I've seen this movie twice since 2000, will sit out until it crashes down. This market is for high rollers or maybe folks in early 20's who wants to take on risks, I'm in mid 40s, planning to retire when I'm hit 60 mark. If I'm lucky, I could ride 1 more, at most maybe 2 bull markets. can't afford to stand in the same elevator with the crowd now..Lol!!
Yeah I know snoop the end is clearly near.. And people should be very defensive right now.. Just think they will do anything they can to keep it afloat for Hillary..
this won't help
however, is surely the latest collapse in Deutsche Bank shares, which plunged to new all time lows after a German press report that Merkel will not provide state aid to the German lender, resulting in fresh fears about another capital raise by the German lender, if not worse.
this won't help
however, is surely the latest collapse in Deutsche Bank shares, which plunged to new all time lows after a German press report that Merkel will not provide state aid to the German lender, resulting in fresh fears about another capital raise by the German lender, if not worse.
The polls are rigged Tiz, even the la-la-liberal BBC has a caveat regarding those "polls"
Remain was a polling shoe-in, until the real vote happened
It's all Liberal propaganda, a "random national sample of 521 people" lol
What do the polls say?
A CNN/ORC poll taken after the debate found that 62% of voters who had watched the head-to-head thought that Mrs Clinton came out on top, with just 27% giving it to Mr Trump.
This is based on interviews with 521 registered voters chosen as part of a random national sample. But only 26% identified themselves as Republicans while 41% identified themselves as Democrats.
An informal CNBC poll on its website found that 61% of people thought that Mr Trump won while 39% went for Mrs Clinton, but as CNBC itself points out, the poll is not scientific - anyone, including people outside the US, appears to be able to vote.
A post-debate survey by Public Policy Polling of 1,002 debate-watchers found that 51% of national voters thought Mrs Clinton had won, with 40% choosing Mr Trump and 9% undecided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37468188
Remain was a polling shoe-in, until the real vote happened
It's all Liberal propaganda, a "random national sample of 521 people" lol
What do the polls say?
A CNN/ORC poll taken after the debate found that 62% of voters who had watched the head-to-head thought that Mrs Clinton came out on top, with just 27% giving it to Mr Trump.
This is based on interviews with 521 registered voters chosen as part of a random national sample. But only 26% identified themselves as Republicans while 41% identified themselves as Democrats.
An informal CNBC poll on its website found that 61% of people thought that Mr Trump won while 39% went for Mrs Clinton, but as CNBC itself points out, the poll is not scientific - anyone, including people outside the US, appears to be able to vote.
A post-debate survey by Public Policy Polling of 1,002 debate-watchers found that 51% of national voters thought Mrs Clinton had won, with 40% choosing Mr Trump and 9% undecided.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37468188
An informal CNBC poll on its website found that 61% of people thought that Mr Trump won while 39% went for Mrs Clinton, but as CNBC itself points out, the poll is not scientific - anyone, including people outside the US, appears to be able to vote.
Not scientific... could mean
not scientific
or
not riggable
IMHO it means both, the polls in our western democracies are as useful as polls were in the soviet union
The only polling vote that matters happens in November
Not scientific... could mean
not scientific
or
not riggable
IMHO it means both, the polls in our western democracies are as useful as polls were in the soviet union
The only polling vote that matters happens in November
Eek the root problem is there aren't enough pissed off middle to lower white class dudes in us to win him the election... He's gonna get single digit black and Hispanic vote... And all the middle to upper class white liberals are voting Hillary too... Even up class conservatives will likely vote Hillary since she is status quo and they want to protect it.. majority of white women voting Hillary..
Demographics just aren't there .. Can no longer win elections in us banking solely on pissedoff white dudes winning it for ya..
Demographics just aren't there .. Can no longer win elections in us banking solely on pissedoff white dudes winning it for ya..
What I find sad about the whole thing is America is so ready for a anti establishment guy to step up and tell it like it is...
Unfortunately trump is just a plant for establishment hillary and doesn't have what it takes... First time I bothered to watch him in debate last night.. He started off well... but as it went on it became apparant he was completely in over his head...
after we another big economic crises and 4 years of Hillary maybe somebody legit will step up...
Also like I said presidential shit overrated anyway.. Until we start getting intelligent non-career politicians in congress who are there for the people vs their careers.. Nothing will change..
Unfortunately trump is just a plant for establishment hillary and doesn't have what it takes... First time I bothered to watch him in debate last night.. He started off well... but as it went on it became apparant he was completely in over his head...
after we another big economic crises and 4 years of Hillary maybe somebody legit will step up...
Also like I said presidential shit overrated anyway.. Until we start getting intelligent non-career politicians in congress who are there for the people vs their careers.. Nothing will change..
The Iranians would love to see the Saudis go 
up, they'd sell oil at $10 a barrel if it could do enough damage
I suppose it's mainly the shale oil brigade in the US and Canada who are doing the real damage though
------------------------------------------------------
Saudi Arabia has unveiled pay cuts for government employees for the first time, as it attempts to further rein in spending at a time of low oil prices.
A royal decree said ministers' salaries would be reduced by 20%, and housing and car allowances for members of the advisory Shura Council cut by 15%.
Lower-ranking civil servants will see wage increases suspended, and overtime payments and annual leave capped.
About two-thirds of working Saudis are employed in the public sector.
Their salaries and allowances accounted for 45% of government spending in 2015, or $128bn (£99bn), and contributed to a record budget deficit of $98bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37482690
up, they'd sell oil at $10 a barrel if it could do enough damageI suppose it's mainly the shale oil brigade in the US and Canada who are doing the real damage though
------------------------------------------------------
Saudi Arabia has unveiled pay cuts for government employees for the first time, as it attempts to further rein in spending at a time of low oil prices.
A royal decree said ministers' salaries would be reduced by 20%, and housing and car allowances for members of the advisory Shura Council cut by 15%.
Lower-ranking civil servants will see wage increases suspended, and overtime payments and annual leave capped.
About two-thirds of working Saudis are employed in the public sector.
Their salaries and allowances accounted for 45% of government spending in 2015, or $128bn (£99bn), and contributed to a record budget deficit of $98bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37482690
Too much supply went online as global economy growth rate was peaking out .. Now in the messy zone of market shaking itself out/uneconomical supply sources stopping production..
Oil will be a very strong buy once the QE bubble pops/global financial crisis/recession plays out.. Patience..
Oil will be a very strong buy once the QE bubble pops/global financial crisis/recession plays out.. Patience..
[h=1]Senate overrides Obama's veto on 'Sue the Saudis' 9/11 bill[/h]America
Publicado: 28 Sep 2016 | 16:21 GMT
Reuters /The US Senate voted 97-1 to override President Barack Obama’s veto of the bill that would allow Americans to potentially sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11. This is the first veto override during the Obama presidency.
Obama vetoed the bill last week, explaining that the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA) would erode the doctrine of sovereign immunity and expose the US to lawsuits around the world.
READ MORE: Obama vetoes bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia
JASTA, which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, allows US judges to waive sovereign immunity claims when dealing with acts of terrorism committed on American soil – potentially allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The issue appears to cross party lines, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) pushing for a veto override while Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) is concerned it would “end up exporting [US] foreign policy to trial lawyers.”
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has argued that allowing JASTA to become law could lead to US being sued in foreign courts and subjected to an “intrusive discovery process.”
This could put Washington in the “difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so,” Carter wrote to House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) earlier this week, according to the Military Times.
The House is expected hold a veto override vote later on Wednesday.
If Obama’s veto is successfully overridden in the House, it would be 111th time in US history that this has happened, and the first in Obama’s presidential term.
The first-ever veto override took place in March 1845 and involved President John Tyler’s attempt to build military ships without the approval of Congress. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) holds the record for most vetoes overridden at 15, while Harry Truman (1945-1953) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) are tied at second place with 12.
Publicado: 28 Sep 2016 | 16:21 GMT
Obama vetoed the bill last week, explaining that the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA) would erode the doctrine of sovereign immunity and expose the US to lawsuits around the world.
READ MORE: Obama vetoes bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia
JASTA, which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, allows US judges to waive sovereign immunity claims when dealing with acts of terrorism committed on American soil – potentially allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
The issue appears to cross party lines, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) pushing for a veto override while Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) is concerned it would “end up exporting [US] foreign policy to trial lawyers.”
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has argued that allowing JASTA to become law could lead to US being sued in foreign courts and subjected to an “intrusive discovery process.”
This could put Washington in the “difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so,” Carter wrote to House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) earlier this week, according to the Military Times.
The House is expected hold a veto override vote later on Wednesday.
If Obama’s veto is successfully overridden in the House, it would be 111th time in US history that this has happened, and the first in Obama’s presidential term.
The first-ever veto override took place in March 1845 and involved President John Tyler’s attempt to build military ships without the approval of Congress. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) holds the record for most vetoes overridden at 15, while Harry Truman (1945-1953) and Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) are tied at second place with 12.
Yellen don't handle the pressure well like helicopter Ben...
she's the fall woman for the meds they created...
-------
[h=1]Yellen Cornered by Lawmaker in Heated Exchange Over Fed Politics - Bloomberg[/h]Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s defense of the central bank as non-partisan came under attack on Wednesday, as a Republican congressman cornered her on whether a key policy maker would have a conflict of interest in discussing a post in the next U.S. president’s administration.
Fed Governor Lael Brainard has donated to Clinton’s campaign and is widely viewed as a potential Clinton pick for Treasury secretary. Yellen hesitated and then demurred when Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey asked whether Brainard would have a conflict of interest if she were indeed in talks with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a position. The election takes place Nov. 8.
Lael Brainard
Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
“I would have to consult my counsel, I’m not aware that that’s a conflict,” Yellen said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington, while rejecting Garrett’s suggestion that the U.S. central bank has a political bias.
“What’s important to me is whether or not, in our decision making, our collective decision making, I see politics being brought to bear in reasoning about our decisions, and I have never seen that with any of my colleagues,” she said after she was questioned about Brainard’s possible political conflicts.
The heated exchange came during a week when the Fed has been under fire for its politics: Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that the Fed is keeping rates low to make President Barack Obama look good during a widely-viewed televised debate on Monday. Merited or not, the persistent questioning of the Fed’s objectivity -- and Yellen’s inability to deflect that skepticism -- could become a headache for the officially non-partisan and independent central bank.
“Yellen completely froze, giving the casual viewer the impression that there is a big conflict of interest and that the Fed is political in its deliberative process,” Neil Dutta, head of U.S. economics at Renaissance Macro Research LLC in New York, wrote in a note following the exchange.
Yellen told Garrett during their discussion that the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities of some government employees, doesn’t prohibit Fed officials from donating to political campaigns. Brainard, a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs under Obama, has given $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The back-and-forth over Brainard’s possible contact with the campaign was a flashpoint at a hearing where the Fed’s relationship to politics was a frequent topic. Democrats Carolyn Maloney and Gregory Meeks both emphasized that the Fed is nonpartisan, while Garrett said that there’s an unacceptable “cozy relationship” between the Fed and the administration.
Yellen chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 1999.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
she's the fall woman for the meds they created...
-------
[h=1]Yellen Cornered by Lawmaker in Heated Exchange Over Fed Politics - Bloomberg[/h]Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s defense of the central bank as non-partisan came under attack on Wednesday, as a Republican congressman cornered her on whether a key policy maker would have a conflict of interest in discussing a post in the next U.S. president’s administration.
Fed Governor Lael Brainard has donated to Clinton’s campaign and is widely viewed as a potential Clinton pick for Treasury secretary. Yellen hesitated and then demurred when Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey asked whether Brainard would have a conflict of interest if she were indeed in talks with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign about a position. The election takes place Nov. 8.
Lael Brainard
Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
“I would have to consult my counsel, I’m not aware that that’s a conflict,” Yellen said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington, while rejecting Garrett’s suggestion that the U.S. central bank has a political bias.
“What’s important to me is whether or not, in our decision making, our collective decision making, I see politics being brought to bear in reasoning about our decisions, and I have never seen that with any of my colleagues,” she said after she was questioned about Brainard’s possible political conflicts.
The heated exchange came during a week when the Fed has been under fire for its politics: Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that the Fed is keeping rates low to make President Barack Obama look good during a widely-viewed televised debate on Monday. Merited or not, the persistent questioning of the Fed’s objectivity -- and Yellen’s inability to deflect that skepticism -- could become a headache for the officially non-partisan and independent central bank.
“Yellen completely froze, giving the casual viewer the impression that there is a big conflict of interest and that the Fed is political in its deliberative process,” Neil Dutta, head of U.S. economics at Renaissance Macro Research LLC in New York, wrote in a note following the exchange.
Yellen told Garrett during their discussion that the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities of some government employees, doesn’t prohibit Fed officials from donating to political campaigns. Brainard, a former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs under Obama, has given $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The back-and-forth over Brainard’s possible contact with the campaign was a flashpoint at a hearing where the Fed’s relationship to politics was a frequent topic. Democrats Carolyn Maloney and Gregory Meeks both emphasized that the Fed is nonpartisan, while Garrett said that there’s an unacceptable “cozy relationship” between the Fed and the administration.
Yellen chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1997 to 1999.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE
Brainard the one that continuously speaks out pre fed meeting that it is not time to raise after the expectations begin to grow they may raise...
Anyway this is nothing that isn't obvious to anybody paying attention... Fed is lefty/big government is good leaning
Anyway this is nothing that isn't obvious to anybody paying attention... Fed is lefty/big government is good leaning
[h=1]Saudi Devaluation Bets Surge, Stocks Crash As Debt Deal Falters On 9/11 Legislation Anxiety[/h]Despite its peg, Spot Riyal is trading at its weakest in 8 months as turmoil mounts in The Kingdom as a failed 'deal' in Algiers, pay cuts for royalty, and now growing concerns that the US vote/veto on 9/11 Legislation will delay Saudi Arabia's first international bond sale. Forward bets on Saudi currency devaluation are surging and default risk is on the rise again as Bloomberg reports, a Senate vote to override President Barack Obama’s veto could cause some investors to balk at the issue.
The country is planning to sell at least $10 billion of bonds next month, four people said. As Bloomberg adds,
And one-year forward contracts for the currency (Devaluation bets) headed for the biggest increase since July...
Saudi stocks lost the most in the world for a second straight day. The Tadawul All Share Index was the worst performer among more than 90 gauges tracked by Bloomberg, falling 4.5 percent as of 2:11 p.m. in Riyadh to the lowest level in more than eight months (near its lowest sicne 2009)
So now we know why Obama was so adamant to veto the bill... The Saudis have a lot to lose... this is not about US blowback.
The country is planning to sell at least $10 billion of bonds next month, four people said. As Bloomberg adds,
Senate leaders in both parties said Tuesday they expect the vote to succeed, though Congress has yet to override a veto by Obama. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said last week that the Saudi government has warned that enacting the bill would cause a “significant change” in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Saudi stocks tumbled and the currency weakened the most in four months.
Overriding the bill “could dent investor demand in near term,” said Kaan Nazli, who helps oversee $4.8 billion of emerging-market debt at Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd. in The Hague.
“It would subject the new bonds to some headline noise but ultimately the U.S.-Saudi relationship is very deep and the thinking would be that this issue would be overcome somehow.”
he Saudi Arabian riyal weakened the most since January...Overriding the bill “could dent investor demand in near term,” said Kaan Nazli, who helps oversee $4.8 billion of emerging-market debt at Neuberger Berman Europe Ltd. in The Hague.
“It would subject the new bonds to some headline noise but ultimately the U.S.-Saudi relationship is very deep and the thinking would be that this issue would be overcome somehow.”
And one-year forward contracts for the currency (Devaluation bets) headed for the biggest increase since July...
Saudi stocks lost the most in the world for a second straight day. The Tadawul All Share Index was the worst performer among more than 90 gauges tracked by Bloomberg, falling 4.5 percent as of 2:11 p.m. in Riyadh to the lowest level in more than eight months (near its lowest sicne 2009)
So now we know why Obama was so adamant to veto the bill... The Saudis have a lot to lose... this is not about US blowback.
