears, and those worries won't dissipate for a few months.

Investors are nervous about where the global economy is headed, and the cycle of mass sell-offs discount buying and then selling again will continue until people start feeling more comfortable, he said. It will take two things for people to feel calmer. They need to see America's economy growing — and it is, Beaulieu said — and an intervention in China.

"The U.S. is leading the way, economically speaking," he said. "The American consumer is doing yeoman's work. It's marvelous. We have low debt, low delinquencies, good savings in terms of dollars, and spending is at high levels. There's job creation, and the economy is strong."

Read more: Buckle up! This economic doomsayer sees plenty more volatility

Oil Prices Rebound Above $30. Is A Rally Finally Here?

Oil prices plumbed new lows this week, dropping below $28 per barrel. But oil also closed out the week on a positive note, with huge gains on Thursday and Friday, rallying back above $30 per barrel. The price increase could be a sign that the markets think that oil has been far oversold, that trading this low has been “irrational,” as the head of Saudi Aramco put it this week.

Adding to the upsurge was growing speculation that central banks around the world will take additional action to provide some monetary stimulus amid worrying signs of faltering growth. EU central bank chief Mario Draghi provided the clearest indication yet that his institution may act as soon as March.

It’s a little premature to say a rally is on, but oil prices are going to have to rise at some point with so much production currently underwater. CMC Markets, a UK-based trader, says that $34 is the next resistance point for oil, from a technical perspective. If oil can break above $34 per barrel, then the rally could have some momentum.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Nigeria’s oil minister Emmanuel Kachikwu said that he expects oil to rise to $40 by the end of the year. Oil prices could get worse in the short-term, but “the second half of this year holds more promise,” he said.

Insure-Digest

The Economy: A Third Wave of Financial Crisis? - by Holger Schmieding

Seven years after the post-Lehman crisis, memories of the disaster are still fairly fresh. Whenever things get wobbly, many people in financial markets are still inclined to sell first and ask questions later.

We also saw this in the euro crisis hysteria of 2011-2012. In both cases, policy mistakes and the vulnerability of the financial sector allowed contagion to spread like wildfire, turning smallish incidents into big crises.

No surprise then that there are worries that the correction of the earlier borrowing binge in some emerging markets and the concerns about China could now cause a third wave of crisis comparable to those of 2008 and 2011.

I consider that risk as small, for three reasons:

1. Problem origin
In 2008 and 2011, the trouble was right at home (i.e., in the developed countries). In 2008, it originated in the big real estate markets of the U.S., UK and Spain.

In 2011, the world’s second-largest economy, the eurozone, descended into turmoil for a while as the ECB neglected to assume its role as lender of last resort. Today, the trouble is mostly in far-flung places.

2. Liquidity reserves
Households, companies and financial intermediaries have built up huge liquidity reserves after Lehman. On balance, they should be less vulnerable to shocks.

The suggestion that problems in the energy sector could bring down many other parts of U.S. industry looks unlikely.

3. Once bitten, twice shy
Policy makers remember the mistakes they made in 2008 and 2011. They will strive hard to not make them again and do their utmost to prevent any potential problem in parts of the financial industry from turning into a systemic issue.

That age-old insight holds for policy makers as well as investors. The result is a stark contrast.

While markets worry more than in the past that modest fundamental issues could spark a major crisis, the risk of that actually happening is probably much smaller than it was when households, companies and financial intermediaries had fewer reserves and when policy makers were less watchful.

That nevertheless leaves a further risk. Could a sustained sell-off in equity markets, overdone as it may be, by itself shatter business and consumer confidence so badly that the economy takes more than a temporary breather?

The risk looks all the more pertinent as we could observe an apparent asymmetry in recent years. Remembering the Lehman accident, households and companies do react to bad news.

Read more: A Third Wave of Financial Crisis? - The Globalist

Switzerland - Davos: Why The Davos Elite Won't Solve Our Global Problems - by Hakan Altinay

The international calendar is peppered with a number of meetings of the elite. This week we have the crown jewel: Davos.

Much of the media love these events. They provide a good photo opportunity as well as a legitimate and safe tag line. The latent assumption is that our key problems are things that elites identify and solve; they possess the requisite expertise, and, of course, power.

But there is the problem of elite narcissism. As thinkers have observed since antiquity, those who seek power are often morally unqualified and those who are qualified often do not lust after power.

Research has shown that chief executives score four times higher on socio­pathology indexes than the rest of the population. Yet other research shows drivers of luxury cars don’t heed pedestrian crossings, whereas drivers of standard cars observe them more consistently.

Read more: Why The Davos Elite Won't Solve Our Global Problems Social Europe

US Economy: US recession probability at highest levels since fall 2011

The chances of a recession in the United States are at their highest levels since the fall of 2011, according to the CNBC Fed Survey.

The survey also showed recession fears rising for the sixth straight time among respondents, and are now sitting at 28.8 percent.

One fairly reliable recession indicator, the spread between the 2-year and 10-year bonds has weakened just about to its lowest level since the last recession. But it tends to signal recession at zero...

So at 118 basis points, it's softer, but not soft enough to signal recession.

Read more: US recession probability at highest levels since fall 2011: Survey

GMO Labeling Endorsed by US Physicians but blocked by Chemical Industry Lobby - Ten Reason to avoid them

Is the Industry Lobby Bamboozling you about GMO's?

Even as the federal government pursues H.R. 1599, aka the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” (DARK) act, mainstream medicine is urging the government to abandon its resistance to GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling. 

They are bolstered by a recent announcement by the World Health Organization that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) is probably carcinogenic in humans. The genetic engineering ends up making crops resistant to the herbicide so more must be applied.

According to contributing doctors from Harvard, Mt. Sinai Medical Center and the University of Wisconsin reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine, “GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides, and two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.”

A recent notice in the same journal, “GMOs, Herbicides and Public Health,” reports: “The application of biotechnology to agriculture has been rapid and aggressive. The vast majority of the soy and [feed] corn grown in the United States are now genetically engineered. Foods produced from GM crops have become ubiquitous.”

Sixty-four countries, including Russia and China, have already adopted transparency in labeling laws, but U.S. Big Food and Big Ag lobbyists have stonewalled efforts domestically.\

EU representatives at the EU-US Trade Negotiations (TTIP) hopefully will not let this issue be swiped off the table by the American delegation.  As it is well known that the political establishment in the US Congress is very much influenced by the US Chemical and food Industry Lobby, which includes corporate giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, Syngenta, Tyson, ADM and Cargill..

To put this in an order of magnitude: ADM and Cargill now control 65% of the world's trade in grain. Monsanto and Syngenta control 20% of the $60-billion market in bio-engineered seeds.

The EU better be aware that this US corporate lobby campaign to "patent nature" and control the world's food supply has been very successful,  Today, 85% of US corn is genetically engineered.

And if you need more convincing: Ten Reasons to avoid  GMO's  - Europe does not need GMO's

EU-Digest 

Wealth: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016 - "time to fire our political representatives"

The combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will overtake that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked, Oxfam warned today ahead of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

The international agency, whose executive director Winnie Byanyima will co-chair the Davos event, warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when 1 in 9 people do not have enough to eat and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25-a-day.

Byanyima will use her position at Davos to call for urgent action to stem this rising tide of inequality, starting with a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations, and to push for progress towards a global deal on climate change.

Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More, a research paper published today by Oxfam, shows that the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014 and at this rate will be more than 50 percent in 2016. Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult in 2014.

Of the remaining 52 percent of global wealth, almost all (46 percent) is owned by the rest of the richest fifth of the world’s population. The other 80 percent share just 5.5 percent and had an average wealth of $3,851 per adult – that’s 1/700th of the average wealth of the 1 percent.

Note Insure-Digest: Hope our politicians are reading this because they have completely failed on a local and global scale to remedy this ever increasing global problem. Finger pointing to others for this disaster is not acceptable.



Read more: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016 | Oxfam International

EU-US Trade Negotiations: Why TTIP is stuck in the muck – by Rod Hunter

Negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have bogged down in a number of thorny issues, such as whether poultry can be washed with chlorine solution before being sold.

That scrum is especially significant because it’s emblematic of a larger issue that might hamstring negotiations indefinitely: differing regulatory approaches that stem from fundamental constitutional differences.

Traditionally, people think trade negotiations are primarily aimed at cutting tariffs and similar border barriers, but such transatlantic hurdles are already very low. What is unique — and so challenging — about the transatlantic negotiations is that the key to success lies in ironing out clashing regulations produced by two
sophisticated, but different, legal systems.

These differences can’t be papered over, as they have been at the heart of the most vexing transatlantic trade disputes — hormone beef, biotech crops, and now poultry treatments — and concern the lion’s share of the potential benefits of TTIP.

A basic difference between the United States and the European Union is the relationship between legislative and executive authority. The founding fathers of the U.S. designed the government with “separate and distinct” executive and legislative authorities based on the belief that competition between powers was the best way to constrain an overweening government and preserve individual liberty. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers.

The European Union, a creature of member state governments, has never had the same qualms about government-by-expert. First, many European parliamentary governments lack Madisonian institutional jealousy.

In countries with parliamentary systems, legislative and executive powers are effectively conjoined. Whoever has the majority in parliament controls the executive. National legislatures often delegate to the executive’s experts largely unfettered powers.

Second, the EU and national governments have long used obscure forms of delegated rule-making to displace national measures as part of the political project of “ever closer union.” Inspired by one-time cognac merchant and EU founding father Jean Monnet, they have pursued “integration by stealth,” through which European and national experts harmonize standards and common market rules with little public oversight.

The trappings of democracy in the form of the European Parliament were grafted on later, while the EU rule-making process remains at heart executive-run and with limited judicial supervision.

The EU now relies principally on the Commission adopting delegated and implementing measures, often under a procedure traditionally called “comitology.”

The EU passes basic legislation that assigns the drafting of detailed rules to government experts. Commission officials prepare the technical measures, which are then haggled over by national officials with all the Realpolitik of foreign affairs.

In contrast to the U.S., the EU places tight limits on when private parties may challenge executive rule-makings before the courts. There is effectively no requirement for general rules to be based on sound science and cost-benefit analyses, nor are there binding rules on transparency and public participation.

The dispute over poultry washing illuminates the U.S.-EU divide. The U.S. administration used Congressional legislation and scientific analysis to develop rules to allow poultry meat to be washed with
antimicrobial solutions that prevent bacterial contamination. Interested parties were permitted to comment on proposed rules and challenge the final measures.

In the EU, the Commission also developed scientifically sound rules that would have allowed some antimicrobial treatments, and thus have llowed U.S. poultry imports to resume.

But national officials blocked the proposal. There was no obligation to take public comment, and virtually no
opportunity for interested parties to challenge the decision. Not surprisingly, American farmers suspect the ban has more to do with protecting European chicken farmers than consumers.

Without resolving these differences, TTIP is going to be difficult to negotiate and even more difficult to implement. As challenging as the accord may be, it’s worth the effort. Reforms embedded in an agreement
would be an economic boon at a time of stagnation. The agreement would reinforce high-quality regulatory standards and set a model to emerging markets building their own regulatory systems.
 
Read more: Why TTIP is stuck in the muck – POLITICO

US Stock Market: S&P Dow Jones' Howard Silverblatt says $3.2 trillion wiped off global stocks amid China, oil worries

lmost $3.2 trillion has been wiped off the value of stocks around the world since the start of 2016, according to calculations by a top market analyst.

It has also been the worst-ever start to a year for U.S. equities, said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices, as both the S&P 500 and the blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average have posted their steepest losses for the first eight days trading of a year.

The sell-off this year, driven by renewed jitters over China's economy and a slump in energy prices, has pushed the S&P 500 index in correction territory, with the benchmark now down 11.29 percent from its May 21 closing high.

According to the veteran market commentator, U.S. stocks are now off $1.77 trillion, while overseas stocks are down $1.4 trillion.

Read more: S&P Dow Jones' Howard Silverblatt says $3.2 trillion wiped off global stocks amid China, oil worries

Wall Street Meltdown: Buckle your seatbelts: China could rock markets next- by Seema Mody

Global markets are poised for more volatility next week with key economic data from China expected to show that the world's second-largest economy continues to grow at its slowest pace since the financial crisis, despite aggressive measures taken by the central bank to boost growth.

"There has been ongoing fear bubbling since August that the China slowdown is worse than expected. Investors are nervous that we'll see a massive downside correction in China's economy. That's why this data is so important to markets," said James Rossiter, senior global strategist at TD Securities.

China is expected to release fourth-quarter GDP, industrial production and retail sales data Tuesday morning.

Wasif Latif, who manages $1.6 billion at USAA Investments, agrees.

Read more: Buckle your seatbelts: China could rock markets next week

Stock Markets: - Wall street - Not just oil and China, tech is falling apart - by Tae Kim

Although the plunge in oil prices and China's stock market dominate the headlines, new developments this week show another key leg is faltering — technology stocks.

Nasdaq is down more than 10 percent for the month, on pace for its worst monthly performance since October 2008, during the financial crisis. The Market Vectors Semiconductor ETF is down more than 12 percent year-to-date. Both are tracking significantly worse than the general market.

Intel dropped more than 8 percent Friday after reporting weaker than expected data center segment sales and financial guidance. After taking account of the $400 million revenue benefit from the recent Altera acquisition, Intel's first quarter forecast was lower than historical seasonality norms.

"This outlook represents a soft start to the year, as we remain cautious on the level of economic growth, particularly in China," Intel's chief financial officer Stacy Smith said on the earnings conference call Thursday, according to a FactSet transcript.

Intel's disappointing news follows the market research firm IDC's report Tuesday, which stated 2015 was the worst annual decline for PC shipments in history.

Read more: Not just oil and China, tech is falling apar

US Economy: Wall Street hemorrhages; S&P 500 hits lowest level since October 2014 - by Noel Randewich

Wall Street bled on Friday, with the S&P 500 sinking to its lowest since October 2014 as oil prices sank below $30 per barrel and fears grew about economic trouble in China.

Pain was dealt widely, with the day's trading volume unusually high and more than a fifth of S&P 500 stocks touching 52-week lows. The major S&P sectors all ended sharply lower. The Russell 2000 small-cap index dropped as much as 3.5 percent to its lowest since July 2013.

The energy sector dropped 2.87 percent as oil prices fell 6.5 percent, in part due to fears of slow economic growth in China, where major stock indexes also slumped overnight. The energy sector has lost nearly half its value after hitting record highs in late 2014.

"Initially when oil was down, the convenient line was 'Well, it's good for the other nine sectors'," said Jake Dollarhide, chief executive officer of Longbow Asset Management in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "That tune has changed. Now, it's a contagion to the other nine sectors. It's a contagion to Main Street and Wall Street."Wall Street bled on Friday, with the S&P 500 sinking to its lowest since October 2014 as oil prices sank below $30 per barrel and fears grew about economic trouble in China.

Pain was dealt widely, with the day's trading volume unusually high and more than a fifth of S&P 500 stocks touching 52-week lows. The major S&P sectors all ended sharply lower. The Russell 2000 small-cap index dropped as much as 3.5 percent to its lowest since July 2013.

The energy sector dropped 2.87 percent as oil prices fell 6.5 percent, in part due to fears of slow economic growth in China, where major stock indexes also slumped overnight. The energy sector has lost nearly half its value after hitting record highs in late 2014.

"Initially when oil was down, the convenient line was 'Well, it's good for the other nine sectors'," said Jake Dollarhide, chief executive officer of Longbow Asset Management in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "That tune has changed. Now, it's a contagion to the other nine sectors. It's a contagion to Main Street and Wall Street."



Read more: Wall Street hemorrhages; S&P 500 hits lowest level since October 2014 - Yahoo Finance

Global Economy: To Avoid A 2016 Crash, The Major Powers Need To Pull In The Same Direction - by Anton Muscatelli

It looks already as if 2016 will be a pivotal year for the world economy. RBS has advised investors to “sell everything except for high-quality bonds” as turmoil has returned to stock markets. The Dow Jones and S&Pindices have fallen by more than 6% since the start of the year, which is the worst ever yearly start. There is a similar story in other major markets, with the FTSE leading companies losing some £72bn of value in the same period.

 These declines have come on the back of a major shock to the Chinese stock market. China’s stock exchange is very different from that of other major economies, as Chinese companies don’t rely on it to fund themselves to the same extent, using debt instead. All the same, the repeated suspensions of trading as the Chinese circuit-breakers came into operation (as they do when share prices fall too sharply) spooked investors around the world.

 On top of that we are seeing commodity prices continuing to retreat. Oil prices have dropped towards $30 per barrel and don’t look likely to increase soon, with Iranian and Saudi oil production continuing to sustain supply. We are seeing many emerging economies dependent on petroleum revenues suffering (Brazil, Russia), and there is speculation that many oil producers (and perhaps even Saudi Arabia) are having to abandon their currencies’ link with the US dollar.

 It would be good if, in 2016, we began to see greater macroeconomic cooperation between the G20. In an ideal world, the G20 economies would seek to share out the effort of sustaining world demand through targeted public investments designed to restore business and consumer confidence. We saw this very briefly immediately after the financial crisis. Since 2009 there have been no attempts to act collectively on fiscal policy. Those days seem unfortunately very distant now.

Read more: To Avoid A 2016 Crash, The Major Powers Need To Pull In The Same Direction

"Voodoo Economics": The New Abnormal for a Troubled Global Economy - by Nouriel Roubini

The world economy has had a rough start in 2016, and it will continue to be characterized by a new abnormal: in the behavior of growth, of economic policies, of inflation and of key asset prices and financial markets.

First, potential growth in developed markets and emerging markets has fallen, and actual growth will remain below this weak potential.

That potential has fallen because of the burden of high private and public debt, population aging—older people tend to save more and invest less—and a variety of uncertainties that keep capital spending low.

Meanwhile, technological innovations haven’t translated yet into higher productivity growth at the aggregate level, while structural reforms aren’t moving fast enough to increase potential growth.

There’s also “hysteresis”—the way that protracted cyclical stagnation can weigh down potential growth, since human and physical capital become more obsolete if they aren’t used at full capacity.

 What actual growth we’ve seen has been anemic, below its potential as a painful process of deleveraging has been under way, first in the U.S., then in Europe and now in emerging markets, to stabilize and reduce high levels of private and public debts and deficits.

At the same time, economic policies—especially ­monetary—have become increasingly unconventional, and the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy has become more blurred.  

Ten years ago, who had heard of terms such as ZIRP (zero-interest-rate policy), QE (quantitative easing), CE (credit easing), or UFXInt (unsterilized FX intervention)? These esoteric and unconventional monetary-policy tools are now the norm in most advanced economies, and even some emerging market ones as well.

Some critics incorrectly argued that these unconventional monetary policies—and the accompanying mushrooming of the balance sheet of central banks, which they saw as an alleged form of debasement of fiat currencies—would lead to hyperinflation, a collapse in the value of the U.S. dollar, a sharp rise in long-term interest rates and the price of gold and other commodities, even the replacement of standard currencies with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

Yet none of that happened—inflation is still too low and falling in advanced economies, while long-term interest rates have kept on falling in the past few years. The value of the dollar has surged at historic rates even as commodity prices have fallen sharply—with gold dropping by some 25% in 2015—even as Bitcoin has been the worst-performing currency in 2014–15, if one could even call it a currency.

In spite of the ballooning balance sheets of central banks and the unconventional policies that were supposed to debase fiat currencies, inflation is too low and falling in advanced economies, and even in many emerging markets. Central banks now need to try to avoid low-flation, if not outright deflation.

The traditional connection between the money supply and prices—as more money is pushed into the system, prices should go up—has collapsed for two reasons. One, banks are hoarding the additional supply of money in the form of excess reserves rather than lending it. Two, there is still a lot of slack in many countries. Goods markets have large output gaps, with the excess capacity now exacerbated by the overinvestment by China. In labor markets, unemployment rates are still too high and workers have too little wage bargaining power.

That slack is clear in real estate markets in countries that had a housing boom and bust, and now in commodity markets where the prices of oil, energy and other raw materials have collapsed thanks to various factors, including the slowdown of China, the surge of supply in energy and industrial metals thanks to new discoveries and overinvestment in new capacity, as well as a strong dollar that weakens the price of commodities.

Real interest rates are very low and many asset prices too high relative to their underlying fundamental value in equities, real estate, credit and government bonds. We have negative nominal interest rates at the policy level in most of Europe—including the euro zone, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden.

There are now over $2 trillion equivalent of government bonds at maturities all the way to 10 or 20 years that provide a negative nominal yield in the euro zone, the rest of Europe and Japan. Why would investors lend to governments at a negative nominal yield for 10 years when they could instead hold cash and at least earn a zero yield?

It is indeed a new abnormal for growth, inflation, monetary policies and asset prices—and it is likely to stay with us in 2016 and well beyond.

 Read more: The New Abnormal for a Troubled Global Economy - by Nouriel Roubini

US economy : S&P will plunge 75% on China deflation: SocGen bear - by Matt Clinch

A falling Chinese yuan will unleash a wave of global deflation that will send the U.S. into its next recession and pull the S&P 500 back down to 550 points, according to a strategist at Societe Generale.

Albert Edwards, the notoriously bearish analyst at the French bank, released a note on Wednesday in response to the recent currency devaluations by the People's Bank of China (PBoC).

This depreciation - with reports last week that it's far from over - is a result of an asset price bubble that the U.S. central backed helped to create, according to Edwards.

"(Quantitative easing in the U.S.) may not have done much to boost U.S. growth, but it certainly inflated global asset prices into the stratosphere," he said in the note thisWednesday January, 13, 2016.

"If I am right, the S&P would fall to 550 (points), a 75 percent decline from the recent 2,100 peak. That obviously will be a catastrophe for the economy via the wealth effect and all the Fed's QE hard work will turn (to) dust."
\
Read more: S&P will plunge 75% on China deflation: SocGen bear

Wall Street: forget about market corrections - the party is over - "this is a meltdown for Wall Street folks"

The Dow implosion continues -364.81 / -2.21%today Wednesday January. 

Year to end  a -7.31% drop. Wall Street might have been able to fool some people, but they can't fool investors all the time.

The party is over folks, at least for the time being, and nothing seems to be on the horizon to be a reason for optimism.

EU-Digest

Germany: President Obama To Open Hannover Messe with Chancellor Merkel April 25

President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel

US President Barack Obama announced that he will make his fifth trip to Germany in April of this year. President Obama will join Chancellor Angela Merkel in opening the annual Hannover Messe, 25 - 29 April 2016, the world’s largest industrial trade fair. 

The US is the partner country of the 2016 fair, a decision that was made based on the strong industrial and manufacturing ties between the US and Germany. President Obama is the first sitting president to attend the trade fair.

Ambassador Peter Wittig, who personally delivered an invitation from Chancellor Merkel to the White House, greeted the news of President Obama’s visit warmly. “It will be a great event for US-German trade relations!” he said on twitter. Earlier this year, the Ambassador praised the decision to make the US the partner country. “Having the USA as the featured Partner Country will give us a golden opportunity to convey our dynamic business relations to the fullest while at the same time widening and deepening them,” he said.

The Hannover Trade Fair has been an integral part of international industry since 1947. Over 200,000 visitors attend the Hannover Messe every year, 30 percent from outside of Germany. In addition, 6,500 exhibitors show off their latest innovations at the fair. India, the 2015 partner country, contributed around 300 booths last year, which proves how much exposure the fair can bring to the US this year.

Insure-Digest

US Stock Market: Will the stock market’s house of cards collapse in 2016? -

It's the time of the year where Wall Street's seers dust off their crystal balls and peer into their tea leaves to augur what's on tap for 2016.

At 82 months, this bull market is much older than the average bull. It doesn't take a psychic to guess investors' most pressing question: How much longer can the QE and ZIRP house of cards stand? Will 2016 be the year stocks collapse?

In December, Barron's polled a group of 10 prominent Wall Street strategists. Based on their mean forecast, the S&P 500 will end 2016 at 2,220.

A year ago, the same pros predicted the S&P would end 2015 at 2,260. Predicting year-end price targets is a tough gig, and you can't blame (or should we?) Wall Street analysts' for being too positive. After all, peddling stocks is their bread and butter.

One reason even Wall Street's elite forecasters can't get it right is that their forecasts are based on yet another variable: Corporate earnings.

Trying to predict stocks based on earnings is like predicting the weather based on who wins the Superbowl. Adding one more variable doesn't make it any easier. How about we look at some actual facts, not additional variables?

Investing is about putting the odds in your favor. What are the odds of a 2016 bear market?

Since we're talking about odds of a market top, it would be appropriate to look at the same indicator that correctly foreshadowed the 1987, 2000 and 2007 market top. This indicator's historic track record is available here.

The May 31, 2015, Profit Radar Report warned that — for the first time since March 2009 — buyers are becoming more selective (liquidity is drying up), which is what happened prior to the 1987, 2000 and 2007 tops.

Based on liquidy (or lack thereof), the odds for a 2016 selloff are elevated. That said, investor sentiment may keep the down side limited or cause more choppiness (tug of war between liquidity and sentiment forces).

On a shorter-term note, the results of the so-called Santa Claus Rally (last five days of old year and first two days of the new year) will be in soon. Can you trust this old aphorism? "If Santa Claus should fail to call, bears will come to Broad and Wall." 

Read more: Will the stock market’s house of cards collapse in 2016? - MarketWatch

Caputalism: Will Capitalism Die? - By Robert Misik

The fact that western capitalism is in a severe crisis is now so commonplace that it’s become almost a cliché. In 2008 the global financial system stood on the brink of collapse and the rescue measures undertaken by panic-stricken governments will burden their economies for years to come.

Economists and analysts of a neo-conservative, economically liberal frame of mind have nothing to add to our understanding of this. Their models simply cannot explain why a system based on de-regulated market activities can ever get into crisis – and why it cannot rediscover the path to prosperity if the state is gradually dismantled and market forces let loose.

But economists and analysts tuned to Keynesian and reformist thinking are much closer to reality: their criticism amounts to saying that the wrong kind of policies – deregulation of markets, liberalisation of the financial system, shrinking the state and the scandalous growth in inequality – had already undermined the system’s stability. In a word: the wrong policies have been pursued for 30 years and a disastrous set of policies has been enacted since the outbreak of the crisis but the system can only be stabilized once the right policies are in place.

But let’s take a closer look at the world: Here’s Spain, with its ghost houses, monuments to a failed fresh start, stretching all along the beaches for kilometer after kilometer; or let’s cast a glance at the ‘solidarity’ clinics in Greece over-crowded by people with no health insurance; at rural America, where the jobless numbers refuse to go down despite growth on tick; at our inner cities in northern Europe where everything seems to be stable but we very quickly get to feel that things are not really progressing, it’s at best stagnation with ever-harsher competition for decent living standards and, along with that, rampant resentment without any confidence in the future. Briefly put: it ain’t working properly any more. So the question is: what if Keynesian tools don’t do the trick anymore?

The American economist Robert Brenner noted such a development as long as 20 years ago in his book The Economics of Global Turbulence – and forecast a crisis-ridden future. It was Brenner who coined the concept of “secular stagnation”: a phrase now spoken aloud by all mainstream economists.

The charm of Brenner’s analysis lies in that it explains the end of the post-war boom and the start of the slow decline through endogenous tendencies or the logical in-built dynamics of capitalism. And thus the conclusion follows: Even if they’re only crudely true then these critical tendencies cannot simply be wished away through a different set of policies because developed capitalism, for technological as well as economic reasons, is hitting limits that no longer allow for high rates of growth and productivity increases.

“The image I have of the end of capitalism — an end that I believe is already under way — is one of a social system in chronic disrepair” is how the German social scientist Wolfgang Streeck put it two years ago. A permanent quasi-stagnation with at best mini-growth rates, explosive inequality, privatization of all and sundry, endemic corruption and plunder, where normal profit expectations get ever lower, a consequent moral collapse (capitalism is more and more linked to fraud, theft and dirty tricks), the West getting weaker and weaker, staggering along as it foments disintegration and crisis in trouble spots on its periphery.

The Nobel Prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman, like Larry Summers, paints a picture of “permanent slump.” Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary – truly no leftie – uses the phrase of “secular stagnation” as a self-evident truth – meaning that the long centuries of dynamic capitalist growth could come to an end.

The renowned economist Robert J Gordon has also investigated in a much-discussed paper whether – at least in the USA – “economic growth is over.” Growth rates took on dynamic pace in 1750, reached breakneck speed in the mid-20th century and have since gone down in successive periods. The great innovations that bring both productivity progress and growth – they may be history: “The growth of productivity … slowed markedly after 1970.”

The third industrial revolution, with computerization and concomitant labour saving, also demonstrated its essential effects between 1960 and the late 1990s but has practically come to a standstill since the nineties. Despite superficial impressions, the past 15 years may have produced practically no more genuinely productive innovations. “Invention since 2000 has centered on entertainment and communication devices that are smaller, smarter, and more capable, but do not fundamentally change labour productivity or the standard of living in the way that electric light, motor cars, or indoor plumbing changed it.”

 READ MORE: Caputalism: Will Capitalism Die?

Financial Industry: Bankers charged in euro rate-rigging case

A group of former bankers on Monday became the first to be formally charged with manipulating the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) - a daily reference rate compiled from estimates that Eurozone banks give of their cost of borrowing.

The case involves former employees of Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Societe Generale, and includes former middle managers, traders and rate submitters of six nationalities.

However, nearly half of the defendants were no-shows in the London court, with just six of the total 11 suspects appearing for the preliminary hearing. A first hearing was scheduled for Wednesday.

Lawyers for the absentees, four of them German and one French, cited different reasons for their clients' nonattendance, including ongoing investigations in Germany.

Read more: Bankers charged in euro rate-rigging case | Business | DW.COM | 11.01.2016

Political Mismanagement : 10 Economic, Political and Social Global Forecasts Indicate Troubled Times Ahead In 2016 - by RM

The legacy of a totally failed Middle East Policy

As a wise man once said "Without Freedom Of Speech There Are Only Official Lies"

Below links to 10 reports which indicate that the overall state of our globe in 2016 does not look very rosy.  Click on the headline to get the report.

 

European economies face harsh headwinds from China

Is the EU imploding?The Europe Question In 2016

Toward Global Disaster: Chaos and Intervention in the Middle East

Global Economy: Soros: It's the 2008 crisis all over again

Middle East: Where Will this War Frenzy Lead?

EU Presidency: ′Turbulent times′ as Netherlands takes over EU presidency

USA: To understand Donald Trump, look to Europe

Global Economy Catching China's Cold

China: Don't blame the economy for China's latest market meltdown

US Economy: Could the American economy tank in 2016?

Change however lies in the hands of the people, and if politicians have made life worse rather than better for you - get rid of them. Don't sit on the sidelines staring at your navel or pointing your finger at others.   

After all : "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens" - Alexis de Tocqueville

EU-Digest

China: Don't blame the economy for China's latest market meltdown - by Xiaoyi Shao and Pete Sweeney

A renewed plunge in Chinese stock markets has stoked concerns among global investors about the health of the world's second-biggest economy, but there is little evidence that the outlook for China has darkened dramatically in recent weeks.

China's economy lost steam steadily through 2015 and economists are split over when they expect it to bottom out. Auto and property sales are showing signs of life, however, and few are predicting the kind of "hard landing" that the recent tumble in share prices might suggest.

"I think there is little connection between the falling stock markets and the real economy," said Shen Lan, an economist at Standard Chartered in Beijing. "Actually, economic indicators in November already showed the economy gained more momentum."

China has topped investors' concerns at the start of 2016, with a 10 percent slide in Chinese equities last week triggering a broad sell-off in riskier assets. China's benchmark share indexes fell a further 5 percent on Monday.

Manufacturing and investment, the twin engines of China's breakneck growth over three decades, have been suffering a prolonged slowdown as Beijing attempts to guide its economy on to a more sustainable path led by domestic consumption.

The problem for policymakers has been that consumers have not been able to pick up the slack fast enough to offset falling industrial demand.

"The economy is likely to slow further in 2016 as a result of persistent excessive capacity problems," wrote analysts at OCBC Bank in their outlook for the current year.

"On a positive note, the transition toward a service and consumption-driven economy is likely to provide a buffer to China's growth. Therefore, we expect China to grow around 6.7 percent in 2016.

Read more: Don't blame the economy for China's latest market meltdown | Reuters

European Aircraft Industry: Airbus' New Technology Can Track and Disrupt Rogue Drones - by Saul Loeb

The next time pranksters decide to fly their drone too close to an airport and put airplanes carrying hundreds of passengers at risk, security personnel may be able to avert disaster by using an anti-drone defense system. All they would have to do is use technology to remotely lock onto the flying robot, take control, and safely steer it from danger.

New technology from European aerospace giant Airbus is intended to do just that. It is pitched as a way to keep restricted airspace free of drones without having to go to extreme measures like shooting them down.
Airbus showed off a new drone-monitoring system this week at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The technology scrambles the wireless communications between drones and their owners, so that the authorities can then take control.

The new drone system uses a combination of infrared cameras, radio technology, and radar to pinpoint the location of drones at ranges as far away as 6.2 miles, according to Airbus. It then determines whether the drones may be flying in restricted airspace in addition to determining the pilot’s location to help law enforcement track him or her down.

Read more: Airbus' New Technology Can Track and Disrupt Rogue Drones - Fortune

Weapons Industry: U.S. is the Mecca of Weapons and Killing Machine Exports.

There was a time when America’s greatest exports were high-quality consumer goods, such as automobiles and textiles. Today, most American manufacturing has been outsourced to Chinese and Latin American sweatshops. However, there’s still one thing that the U.S. does extremely well: design, manufacture and export the finest killing machines and equipment of any nation on the planet. Furthermore, our nation’s defense industry sells more of them than anyone else in the world.

This windfall for fine corporations such as Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and others is due largely to recent contracts with their three biggest customers: South Korea, Qatar and our reliable Middle Eastern “ally”, Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that global weapons sales have leveled off and more companies are jumping into the industry in order to get their piece of the pie, U.S. weapons sales rose from $26.7 billion to $36.2 billion in 2014 – representing an increase of 35%.

While the U.S. is leading the parade of death and destruction, it’s not marching alone. In second place is Russia, having sold $10.2 billion worth of weaponry (a slight drop from the previous year), followed by Sweden, France and China.

The Congressional study in which these figures were presented finds that a weakened global economy has led to much slower sales. In fact, despite a slight increase in global weapons purchases (approximately .03%), the study found that “the international arms market is not likely growing at all.”

This state of affairs has in turn increased competition among weapons manufacturers.

And the U.S. is coming out on top. While the country is crumbling from within, those with connection to the weapons industry are swimming in pools of champagne, nibbling on truffles and fine caviar while riding aboard their private jets and luxury yachts, financed by blood-soaked dollars. It’s not likely to change, either.

Weapons manufacturers are offering great deals, such as flexible financing (making certain their customers remain debt slaves for decades), co-production agreements, and counter-trade agreements (essentially, a form of in-kind payment or barter).

Read more: U.S. is the Mecca of Weapons and Killing Machine Exports. Doesn't That Make You So Proud? - The Ring of Fire Network

European economies face harsh headwinds from China

Headwinds from China again for European economies. As China’s financial markets remain relatively closed exposure for banks is limited, but trading is a different Hmatter.

Exporters to the country could be hit hard as China is a key buyer of industrial commodities including oil, copper and iron ore.

The country has become one of the European Union’s external trading partners in goods and it ranks second overall in terms of total trade. Germany is one of those states which is exposed.

“China is important for the world economy, definitely and once right now we see that China is losing momentum. That’s especially negative for Germany, exports and imports to China,” explained Robert Halver Head of capital market analysis at Baader Bank.

In 2014 Germany topped the European league table of exports to China which were valued at around 100 billion euros.

That compares to France where the trade was worth 20 billion euros. It was 14 billion for Italy and almost 5.5 billion for Spain.

Read more: European economies face harsh headwinds from China | euronews, economy

Is an economic meltdown on the way ? - 80% Stock Market Crash To Strike in 2016, says Economist Davidson Warns

Is a Stock Market Crash Coming?

Several noted economists and distinguished investors are warning of a stock market crash. economic meltdown

Billionaire Carl Icahn, for example, recently raised a red flag on a national broadcast when he declared, “The public is walking into a trap again as they did in 2007.”

And the prophetic economist Andrew Smithers warns, “U.S. stocks are now about 80% overvalued.”

Smithers backs up his prediction using a ratio which proves that the only time in history stocks were this risky was 1929 and 1999. And we all know what happened next. Stocks fell by 89% and 50%, respectively.

Former US  congressman Ron Paul didn’t mince words either. He warns that the stock market’s “day of reckoning” is fast-approaching. When that day comes, he doesn’t think it’s just going to be a correction; it will be “stock market chaos.”

But there is one distinct warning that should send chills down your spine … that of James Dale Davidson. Davidson is the famed economist who correctly predicted the collapse of 1999 and 2007.

Davidson now warns, “There are three key economic indicators screaming SELL. They don’t imply that a 50% collapse is looming – it’s already at our doorstep.” And if Davidson calls for a 50% market correction, one should pay heed.

Davidson predictions have been so accurate, he’s been invited to shake hands and counsel the likes of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — and he’s had the good fortune to befriend and convene with George Bush Sr., Steve Forbes, Donald Trump, Margaret Thatcher, Sir Roger Douglas and even Boris Yeltsin.

Note EU-Digest: In his new somewhat controversial advertising video presentation, Davidson promotes a variety of suggestions to help you better understand and decide what to do.

EU-Digest

US Economy : Could the American economy tank in 2016?

 After all the talk about a “foreign policy election” in 2016, what about the economy? The Federal Reserve might have finally raised interest rates thanks to lower unemployment, but there’s no doubt much of the American public—including not a few supporters of a man called Trump—still feels the effects of the recession.

Not to mention global economic risks, ranging from China’s slowing growth to terrorism threats in the Middle East and beyond. Could the economy really tank in 2016?

We asked the country’s leading economic thinkers to peer into the (near) future and tell us what to expect in U.S. and global markets this year. What are the biggest opportunities for growth—and the biggest risks? What, if any, is the chance of another recession? And what should the 2016 presidential candidates do about it all? Here’s what the experts had to say.

The greatest challenge facing the U.S. is the pace of trend economic growth. During the postwar era, growth in per capita income permitted the standard of living to double in just more than 30 years—one person’s working career. Under the burden of a regulatory explosion, ballooning federal debt, poor business investment in the recovery, higher taxes and other sources of slower productivity growth, doubling the standard of living is now projected to take roughly 70 years.

The biggest threat in 2016 is not a recession—which can’t be ruled out, but is not likely; it is further damage to the American dream. The president will continue “executive action”; we just can’t be sure how much burdensome red tape will result. And there is the real damage that short-termism will rear its ugly head among the 2016 presidential candidates and produce promises of more spending (the Clinton campaign is already over $1 trillion), new entitlements and expensive mandates. That’s not the path to fixing the U.S. growth problem.

‘There’s a real possibility that 2016 will be difficult for most major economies outside the United States.’

So, best upside risk: greater consumer spending, kicked off by lower gas prices.

Biggest downside risk: even slower growth in the rest of the world. China could actually experience recession. Or one or two additional terrorism incidents in Europe or the United States could depress international travel and create widespread caution about the political and economic future, thus lowering spending and limiting global investment.

Read more: Could the American economy tank in 2016? – POLITICO

Is the EU imploding?The Europe Question In 2016 - by Nouriel Roubini

At the cusp of the new year, we face a world in which geopolitical and geo-economic risks are multiplying. Most of the Middle East is ablaze, stoking speculation that a long 

Sunni-Shia war (like Europe’s Thirty Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants) could be at hand. 

China’s rise is fueling a wide range of territorial disputes in Asia and challenging America’s strategic leadership in the region. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has apparently become a semi-frozen conflict, but one that could reignite at any time.

There is also the chance of another epidemic, as outbreaks of SARS, MERS, Ebola, and other infectious diseases have shown in recent years. Cyber-warfare is a looming threat as well, and non-state actors and groups are creating conflict and chaos from the Middle East to North and Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Last, but certainly not least, climate change is already causing significant damage, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and lethal.

Yet it is Europe that may turn out to be the ground zero of geopolitics in 2016. For starters, a Greek exit from the eurozone may have been only postponed, not prevented, as pension and other structural reforms put the country on a collision course with its European creditors. “Grexit,” in turn, could be the beginning of the end of the monetary union, as investors would wonder which member – possibly even a core country (for example, Finland) – will be the next to leave.

If Grexit does occur, the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU may become more likely. Compared to a year ago, the probability of “Brexit” has increased, for several reasons. The recent terrorist attacks in Europe have made the UK even more isolationist, as has the migration crisis. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is more Euroskeptic. And Prime Minister David Cameron has painted himself into a corner by demanding EU reforms that even the Germans – who are sympathetic to the UK – cannot accept. To many in Britain, the EU looks like a sinking ship.

If Brexit were to occur, other dominos would fall. Scotland might decide to leave the UK, leading to the breakup of Britain. This could inspire other separatist movements – perhaps starting in Catalonia – to push even more forcefully for independence. And the EU’s Nordic members may decide that with the UK gone, they, too, would be better off leaving.

As for terrorism, the sheer number of homegrown jihadists means that the question for Europe is not whether another attack will occur, but when and where. And repeated attacks could sharply reduce business and consumer confidence and stall Europe’s fragile economic recovery.

Those who argue that the migration crisis also poses an existential threat to Europe are right. But the issue is not the million newcomers entering Europe in 2015. It is the 20 million more who are displaced, desperate, and seeking to escape violence, civil war, state failure, desertification, and economic collapse in large parts of the Middle East and Africa. If Europe is unable to find a coordinated solution to this problem and enforce a common external border, the Schengen Agreement will collapse and internal borders between the EU member states will reappear.

Note EU-Digest: Europeans must keep history in mind when looking at the future - united we stand - divided we fail - There is no alternative.

Read more: The Europe Question In 2016

Global Economy impacted by China troubles: U.S., Chinese Manufacturing Activity Tanks, And The World Is Getting Worried

Fears escalated MondayJanuary 4, 2016  that the global economy could struggle more than expected this year — a prospect that contributed to a plunge in financial markets.

The anxiety was heightened by reports that manufacturers extended their slumps last month in the United States and China, the world's two largest economies. Factory activity contracted for a second straight month in the United States and for a 10th straight month in China. In Canada, RBC's PMI showed manufacturing shrinking for the fifth straight month.

By midafternoon, the Dow Jones industrial average had sunk more than 400 points — over 2 per cent — though the fall was also due in part to rising tensions in the Middle East. Chinese stocks fell 7 per cent Monday before trading was halted. The Toronto Stock Exchange's S&P/TSX composite index was down 82.80 points, taking the index to 12,927.15, after falling as much as 262 points earlier in the session.

Not all the news was bad. A cheaper euro has helped European manufacturing, which expanded at the fastest pace in 20 months in December, according to data firm Markit.

Still, China's persistent sluggishness may be causing broader damage than previously thought, analysts say. China's government is trying to shift its economy toward domestic consumption and away from a reliance on exports and investment in roads, factories and real estate.

Read more: U.S., Chinese Manufacturing Activity Tanks, And The World Is Getting Worried