Vídeo: Hillary Clinton Mentindo sobre Casamento Gay, Nafta, Emails Secretos, Crise Financeira,...

Espero que entendam inglês, o vídeo abaixo é muito revelador sobre uma mentirosa compulsiva. Atenção jornalistas do Brasil que tentam relatar as eleições dos Estados Unidos.

Mossack Fonseca: A Conexão entre Nazistas, Traficantes de Drogas, Corruptos... Mas e os Rothschild?

Hoje, o mundo se debruça sobre uma coisa muito conhecida: o mercado negro dos ricos, muitos que enriqueceram roubando dinheiro público, em negociatas empresariais, com tráfico de drogas, com prostituição, com jogos ilegais...

O site Zero Hedge faz um resumo do foi que detalhado pelo site da Fusion, que mostra a conexão da firma Mossack Fonseca com o nazismo, com políticos e com tráfico de drogas.  Ha 202 países conectados com a firma de paraíso fiscal (tem mais países que a ONU), 29 bilionários da revista Forbes, 189 líderes ou familiares de líderes políticos mundiais. E a conexão com nazismo? O fundador Jurgen Mossack era nazista.



Zero Hedge faz um bom resumo, mas lembra que o maior paraíso de riscos falsários não está em pequenos países e sim no próprio Estados Unidos. e lembra da secular firma financeira Rothschild.

Vejamos parte do texto do Zero Hedge, leiam todo o texto clicando no link. O texto menciona "ricos latino-americanos":

Mossack Fonseca: The Nazi, CIA And Nevada Connections... And Why It's Now Rothschild's Turn

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/03/2016 23:38 -0400

So, in order to learn some more about the real star of this story, the Panamanian lawfirm of Mossack Fonseca, we went to Fusion which has compiled a fascinating story of the company's history, founders, and key milestone events in its life. 

These include the Nazis, the CIA, Mexican drug lords, and of course, the U.S.

First, here is the Nazi and CIA connection:

Jurgen Mossack’s family landed here in the 1960s. During World War II, his father had served in the Nazi Party’s Waffen-SS, according to U.S. Army intelligence files obtained by the ICIJ. Once in Panama, the elder Mossack offered to spy on communists in Cuba for the CIA. (Mossack Fonseca said the firm “will not answer any questions related to private information regarding our company founding partners.”)

Here is the connection to Mexican drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, and perhaps to the DEA:

Many times Mossack Fonseca has had no clue which nefarious characters were doing what with the companies the firm created – as when Jurgen discovered in 2005, according to internal emails, that he was the registered agent and listed as the director for a company controlled by the Mexican drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero. The co-founder of the Guadalajara Cartel was convicted in Mexico in 1985 for the brutal murder of U.S. DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. (Today, Quintero is again considered a fugitive by the US after walking out of prison in 2013 on a technicality).

Mossack Fonseca’s senior partners instructed an employee to carry out their resignation from the company upon the discovery. "Pablo Escobar was like a newborn compared to R. Caro Quintero!” Jurgen wrote in reaction to the news. “I wouldn't want to be among those he visits after he leaves prison!"

And then there is the state of Nevada:

In 2013, an Argentine prosecutor’s report linked Nevada-incorporated shell companies involved in a major corruption scandal to Mossack Fonseca. When those shell companies became the subject of a federal court battle in Nevada, the leaked files show, Mossack Fonseca employees took steps to remove paper records and to wipe computer files and phone logs at its Las Vegas office. One employee even traveled from Central America to Nevada to bring back files. “When Andrés came to Nevada he cleaned up everything and brought all documents to Panama,” according to an email dated Sept. 24, 2014.

Mossack Fonseca said it “categorically” denies hiding or destroying documents in its statement to the ICIJ: “Let us be clear that it is not our policy to hide or destroy documentation that may be of use in any ongoing investigation or proceeding.”

The leaked records also contradict sworn testimony by Jurgen Mossack, who told the federal district court that his firm was separate from “MF Nevada,” its office in Las Vegas, and had no control over it. Mossack Fonseca “has never maintained an office, establishment or principal place of business in Nevada,” Mossack testified in July 2015. But, according to the ICIJ investigation, internal documents show the opposite, indicating that the firm’s Panama City headquarters controlled MF Nevada’s bank account, and that the firm’s co-founders and one other official with the company owned 100 percent of MF Nevada.

Why is Nevada important? Because recall that according to a recent investigation by Bloomberg, "The World’s Favorite New Tax Haven Is the United States" ...

... and specifically several US states such as Nevada, Wyoming and South Dakota.

One may even say that nowadays, US-based tax havens are the new Switzerland, or Bahamas or, for that matter, Panama. Indeed, for most Americans, offshore tax haven are now meaningless with the passage of the FATCA law, which makes the parking of dirty US money abroad practically impossible. So where does that money go instead - it stays in the US:

Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to “serve the needs of our foreign clients,” said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa’s president.

Trident Trust Co., one of the world’s biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland, Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1 disclosure deadline.

“Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing,” said Alice Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes and confidentiality in their trust laws. “I was surprised at how many were coming across that were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland.”

And, to top it off, there is one specific firm which is spearheading the conversion of the U.S. into Panama: Rothschild.

Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah’s and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.

* * *

For financial advisers, the current state of play is simply a good business opportunity. In a draft of his San Francisco presentation, Rothschild’s Penney wrote that the U.S. “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world.” The U.S., he added in language later excised from his prepared remarks, lacks “the resources to enforce foreign tax laws and has little appetite to do so.”

Yes, Mossack Fonseca may now be history, and its countless uberwealthy clients exposed, but none other than Rothschild is now delighted to be able to fill its rather large shoes. In fact, someone with a conspiratorial bent may decide that today's dramatic takedown of the Panama "offshoring" industry was nothing more than a hit designed to crush the competition of domestic "tax haven" providers... suxh as Rothschild.

Distributismo x Livre Mercado

Debate muito interessante entre Distributismo e Livre Mercado.

Assistam.A fonte é Acton Institute.

Ciência Econômica Pode se Preocupar com a Moral?

Aquele que é considerado o Pai da Economia (Adam Smith) era professor de moral. No entanto, ele afastou a preocupação moral de sua teoria. Será que a economia tem suas próprias leis, que impedem que preocupações com a moral e com o social sejam incluídas?

Aqui vai parte de um ótimo texto de Thomas Storck sobre o assunto, publicado no The Distributist Review. Leiam todo o texto clicando no link.

WHAT IS CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING?

March 7, 2016

Probably the main reaction that most Catholics have to the subject of Catholic social teaching is indifference or even, in some cases, hostility. Is it not, some would say, just some sort of left-wing scheme dreamed up in the aftermath of Vatican II, or maybe something manufactured out of the wooly brains of Europeans clerics? Or if not this, then it is equated with works of charity, such as helping out at a soup kitchen or giving clothes to the homeless. But while these works of charity are important, indeed essential, they are not the main focus of Catholic social teaching. In order, then, to understand this subject we should begin with some examination of the phrase itself, for from that we can learn much about its contents.

But let us look primarily at the second word of the phrase, social. This, I think, is where most resistance to the idea resides. Many Catholics, in their laudable efforts to obey God’s law and follow the teachings of the Church, concentrate primarily on those commandments (especially the sixth and the ninth) that concern personal morality. Nor do I deny the necessity of keeping these two commandments if we hope to reach Heaven. But there is more. For Catholic teaching since New Testament times has considered that the redemptive message of Jesus Christ comes not just to individuals, but to groups as such, that is, to men divided into the many kinds of social groupings which human nature tends to create, including the state or civil society. Although a Catholic can live a good Catholic life in a pagan society, not only is it easier for him if the society around him is Catholic, but that society ought to be Catholic. It is not right that we restrict the saving work of our Lord and his Church only to individuals. That is part of the heresy of Martin Luther, who was willing to consign society and the state to the Devil and make Christianity primarily a private matter.

But the Catholic Church has never agreed to this. In his encyclical on the Kingship of Jesus Christ, Quas Primas (1925), Pope Pius XI stated,

NOR IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THIS MATTER [OF THE KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST] BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE FAMILY OR THE STATE; FOR ALL MEN, WHETHER COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY, ARE UNDER THE DOMINION OF CHRIST. IN HIM IS THE SALVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN HIM IS THE SALVATION OF SOCIETY.¹

If this is so, then the very laws and institutions of society should not only give honor to Christ, but these laws and institutions should reflect his justice. Nor can we suppose that somehow since the Second Vatican Council the Church has abandoned this age-old Catholic teaching, for the Council itself taught that it is part of the mission of the laity “to impress the divine law on the affairs of the earthly city”.²

---

Fundamentally, as we saw above in Quas Primas, men organized into groups, including into political communities, are as much bound to obey the law of God as are individual persons. Thus a state is bound to construct its laws in such a way as to promote justice. And even a business firm or a corporation, although its primary mission is not one of promoting social justice, cannot violate justice in its operations or dealings. Since businesses are made up of human beings, and human beings are bound to obey the law of God in all their acts, the mere fact that men have combined into groups to produce some product or service hardly exempts them from obeying his laws. With that in mind, let us look at how Catholic social teaching deals with some of the concrete points of ethics as they relate to economics.

The question of wage justice was one of the first topics taken up by the Popes with the renewal of Catholic social doctrine that began in 1891 with the encyclical Rerum Novarum. At the time of Rerum Novarum it was widely held that if an employee accepted the wage offered by the employer, then that wage contract was ipso factojust, for had not a free agreement been made on both sides? Pope Leo’s answer, and indeed the answer of every subsequent pope, has been no, such an agreement is not necessarily just. And the fallacy of those who hold that agreement between employer and employee always produces justice arises from the fact that it rests upon an individualistic way of looking on man and society.

---

We must begin, then, to see the economic order as neither a machine whose output is determined according to exact quasi-mechanical laws nor as a field for dog-eat-dog competition. Instead, like all human activities, economic activity leaves considerable room for alteration according to man’s free will and, as we will see later, according to the laws, customs and institutions which mankind has established. If society is capable of producing enough food, shelter and other essentials so that no one need starve, then there is no reason for anyone to receive less than a living wage, provided of course that he is willing to work.

Let us look at another matter related to economics, property rights. Here the Church teaches that society acting through the state has the right to set limits and bounds to the use of property.

WHEN CIVIL AUTHORITY ADJUSTS OWNERSHIP TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC GOOD IT ACTS NOT AS AN ENEMY, BUT AS THE FRIEND OF PRIVATE OWNERS; FOR THUS IT EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS THE POSSESSION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, INTENDED BY NATURE’S AUTHOR IN HIS WISDOM FOR THE SUSTAINING OF HUMAN LIFE, FROM CREATING INTOLERABLE BURDENS AND SO RUSHING TO ITS OWN DESTRUCTION.⁷

In other words, it is the common good, the good of the whole of society, which must be the final rule in economic matters. Although individuals do have rights, very often these rights are not absolute, and must yield to the creation of a society which is focused more on gaining Heaven than on gaining more earthly goods. Men should hope and work for the goods necessary for their and their families’ sustenance; but beyond that a preoccupation with earthly gain is likely to come under the condemnation uttered by St. Paul when he wrote, “if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”⁸

----

Unfortunately many people imagine that economic activity is in a separate world. Yes, they might say, we must keep God’s commandments. That is the realm of religion and morality. But the economic order is different. It has its own laws. It is more or less autonomous. Any talk of reigning in man’s economic appetites smacks of socialism.

But neither Sacred Scripture nor the Catholic Church views the matter in such a fashion. Socialism was an attempt to control economic activity for what were basically materialist goals, more production, which would supposedly bring about a better life for all. Socialism failed on many levels. But from the fact that socialism was and is wrong, it does not follow that the only practical alternative is a market economy that is devoid of ethical concerns, in which the economic motive is allowed nearly unlimited freedom.

In my experience, one of the factors that incline some people to belittle Catholic social teaching is that they think the science of economics teaches conclusions that are at variance with the teaching of the Church. Many who have some formal or informal knowledge of economics make the claim that since economic science gives us a picture of how an economy works, in which there is hardly any room for moral norms, that the popes were well-meaning but misguided, and either exceeded their authority or at least did not teach with anything approaching infallibility.

But the answer to that is twofold. On the one hand, the Church has been teaching about morality in relation to economics since the time of our Lord, and certainly the Popes felt no hesitation about making pronouncements in this area which they surely regarded as authoritative. 

---

But fortunately our hope for understanding how the Church’s social thought may be reconciled with economics is not very difficult.

For the position of those economists who erect a conflict here is like that of some philosophers who claim that their subject renders impossible the Church’s dogma that the existence of God can be demonstrated by reason or that human beings possess a purely spiritual soul which survives death. For although a Kantian or a logical positivist philosopher might say this, we know that there are many schools of philosophy and that a Thomist, whose claim to be a philosopher is as good as any others, would be able to show by reason that the upholders of these other schools are simply wrong. Thus the Church’s doctrines do not contradict philosophy, but only certain schools of philosophy. So with economics. There is no one single teaching of economics. There are many schools of economists, and it is a mistake to identify the teachings or conclusions of just one or two economic schools with any certain conclusions of a science. Both the dominant neoclassical or “orthodox” school and the Austrian school, whose practitioners often regard ideas such as the just wage as merely an effort by do-gooders to impose their notions on an impersonal economic system, are simply in the position of the Kantian or logical positivist philosopher as regards Catholic teaching. They may regard Catholic doctrine as disproven by their studies, but we know that they cannot claim to be the only voice of philosophy. So with economists.

Although the Church will never explicitly identify one school of economic science as the only true one, such groups of economists as the American Institutionalist school or the German Historical school left ample room in their understanding of how an economy works for the ethical concerns of Catholic social teaching.

The Institutionalists, for example, argued that neither the “orthodox” neoclassicals nor the Austrians really understand how an economy in the real world functions. Neoclassical economists, for example, are too wedded to their graphs and equations, and do not understand that in addition to market forces there are other factors which influence economic arrangements and relations. These include institutions, including the legal system, custom, and simply raw power. When a company, for example, intimidates its employees to prevent them from organizing a union, this is nothing except the more powerful working upon the less powerful. And similarly, if a government agency or some other entity intervenes in such a case to curb the power of management, this again is an example of another power being exercised to allow justice to operate. Or when corporate CEOs appoint friends and colleagues to their boards, knowing that they will in turn approve inordinate salaries and benefits for these CEOs, this is hardly an example of market forces in action, but simply of power, power often working behind the scenes. The outcome in all these cases might be economic in the sense that it is concerned with money or other economic goods, but it is not the forces of supply and demand that are at work, but the power of management or of unions or government. Or when limited liability laws protect corporate stockholders from any adverse effects of their corporation’s conduct, does not such a law influence how a corporation will act? If the stockholders were liable to the extent of their investment for corporate misdeeds, would not this go a long way to change corporate behavior and to make the shareholders watch more carefully over the activities of the entity of which they are legally the owners? Yet such corporate limited liability laws can be changed, and in fact originated only in the nineteenth century. They are not examples of the so-called “laws of economics,” written into the very nature of things. I do not deny the existence of economic laws; they are real. But they are only part of the explanation of economic behavior, and moreover, generally express themselves via differing legal systems, customs and other institutions. Therefore there is no conflict between economic science and Catholic social teaching, but at most a conflict between Catholic social teaching and certain schools or sects of economists, even if these schools happen today to be dominant in American academia. The same can be said for psychology or sociology, where the schools dominant in America academia are likewise hostile to Catholic teaching in many areas.

---

This world is not our final home and the things of this world will not last forever. Therefore we must not use them so that we end up losing our eternal salvation. An economy must serve man’s life, and primarily those aspects of his life which are the most important. Thus economic arrangements that seem to function more by fueling man’s greed than by pointing him toward virtue are suspect. Catholic social teaching is nothing but a recognition that all of man’s life must be lived under God, and that like individuals, institutions will either help man to achieve salvation or hinder him. And if this is so, then we will be wise if we put all our affairs, even those dealing with our livings and external goods, under God’s law, “for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the individual, in Him is the salvation of society.”

Originally published in Catholic Men’s Quarterly.

O Legado Econômico e Social de Obama

Olhem os gráficos acima que tratam da mudança que Obama trouxe para os Estados Unidos, colhido do site Zero Hedge.

O que eles dizem?

- Os empréstimos estudantis explodiram. Pobreza;

- O Food Stamp (espécie de Bolsa Família) chegou a estratosfera. Pobreza;

- A dívida federal alcançou níveis nunca antes na história. Pobreza hoje e no futuro;

- A emissão de dinheiro também alcançou níveis nunca antes da história, e nada de aumento na produtividade;

- Os custos com gastos de saúde atingiram níveis recordes;

- A força de trabalho caiu para níveis baixíssimos. O desemprego está caindo por conta de gente se mantendo fora da força de trabalho;

- A desigualdade entre negros americanos está em nível recorde. Ele faria um governo "pós-racial";

- A renda média das famílias está em níveis muito baixos, só vistos na década de 90. Classe média bem mais pobre;

- A percentagem daqueles que são proprietários de casas também em nível baixos da década de 90.

Obama implantou um programa econômico keynesiano/socialista para o país, será que os Estados Unidos vão continuar nessa trajetória?

Será que não há exemplos suficientes para saber onde ela vai dá?

Um Recorde Negativo de Obama: 10 Anos de Crescimento Abaixo de 3,0%.

Toda vez que alguém fala que gosta de Obama, eu pergunto o que ele gosta mais em Obama, e daí, se essa pessoa não defende aborto ou casamento gay ou é muçulmano, eu consigo provar para a pessoa que ele não deveria gostar de Obama. A pessoa está mal informada.

Quando o assunto é economia, fica muito fácil rebater, e provar que Obama foi um desastre nesse aspecto.

Um texto da CNSNews revela um recorde negativo de Obama em matéria de crescimento econômico: 10 anos com crescimento abaixo da média histórica de 3,9%. Aliás, a média de Obama é 2,1%. Há outros recordes negativos de Obama relacionados ao mercado de trabalho ou aumento de uso de benefícios estatais ou de taxas de juros ou de compras de títulos pelo Fed, ou queda de produtividade.

O maior de tempo de crescimento abaixo de 3,0%, antes de Obama, foi de 4 anos, durante a grande depressão dos anos 30. Obama conseguiu o dobro.

O melhor período de crescimento foi nos anos do presidente Ronald Reagan.

Vejamos o texto da CNSNews.

U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

By Terence P. Jeffrey | February 26, 2016 | 4:05 PM EST

(CNSNews.com) - The United States has now gone a record 10 straight years without 3 percent growth in real Gross Domestic Product, according to data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.

The last recession ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the six full calendar years since then (2010-2015), real annual GDP growth has never exceeded the 2.5 percent it hit in 2010.

“The average growth rate for economic recoveries since the 1960s is 3.9 percent ranking the Obama recovery, with an average GDP growth rate of just 2.1 percent, among the slowest in history,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R.-Ind,), who chairs the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.

Before this period, the longest stretch of years when real GDP did not grow by at least 3.0 percent, as calculatd by the BEA, was the four-year stretch from 1930 to 1933—during the Great Depression.

In addition to that four-stretch from 1930-1933, there have also been four three-year stretches where the real annual growth in GDP did not go as high as 3.0 percent. Those periods were 1945-1947 (in the immediate aftermath of World War II); 1956-1958; 1980-1982; and 2001-2003.

The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

The second longest stretch of years in which the U.S. saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the six-year period from 1939 through 1944. (World War II started in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. entered the war in December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.)

In the last two years, annual growth in real GDP hit a plateau of 2.4 percent.

“Real GDP increase by 2.4 percent in 2015 (that is, from the 2014 annual level to the 2015 annual level), the same rate as in 2014,” the BEA said in the press release it put out today when it published its revised estimate for GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015.

In that quarter, according to today’s revised estimate, GDP increased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent.

In the Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers that President Obama sent to Congress this week, the administration noted that it is projecting real GDP to grow by only 2.7 percent this year and by less than that in the following two years.

“Real GDP is projected to grow 2.7, 2.5, and 2.4 percent during the four quarters of 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively,” said the report.

Next week, the Joint Economic Committee will be holding a hearing on the president's economic report.

“Whether it is burdensome regulations, a broken tax code or a ballooning national debt, the Obama Administration’s policies are a dead weight on the economy,” said Sen. Coats. “Under this president, we continue to see stubbornly low workforce participation and historically high long-term unemployment rates.

“In order to boost GDP, we need to overhaul our tax code and strip away unnecessary government regulations to give employers the confidence they need grow their businesses and create new jobs. Congress can take action to help grow our economy, but we need a willing partner in the White House,” said Coats.

“On Wednesday,” said Coats, “I am chairing a JEC hearing on the President’s economic assessment, and we’ll hear from the Chairman of his Council of Economic Advisors, Jason Furman, on ways we can work together to improve economic growth.”

Depois de 637 Cortes de Taxas de Juros e US$ 12,3 Trilhões, Mundo Continua em Recessão

Desde a crise de 2008, que o  mundo decidiu que faria uma solução keynesiana extremista para salvar a economia global, juros baixíssimo e até negativos e jogar muito, mas muito dinheiro no mercado, quase jogando dinheiro de helicóptero. 

E aí, o que ocorreu? Depois de oito anos, temos ainda economia global em ritmo de recessão.

Depois de aumentar pouquíssimo os juros em dezembro, o Federal Reserve (Banco Central dos EUA) já sinaliza que os juros por lá podem ficar negativos, como ocorre em alguns países europeus e no Japão.

Isso é, o mundo ainda não aprendeu que o tal "quantitative easing" não dá certo. Bom, não dá certo para salvar a economia, mas enriquece ainda mais os ricos, que vendem seus ativos que ninguém quer para os bancos centrais.

Foram 637 cortes de juros no mundo desde 2008 e 12,3 trilhões de dólares de compra de ativos por parte dos bancos centrais (enriquecendo muita gente) e nada, o mundo não retoma crescimento. Os Estados Unidos têm a pior recuperação econômica da história, não conseguem passar de crescimento da faixa de 2% desde 2008 e esse ano deve ficar abaixo disso. A Europa continua patinando e os países emergentes reduzem fortemente o crescimento. O Brasil....bom, o Brasil está em recessão profunda, e pior, com elevada inflação.

Vejam texto elucidativo do site Zero Hedge.

637 Rate Cuts And $12.3 Trillion In Global QE Later, World Shocked To Find "Quantitative Failure"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/12/2016 11:30 -0500

2016 is shaping up to be the year that everyone finally comes to terms with the fact that the monetary emperors truly have no clothes.

To be sure, it’s been a long time coming. For nearly 8 years, market participants and economists convinced themselves that the answer was always “more Keynes.” Global trade still stagnant? Cut rates. Economic growth still stuck in neutral? Buy more assets.

It was almost as if everyone lost sight of the fact that if printing fiat scrip and tinkering with the cost of money were the answers, there would never be any problems. That is, policy makers can always hit ctrl+P and/or move rates around. But in order to resuscitate anemic aggregate demand and revive inflation, you need to tackle the core problems facing the global economy - not paper over them (and we mean “paper over them” in the most literal sense of the term).

Well late last month, central banks officially lost control of the narrative. Kuroda’s move into negative territory reeked of desperation andgiven the surging JPY and tumbling Japanese stocks, it’s pretty clear that the half-life on central bank easing has fallen dramatically.

And so, as the market wakes up from the punchbowl party with a massive hangover, everyone is suddenly left to contemplate “quantitative failure.” Below, courtesy of BofA's Michael Hartnett is a bullet point summary of 8 years spent chasing the dragon... and a list of the disappointing results.

*  *  * 

From BofA                                                     

Whether the recent tipping point was the Fed hike, negative rates in Europe & Japan, or simply the growing market dislocations and macro misallocation of resources and wealth, the deflationary theme of “Quantitative Failure” is stalking the financial markets. A multi-year period of major policy intervention & “financial repression” is ending with weak economic growth & investors rebelling against QE.

In short, monetary policies of...

• 637 rate cuts since Bear Stearns
• $12.3tn of asset purchases by global central banks in the past 8 years
• $8.3tn of global government debt currently yielding 0% or less
• 489 million people currently living in countries with official negative rates policies (i.e. Japan, Eurozone, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark)
• -0.92%, the most negative yield in the world (2-year Swiss government bond)

...have in 2016 led to a macro environment symbolized by...

• BofAML’s Chief US Economist Ethan Harris cutting potential trend real GDP growth in the US to 1.75%
• inflation expectations in both the US & Europe dropping below 2008 levels & a global profits recession
• one of the most deflationary recoveries of all-time: in the past 26 quarters the nominal GDP of advanced economies has grown 11%

and a significant impact on Wall Street...

• a bear market in equities (median stock in ACWI is down 28% from its highs; 45% of global stocks (1123) are down >30% from highs)
• bear market in commodities (10-year rolling return from commodities is currently -5.1%, the worst since 1938) & credit markets
• $686bn of market cap loss for global banks since Dec 15th – the day before the Fed hiked - and worsening global liquidity conditions, which in-turn will likely cause bank lending standards to tighten further

• and, most conspicuously, falling bank stocks and falling bond yields suggesting that 6 years of QE has failed to arrest deflation.

*  *  *

What comes next is anyone's guess but with China's credit bubble about to burst in spectacular fashion, we wonder how central banks plan to combat the ensuing hit to the global economy. After all, their counter-cyclical policy room is not only exhausted, they've now taken the easing bias so far into the monetary twilight zone that in Japan's case, things are starting to backfire and are becoming self referential (see the recently canceled JGB auction). 

Throw in the fact that $12.3 trillion in asset purchases has impaired liquidity across markets and you have the conditions for what could turn into a truly harrowing year not only for Wall Street, but for Main Street as well. The same Main Street that was allegedly saved by a "courageous" Ben Bernanke who started us all down this road 8 long years ago.