The U.S. Dollar Has Already Caused A Global Recession And Now

The U.S. Dollar Has Already Caused A Global Recession And Now The Fed Is Going To Make It Worse

 By Michael Snyder, on November 22nd, 2015

The 7th largest economy on the entire planet, Brazil, has been gripped by a horrifying recession, as has much of the rest of South America.  But it isn’t just South America that is experiencing a very serious economic downturn.  We have just learned that Japan (the third largest economy in the world) has lapsed into recession.  So has Canada.  So has Russia.  The dominoes are starting to fall, and it looks like the global economic crisis that has already started is going to accelerate as we head into the end of the year.  At this point, global trade is already down about 8.4 percent for the year, and last week the Baltic Dry Shipping Index plummeted to a brand new all-time record low.  Unfortunately for all of us, the Federal Reserve is about to do something that will make this global economic slowdown even worse.

Throughout 2015, the U.S. dollar has been getting stronger.  That sounds like good news, but the truth is that it is not.  When the last financial crisis ended, emerging markets went on a debt binge unlike anything we have ever seen before.  But much of that debt was denominated in U.S. dollars, and now this is creating a massive problem.  As the U.S. dollar has risen, the prices that many of these emerging markets are getting for the commodities that they export have been declining.  Meanwhile, it is taking much more of their own local currencies to pay back and service all of the debts that they have accumulated.  Similar conditions contributed to the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, the Asian currency crisis of the 1990s and the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.

Many Americans may be wondering when “the next economic crisis” will arrive, but nobody in Brazil is asking that question.  Thanks to the rising U.S. dollar, Brazil has already plunged into a very deep recession…

As Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff combats a slumping economy and corruption accusations, the country’s inflation surged above 10 percent while unemployment jumped to 7.9 percent, according to the latest official data. The dour state of affairs has Barclays forecasting a 4 percent economic contraction this year, followed by 3.3 percent shrinkage next year, the investment bank said in a research note last week.

The political and economic turmoil has recently driven the real, Brazil’s currency, to multiyear lows, a factor helping to stoke price pressures.

And as I mentioned above, Brazil is far from alone.  This is something that is happening all over the planet, and the process appears to be accelerating.  One of the places where this often first shows up is in the trade numbers.  The following comes from an article that was just posted by Zero Hedge…

“This market is looking like a disaster and the rates are a reflection of that,” warns one of the world’s largest shipbrokers, but while The Baltic Dry Freight Index gets all the headlines – having collapsed to all-time record lows this week – it is the spefics below that headline that are truly terrifying. At a time of typical seasonal strength for freight and thus global trade around the world, Reuters reports that spot rates for transporting containers from Asia to Northern Europe have crashed a stunning 70% in the last 3 weeks alone. This almost unprecedented divergence from seasonality has only occurred at this scale once before… 2008! “It is looking scary for the market and it doesn’t look like there is going to be any life in the market in the near term.”

Many “experts” seem mystified by all of this, but the explanation is very simple.

For years, global economic growth was fueled by cheap U.S. dollars.  But since the end of QE, the U.S. dollar has been surging, and according to Bloomberg it just hit a 12 year high…

The dollar traded near a seven-month high against the euro before the release of minutes of the Federal Reserve’s October meeting, when policy makers signaled the potential for an interest-rate increase this year.

A trade-weighted gauge of the greenback is at the highest in 12 years as Fed Chair Janet Yellen and other policy makers have made numerous pronouncements in the past month that it may be appropriate to boost rates from near zero at its Dec. 15-16 gathering. The probability the central bank will act next month has risen to 66 percent from 50 percent odds at the end of October.

But even though the wonks at the Federal Reserve supposedly know the damage that a strong dollar is already doing to the global economy, they seem poised to make things even worse by raising interest rates in December…

Most Federal Reserve policymakers agreed last month that the economy “could well” be strong enough in December to withstand the Fed’s first Interest rate hike in nearly a decade, according to minutes of its meeting Oct. 27-28.

The officials said global troubles had eased and a delay could increase market uncertainty and undermine confidence in the economy.

The meeting summary provides the clearest evidence yet that a majority of Fed policymakers are leaning toward raising the central bank’s benchmark rate next month, assuming the economy continues to progress.

Considering the tremendous amount of damage that has already been done to the global economy, this is one of the stupidest things that they could possibly do.

But it looks like they are going to do it anyway.

It has been said that those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And right now so many of the exact same patterns that we saw just before the great financial crisis of 2008 are playing out once again right in front of our eyes.

A lot of people out there seem to assume that once we got past the September/October time frame that we were officially out of “the danger zone”.

But that is not true at all.

The truth is that we have already entered a new global economic downturn that is rapidly accelerating, and the financial shaking that we witnessed in August was just a foreshock of what is coming next.

Let us hope that common sense prevails and the Fed chooses not to raise interest rates at their next meeting.

Because if they do, it will just make the global crisis that is now emerging much, much worse.

ISRAEL threatened

Compromise for Now, the End of Israel for Later

That’s what Palestinians say they want. What does this bifurcated attitude mean for policymakers? 

Against the bloody background of stabbings and other deadly violence in Israel and the West Bank, Daniel Polisar’s thorough analysis of Palestinian polling data, “What Do Palestinians Want?,” makes essential reading for anyone interested in more than just the grim daily headlines. His central point—that the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have long supported “armed struggle” against Israelis—is not only accurate but a fact regularly distorted by media focus on the seemingly “individual” nature of today’s terrorist incidents. Polisar’s conclusions, moreover, are well grounded in exhaustive research into the mounds of survey data that have piled up ever since the first Oslo accords of 1993—which is when I myself started to work with Palestinian colleagues in launching the first scientific polls of the Palestinian population.

Rather than repeating Polisar’s findings, I’d like to begin with a few observations and quibbles, then introduce some recent findings, mainly from a poll I conducted in June, and conclude with what I hope to see in Polisar’s larger study-in-progress on this subject.

First, quibbles. On the basis of survey results and other data, I believe that the reality is in some ways better than Polisar judges and in some ways worse. Better: there is rich evidence that the Palestinian public, when presented with a “package deal,” is considerably more inclined to accept compromise with Israel than when issues are viewed in isolation. This applies even to the most contentious issues like the future of Jerusalem, the “right of return,” or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Worse: Polisar accepts the notion that most Palestinians support violence in spite of Mahmoud Abbas’s steady and repeated opposition to it. In fact, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders consistently send a mixed message on this key issue, opposing violence in the abstract while continuing to glorify individual terrorists in official statements, ceremonies, and the media.

More broadly, there are a number of important distinctions to be made that go beyond the scope of Polisar’s valuable essay. One such distinction, to which I have just alluded, is between the Palestinian “street” and the “elite”: the political leadership, the intelligentsia, the moguls of Palestinian media (and social media), and the most prominent Islamic activists. On many tactical issues, including economic relations with Israel and the utility of negotiations, the general public is more moderate than its supposed leaders.

Related to this is the distinction between short- and long-term attitudes. The former are relatively malleable; the latter, surprisingly hardline, especially on the fundamental question of permanent peace versus endless war. Whether or not hardline views might give way if short-term realities improved is a tantalizing yet inherently indeterminate question.

A final distinction concerns the contrasting attitudes to be found among the Palestinian populations in the West Bank, Gaza, and eastern Jerusalem. The overall situations in those three locales are themselves so different as to render questionable the customary practice of lumping them all together.

Each of these distinctions,and others, can be illustrated by the results of my June 2015 poll. I’d like briefly to expound those findings in to order offer some additional perspectives and possible follow-up avenues of inquiry.

Most polling in the Middle East focuses on issues of politics and/or religion. Yet, surprisingly, neither politics nor religion is a top priority for most Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. In the former, most people say their top priority is either “making enough money to live comfortably” (44 percent) or “having a good family life” (34 percent). In the latter, the results are similar though skewed a bit more toward family. By contrast, only 14 percent of West Bankers, and 24 percent of Gazans, select “working to establish a Palestinian state” as their top priority. And a mere 12 percent of West Bankers say that “being a good Muslim (or Christian)” is either their first or even their second priority. In Gaza, that figure rises to 19 percent, somewhat higher but still unexpectedly low.

Another surprise: despite widespread theoretical support for boycotts against Israel, most Palestinians in both the West Bank (two-thirds) and Gaza (three-quarters) actually want economic cooperation and say they “would like to see Israel allow more Palestinians to work inside Israel.” A majority in the West Bank and nearly as many in Gaza also say they would “like to see Israeli companies offer more jobs inside” those areas—and over a third in both places, despite the recent deterioration of relations, still see at least some chance of progress in this arena.

What about larger issues of relations with Israel and the peace process? On these, views are very mixed. On the one hand, there is majority support in both the West Bank (58 percent) and Gaza (65 percent)—even if a two-state solution is negotiated—for continuing the “struggle . . . until all of historic Palestine is liberated” and for armed “resistance” as a means toward that end. In the West Bank, 56 percent also support “armed struggle and car attacks against the occupation” (though just 23 percent feel “strongly” that way), and in Gaza such violent tactics are backed by an astonishing 84 percent, among whom 53 percent support them strongly.

On the other hand, there is also surprisingly widespread support for certain key compromises. At the tactical level, perhaps the most stunning statistic is this: 74 percent of West Bankers, and fully 83 percent of Gazans, say that “Hamas should maintain a ceasefire with Israel” in both territories. And even at the strategic level, half or more of West Bankers would “probably” accept compromises on two major issues if doing so might “help to end the occupation” and lead to Palestinian independence. Those issues are, first, “the principle of two states for two peoples, the Palestinian people and the Jewish people,” and, second, limiting the right of return to the West Bank and Gaza, “not to Israel.” Among Gazans, the figures in favor are a bit lower, but still substantial.

Altogether, then,the evidence suggests that today, at least, most Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza want a ceasefire and economic cooperation with Israel, and many would also compromise on certain tough core issues for the sake of independence. In still another sign of today’s pragmatic mood, about half the Palestinian public in both the West Bank and Gaza are willing to share sovereignty over Jerusalem—and a large majority of West Bankers (79 percent) say that, “in the current situation,” they would like to see a highway through Israel that bypasses Jerusalem altogether.

But that’s in the short term. For the medium or longer term, many espouse a much more maximalist orientation. Unlike other surveys, my June poll asked respondents to consider three different time frames: the next five years, the coming 30-40 years, and the distant future of a century hence. The results are hardly encouraging.

Indeed, even in the time frame of the next five years, a plurality pick “reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea” over “a two-state solution” as the “main Palestinian national goal.” In the West Bank, the margin is 41 versus 29 percent; in Gaza, it is much closer (50 versus 44 percent), but the difference is largely accounted for by the presence of a third option: a “one-state solution in all of the land in which Palestinians and Jews have equal rights.” Among West Bankers, 18 percent go for that option; among Gazans, only 5 percent do.

From a normative perspective, too, Palestinian attitudes are clearly maximalist. In the West Bank, 81 percent say that all of historic Palestine “is Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to the land.” In Gaza, the proportion is even higher: 88 percent. (These figures track closely with Polisar’s.) Of course, many Palestinians, especially in the West Bank, do not believe that the PA actually plans to take over Israel any time soon—as was confirmed by an unusual question included in my survey:

The PA publishes official maps, statements, songs, and poems that talk about all of historic Palestine as belonging to the Palestinians, including cities like Haifa, Jaffa, and Tiberias. Do you think this shows that its real intention is to work toward liberating all of Palestine someday?

In the West Bank, just one-quarter answered yes to this question. In Gaza, around half did.

So much for expectations over the coming five years. Looking ahead to the next generation—that is, 30 or 40 years out—only one-fourth of Palestinians in either the West Bank or Gaza expect Israel to “continue to exist as a Jewish state, while another fourth think it will become “a binational state of Jews and Palestinians.” But 38 percent of West Bankers, along with 53 percent of Gazans, think Israel will no longer exist at all, even as a binational state. Asked how that will happen, they split about evenly between those predicting that Israel “will collapse from internal contradictions” and those saying that “Arab or Muslim resistance will destroy it.”

And the really long-term view, for a century from now? A mere 12 percent of West Bankers and 15 percent of Gazans think Israel will still exist as a Jewish state. In the West Bank, although 20 percent prudently decline to predict so far ahead, a plurality (44 percent) think Israel will either collapse or be destroyed. In Gaza, an absolute majority (63 percent) more confidently anticipate the Jewish state’s destruction or collapse.

For policymakers on all sides,these contrary or even bifurcated attitudes toward the short versus the medium to long term present both an opportunity and a severe challenge. The opportunity resides in the possibility of taking advantage of current signs of tactical flexibility in order to move toward conditions of peaceful coexistence and perhaps ultimately toward resolution. Evidence from respondents to the same poll who live in eastern Jerusalem suggests that practical, mutually beneficial working relations with Israelis tend to produce more moderate attitudes. On questions like Israel’s longevity and Jewish rights to the land, the 300,000 Jerusalemites are much more conciliatory than their four million compatriots in the West Bank and Gaza.

But then there is the severe challenge: given attitudes about the longer-term future, there is good reason to wonder if any “final status” agreement will ever truly be final. And all this is not even to take into consideration the positions of Palestinian leadership, which, as I mentioned early on, are markedly more hardline than those of significant numbers among the populations they rule.

For now, Daniel Polisar has contributed a set of key insights into the underlying issues behind Palestinian violence. Looking ahead, I hope that in his expanded study he will take in additional areas, beyond those covered in hisMosaic article, in which ample findings exist to be profitably mined and analyzed. I’d also welcome his data-driven thoughts on how Israeli policies can affect Palestinian attitudes for better or for worse—a point he touches on lightly but that I believe merits much more attention. (As he notes, Palestinian attitudes, although broadly stable over time, are not entirely static; I believe those variations largely reflect changing expectations of Israel.) More speculatively, I’d hope for some consideration of the—admittedly uncertain—links between attitudes and behavior. While most Palestinians say they support violence against Israelis, only a very few act on that impulse, and episodes of unrest and terrorism alternate with periods of great calm. Why?

Answers to these and other intriguing questions will undoubtedly shed even greater light on the broader issues at stake, and on the potential for resolving or at least reducing them to more manageable proportions.

 ISRAEL is threatened but Israel is under the Almighty protection so the Jews and Israelis cannot be annihilated - even attempting to do so is going to bring tragic consequences to those attempting such evil.

The Palestinians or House of Esau is by itself going into annihilation if they persist in such evil.

As is stated in the WORD of God, so let the antagonist beware!  

No mercy from me, Najib’s in-law

No mercy from me, Najib’s in-law told terrified Hermes bag seller

---

  

Bella Belkin, the businesswoman who was trying to recover payment for Hermes bags bought by Maira Nazarbayeva and her son, was terrified when the latter dropped Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s name and threatened to harm her.

Bella’s family was threatened by Maira at least three times since June this year, according to court documents obtained by Malaysiakini.

“As a result of Maira’s repeated threats to both Bella and (husband) Edward Belkin, the Belkins feared for their safety and for the safety of their children,” it said.

According to the documents filed with the Southern District of New York, the first threat, where Najib’s name was used, happened during a telephone conversation on June 16 this year.

The document claimed Maira said: “You know who my son is! He is son-in-law of the prime minister of Malaysia.

“Do you know what we can do to you and your family? I will hurt you. I will hurt you and your family if you sue me.

“You know what I can do to you and what I am capable of. You know what I did in Kazakhstan and I will do it here to you.”

Maira’s son, Daniyar Kessikbayev, is married to Najib’s daughter Nooryana Najwa.

Bella, who is Samilor Enterprises president, was trying to recover payment for seven Hermes bags worth US$401,912.50 (RM1.72 million) bought on Sept 15, 2014 and Jan 20, 2015.

‘Real possibly of threats being carried out’

The court filing, made through law firm Lark B Stumer & Associates, said Bella believed Maira’s threats were real due to the latter’s track record.

“This threat terrified Bella because at that time Bella recently learned what Maira was capable of and was already accused of doing in Kazakhstan.

“By way of pertinent background, upon information and belief, Maira is currently or was an international fugitive wanted by the Kazakhstan police and Interpol for various crimes, including kidnapping, use of threats of physical harm to extract funds from business associates and using threat to force another person to transfer real property to the name of a family associate.

“Numerous articles written about Maira reveal that she has ability and propensity to carry out her threats of physical harm against Bella and her family,” it said.

Three months later, Bella’s husband Edward contacted Maira by telephone to try to defuse the tension.

Edward then met Maira and Daniyar on Sept 30 at their home in Alpine, New Jersey.

“During the meeting, Edward asked Maira if she was able to pay the outstanding balance and Maira immediately threatened, ‘I am not paying you anything. You know what I can do. You know what I did in Kazakhstan. I will hurt you and your family’,” read the document.

‘You don’t bother me and I won’t bother you’

The court filing said Maira issued a third threat against the Belkins in a series of text messages on Oct 27 after she found out that they intended to sue her.

One of the text messages read: “You don’t bother me and I won’t bother you, now I am quiet, but you will not calm down, don't expect mercy from me, it will cost you a lot.”

The court document further states: “For the purpose of clarity, ‘it will cost you a lot’ is a Russian expression that is a threat of physical harm and death.

“It does not pertain to a monetary or financial cost like it does in English.”

Following these threats, the Belkins filed a criminal complaint with the local police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Bella also filed a civil suit against both Maira and Daniyar on Wednesday.

Rizal Mansor, an aide to the prime minister's wife Rosmah Mansor, said Maira should be heard before judgment on her is passed.

"We are unsure about it, so we need to wait (for Maira's lawyer to respond) as it is a one-sided claim from Bella.

"We have to wait for the other side to respond, therefore we (the PMO) cannot make any comments," Rizal said.

Malaysiakini has contacted Maira's publicist and is awaiting response.

Guess now it is all in the FAMILY -  Maira (sounds like MAFIA) , acts like one too.

What does she think she is or rather where does she think she is. Wanted in her own home state 

and committing CBT in USA and yet issuing threats in US when her son-in-law is almost nobody 

in USA. She must have rocks in her head if she really did issue such threats.

The seller should go after her to the utmost and get back her dues!

 

Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/320444#ixzz3sHu5R2by

Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows

BY JENNIFER GOMEZ

Published: 27 September 2013 11:20 AM

Malaysia has been ranked as one of the most corrupt nations and listed as a country which is most likely to take shortcuts to meet targets when economic times are tough, according to a recent survey by Ernst & Young, signalling that the government's Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) has failed in its role to transform the economy.

Malaysia, along with China, has the highest levels of bribery and corruption anywhere in the world, according to the latest report, Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.

This year's survey polled 681 executives in China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and South Korea.

About half of the 681 executives polled on their perception of fraud felt that China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were the worst in bribery and corruption.

Those polled were employed at corporations with a turnover in excess of US$500m, ranging from the industrial sector to financial services, retail and natural resources.

"Fraudulent practices are on the rise, and there is a disconnect between the policies that are in place and how they are applied in practice," said Chris Fordham, EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services Managing Partner of Asia-Pacific, in the report.

About 39% of respondents said that bribery or corrupt practices happened widely in Malaysia, a figure which is nearly double the Asia-Pacific average of 21%.

In addition, 29% of respondents said that bribery or corrupt practices here have increased due to tough economic times and increased competition, which is the third highest among the countries surveyed.

The report also revealed that respondents felt that while some countries in Asia had strong anti-bribery and corruption policies, they did not work in practice.

Around 40% of respondents said their companies have anti-bribery polices or codes of conduct in place and 35% confirmed that their senior management has communicated its commitment to these principles.

E&Y also found that the risk of fraud, bribery and corruption were greater in growth markets.

"This may be due to a weak control environment that results in policies and procedures being implemented differently from global compliance frameworks.

"Companies operating in local markets may also feel compelled to operate in line with local business culture, resulting in conflicts with global compliance regimes," the report noted.

E&Y found 4% of the respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that it was all right to offer cash payments to win business.

"It should be zero, because companies have a policy of zero tolerance towards bribery," said Torsten Duwenhorst, an E&Y partner.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has staked his premiership on six National Key Result Areas (NKRA), of which “Reducing Corruption” was one of the most important.

Najib and his team have taken great pains to point out to Malaysians and foreigners the “efforts” and “successes” in achieving the key performance indicators (KPIs) of the NKRA.

In 2011, Pemandu boasted that the initiatives taken have shown tremendous results in , eradicating corruption.

The government also pointed out that “the effectiveness of the actions taken is being slowly felt and acknowledged by the general public”.

Malaysia Boleh - 1M thanks to Najib and gang, we are in notoriety. We have also Human Rights abuses, flagrant abuses by VVIPs as though the law do not apply to them -  different Laws for them, Compromised Police force, Compromised Judiciary,  Compromised MACC,  Compromised AG,
May God save us all from all these and much other EVILS in our LAND?.