Stocks dropped sharply Wednesday after the bond market sent a recession signal and the German and Chinese economy reported weaker than expected economic data.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by more than 700 points by midday, falling by as much as 2.8 percent. The S&P 500 fell 2.6, the Nasdaq Composite fell 2.9 percent, and the small-cap Russell 2000 fell by nearly 3 percent.
The declines more than erased the market rally on Tuesday that was triggered by the Trump administration unexpectedly saying it would suspend plans to impose some new tariffs on China. Some investors said the announcement created further uncertainty about the path of policy, discouraging investment in riskier assets. The move was widely seen as a sign President Trump had “blinked” in the trade standoff.
The German economy contracted in the second quarter, according to data released Monday. That raises the possibility that European economies could fall into recession. China’s industrial production rose by just 4.8 percent in July, lowering than expectations of 5.9 percent growth and much lower than June’s 6.3 percent.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell below the 2-year rate. When that has happened in the past, it has typically been followed by a recession in the U.S. sometime over the following two-years. Typically, however, this so-called yield inversion comes when the Federal Reserve is raising short-term rates to fend off inflation, pushing them above long-term yields.
This time, the yield inversion has come about even though the Fed recently cut rates and is concerned inflation has been so low. Instead of short-term yields shooting up, the inversion was created by the long-term yields plunging.
Shares of Macy’s dived more than 14 percent on Wednesday after the company reported worse than expected quarterly results and lowered its outlook for future quarters.
Shares of the XLF exchange traded fund fell by more than 3 percent, reflecting the poor performance of bank stocks on Wednesday. Shares of Citigroup sank by 5 percent. Shares of Bank of America were down by 4.7 percent. Shares of J.P. Morgan Chase fell by 4 percent. Wells Fargo shares were down by 3.7 percent.
The judge
found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret
speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative,
were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate
to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the
United States during a presidential election.”
“Clinton also
failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his
presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON
Leaked Julian Assange
Message:
Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected,
Sadistic, Sociopath’
’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to
every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia
McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List
Of Suspicious ‘Charities’
"But what
the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every
person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy
- AMERICANTHINKER.com
Media silent on dismissal of DNC
suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was
a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the
WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy
theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence
agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded”
with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed
claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was
“illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear
newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the
entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from
the New York Times (which
buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post , to
“alternative” outlets such as the Intercept ,
the television evening news programs and the publications of the
pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of
the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the
unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war
crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New
York Times , the Washington
Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared
Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy
hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the
presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and
exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of
radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour
of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall
coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists
and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump
administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of
his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Times editorial page
editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other
intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that
will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the
military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and
information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling
presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led
millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of
which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and
dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks
could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political,
financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them
‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.”
This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of
the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and
WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the
Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie
Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of
Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be
their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They
“allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two
major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the
DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain
the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents
were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US
vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian
agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and
its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s
internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for
its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy
building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of
the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the
Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on
18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of
175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming
that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from
Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other
documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous
whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic
principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if
they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity,
illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak
US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’
publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016
leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump
administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,”
undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to
Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and
prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In
its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as
an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture
operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the
entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally,
demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to
the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded
the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case
for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing
mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on
democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from
below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class
internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic
rights.
GEORGE
SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an
organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by
billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court fight
against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist,
unnecessary wall.”
*
*
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S
oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
*
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it
were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have
let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became
disabled?”
THE PHONY
CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*
“There is
no controlling Bill Clinton . He does
whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,”
states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.
“Bill
Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation.
Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he
does not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.
CLINTON
MAFIA AND THEIR BANKSTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS
WHO IS
TIGHTER WITH THE PLUNDERING BANKSTERS? CLINTON, OBAMA or TRUMP?
The Clinton White House famously
abolished the Glass–Steagall legislation, which separated commercial and
investment banking. The move was a boon for Wall Street firms and led to major
bank mergers that
some analysts say helped
contribute to the
2008 financial crisis.
Bill and Hillary Clinton raked in
massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, with CNN documenting a
total of at least $7.7 million in paid speeches to big financial firms,
including Goldman Sachs and UBS. Hillary Clinton made $675,000 from speeches to
Goldman Sachs specifically, and her husband secured more than
$1,550,000 from Goldman speeches. In 2005 alone, Bill Clinton collected over
$500,000 from three Goldman Sachs events.
Hillary Clinton is simply
the epitome of the rabid self – a whirlpool of selfishness, greed, and
malignance.
It may well
be true that Donald Trump has made his greatest contribution to the nation
before even taking office: the political destruction of
Hillary Clinton and her infinitely corrupt machine. J.R. Dunn
"Hillary will do anything to distract
you from her reckless record and the damage to the Democratic Party and the
America she and The Obama's have created."
THE FINAL DAYS OF HILLARY CLINTON:
MISTRESS of the SWAMP, GLOBAL BRIBES SUCKER and LOOTER OF THE POOR
“If the Constitution did not forbid cruel
and unusual punishment, the sentence I would like
to see imposed would place both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the same
8-by-12 cell.” ROBERT ARVAY – AMERICAN THINKER
com
The Clinton Looting of the Poor
of Haiti
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly
spent in “public service”
IT WAS BILL
CLINTON WHO UNLEASHED WALL STREET’S BIGGEST CRIMINAL BANKSTERS…. And haven’t
they sucked up the banksters’ gratuities since?
Only Barack
Obama has serviced banksters more than Hillary and Billary!
“Clinton also failed to mention how
he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential
tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in
part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street
bankers.”
FOLLOWING THE CRIMES OF BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON BECOMES AMERICA’S
ROAD TO REVOLUTION
Transcripts
released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street
bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010
Simpson- Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for
sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the
elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’
The bond market flashed a significant warning sign Wednesday morning.
The typical gap between the yields on bonds maturing in two years and 10 years reversed itself, as investor hunger for longer-term bonds pushed longer-term yields below shorter-term. This so-called ‘inverted yield curve’ is considered a reliable indicator that a recession looms sometime in the next couple of years.
The yield curve is a way to show the difference in compensation investors get depending on how long a bond takes to mature. Most of the time, the curve slopes upward because investors usually want to be paid more in exchange for locking their money up for longer.
But at times the relationship can flip, or invert, with shorter-term bonds yielding more than longer-term bonds.
That’s what happened on Wednesday.
Since longer-term bond yields more or less reflect the expected path of future short-term rates, this can be an indicator that investors think the Federal Reserve will have to cut its short-term interest rate target because of slumping economic growth or an approaching recession. The Fed is widely expected to cut its target rate at its September meeting.
While parts of the yield curve have inverted in the last few years, the two-year has not fallen below the ten-year yield since 2007. The other closely watched gap, between three-month yields and the ten-year, inverted back in March but flipped back to normal within a short time.
An inverted yield curve does not always foreshadow a recession, however. Intraday inversions that quickly correct to the normal relationship have often been misleading signals.
The yield curve may also have lost some of its predictive power. Very large budget deficits have increased the amount of bonds the government is selling. The government’s choices about which bonds to sell could cause an over-supply or under-supply in some parts of the yield curve, which in turn could invert the curve.
The Federal Reserve’s actions as it shrinks its balance sheet, inflated from years of bond buying under the central bank’s quantitative easing program, may also be putting pressure on the curve. This is largely an unprecedented event so its effects are hard to predict and likely will not be known for years.
The bond market is often fickle. A year ago, the market was signaling that the Fed was expected to raise interest rates three times in 2019. Now investors expect the Fed to cut at least two more times this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment