#Which is not to say i’m broadly anti 12 step | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

castielcommunism · 3 years ago

Note

I finally rewatched season 12 because of all your love for it, and it's a WILD RIDE. On a meta sense, I cannot understand the politics of it at all. like, we've got the whole, "The President is Satan" angle, which, given the 2016 American primaries and election fiasco... yeah okay (though I'm not sure of the timing of writing episodes, so I'm also kinda like...is this also because people thought Obama was the antichrist because he wanted to help poor people? ANYWAYS). And THEN there is the weird pro-life brainwashing baby son of Satan stuff, which is its own can of worms that I'm still wrapping my head around. And the whole BMOL stuff that is basically like, "bureaucracy is bad" when it should have been saying, "genocide is bad." Would have loved for Sam and Dean to have another moral reckoning with their work that actually had some CHANGES for their behavior... i digress.

but at the same time, I get to see Dean being uncertain and messy with his mom, and Sam getting to take on a leadership role as Dean steps back, and I'm HERE for that stuff. I remember being pretty peeved that they brough Mary back when I watched it live because I was kind of tired of resurrection (shocker) and didn't trust them to do anything meaningful with her story (because spn + women is almost always bad), but on rewatch I like her in season 12 with her questionable decisions and her misplacement in life and her awkward socialization with her sons.

this has been a long message, and I hope you don't mind! Thanks for reading (and for recommending another look at s12).

I’m glad you enjoyed it!! Season 12 is an absolutely insane season lol.

The satan for president shit was almost definitely a Trump thing (I doubt they were responding to right wing racism aimed at Obama, especially given that the president character in spn was a white Republican). spn’s politics become much more genetically liberal by the later seasons so it’s not super surprising. That stuff was mostly goofy shit that I didn’t really mind. Like it was inoffensively silly for the most part. And also Dean and Sam being arrested for trying for exorcise the president of the United States is an objectively hilarious plotline. The anti-christ plot line is something I can’t really place? Like I also don’t know what to think of it outside of it being just generally weird and setting up plot shit for the next season. But it’s also funny and mostly inoffensive.

However, I feel like the British Men of Letters, ridiculous and weird as they are, are thematically appropriate villains for season 12 because they’re grappling with the legitimacy of the show’s premise in much the same way Mary’s resurrection is. The BMOL are the obvious, logical conclusion to hunting - monsters are essentially bad and the only way to deal with monsters as a class of people is to destroy them. The BMOL is what hunting would look like if it were “institutional.”

But, and this is where spn runs into the wall because it can’t fully confront itself, framing the conflict as individualistic American hunting vs organisational British hunting is a false dichotomy, because American hunting is already institutional, it’s just decentralised and unstructured. The “institution” that undergirds hunting is white supremacy, specifically the American flavour of it. Hunting in supernatural forwards a bio-essentialist view of “monsters”, who are broadly speaking a class of people. Monsters don’t arise because of social forces, they are not historically or politically contingent, and the word “monster” is not an ideological one, it is a purely descriptive one. Monsters are just monsters because they’re monstrous. They are inherently bad and must be killed.

And I don’t think spn is consciously arguing this so much as it is glorifying a rugged individualistic white American masculinity, but in so doing it imports that reactionary baggage into the show. But because it’s not a text that is consciously political as such, it’s inconsistent. This is why ghosts and other spirits, for example, mostly fall outside of this model - ghosts arise from historical events, from fear and suffering, from trauma, from injustice. They’re “contingent” in this sense and not inherently evil. They are the consequence of human action, and the only way to defeat them is to reckon with the actions that led to their creation. But generally when you have flesh-and-blood monsters in the show, it’s almost always purely biological. Sometimes it’s genetic (rougarou) and sometimes it’s infectious (vampires, werewolves, Sam’s demon blood, etc). You also have cases of exception, like Garth, where people can consciously fight against their own biological destiny and be “one of the good ones,” so that further complicates it.

What the BMOL do is take all of that complexity and stand as hardliners. There are no exceptions, and it doesn’t matter what type of monster you are. They’re all bad and must be destroyed. And once you destroy the enemy in your own backyard, you move elsewhere and begin the process again.

And obviously Sam and Dean are uncomfortable with that! You’re supposed to be uncomfortable with it. The Winchester (and .: American) model of hunting is more flexible and informal, and they want to keep it that way. And like strictly speaking that’s a better model, but it’s comprised of the same ideological “stuff” as the BMOL model of hunting. The political battleground is basically how far you want to take hunting as a societal project. Do you leave it to individuals who hunt at the margins of society, or do you formalise it and make it a conscious part of society?

So like season 12 is grappling with the show Supernatural as a concept, with its politics on the one hand and its emotional core on the other. Hunting isn’t actually an unalloyed good and has unequivocally fascist conclusions if you were to industrialise it. Mary is not the perfect saintly mother figure whose corpse provides emotional justification for hunting. The biggest problem season 12 suffers from is, ironically, that it is a season of Supernatural, a show dedicated to not fundamentally changing anything, so these questions (is hunting actually bad? Is Mary a human being?) are never properly answered. Mary eventually dies again, the BMOL fade away and their remnants (Ketch) become an ally.

But despite all of that I still really enjoy season 12. I think it’s one of the most unique seasons of supernatural for this reason, and if you focus on the Winchester family drama it’s really rewarding television. I’m glad all my posting about it inspired you to rewatch it, and I’m glad you enjoyed it!

#spn.txt #asks #libertariannatural #racism tw #(for general discussion of racism I mean)

40 notes · View notes

wceleopoldo14 · 5 years ago

Text

The Science Behind Why Pop Music Sucks

The blues is the title given to a style of music created by African People on the end of the nineteenth century. My favourite genre in music must be Tejano. I like Tejano as a result of once I hear it, I always really feel like I am listening to the tales of a real arduous working Mexican-American. My step father brought Tejano Music into my life and for that I thank him, because Tejano is not only Spanish music. Just like everyone else who listens to their "music" Tejano is a lifestyle. To many it's just a bunch of Mexicans singing about ineffective issues, but to me Tejano is the heart and soul of the Valley. Certain we hear about many new artists that come and try to convey their hip-hop and rap music, when their music is the kind that has no that means to it. I'm not one to talk and disrespect their onerous work, as a result of I listen to some of it additionally. But I do not forget my heritage and the place I come from. You may assume that I'm just a kid that doesn't know what I am saying, however I do. If I'm born Tejano, www.magicaudiotools.com and I'm raised Tejano. Then take into account me Tejano. How would outstanding historic musicians reminiscent of Mendelssohn, Vivaldi, Mozart, and so on. react to how music sounds immediately? Take Mozart, for example. Mozart never witnessed an electric guitar being performed. Would this fascinate him? Confuse him? Shock him? Would he scoff at how little "classical composition" there is in a punk rock track? Or would he take pleasure in its freshness and innovation? I am aiming at a discussion on extra electrical based mostly genres (pop, rock, electronic, and so forth.) as opposed to extra traditional genres (people, bluegrass, and many others.). Not all chord progressions will suit a Pop music. As a matter of truth, upon analyzing among the biggest hits in Pop music, it is evident that many of them share the same chord progressions. That stated, there may be plenty of Pop 2.zero in Rihanna, probably the most modern of all pop singers She is fluid — a singer, a rapper, a toaster — equally snug with R&B ballads, EDM thumpers and modern day pop musicians dance hall slither. And there's flexibility in Beyoncé, too; her rapping on Every part Is Love," her collaborative album with Jay-Z this 12 months, was impressive, however she is such a ferocious singer that anytime she veers from that, it seems like solely a dalliance. 1. Do not insist that pop be hip. An excellent chunk of mainstream music beneficial properties inspiration from more reducing-edge stuff — all the time has. (Keep in mind when The Monkees went psychedelic ?) But plenty of it performs by different guidelines: It could possibly be rooted in Christian contemporary music, emo, or mushy rock That does not make it much less significant; it simply takes work to understand these different legacies. It's cool in case you discover John Legend corny, however respect that for tens of millions his grounding in group harmony singing and Bacharach balladry indicators sophistication. Respect values aside from your individual. American adolescents understand a cluster of music grounded in the racial origin of performers, they are saying, and likewise combine into one group varied music forms of British origin, corresponding to punk, new wave and reggae. In addition they recognize "classic" rock of the '60s and '70s as a category, heavy steel, American arduous rock, Christian music (including Christian pop and black gospel), a mixed jazz-blues grouping, and a cluster of music the researchers name "mainstream pop." School college students and different older adolescents make more distinctions than youthful ones. Beyoncé's excessive-idea visual album Lemonade , for instance, takes listeners on a daring new type of musical storytelling within the fashion of Prince's Purple Rain (1984), Michael Jackson's Moonwalker (1988) or, perhaps extra just lately Kanye West's 35 minute movie Runaway (2010) and Lana Del Rey's Tropico (2013). Simple Rationalization: The chemical and neurological reactions within the brain that music stimulates will be enhanced when the music is each composed with extra advanced euphoric" moments, and when the listener is educated or skilled in what to listen for in music. The dehumanizing noble savagery behind such passages is simply barely disguised. Whereas breathlessly praised for his or her artistry," black musicians are by no means allowed to make sophisticated" or refined" art. For these writers the very notion appeared laughably incompatible with black music. The end result, Hamilton writes, was a close to-incoherent double normal": black artists have been derided as ‘Toms' for aspiring to make cash, then castigated for conforming to expectations of musical blackness on the part of white listeners" — a gaggle, in fact, to which all these critics belonged. I do not suppose it can come as a surprise to lots of audiophiles, but human hearing most definitely does not have a linear response curve. In reality, throughout Job 5 - what was considered the most complex of the tasks - many of the test subjects may hear variations between tones with as much as a factor of 13 extra acuity than the linear model predicts. Those that had the most talent at differentiating time and frequency variations between tones were musicians. One, an electronic musician, might differentiate between tones sounded about three milliseconds apart - outstanding because a single period of the tone solely lasts 2.27 milliseconds. The identical topic did not carry out as well as others in frequency differentiation. One other professional music was distinctive at frequency differentiation and good at temporal differentiation of the tones.

Conclusion: There's some scientific proof backing the broadly voiced complaint - on the internet specifically - that pop music is getting worse and worse within the 2000s and the 2010s. The music is slower, melodically easier, louder, more repetitive, extra "I" (first-particular person) focused, and more offended with anti-social sentiments. The 2010s obtained by far probably the most music quality down votes with forty two% from people polled on which decade has produced the worst music since the 1970s. So much of the expertise listening to music — gospel and in any other case — is feeling it, catching the spirit. Earlier than Franklin begins the title track, the Rev. James Cleveland asks for a witness. Then Franklin takes over. It's just her voice, the reverend on piano and a testament to the extraordinary: I was blind, and now I see. The experience of its overwhelming you happens whether or not a survey of music folks deems it canonical. But if canons are being shaped and published, why not embrace this one alongside the same old suspects — your Sgt. Pepper's" and Rubber Soul" and Highway 61 Revisited" and Pet Sounds"? Superb Grace" is a landmark, too. You do not want an inventory to inform you that. God knows. However that's not fairly enough.

2 notes · View notes

kierongillen · 7 years ago

Text

Writer Notes: The Wicked + the Divine 1923

Spoilers, obv.

Jamie said that for once, an issue of WicDiv will have more of my prose in it than are in the writers note. I joked that “We'll see about that” but I think I'm actually going to keep this one relatively tight. There is a lot of allusions and nods, and if I start doing the full Jess Nevins League Annotations, it's going to take forever, be over-explaining the joke and generally come across as a bad look.

The 1923 special was one of the logical pantheons to go back to, not least as the implicit floating question of “Who the hell were those four people at the start of issue one.” Not that alone made it happen – hell, maybe to the contrary. WicDiv is so big in historical implication that half the way it works is by implication. You choose a detail, and let the imagination populate around it. This nervous stand-off between saying too little and saying too much is very much a core balancing act.

I've had people ask what I knew about them back in issue one. The core, necessary stuff. The nature of what led to the suicide pact, the Gatsby-ish setting and the emotional underpinings between the four – Susanoo and Amaterasu's divine bro-sis complications, the history with Amon-Ra, the broad strokes of their personality, what movement in art they were representing, etc. But stuff changes, and lots of stuff added.

I forget where the core idea came from, but it was there and immediate and obvious in its “Oh yeah – that's clearly something that is intellectually and artistically valid, and also dumbly hilarious.” Which is very much the go-to WicDiv move. The way I described it to people was “Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, but with a bunch of modernist figures getting bumped off. Theme of high art versus low art, the birth of the 20th century culture, the war, etc.”

Details added to that – the gods' suicide pact to try and avert WW2 – which started to lead to the gods we wanted to cast elsewhere. A number of figures who echo with the war interestingly – Orwell, Hemingway, Piccasso started to appear in there. There were figures I just knew I wanted – Woolf, etc.

The form came there – I had the idea of being a prose/comics hybrid early, but resisted it, because I knew it would be a lot of work. I say that not out of laziness, but out of simple possibility. In the end, I was right – there was no time to do this along my usual workload, and I ended up working over the Christmas holiday to write this. I had Christmas off, but otherwise, I was with the gods. Still – it was done quickly. As the lady says, “The deadlines were crushing”

The other options were to do in multiple issues. I found myself thinking that two issues may work – and that idea was before the Christmas Annual. That was rejected, as I was aware that while it wasn't laziness, it was to some degree cowardice. A prose/comics hybrid was the right idea to support the story. Commit.

So we did, and I started playing for time. There is a lot of research – obviously involving reading a bunch of the relevant figures, not least Christie to think of structure. I was picking my cast, and seeing how they fit together, and so on.

There was a problem. I still didn't have a plot. What were these gods doing?

At which point, on the suggestion of a reader on twitter, I read John Carey's The Intellectuals And the Masses and the scales fell from my eyes. Of course. I've been so blind.

The book is a gleeful, sustained and viscous intellectual evisceration of high Modernism. Much of it I already knew, but this specifically argued case made me realise the obvious: intellectually speaking, a bunch of them were fellow travellers with totalitarianism and had nothing but disgust for the common person. In other words, in WicDiv's universe, it made me realise I could step past my actual admiration for many of the figures in question and just follow those implications through.

And suddenly, there's the plot rather than the concept. In my head, I was thinking everyone would be very anti fascism. By realising some of them wouldn't necessarily be (or, at least, “Hey – it won't be that bad, and what really matters is art and the people who can actually appreciate art”.) I have multiple sides with multiple questions and a bunch of place to explore.

At which point, we needed our artist. Aud worked with Al on the Ultimates, which was my first extended exposure to her bar individual bits of art – we loved it, and thought she'd be perfect. We approached her, and she said yes.

At which point, the problems of scripting. I played with time to actually write the prose to get more and more research. The script I wrote her had the comic pages, but only included a synopsis of what happened in the prose bits, so Aud could follow the narrative. I'll include one of them later in this to give you an idea. The point being – the structure, and the primary clues (and red-herrings) were in existence at that point. I just had to execute them. I could put that off.

I did.

I ended up actually writing the prose two months after Aud got the script, so I had all her pages to look at while working. This obviously led to a lot of inspirational material back and forth. There's a few problems – some fun ideas I had in the process of writing aren't ever shown in the art, and some areas where I had to write around a problem. But some of those writing around a problem led to some of the more memorable bits in the story.

It was fine. This is a dense issue of WicDiv. I did the math, and I think in terms of material, you'd be pushed to do it in any less than 4 issues without compressing, and maybe even five. However, that was necessary to be what it was required to be. It was a dragon, and we killed it.

Here's a section from the opening letter to Aud, which basically speaks to the core intent...

The mood is basically an Agatha Christie Murder Mystery. This is pulp and light. It just happens to star riffs on some of the most intellectual writers of all time. As such, we kind of mock them. They're trapped in this kind of story – and this story kills them all.

At the same time, this is a story about form. What is comics? What is prose? Is illustrated prose just a comic with a really big caption? This is arguably the most modernist issue of WicDiv that we've ever done. As such, we're saying the exact opposite to the above as well – that we are the successors to these geniuses, and this is our ultimate tribute to them.

My tongue is in cheek with the above, but perhaps less than it should be.

I smile. There's a lot about this issue that makes me smile. And readers too – it went down in basically the most optimistic scenario it could have been. We knew that there would be some people who just rejected it due to the comics/prose hybrid form – and hell, I don't even necessarily think those people are wrong to do so. However, with a handful of exceptions – none of whom were reviewers – the only people who didn't like the issue were those who rejected it because of formal reasons.

I admit, this has led me to unpacking why people did, and some theories will come below. I also get the feeling this is an issue which I am at risk from taking the wrong lessons from.

Let's do this.

Jamie Cover: Minimalistic, clean, book cover. Instantly classy. Instantly foreshadowing That Fucking Lighthouse.

I notice the $4.99 price here. Yeah, we decided to sort of stack the odds in people liking the oddness. This is a lot of content for five dollars. If people like the way I think, you get your money's worth.

Aud's Cover: In giving Aud a brief, I wanted to do a scene which we likely weren't going to see inside. Plus the final cast hadn't been sorted out at this point, so we wanted to do something with the four figures from issue 1. As such, doing Amaterasu and Susanoo in a waltz among the living light dead struck us as fun. Aud wanted to integrate the title, which also works well. The doomed romance of the pair of them is certainly a key nature part, and felt good to foreshadow here.

Image Expo Cover: This was done far later than the other ones, and is so good we tried to work out if there was a way of switching it with the main cover. Alas, too late. This is inspired by Weimer Pursell's World Fair poster. Jamie is almost unrecognisable in style due to the lack of classical inking. I especially like this as it shows Lucifer on the cover, which obviously adds to the impact when we kill him.

IFC

The headshots were done last by Aud, after she done the rest – it was a “If we have time, it'd be good to do this too.” We played with some ideas for using them in different places (perhaps even as far as topping each bit of prose) but decided that was too much. That we go in deep with the prose at the start causes big problems. Oddly, my main take from reading Christie is how the opening of the books are the hardest parts – they're trying to set up so many characters, and I had a tendency (especially with my somewhat loose relationship with names) to lose which dude was which dude. That was always going to be a sticking point in this issue, so I felt a Dramatis Personnae to open would work as a visual anchor to the cast. “Dionysus? Who's Dionysus.” <Flips back> “Ah!”> and then back in.

Lovely design here by Sergio. I'll want to rave about Sergio throughout, but let's say it here loudly. This is amazing work.

Okay! The gods. Let's do what everyone's been asking for and saying who's influenced by who. Or at least, broadly.

Part of the reason why I wanted to do 1923 in prose was it would give the opportunity to have all 12 gods. The specials have gone down well, but there's been a regular undercurrent of “We want to know more about the others”. In 25 pages, that's not going to happen, at least in any way which is useful. We have to focus to some degree. In this case, for once, we wanted to give a full image of a full pantheon, just to show how it worked in another period – and with that, a readers' imagination can populate others with more guidance.

Secondary issue: while I've been describing the comic as “Modernist poets in an Agatha Christie Murder Mystery” that clearly wasn't true. We'd already shown four gods from 1923, so it clearly couldn't just be modernist poets. Of course, this is the theme – high art versus low art and the various different approaches to the gods is key.

Essentially, the 1923 pantheon is half way between the 1831 and 2013 pantheons in approach, with elements of both. As a mid-way point between the two, that seems to work. The gods that hark to the future have an approach more similar to the 2013 pantheon. The defeated gods have an approach which has a little more to the past. It's more complicated than that, and there's obvious exceptions, but that's what the backbone is.

So some gods are based on an archetypal sort of creator or artform, with a few nods to specific things, (Amon-Ra, Susanoo, Amaterasu, Minerva, Baal) while others are inspired an actual figure with a few grace notes from elsewhere (Neptune, Dionysus, Morrigan) and others are inspired by a creator merged with something from their fiction (Lucifer, Norns, Set). And then there's Woden, who isn't a god, so the rules change.

I swapped “based on” for “inspired” just now in the above. WicDiv may be inspired by figures, but the real figures also exist in the world of WicDiv. This gives us the narrative distance required to do what we do with them.

So, from the top, and in broad strokes. If you want more of the indirect influences and some theories, I think TWATD has the best round up.

Baal: One part of the conspiracy. Researching the period, there is a lot of white elitist dudes of various stripes, and Baal ends up being them all. In terms of actual references, there's a lot of TS Elliot in there, but there's strong notes of Ezra Pound and the big reference only a few people have spotted is Wyndham Lewis, who I think provides the majority of the look. I'm not sure Jamie was thinking of that explicitly, but he wanted to definitely have someone who looks like an elitist. Of all the older-gods, he's the broadest and most archetypal, and that's because there's a lot of this sort of guy, and it felt like repeating the same character multiple times. It's also a pretty white pantheon anyway.

Amaterasu: The concept of her in issue one was “all of Dramatic Film”. As such, she recalls a lot of early movie heroines. In terms of her powers, she recalls Georges Méliès in several places. I wasn't aware of The Four Troublesome Heads at the time of writing, but I really wish I was.

Lucifer: Fitzgerald meets Gatsby.

Susanoo: If Amaterasu is dramatic film, Susanoo is comedy. Biggest influence in terms of me thinking of how he moves is Buster Keaton, and for me, Susanoo's movement was the thing that was always on my mind.

The Morrigan: Primarily Joyce. Jamie using the later-period Joyce eyepatch is one of my favourite notes in all of this, but Aud just makes him sing as the bedraggled writer. He's a heartbreaker. He's notably the Modernist who is against the Modernists' elitists and topics, which is one of the beats to complicate things.(Random quote from Woolf on Joyce: “a self-taught working man, and we all know how distressing they are, how egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, and ultimately nauseating.”)

Neptune: Hemingway, with a few random grace notes from Nemo. I smile at “Sea god. Short sentences.” I had far too much fun writing Hemingway parody – the active character with the active voice.

The Norns: Wells, Huxley and Orwell, with grace notes in Little Brother from all their books. The idea of a triple-god who are all Future was the core of it, and I yelped in excitement.

Set: Woolf meets Orlando (which basically means it's Woolf meets her literary love portrait of Vita Sackville-West). Her historical-anecdote-for-any-occasion twitch comes from Orlando done in the style of Baron Munchausen's loving hyper-parody, but I can't deny it does come off a little like Tahani from the Good Place. The Set from Bloomsbury is my favourite pun in the issue, not least because people either get it immediately or just miss it completely. The figure I'm least comfortable with throwing under the bus, but I've already written her as a hero figure in Uber, so it probably evens out. I also remember things like the quote from the Morrigan above, which as a self-taught nauseating working man, does tend to soothe things somewhat. Like the Baal, her position is less being pro fascism (and Set is distinctly less pro fascism than Baal) and more a complete lack of interest in anything which isn't art. It's definitely one when the “inspired by” distance is key.

Amon-Ra: Embodiment of Jazz and Blues – primarily blues – with a little of the Harlem Renaissance. Most of the tiny nods are Robert Johnson ones.

Woden: Most of the visual language is are from German Expressionism (most obviously Fritz Lang) and the political beliefs (to state the obvious) Nazism. Like 2013 Woden, Woden isn't a god. He's a god who's killed someone and stolen their place and turned it to his own awful ends. When researching Uber, I found people like Hitler difficult to get on a human level. I've never known anyone like Hitler. Conversely, Joseph Goebbels? If you take the guy in his 20s propping up the the bar talking about how he's working on his novel and add virulent anti-semitism, then you basically have Goebbels. You can almost see him shiver in delight that he murdered his way into controlling art in his country... but there isn't a note of art in him. That's basically Woden. He's appropriated the art of a country at gunpoint. He looks like a villain, but even that look isn't his, and his villainy more profound. He would rule a people through sound and light. As Morrigan is the Modernist against Modernist's elitism, Woden is the Populist Against The People.

Minerva: Child-star archetype generally, Shirley Temple specifically. (I just typoed “Shirley Crabtree.” Now that is a very different look) In terms of personality though, I found myself falling into a slightly frenzied Enid Blighton Famous Five-ish voice.

Dionysus: Picasso as living Guernica. As good a place as any to mention the time-mashing in all of this – basically, the Spanish Civil War experience was moved from the thirties to WW1. That's the sort of editing we do with the figures. This is about (broadly speaking) “Between the wars and what that felt like, and giving birth to the 20th century.”

I lobbed a bunch of ideas at Jamie, and he did full body length plans for each. We'll probably include them in the trade when we get there.

Page 3-5

Right – 3000 words in and I haven't started the story yet. Things are going to be looser now – most of the thinking is above.

The second two pages were originally written as a splash, but Aud wanted to do it widescreen. I originally WANTED it as a two-page splash, but I didn't have the space to spare, so this re-creating it pleased me. Obviously this sets out the visual location of the whole story – here we have the island, here we have a lighthouse, etc.

Aud suggested doing it in a limited palette form, with the ink washes, and we clearly loved it. When actually describing the sea in the text bits, I was trying to evoke these actual seas, which is a fun way to do interplay.

But yeah – it's our “Here's Ananke.” As I suspect many have noticed, the specials main connective tissues are Ananke and Lucifer. The backbone of the specials trade is the meetings of Anankes and Lucifers across the centuries.

The “This will have to be my masterpiece” is lots of fun. I suspect this is how Christie felt about And Then There Was None. It's interesting that in all the conversation around the issue I haven't seen anyone realise that Ananke is Christie – some kind of demonic Miss Marple figure, writing the plot. It's also the first red herring. Clearly we know Ananke is a murderer at this point, so she's always the logical suspect. The story is based around flirting with that, stepping away from that, then stepping back to it.

The title was decided late – literally when this page was being laid out. I felt it was a little too obvious, but decided it was just obvious enough. Layout minimalistic, clipped, recalling both books and film (especially of the period). It's the first of that sort of thing, and far from the last.

Page 5

We initially decided we didn't need the icon page. We didn't think we'd have space.

Then the do-a-splash-as--two-pages actually created some problems, in terms of leading to all the early death reveals to be on the right. We were in a position of either padding the first text section by a page (and when that was long, it felt bad) or strimming it (which is bad, in a different way). Then we did some math and realised if we had an interstitial here it would actually bring us to the exact 56 pages.

So Jamie did the icons and everything became perfect.

Here he picks up the Art Deco from issue 1, which is a delight. Much to love here – I think his personal favourite is Dionysus' icon, which is understandable, as that's just awesome. I'm glad we actually found space to do this – yes, part of the book was showing a complete pantheon... but a pantheon isn't really complete until you see their icons.

In other notes, I'm considering using these icons as shoulder transfers for my Space Marine chapter.

7-12

Chapter 1!

Here's the synopsis of what I wrote in Aud's drawing script...

This is basically a series of short chapters, ala the opening of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (but shorter), introducing the various parties making their way to the island. I suspect they will be three, who will be...

The first ship reaching the island – Dionysus, the Norns, Woden, Morrigan, Minerva, Neptune. Possibly two ships. We set up some key relationships here – at least, Morrigan and Minerva seem to be getting on.

The Awesome Egyptian-mode approach carrying the Egyptian gods. It belongs to Set. Baal tells Amon-Ra Set is getting reading ready, before Amon-Ra then teleports down to the island, having seen...

...Amaterasu/Susanoo's approach, setting up their own somewhat populist beliefs in art (and light) and their fear they may be in an incestuous relationship. Amon meets them.

(Regarding teleportation: the gods have their selection of appropriate abilities to their archetypes – it's perhaps worth noting that the “Good” gods in this story tend to be sun or light gods. In the 2014 pantheon, the underworld gods tend to be the “Good” ones.)

One of his servants – made of living light, projected from the house – tell them that the final gods are arriving now. “Give them five minutes, then send them down.” Alone, drinking, he muses on all he's done to build this place? Will she finally be impressed with him? Someone arrives. He asks “Does this impress? “They smile, say it's perfect and for a second he's happy, before they click their fingers.

So there's the shape of it there, especially the key beats – it's enough for me to know there IS a solution.

This is the longest of the prose sections, and unavoidably so. The first movement of a Murder Mystery is to reveal the cast. It's also the longest section anyway – we start primarily in prose and we move towards primarily to comics. Prose is high art, old europe, etc and comics is low art, the new world, etc.

In terms of prose style, I weighed up what to do. I started thinking a pure Christie homage in actual prose, but backed away – it's a fun card trick to show, but I think it'd be less satisfying to the reader (who may or may not like Christie), and more easy to fuck up (So high risk for little reward). So structurally it was based on Christie, and instead the found a voice I found fun – a little period, but also a performance. And far too reference heavy for its own good. But Fun.

Fun is a key thing. The more I decided to be playful with the book, the better it seemed to work. As said, this is a key WicDiv stance. I haven't re-read it in detail (and I'm only skimming now) but I'm not too angry with what's here. That'll do.

The d____ was one of the Christie stylistic choices I chose to keep for period. It's fun.

Morrigan basically speaks in stream-of-consciousness parody throughout, including bits of Joycean scripts. Part of me was tempted to do the ““MORRIGAN: (softly). Aye.” said Morrigan, softly.” joke throughout. I can imagine Neptune wanting to punch him for the adjectives, evidently.

Hmm. Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking “I really don't need to say much about the prose sections.”

Page 13-14

The structure is key visual and plot relevant scenes are played out in comics. The stuff you need to see and we want to show you. Plus, abstractly, I suspect someone could just read the comic pages and get the core of the story.

(The things are prose are also things which are inefficient in comics – drawing room discussions are rarely riveting visual prose, and nightmarishly tricky to do with a large cast. Not that it's impossible – see THE WATCH chapter in Imperial Phase)

I like Ananke's complicity-inducing glance-to-read in the fourth panel of thirteen.

I do like the Butler.

And the reveal! These splashes were considered a bunch – my original idea was actually to have them in a frame, to REALLY AGGRESSIVELY make them works of art, and turn it into a gallery wall. In the end, the distance from reader seemed too much, and we went a way which took a lot of it in (as in, we're still looking at an image, the caption is designed to evoke a plaque in an exhibit, the caption of the prose also a framing in art) but just let Aud be Aud and blow people away.

So much here - First appearance of a non-sepia cover. I wish I did something with that apple too, for the full Lucifer-in-Paradise.

Page 15-18

Chapter 2!

The Metropolitan are definitely the great-lost-visual from the issue. Clearly, the robot from Metropolis as a servant.

Honestly, getting the cast to go at each other here is fun, in the dual conversation of what they're talking about (the murders) and what they're really talking about (Art). Also, they're mostly funny – some I like more than others, but when doing the prose, I rapidly found how much I enjoyed doing these affectionate mockeries.

Skimming through this, I'm considering who the lead actually is. In some ways, obviously, it doesn't have one – in my head, the Norns are the lead, and Verondi, specifically, but I suspect Susanoo is the moral and human backbone of it. People seem to like him too: everyone loves a sad clown.

19-20

See – this is where the “comic pages alone are still readable.” As in, we specifically show the core clues you need to know in the comics. There's other clues in the prose, and there's certainly red herrings in the comic (Ananke's sinister nature is played up).

I really like how Aud does the Butler here, which is good, considering it's the last we see of him – that fade in between the second and third panel.

Yes, page 20 is probably the most PAINFUL pun in the issue.

21-24

Chapter 3!

Man, the small change which nags at me most which I may change for the trade is Woden saying “We're not too different. Perhaps... two-thirds different.” Clearly, it should be one-third different.

The word “posset” is my tribute to The Box Of Delights, which is a traditional Xmas watching in my house.

25-26

And the last two pager – prose firmly dominating as the old world dominates the plot, to state the obvious.

Oddly tricky first panel to letter – I kept on trying to get a BIG BROTHER WATCHING YOU joke into it, but it always felt clunky. Or rather, clunkier than normal.

The red seaweed is a lovely touch for Neptune.

27-28

Pace-pace-pace. Neptune not being able to swim is, I suspect, my favourite character beat. Masculinity is one hell of a drug.

This whole sequence I imagined Ananke as a passive-aggressive Sherlock Holmes pretending to be Watson.

29-33

And Set giving serious pose at the end of 29. Well done, Set. You've risen to this occasion.

Quiet tension leading to violence. Honestly, I really like the My Chemical Romance vibe to the Norns – Verondi is very much the star here.

First appearance of the full on screen interstitial card – obviously saving the full explanation until later, nearer the climax, but the edging into comics formalism aping period cinema necessity.

I think the most chilling of the death scenes is this one.

34-35

Chapter 5

Always the shortest of the interstitial texts, this expanded with the end of Perhaps the biggest change from the synopsis was bringing forward the Amon-Ra/Amaterasu/Susanoo plot as the counter-plot to the issue. It was a case of me realising it served as a distraction, but also a useful human arc to them. I wanted to see it. If I wanted to see it, it implies that the reader would too.

Obviously Minerva is the player to watch at this point. I'm reminded of one of the minor influences on Minerva – namely, Alice of Wonderland fame. I say the core stuff earlier, but there's a bunch of that kind of thing.

Really nice how Sergio fills the half page at the end of this sequence – as I've said on twitter, it's interesting that many people have said “Most” of the comic is prose. That's not true – the majority of the book is comics. Prose just takes longer to read in the same given space. For readers, I get it, but it did grate slightly when reviewers did it. Basic fact-checking is the basic minimum.

36-39

We finally get Morrigan' dialogue in comics form – it was the first Morrigan wrote. Courier seemed the right choice.

I laughed when writing TO THE LIGHTHOUSE. No, this is not what Woolf was writing about.

40-42

Chapter 6.

The Modernists' last flourish – I was considering doing this section in the style of From the Lighthouse, with the floating perspective and virtuoso parenthesis use, but decided it wasn't worth the risk. Even if done in the parodic style, it's still a huge risk, and not necessarily one which will travel to more than a proportion of the audience. Plus, this is the Explain Everything To The Readers bit, so we really do want it to be clear.

I did consider going back to it at the last minute after I had done this take, but decided against it, in favour of a heavy smattering of Modernist injokes. Most obvious is that Orlando opens with Orlando playing around with someone's decapitated head.

43-49

And the climatic fight scene! Where things get sillier, but also more pointed. The ironic distance is opening up again with the cards.

“It's not all fine” a flirtation with WicDiv's core “It's going to be okay”

I kind of admire Susanoo's determination to pretend it isn't all this bad.

Aud suggested the multiple panels on 43 to show the disappearing of the light, which is a good call.

I also feel a little iffy about the quasi-Wells of Urdr – he's a mess of faults, and certainly was fond of many of these ideas, but he also was an avowed pacifist. I suspect he's the flip of Woolf – she got her hero spotlight in Uber, and now we get a twisted take. He appears like he does here, murdered after he gets in over his head while not realising what was actually happening, and is someone considerably more heroic in Spangly New Thing. But you'll have to wait for that, right?

Set's blowing of them apart is A+. And the dagger-twist of the core quote of Room of One's Own is... well, it's hyperbolic, but if you read Room, it's absolutely there. Room is an economic argument as much as anything else.

The final sequence being a Keaton-stunt married to pure-cinema-magic train creation (a nod towards the famous L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat which reputedly had people running out the cinema as they thought a train was going to hit them). Metaphorically, a lot of people were like Baal here. They got run over too.

There were some dialogue tweaks here to ensure clarity – Minerva's “Goodbye Set” to ensure it was clear it was Set who was alive.

50-52

Chapter 7!

If I went the FULL HOMAGE route, if Chapter 6 was going to be a To The Lighthouse homage, the first section of this would have been written as a screenplay while the second bit would be written like a propaganda news report. Ultimately, I don't think we needed to disrupt the reader any more than we already did.

Especially as clarity here is absolutely the key thing – we have a statement in Chapter 6 of what Set/Baal thought they were doing... and now we have a different reading presented by Ananke to the gods of light and then ANOTHER reading of what Woden thought he was going on with the Zeitgeist which is then immediately undercut by Ananke.

The key thing was making the mystery of it as plain as possible – we give you what we can, and then underline the fact “Perhaps someone will work it out” of it.

(Minor detail here, ala Alice – Woden gets Lovecraftian nod with the Colour Out Of Space)

Ananke's last lines came to me as wrapping it up, and one of those “Yes, this is exactly how to end this)

I suspect for all the monstering of the modernists, there's more of a fundamental ambivalence than you expect. If given a choice between Art Elitism and fascism or populist arts and advanced consumerism, I'd choose the latter... but doesn't mean the latter is ideal, especially when it's clear how all the gods of light have been played as much as the literary gods. As always with WicDiv, we're not really interested in easy answers.

53-54

And once more we return.

Back tomorrow, where Mothering Invention kicks off.

Thanks for reading.

#the wicked and the divine #WicDiv #aud koch #writer notes

175 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 3 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): With Congress fully back in session, Democrats are once again in the business of legislating. This fall, they’re trying to push through a number of ambitious policies, including both the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill and their ambitious $3.5 trillion (for now) spending plan, which they’ll most likely pass via budget reconciliation.

But that’s not all. Democrats have also said they’ll try to pass a bill on voting rights and, in light of the Senate parliamentarian’s decision to exclude a pathway for citizenship for immigrants from the upcoming reconciliation bill, will continue to push on this front, too. And, of course, looming over all this is the possibility of a government shutdown — there are just eight days before the government potentially runs out of money — as well as an impending fight around raising the nation’s debt limit (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he and Senate Republicans will refuse to raise it).

So we’re taking a step back today to assess just how likely each of these proposals are to pass Congress, what we think might end up in them if they pass and how Americans feel about them.

Let’s start with the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. What do we make of its chances of passing?

lee.drutman (Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America and FiveThirtyEight contributor): A $3.5 trillion bill probably has 0 percent chance of passing. A $2.5 trillion bill, on the other hand, has a much better chance of passing.

This is all part of a negotiation process, some of which is taking place in public, but most of which is taking place in private. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have said they can’t vote for a bill this big. But there’s still plenty of room to trim, and Manchin and Sinema and other moderates can say they got a victory if they reduce it. The fact is $3.5 trillion has an anchoring effect that makes $2.5 or $2 trillion seem reasonable.

This is a classic bargaining strategy.

alex (Alex Samuels, politics reporter): I agree with Lee. I feel like it will pass, but I’m almost certain it won’t cost $3.5 trillion. I say that because, once again, it seems like progressive and moderate Democrats are at an impasse about the price tag associated with the bill and members are essentially talking past each other.

The reason why I think it still passes, though, is because it’d be a pretty humiliating defeat for President Biden if it didn’t. I know there are a lot of threats being thrown around from both progressive and moderate Democrats, but I want to think that the glue holding everyone together is that no one wants to harbor blame for tanking Biden’s agenda — and there’s a lot on the line here. So it’s likely not everyone is going to be happy, but maybe out of a shared sense of not wanting everything to fail, Democrats will find a way to figure this out?

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst): Agreed. Manchin — who, of course, is one of the crucial moderate swing votes that Democrats need to convince in order to pass their agenda — has said that $3.5 trillion is too much and has called for a “pause” on the legislation (presumably so it can be pared down to a number he feels better about).

The flip side of this, though, is that some progressives — such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal — have said they won’t vote for anything smaller than $3.5 trillion. Their preference is closer to $6 trillion, so they already see the $3.5 trillion number as a compromise.

So the question is, who blinks first? And if no one blinks, there goes Biden’s signature domestic legislation. For that reason, I agree with Alex that the Democrats will figure out a way to make it work.

alex: Yeah, considering how underwater Biden’s approval rating is now, I think there’s a need for the Democrats to succeed in passing this, showing they can be effective leaders.

sarah: Right, because to Alex’s original point — no Democrat wants to be responsible for sinking this, moderate or progressive. So it seems as if we have consensus here — you all think some version of this bill will pass eventually, just not necessarily at its current price tag.

Do we have a sense yet for what will actually make it into this bill? And whether some proposals are more popular than others?

lee.drutman: I think the things that get cut are the things that the moderates will want to fight for. For instance, if Sinema opposes pricing reforms to prescription drugs and wants to make that a key issue, it’s likely that it will be struck from the reconciliation bill.

alex: I’m using a July AP-NORC survey to answer to your second question, Sarah, but it seems like while things like funding for roads, bridges and ports are pretty popular, some additional things that might be tackled in Democrats’ solo bill weren’t quite as popular — especially among Republicans.

While about two-thirds of Americans surveyed (67 percent) said they support funding for affordable housing, just 41 percent of Republicans do, compared to 85 percent of Democrats. There is also a pretty large gap in support for free community college tuition, with 27 percent of Republicans in favor versus 76 percent of Democrats. And of the 12 topics AP-NORC asked about, both Republicans and Democrats were least in favor of things like funding for electric vehicle charging stations (23 percent and 64 percent, respectively) and funding for passenger and freight rail services (37 percent and 68 percent).

nrakich: I’m not sure that what is popular with the public is going to determine what stays and what goes, though. To Lee’s point, it’s all about what’s palatable to these moderate senators. And sometimes, they are reluctant to pass things — like a higher minimum wage — that are nevertheless broadly popular with the public.

It’s interesting to think about why that is: Are they misreading the electorate? Are they trying to satisfy their donors? Do they just genuinely oppose liberal fiscal policy?

sarah: But as Democrats jockey back and forth on this party-line reconciliation bill, does that put their bipartisan infrastructure bill in jeopardy at all?

Asking because the bipartisan bill actually passed the Senate in August, but Democrats in the House won’t vote on it until this other bill is ready, although as we saw with moderates in the House, appetite for this strategy might be waning among some Democrats.

nrakich: Yes, that bill is in danger too — and we’ll have an answer pretty soon. House Democratic leaders have said they will put the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill to a vote on Sept. 27 — contrary to the wishes of progressives who didn’t want to vote on it until after the $3.5 trillion bill was resolved. The question now is whether progressives follow through with their threats to vote against the infrastructure bill if they don’t get their way.

alex: I agree that the infrastructure bill is probably in danger now, too, because as Nathaniel said earlier, a lot of this comes down to who blinks first. And it seems like the biggest bargaining chip progressive Democrats have right now is threatening to tank the infrastructure bill.

nrakich: If you look at how often House Democrats have voted in line with Biden’s position so far this year, all but one Democrat has done so at least 89 percent of the time.

That’s why I think if push comes to shove, even progressive Democrats will hold their nose and vote for the infrastructure bill. House leadership probably wouldn’t be holding this vote next week if they didn’t believe it would pass.

Maybe a few progressives will vote against it out of protest, but I bet it will be just few enough that the bill still passes (perhaps with the support of a few moderate Republicans too?).

lee.drutman: I agree with Nathaniel. Progressives have actually moved the needle quite a bit, and my guess is they understand that. A lot of this is about positioning for the future.

Progressives will vote against it only if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t need their votes. It’s also possible multiple votes fail before a deal is reached.

sarah: It’s also possible the government runs out of money … throwing any talk of passing either this infrastructure bill or the other one on the backburner, no?

As I said at the outset, there are just eight days before the government potentially runs out of money — and Republicans don’t seem likely to pass Democrats’ short-term government funding bill.

What are the risks Democrats face with the possibility of the government running out of money and Republicans also refusing to raise the nation’s debt limit? Does this potentially undermine Democrats’ larger legislative goals?

lee.drutman: I think a government shutdown is quite likely. I would guess both sides see it in their interest because it sharpens the differences.

nrakich: Really, Lee? That’s interesting. I feel like a government shutdown with Democrats in full control of the federal government would be quite embarrassing for them.

sarah: Yeah … it certainly didn’t go well for former President Donald Trump and Republicans in 2019 when they played the government shutdown game.

nrakich: Exactly, Sarah. And during that shutdown — and the one in 2013 — Democrats presented themselves as the responsible, anti-shutdown party. It would be quite the 180 for them to now allow one.

lee.drutman: But there’s the short-term and the long-term aspect. The 2022 midterms are still a ways off, and the Republican strategy is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, and make Biden seem like a failure, while the Democratic leadership’s strategy is to get the moderates to see that Republicans are unwilling to compromise — maybe even convincing moderates to agree to get rid of the filibuster.

I think McConnell is trying to triangulate here — that is, show just enough willingness to compromise so as not to provoke Manchin and Sinema into abolishing the filibuster — but not so much as to actually help Democrats.

nrakich: Wow. That seems like a very high-risk, high-reward strategy. Do you think the demise of the filibuster is really that important to institutionalist Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Pelosi? And for that matter, what about Biden, who still (publicly, at least) opposes ending the filibuster?

alex: I’m super, super skeptical, since there’s never been widespread support among Democratic lawmakers, let alone the public, to end the filibuster. Late last month, we found that public attitudes on filibuster reform barely budged even when voting rights were on the line, so I’m not super confident there’s an appetite for reforming it for any of Democrats’ other priorities.

lee.drutman: It’s all part of the long game, though. If Biden is going to abolish the filibuster — or at least reform it — it has to be at the end of a process where he can say he’s changed his mind because of Republican obstructionism. Same for Manchin.

sarah: The one thing I find interesting around the impending fight over government funding is that this crisis over the government spending too much money isn’t new. In fact, Republicans racked up a significant amount of spending debt under the Trump administration — America’s debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s presidency. But as FiveThirtyEight contributor Dan Cox wrote earlier this year, it’s possible voters won’t factor that into the current fight over the debt ceiling and will instead blame Biden/Democrats for big spending proposals.

That’s why it seems as if the fight over the debt limit comes at an especially difficult time for Democrats. Do we know how Americans feel about government spending now?

nrakich: Americans are happy to spend lots of money on things they want. Quinnipiac found that 62 percent of Americans favored the $3.5 trillion spending bill on social programs such as child care, education and Medicare expansion. That poll notably mentioned the price tag, which not every poll asking about the budget bill does.

alex: And it doesn’t seem like the price tag of the bill is turning off voters the same way it is for moderate Democrats. An August HuffPost/Data for Progress survey, which tested three hypothetical spending amounts, found that support — regardless of the price tag — was almost the same. Over 60 percent of respondents in each group said they supported the proposal by about a 2-to-1 margin regardless of whether pollsters said the bill would cost $1.5 trillion, $2.5 trillion or $3.5 trillion.

lee.drutman: For Democrats, I think the far more consequential bill for the midterms and for the 2024 presidential election is their latest attempt to pass sweeping voting rights legislation, the Freedom to Vote Act.

I’m just not convinced government spending is going to move many voters in the midterms. Republicans are going to accuse Democrats of spending too much money no matter what.

We’re at a very strange point in our politics in which the connection between policy and election outcomes is very tiny. The fundamentals have always been more important than policy, but now that’s true more than ever before, given just how few voters are changing their minds. For instance, despite all that happened between 2016 and 2020, the 2020 presidential election saw the smallest share of voters who changed which major party they voted for, going back to at least the 1948 and 1952 presidential elections.

sarah: Lee brought up one of Democrats’ other big priorities this fall: passing a voting rights bill. Alex, Nathaniel, you’ve both covered this issue a lot for FiveThirtyEight — what do you think the odds are that Democrats are going to be able to get something through Congress?

nrakich: I don’t think a voting-rights bill will pass. Even the Freedom to Vote Act — which is essentially a compromise version of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, with controversial provisions like public financing for campaigns removed or reduced — was met with a cool reception from Senate Republicans. Even moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins still felt like the bill was too much of a federal takeover of state election administration.

So to me, it just keeps coming back to the question of ending or circumventing the filibuster. While it’s not impossible that Democrats could, say, create a voting-rights exemption from the filibuster in order to pass this bill, I don’t think it’s likely. Manchin and Sinema’s opposition seems firm.

alex: Slim to none, if I’m being honest … The Guardian reported earlier this week that the Freedom to Vote Act likely won’t move this week as Manchin is looking to shore up Republican support. But getting Republicans on board with any voting rights legislation is highly unlikely, as we’ve said before.

lee.drutman: I’m more bullish on the Freedom to Vote Act — I give it a 50-50 shot.

sarah: Why, Lee?

lee.drutman: Democrats see this as a priority. Although, of course, part of this is a performance again. That is, Manchin has to make a very public showing of trying to get Republicans on board and he has to fail.

But the dangers of a contested 2024 election are becoming more real to Democrats as Republicans continue to push baseless claims of election fraud and pass restrictive voting laws in the process.

The bottom line is Biden is going to come under tremendous pressure to intervene. Democratic activists are just extremely fired up about passing a voting rights bill.

alex: I’ll admit that at one point I thought Manchin would support ending the filibuster to pass a voting bill, but now I feel less confident about that, namely because he said in April that he won’t vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster.

I can’t tell which is more plausible: Democrats ending the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation or 10 Republican senators signing onto the newest bill.

nrakich: Ooh, good question, Alex.

lee.drutman: Alex — I would say the first. The second has a 0 percent chance of happening.

alex: I would say neither.

nrakich: I agree with Lee that this particular bill definitely won’t get 10 Republican votes. But I’d be curious what would happen if Democrats tried to pass, say, a stand-alone gerrymandering ban.

alex: Plus, Republicans and Democrats have different approaches to voting rights legislation, and polls do a fairly good job of capturing that. According to this Morning Consult/Politico survey from June, Democrats (70 percent) are way more likely than Republicans (32 percent) to think restricting voting access is a major threat to American democracy.

nrakich: Right, Alex — Republicans just fundamentally see voting differently from how Democrats see it. According to a Pew Research Center poll from July, 78 percent of Democrats feel that voting is a “fundamental right for every U.S. citizen and should not be restricted.” But 67 percent of Republicans believe that voting is a “privilege that comes with responsibilities and can be limited.”

sarah: OK, so it doesn’t seem as if there is consensus among you all on whether Democrats will be able to get a voting rights bill through Congress. What about immigration reform and passing a pathway to citizenship, now that the Senate budget parliamentarian has said that can’t be included in the upcoming reconciliation bill? Is that even less likely to pass Congress than the voting rights bill?

lee.drutman: I would say immigration reform is dead for now. It’s not a great issue for Democrats, especially going into the midterms, and it’s certainly not the issue that 50 Democrats are going to abolish the filibuster for.

alex: I think it’ll happen eventually, Sarah, but I’m also not sure anything will happen imminently here either because it doesn’t seem like Democrats had a concrete Plan B after the Senate parliamentarian ruled against their efforts to include immigration reform in the spending bill?

I’ve read reports that Schumer and other Democrats want to hold additional meetings with the parliamentarian to find alternative ways to include citizenship opportunities. But since there’s probably not enough Republican support to pass an immigration bill without using the reconciliation process, I think the odds are stacked against Democrats on this one, too.

nrakich: I think it has a better chance than voting rights legislation, though, if only because there’s still a chance it could pass via reconciliation.

It’s also worth noting that creating a path to citizenship for many immigrants is quite popular with the public. In an NPR/Ipsos poll from May, 66 percent said they supported it for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, and 70 percent supported it for immigrants with temporary protected status.

sarah: OK, we’ve covered a lot of ground regarding what’s at stake this fall. What are you going to be paying special attention to moving forward as Democrats try to pass big parts of their agenda?

alex: I’ll be keeping a close eye on whether there’s any movement on axing the filibuster, though I’m highly skeptical this will happen. And I’m curious to examine the bubbling tensions between progressive and moderate Democrats more. I know that’s not a specific *policy thing* to watch, but it’s still fascinating, considering a lot of media attention has been on fissures within the GOP.

nrakich: I’ll be watching the infrastructure vote in the House on Sept. 27. How many progressives will vote for it? And if most of them do, does that undercut their current claims that they won’t accept a number lower than $3.5 trillion for the reconciliation bill?

lee.drutman: I suspect we’re going to see a lot of failed votes for Democrats over the next several weeks and a lot of public bargaining and a lot of “Democrats in disarray” stories. But I’ll be watching to see what compromises senators are spelling out between the lines, and what they are not taking off the table.

I never ever bet against Nancy Pelosi.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

0 notes

growingupautie · 7 years ago

Text

Anti NT or misanthropy (part 2)

Q and A Continuation from last time. With my answer to a followup question based on my response and your comments. (It is a long one, but certainly worth the read.)

Q: Thank you for your response and your patience. I am grateful for your time. I didn’t know about face-blindness and that helped me understand the overarching imagery of your blog with much more clarity. I had initially saw what I understood to be an overly schematic division between the “neurotypical world” and the “neurodiverse autistic world”. An understanding of face-blindness, and in particular a very poignant thing you said to me: “I have a theory that my face blindness is tied to the pain it takes to look people in the eyes, and when people are kind or loving it makes it easier to do so” really helpful to me in understanding the overall meaning of what you’re doing and made me appreciate the whole page much more.

I’d also like to make it very clear that it is not a form of “victim-blaming” that I am advocating. In fact, if it wasn’t clear from my response, I was also diagnosed on the autistic spectrum and am trying to understand what a productive way of talking about autism is. My point is not to justify people who see in vulnerability an opportunity for exploitation or in diversity an excuse for violence. My question was to what extent the distinction between neurotypical and non-neurotypical/autistic is a meaningful one. But I understand my question may not have been articulated clearly enough. Nathan’s answer and the comments helped me to refine the question further. My question, stripped down a bit is whether identity politics is a productive/accurate way of talking about autism. Can the diagnosis exhaust its usefulness eventually and be discarded?

One comment struck me as a particularly thought provoking:

‘I think I got confused because they said things like "my struggle with autism" rather than saying "in my experiences as an autistic person" and "it doesn't penetrate very deep into my identity". It was confusing for me because it was worded like a not autistic person speaking or maybe it is common for people to not feel their autistic identity is deeply engrained in them? I am fully autistic all the time, my autism and me are one and the same, completely inseparable, and have been since before I ever had the words to describe it.’

From a lot of the comments, it seems pretty evident that a lot of people perceive autism as an entrenched part of their identity.

As a child I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome following a long series of behavioural “incidents” in the classroom and subjected to psychological and pedagogical attention throughout my childhood in America. I didn’t like most of it and found it unhelpful and sometimes demeaning. Once I moved out of the states to Europe, I decided I would not think of myself as tied to the terms “neurodiversity” and “autism”, terms at best problematic, vague and difficult to define. I perceived “autism” as a limit to my liberty of thought, and as such, I rebelled against it. At the age of 18, I burned every single document relating to autism in a bonfire in my garden. Out of all the cinders; I found of fragment of page survived, burnt into the shape of a heart. It felt deeply meaningful. Discussing with my parents, though, they told me that I was right to do what I did, but there was one document I shouldn’t have burnt. That document was my diagnosis. They claimed the doctor who wrote it was an empathetic man and that his diagnosis had made raising me a lot easier.

So, I flew back to America after 12 years and went to visit him. He asked me if I was aware that Asperger’s had been since removed from the DSM IV and was no longer considered a valid diagnosis. I was. At the end of our conversation he told me ‘I’m not sure I would diagnose you with autism anymore’.

What if tomorrow autism as a whole ceased to be considered clinically valid? The concept of Autism was introduced in a clinical context. Since its first theorization the incidence rate has risen from 1:20.000 to 1:68. It’s becoming more and more an open spectrum. A mentor I respect told me that “we are all on it”. I was taken aback, but not entirely unconvinced. What if the label of autism begins to become an obstacle to thinking about oneself? At its essence, it remains a clinical term, designed to help people access the help they need to survive and thrive. To the extent in which it is a tag used to access resources and support, it has a clear function. When something becomes an entrenched part of people’s identity, on the other hand, it becomes very difficult to think clearly about it. Basically, I want to draw attention to the clinical context to which the label of “autism” refers and question whether thinking about the challenges and strengths it broadly identifies in terms of identity is the best way of understanding them.

Your story of face-blindness and not knowing who to trust and the invitation to step in your space made sense to me in a way that it hadn’t before, and I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. You told me not to take your comics out of context as I had sent you photos from your comics to justify my claims in my previous question. That was a fair piece of criticism. Having read more widely, you state your basic claim as a claim to want to educate people about the challenges faced by people on the spectrum. That’s great. You defend autistic people against the ignorance of those who would define autism as some sort of disease. That’s great too.

On one hand, I’ve come to see a powerful story about an individual struggling to survive as themselves, without bending to dangerous messages in an alien and often hostile world. On the other, some posts (and fan engagement) run the risk of reinforcing an “autism clique” mentality. My fear in relation to your blog was that it simplified relationships between the “autistic” and “neurotypical” world to a binary that reduces nuance and introduces partisan rhetoric where it is not productive. I have seen thanks to your kind response that your page is much, much more than that. But I have also seen that for some people autism is very much an identity (maybe even self-diagnosed, which raises a bunch of other issues) that they define against neurotypicality. My question is: Can a diagnosis exhaust its usefulness? Can it be discarded?

A: All very well thought out concepts. There is definitely a "clique" mentality in the Autism world, and (not but) the same can be said about the Neurotypical one. There is a book called "neurotribes" I believe that covers exactly that. But that in itself somewhat negates the "we are all Autistic" mentality as well. I too had a mentor I truly respected that believe something similar, but mentors are human too, and not everyone (no matter how intelligent) knows everything or at least knows enough about everything to come to the correct logical conclusion.

Saying "we are all on the spectrum" as a Neurotypical is quite similar to saying "we are all people of color" as a "white" person. In both cases, yes, we are all part of the human race, but trying to lump in the majority group with the minority group ends up robbing them of the struggles that they face exclusively. Often times those struggles come from the very group of people claiming to be "one with them."

There are social, and mental constructs in the Neurotypical world that specifically and non specifically exclude us from participating, or succeeding in society. If we were indeed all on the spectrum, there would not be a discrepancy in things like employment, lacking friendships, and relationships, and depression, and suicide rates. We are much more likely to have issues with those things as our Neurotypical counterparts, and those are things that set us apart.

I sensed from your original question your disdain for the separation, and a bit of your backstory with wanting to negate your diagnosis. Mostly because when I was re-diagnosed, I went through that phase. I didn't know what it meant, and all of the people around me seemed to act like it meant I was broken. And it didn't help that those very same people had treated me like I was fragile, broken, and "insane" my entire life. I literally went around thinking I was "mentally challenged" (not that there is anything wrong with that) because of the way people were treating me.

Almost to feeling like there was an elaborate setup similar to the Truman Show to give me almost a "normal life." Because, even my friends in school would go through moments and periods of acting like I was to be written off, and even hated me at times. Because of these things, when I went and got rediagnosed to get help with employment (which they failed to do) It hurt me at first. It made me believe something was wrong with me and made me feel I deserved all of the horrible things that had happened to me.

That is the essence of where "self-hating" Autistics come from. We get our diagnoses or maybe even have always had it, and we blame ourselves for being Autistic and all we are told that means. Because that's what the narrative is. The US vs THEM mentality is already in existence put in place by Neurotypical society. Groups like Autism Speaks raised money by dragging our Neurotype through the mud and accusing us of being burdens, perverts, and criminals.

And they have been the ones controlling the Autism debate from the Neurotypical side which leads to more Neurotypicals against us, and more Autistic people blaming themselves. Acceptance of us cannot come through self-degradation and self-subjugation. We are not lesser, we are different. We are equal, and in some ways superior. Just like they have superiority in some things as well.

We have always been here. The rise in cases of Autistic people is not only because there are more of us, but because we are finally at a place where we know what we are looking at and for. And diagnoses should lead to self-understanding, acceptance, and understanding from the people around you. Not self-loathing, mourning, and disdain from the people around you.

To your main question, Can a diagnosis exhaust its usefulness? Can it be discarded?

The issue it seems you are having is our segregation from the Neurotypical world. That segregation is sometimes forced on us, and sometimes self-imposed in a feeling I can easily explain as "you can't fire me I quit." or to paraphrase a spin on Groucho Marx "I refuse to be a part of any group that refuses to have me as a member." We push ourselves away from the group because we grew up with them pushing us away.

I have always strived for acceptance. To not get eyerolls every time I added my two cents to a conversation. I mimicked Neurotypicals for years after painstakingly building a costume made of their odd behaviors and norms, and when it fell flat I blamed myself and at times went into a deep depression because of it. But my self-esteem did not heal until I was given my diagnoses as an adult.

Not because it was a crutch I could lean on, but because it gave me the insight I needed to understand my past, my current situation, and what I could do about it. Being diagnosed can most certainly feel like the end of the world or a curse, but once you realize that it gives you this missing key to unlocking your own understanding it becomes so much more.

That's why you see Autistic people making it so much a part of their own identity the way you see other minority groups doing the same. That is who we are, and that is who we are proud to be. I am a part of many different groups that intersect with Neurotypicals. I am a man, I am tall, I am a martial artist, I am a musician, I am a multimedia artist, but I say I am Autistic in the same way one proudly proclaims their race, culture, or religion, because deep down, that is who I am, and who I am proud to be.

So, will that time the diagnoses become useful ever happen? Given that it is necessary for our self-understanding and the understanding of those around us, I would say not. Can it be discarded? Given that I spent my entire life struggling to find acceptance and success after me and my family all but ignored my childhood diagnosis and didn't manage to find it until my rediagnosis and self-acceptance, I would also have to answer no.

You can deny your diagnosis, and you can hide from it. You can build the most functional replica of what you think a Neurotypical thinks, sounds, and acts like like I did, and have it come crashing down like someone snipping a highwire from under you. But until you understand who you are, and accept it, you will be stuck in a much longer version of the movie Ground Hog Day where you fail to make it through the gate every single time.

The main goal is acceptance. A diagnoses, and pride in that diagnoses are not the culprits in what is holding us back from that. Prejudice, and certain social construct from the Neurotypical side, and as you stated anti-Neurotypical rhetoric (specifically mirroring the most extreme sides of the anti-Autistic community.) are the true culprits.

The arms have to be put down on both sides of the battlefield, but give that we are severely and drastically outnumbered, our people will have a significantly more trouble putting ours down until their side does.

That is what I am working towards. I am working both sides. I am trying to give self-acceptance to the Autism community, and trying to give critiques against because viciously anti-Neurotypical, while also attempting to get the Neurotypical side to understand us well enough to fix their issues with us, accept us, and create a world where we are not on the defensive.

There may be a day where a diagnosis does not mean the difference between understanding your oppression or not because one day (far in the future) there might not be any oppression. But that diagnosis will still give you valuable insight on how you should learn, how you should navigate life, how your brain works, and how you should use that to your advantage.

I hope that that helps you understand better.

-Nathan

#neurotypical persona #neurotypical #autistic #autism #aspergers #aspie #aspieproblems #aspie pride #autism pride #support autism #autism support #awareness #autism acceptance #aspergers acceptance #autism advocate #aspergers advocate

16 notes · View notes

dailynewswebsite · 4 years ago

Text

Bitcoin: the UK and US are clamping down on crypto trading – here’s why it’s not yet a big deal

The place there's a bit there's a writ. Novikov Aleksey

The sale and promotion of derivatives of bitcoin and different cryptocurrencies to novice traders is being banned within the UK by the monetary regulator, the Monetary Conduct Authority (FCA). It’s a additional blow to the burgeoning cryptocurrency market, coming days after the US authorities indicted the homeowners of main crypto derivatives change BitMex for working and not using a licence and allegedly failing to observe anti-money-laundering guidelines.

In view of latest findings from the College of Cambridge that almost all companies concerned in crypto investments are nonetheless working and not using a licence, different operators are doubtlessly weak to indictments too.

All of it appears like dangerous information for anybody hoping that extra traders will put cash into cryptocurrencies. However on a better inspection, I’m not so positive.

Drops and oceans?

The FCA is stopping retail traders from shopping for and promoting the likes of cryptocurrency futures and choices, which individuals usually use as a manner of hedging their bets on an underlying asset. For instance, you may purchase an choice to promote a sure variety of bitcoin at at present’s worth if the value falls by 10%, supplying you with an insurance coverage coverage in case the market strikes in opposition to you.

The FCA mentioned it was introducing the ban from January 6 as a result of novice traders have been susceptible to “sudden and sudden losses”. The reasoning is that these individuals usually don’t perceive the market, there may be a lot of “market abuse and monetary crime” within the sector, cryptocurrencies are very unstable and they’re laborious to worth.

The UK regulator is making an attempt to guard traders. Mehaniq

To emphasize, the ban isn’t being prolonged to skilled merchants or institutional companies like hedge funds, which have sometimes been allowed entry to riskier monetary merchandise than the overall inhabitants. It’s about defending individuals who might need been drawn to bitcoin pondering “it could be the forex of the longer term”, having “heard sensational information protection concerning the rise and fall”. There are any variety of splashy buying and selling websites providing them fast and straightforward entry into this world, and YouTube influencers who enthusiastically encourage them to attempt advanced buying and selling.

Some 1.9 million individuals – round 4% of the grownup inhabitants – personal cryptocurrencies within the UK. Three-quarters have holdings value lower than £1,000 and would definitely qualify as retail traders. We don’t know what quantity of UK traders use crypto derivatives, however we do know that the worldwide commerce in these monetary merchandise was practically a fifth of the whole crypto market in 2019 (and has been rising quickly in 2020).

But retail traders are most likely not the primary customers of derivatives. Buying and selling website eToro mentioned earlier this 12 months that perhaps solely a tenth of their retail investor spend was on this section. And with a lot of the UK contingent utilizing non-UK based mostly exchanges, it’s simple sufficient to keep away from FCA jurisdiction. The FCA says the ban might scale back annual losses and costs to traders by between £19 million and £101 million.

The ban additionally doesn’t make a lot distinction at a worldwide stage. The UK crypto market is small beer in comparison with international cryptocurrency holdings, that are value US$335 billion (£258 billion). You wouldn’t subsequently have anticipated the FCA ban to have a cloth detrimental impression on the value of bitcoin or main different cash like ethereum, and positive sufficient, it didn’t. In reality, it was broadly anticipated by trade observers and had arguably already been priced in.

Volatility and extreme danger

The truth that the value of bitcoin may be very unstable has traditionally been the scourge of this sector, with many specialists repeatedly saying that this prevents it from serving as a retailer of worth and changing into a practical forex. You possibly can argue that banning some derivatives buying and selling has the potential to scale back this volatility.

When individuals purchase derivatives, they are often extremely levered, which means that they’re borrowing to extend the scale of their commerce to make larger potential beneficial properties (or losses). Many exchanges, sometimes in Asia, enable traders to borrow 15 instances the scale of the commerce, whereas some supply over 100 instances leverage.

When trades are leveraged, traders enter and exit the market extra shortly, since their loss or achieve is multiplied by the proportion they’ve borrowed. It’s this impact available on the market that will increase worth volatility. But bitcoin has these days been buying and selling at an all-time low for volatility, so the ban might not obtain a lot on this respect.

A day within the lifetime of bitcoin (till just lately). Studio77 FX Vector

None of that is to say that the ban is meaningless. Derivatives make markets extra environment friendly by permitting traders to hedge their bets, so even a partial ban in a single main nation needs to be seen as a step backwards for cryptocurrencies. There may be additionally a much bigger hazard for the trade that different main international monetary regulators such because the SEC within the US and BaFin in Germany might observe swimsuit.

This harm could possibly be enormously aggravated if the US or different authorities have been to indict different unlicensed exchanges like BitMex. That would trigger a liquidity disaster as traders withdrew their cash en masse. Once more, we should wait and see what occurs. BitMex has mentioned that round 30% of buyer funds have been withdrawn for the reason that US issued expenses, however insists it’s open for “enterprise as standard”.

However so far as the UK ban is anxious, I might argue on steadiness that curbing extreme risk-taking by novice merchants in a sector the place buying and selling vanilla cryptocurrencies is dangerous sufficient appears logical. I’ve met many “retail traders” in crypto whose depth of information is refreshing, far exceeding that of monetary establishments, however there will definitely be others who don’t perceive their dangers.

To finish on a optimistic observe, a part of the FCA’s reasoning for the ban was that there was “no dependable foundation” for valuing cryptocurrencies. It didn’t say there was no worth in cryptocurrencies. That may be a noticeable shift from what regulators might need mentioned prior to now, and is an indication that bitcoin is changing into extra broadly accepted.

Gavin Brown is a Non-Govt Director and Co-founder at Winterbar Associates Restricted, a start-up digital property fund which has but to launch. It might not profit instantly from this text however does have an curiosity in digital asset investments equivalent to Bitcoin which leverage blockchain expertise.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/bitcoin-the-uk-and-us-are-clamping-down-on-crypto-trading-heres-why-its-not-yet-a-big-deal/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News

0 notes

allaroundmelbourne · 5 years ago

Text

Vegan activists vow to rage against the farming machine

Updated May 30, 2019 21:02:36

Photo: Activists have promised to ramp-up their efforts to protest animal agriculture. (AAP: Ellen Smith) Animal activists who brought central Melbourne to a standstill recently have vowed to step up their campaign of civil disobedience and raids on abattoirs and farms. Key points: Activists say they will risk big fines and possible jail terms for privacy and trespass offencesThe Government has cracked down on animal activists, specifically Aussie FarmsThe chief executive of the National Farmers' Federation says the industry is open to discussion about animal welfare with "reasonable people" Volunteers promoting the anti-farming documentary Dominion say they will also risk big fines and possible jail terms for privacy and trespass offences. Police charged 38 activists in early April after protesters chained themselves to vehicles at Melbourne's busiest intersection, causing massive disruption to the city's morning peak-hour transport. There were more arrests at simultaneous raids by activists on meatworks in New South Wales, Queensland and regional Victoria. Activists declared the coordinated action a success, with 60,000 online views of the two-hour documentary in the two days following the protests. Dominion's director, Chris Delforce, said animal rights activism was a natural extension of the growth of veganism, as people became more aware of the treatment of animals raised for food, fibre, entertainment and research. "Horrible things are happening every day across this country legally and as long as that's happening, more people are going to want to find out, more people will want to get active and do everything they can to stop it," he said. Dominion is billed as an expos on the dark underbelly of modern animal agriculture in Australia. Much of the footage was taken with hidden cameras and by volunteers trespassing on farms, hatcheries and slaughterhouses. Delforce is also the founder and executive director of animal charity Aussie Farms, which has produced an interactive online map of Australian factory farms, abattoirs and other facilities. He said the map and repository of videos, photographs and campaign material were designed to force greater transparency on the industry.

Photo: The Aussie Farms map provides the details and addresses of farming facilities across the country. (Image: Aussie Farms) Critics claim it's being used as an attack site, exposing businesses to potential trespass, biosecurity hazards and reputational damage. The National Farmers Federation has led calls for tougher laws against animal activists. Chief executive officer Tony Mahar said the industry was particularly concerned about the Aussie Farms map. "We just thought it was instigating and initiating and encouraging violence and illegal activity, so we don't think it served the purpose of what was supposed to be a charitable organisation," he said. Government coming down hard on activists The Coalition went to the recent federal election promising a crackdown on animal activists and specifically targeted Aussie Farms. Attorney-General Christian Porter removed the charity's exemption from the Privacy Act so that it could face fines of up to $2.1 million for offences relating to its map, which the Government claimed had already led to some premises listed being targeted by activists. It warned individuals could also face fines of up to $420,000 for privacy offences. Mr Porter promised to introduce a new criminal offence designed to protect Australian farmers from vigilante action. This week, the Aussie Farms map was still online. Delforce was defiant and accused the government of censorship.

Photo: Chris Delforce is the director of Dominion and the founder and executive director of Aussie Farms. (Facebook: Aussie Farms) "I'm going to push it as far as I can," he said. "It's unprecedented, the level of access consumers now have to be able to see inside farms and slaughterhouses as a result of the map and footage and films like Dominion, and I think it's so important that resources like that continue. "We can't just pull back and allow them to operate in secrecy." Delforce said activists were not interested in invading farmers' homes and they would continue to trespass farm businesses to raise awareness on what he called the inherent cruelty of animal agriculture. "Unfortunately, the only way consumers can see inside these places for themselves is with the footage that activists capture through trespass," he said. "I think every activist who trespasses to take footage knows that they risk jail time, they risk fines, they risk being physically assaulted or killed even. "They know there are all these risks involved but they know what's happening to animals is so horrific that something needs to be done."

Photo: National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar has called for changes to legislation to deter activists. (Supplied: National Farmers' Federation) Mr Mahar welcomed changes to state and Commonwealth laws protecting farmers and said the industry was open to discussion about improved animal welfare outcomes. "We need to have changes to legislation so there is adequate deterrence out there," he said. "We need to be open and have conversations with reasonable people and we're always open to doing that. "The extremists and the radicals that we've seen invading farms and businesses, it's unlikely they'll ever have reasonable conversations. "They're philosophically opposed to animal agriculture more broadly, so we're not focussing on them as such, it's the broader community. "We want to make sure they understand agriculture is such a vibrant industry and we've got huge opportunities, so that's who we'll be talking to." Watch this story on ABC TV's Landline this Sunday at 12:30pm or on iview. Topics:animal-welfare,law-crime-and-justice,livestock,rural,livestock-welfare,miscellaneous-animal-production,melbourne-3000,australia,vic,canberra-2600,act First posted May 30, 2019 12:04:22 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-30/vegan-activists-vow-to-rage-against-the-farming-machine/11145650

0 notes

giancarlonicoli · 6 years ago

Link

After a wild 2018, Mark Orsley - Head of Macro Strategy for Prism (and formerly with RBC), is out with a review of his 2018 "Costanza Trades," while offering his comprehensive thoughts for next year.

***

It’s that time of year again. Stockings, dreidels, Festivus poles, and, of course, the inevitable truckload of bank “2019 Year Ahead” pieces cluttering your inboxes which are about as attractive as getting coal in your stockings. However, these pieces are useful in some regards, as they are very good at nailing the consensus themes and are excellent counter-indicators. Long time readers will know that The Macro Scan takes another twist at year end, to present next year’s top “Costanza Trades.”

For those of you not familiar with George Costanza, his character on the sitcom Seinfeld could do no right when it came to employment, dating, or life in general. In one episode, George realizes over lunch at the diner with Jerry that if every instinct he has is wrong, then doing the opposite must be right. George resolves to start doing the complete opposite of what he would do normally. He orders the opposite of his normal lunch, and he introduces himself to a beautiful woman that he normally would never have the nerve to talk to. "My name is George,” he says, “I'm unemployed, and I live with my parents." To his surprise, she is impressed with his honesty and agrees to date him!

I find employing the Costanza method to trading an interesting exercise. Ask yourself this: what are the trades that make complete sense and all your instincts say are right? Now consider the opposite. Basically what you end up constructing is an out of consensus portfolio.

Employing the Costanza method can identify interesting, non-consensus trade ideas that could kick in alpha. Last year’s top 7 Costanza trades netted 5 of 7 WINNERS (some with huge gains), and past years have all been successful: 2017 had 5 of 6 winners (and 1 tie), 2016 had 7 of 10 winners, and 2015 had 7 of 10 winners. Let’s quickly review last year’s trades…

2018 Costanza Trades:

Long UST 10yrs = trying to work now but a loser as yields were 35bps higher

Long Bunds = winner as yields were 18bps lower

Long EUR/USD = worked early in the year but turned loser, -5%

Short EEM = huge winner, EM crushed 19%

Long IG protection (IG spread wideners)/Short LQD = another huge winner, IG CDX 44bps wider (doubled)

Short Euro Stoxx and Nikkei = both big winners; each index was down 15%

Short Bitcoin vol = worked well all year but has risen recently, still 50-day is 22 vols lower

Bonus: Long active/short passive = going to put this as a tie. Passive won out most of the year, but is currently getting crushed/about to get absolutely rinsed. Also, in a classic bottom signal, active Hedge Funds/PM’s were shuttered around the street in Q4 at the absolute worse time. Active is now starting to have its day, and the passive tsunami is receding.

Last year’s list was one of the most difficult to develop. Going into 2018, the market was divided between those who thought risk assets had gone too far and were due for a correction, and those who believed the economy is booming so let the good times roll. To be fair, both turned out to be true at different points throughout the year.

This year is a piece of cake, as sentiment for risk assets have wildly shifted (for good reason) bearish. With that, I give you the 2019 Costanza trades in no particular order – or in other words, the trades that you absolutely feel pained to do right now:

2019 Costanza Trades:

Long FANGs

Receive credit protection in IG and HY (aka long LQD and HYG)

Long Eurodollar spreads (EDZ9/EDZ0)

Long Bunds

Short Gold

Long WTI crude

Long AUD/USD

Short EM

Long Bitcoin

Bonus: Long Trump

Let’s go through each and assess the probabilities of Costanza being profitable (probabilities are purely off the cuff estimates for arguments sake)…

1) Long FAANGs

Everyone loved them on the way up in 2018 and you had to own them to keep up with the market but now the FAANG’s, and tech broadly, are contaminated.

Although street research is once again roundly predicting higher equity indices in 2019 (as they always do - insert rolling eyes emoji), market consensus among those that take actual risk has shifted extremely bearish. Funds have grossed down or liquidated, RSIs are oversold, and DSIs are near 0.

However, the next shoe to drop is the retail investor exodus (it has partially started) that could lead to the mother of all passive unwinds. Imagine the horror on the face of the average investor as they open their Q4/year-end statement in a few weeks and sees the wealth destruction that has taken place in Q4. The natural investment psyche of the retail investor will be to sell and I think it’s hard for all of us to fathom just how widely owned FAANG’s are within index ETF’s. Therefore, I would have to imagine this trade will not work for Costanza right away, and there is severe risk that a deeper correction could continue into 2019.

What is the major headwind for Costanza with regards to his FAANG long and tech names more generally? Government regulation. Higher rates and wages have been a thorn in the side for margins but more than anything; it is the government’s involvement in Silicon Valley’s business model that has and will continue to be a major hindrance for tech multiple expansion. There is not much Congress agrees on these days, but Tech regulation, especially with regards to privacy laws, is the one thing. Ditto in Europe, where the governments are actually playing even rougher. Some recent data points:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who boycotted a Congressional hearing this summer, is now playing ball with Congress saying he supports regulation legislation.

The Federal Trade Commission still has an open investigation into whether Facebook’s conduct violated a previous settlement with the agency.

DC’s Attorney General is suing Facebook for “allegedly letting outside companies improperly access user data and for failing to properly disclose that fact.”

Europe’s new far-reaching privacy laws and anti-trust investigations on tech companies.

Uber being sued for anti-competitive practices.

President Trump has said his administration is seriously looking into monopolistic behavior of Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Those are just a few of many. The days of uninterrupted, carte blanche for Tech are a thing of the past, and thus a major regime change is happening. The only question is: is it all priced or not? The technicals indicate not.

FANG index formed classic head and shoulder top. The neckline is broken and the formation targets ~1500 which is still 30% lower form here…

Instinct: margin compression from higher yields/wages, global government scrutiny, and retail investor unwind will lead to a much deeper correction.

Costanza: funds have already purged these names, sentiment is at extreme lows, valuations more reasonable, and Tech is still the wave of the future.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 25%. The days of tech rising unadulterated are over. I think we can say that conservatively. In my opinion, the government’s involvement in their business puts a top in tech for quite some time, at least in regards to tech names that have thrived on the collection of consumer data and/or don’t pay enough tax/postage. If the chart above is proven right, that 30% hole will be tough to climb out of by year-end 2019. I would rather buy THAT dip than this current dip. Costanza is a braver man than I.

This also means broad US equity indices will struggle, albeit S&Ps not as much due to the “safe haven” names embedded within that index. However, since 2001 with similar extreme levels of being oversold, the market has been higher 100% of the time 1-year later, with an average return of 23%. So Costanza has hope given the magnitude of the selloff and poor sentiment; I just find it unlikely he will be happy in the first half of the year with his FAANG long.

2) Receive credit protection in IG and HY (aka long LQD andHYG)

A similar call to the above long equities, since correlations run high with credit. However, there are other issues with credit besides general risk sentiment, namely the massive amount of outstanding corporate debt, the large percentage of that debt that will need to be rolled, and the potential for credit downgrades should the economy enter a recession (which is what the front end rates market is pricing).

The amount of non-financial corporate debt-to-GDP has never been higher…

The US corporate refi tsunami is upon us…

This “maturity wall” which spikes next year and will likely need to be rolled comes at the inopportune time of the collapse in crude oil prices. The energy sector is a big user of the US credit market. Thus the risk for 2019 is the US credit market seizes up in the face of the refi wave into a recession. A toxic combination and we can add in the fact that the European credit market will have less support going forward with the ECB stepping back next year.

ITRAXX Xover Total Return Index is rolling over…

Instinct: the US economy is saturated with corporate debt and it is time to pay the piper with the coming refi wave. Everything gets exasperated if the US economy slips into a recession which will lead to higher default rates.

Costanza: the worst is priced in, GE credit widening is a one off non-systemic issue, and the economy will regain traction especially if Trade Wars are settled in 2019

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 35%. I will assign this a little higher probability of working than tech longs. I am definitely concerned about the “maturity wall” and the trajectory of the US economy in 2019. For IG to widen out from here, you have to really believe the economy is falling off a cliff in such a way that defaults will finally rise, which then leads to even higher spreads and more defaults. It is not unrealistic, thus why I believe it is more likely that credit tightening won’t work. The one major point the credit market has going for it is the technical chart, which says that most of the move is played out. As opposed to tech charts, IG has reached its spread widener target. Thus Costanza could argue during his “airing of grievances” that all the bad news is priced.

IG CDX reached the 94bps target on its inverse head and shoulder pattern…

3) Long Eurodollar spreads (EDZ9/EDZ0)

What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, I was pounding the table on the coming resurgence of inflation and how the market was underpricing Fed hiking risk. That successfully played out, but now post-stock market carnage, oil collapse, and peak economic data; Eurodollar spreads are pricing in a recession and rate cuts! Oh my. So this again continues the theme we have seen in the first two Costanza trades, revealing a market that is very worried about the trajectory of risk assets and the US economy as a whole. When you look at Fed Fund futures pricing for 2019 (using FFF9/FFF0 spread as my guide), you have 1bps of cuts priced into futures, versus an FOMC dot plot that is projecting 50bps of hikes (past ’19 you will discover even more rate cuts are priced in). So there is quite a gap that will need to be reconciled. Will the equity market collapse help to slow an already fizzling economy or is there a possibility the economy recovers (China deal?) and the Fed continues on its course to normalize policy?

Using Prism’s PAM charting tool, we can see the constant maturity equivalent of EDH9/EDH0 has only gone negative 2x in the past 15 years. In 2006, it continued to flatten hard, but in 2011 it was a false breakdown and recovered higher...

Costanza’s “feat of strength” is taking the other side of the conventional wisdom that the housing, auto, and coming PMI slowdown due to the oil collapse either won’t alter Powell’s mission or will prove to be a head fake like in 2011. The slowdown in the data this year was likely caused by a front loading of activity pre-tariffs/trade wars (i.e. buy everything Q2 and then sit tight the rest of the year), so there is a chance that the higher economic trend reemerges, especially if the trade talks with China go well early next year (something Trump warned about this weekend). Costanza could be laughing at the thought he was able to buy ED spreads negative.

Instinct: the US economy has peaked, the fiscal impulse dissipates early next year, QT increases, and regional surveys are already showing a coming slowdown. This will lead to a Fed pause now and possible cuts by end of 2019.

Costanza: Powell is still indicating rate hikes and the economy is projected to grow 2.2% with CPI remaining around the 2% target. The kicker will come if Trump, feeling pressured by lower equity markets, makes a trade deal with China. The market will be caught wrong footed as the Fed continues to tighten as activity picks up again.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%. Will give a slightly higher nod towards Costanza being right. Remember, he doesn’t need hikes to win, just no cuts which is a plausible scenario if Trump delivers a market friendly trade deal with China.

4) Long Bunds

There is no possible way Bund yields could go any lower in the face of the ECB ending its asset purchase program, right?? Costanza is saying “easy big fella” (side note: can you name that episode?). There are plenty of indicators that the Eurozone is careening towards major economic issues. I want to give a nod to Danielle DiMartino Booth, who is doing excellent, non-consensus economic research over at Quill Intelligence. She points out that the chemicals sector is “arguably the most hyper-cyclical leading indicator,” and using BASF stock as her guide, suggests the Eurozone economy is “poised to hit the skids.” In fact, she declares Germany to be the “most underpriced recession risk in 2019.”

Interestingly, if you graph BASF stock in Germany (black line) versus Bund yields lagged 100 days (orange line), it would suggest potential financial crisis in the Eurozone which will lead to Bund yields going negative again...

Instinct: ECB, while still reinvesting, ended its APP, Draghi will want to get one hike off before his reign ends towards the end of 2019, the ECB desperately needs to get out of negative rates, Draghi will likely be replaced by someone more hawkish or at least less dovish, and fiscal stimulus to counter the populist movement will all lead to higher rates.

Costanza: growth has already fallen off sharply, forward indicators suggest potential economic crisis, the ECB is already noting risks shifting to the downside, and there are major political hurdles next year with EU elections

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 60%. If there was ever a Costanza trade it is this one. I am not sure there are many Bund bulls out there at 24bps so this is ripe for Costanza to be right. The chart is saying he will nail this one.

German 10yr yields have formed a head and shoulder pattern that targets -40bps if the 15bps neckline gets taken out to the downside…

Quick side note…

Idea #3 (long Eurodollar steepeners) and #4 (long Bunds) are basically implying that the US/German yield spread will widen once again in 2019 (assuming the ED steepeners are akin to higher US rates which has been the correlation). I would surely say that even combined, that idea is a Costanza trade. Most expect a narrowing of the US/German 10yr spread going forward. Since I hit on the Bund side of the US/German 10yr spread, what could drive US rates unexpectedly higher in 2019 and thus help to widen the US/GE spread?

Increasing deficits leading to increasing supply

That increasing supply has already led to sloppy UST auctions

At a time the rate of change on foreign demand of UST has moved lower

With wages still remaining firm

All equal the need for higher term premium in the US

Now back to the list….

5) Short Gold

This has been an interesting correlation shift. For most of the year, Gold has been a pure Dollar play (especially vs CNH), but more recently Gold has picked up risk aversion, namely HY credit according to the Quant Insight macro PCA model.

Gold correlation to DXY (blue) and USD/CNH (green) has gone from negative to zero…

Now Gold is most correlated to VIX and HY credit…

Therefore, Costanza shorting Gold is another bet that risk assets will stabilize and the Gold bulls will be told “NO SOUP FOR YOU!”

Instinct: risk assets continue to trade poorly and Gold offers portfolio protection for the apocalypse.

Costanza: gold is losing its luster as a safe haven asset and, if the markets turn 2008-style ugly, it will get liquidated as well.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 51%. No strong conviction here but Costanza is right more than wrong so a slight edge to risk assets stabilizing and Gold returning to its Dollar correlation.

6) Long WTI

One of the most epic selloffs I have seen with a high-to-low collapse of 45% in just two months. The market narrative is now back to “elevated US production,” and more importantly, the Saudis, post-Khashoggi murder, have increased supply to push prices down for President Trump.

Costanza would be quick to point out that spare capacity is low and the oil market suffers from chronic underinvestment. That underinvestment only gets amplified with oil prices sub-$50, and we are already seeing Permian producers cut back on capex plans. Additionally, the widening in credit markets only makes it harder to obtain capital for capex. So you have the double whammy of lower prices and wider credit spreads, which will feed into the underinvestment theme. The days of capital inflows are back to 2008 levels.

By most analyst forecasts, even just a flat line of current production will cause a deficit in the supply/demand imbalance in 2019. We don’t need to be oil experts to know that when oil prices fall as precipitously as they did; rig counts fall and production declines. Now sprinkle in capex intentions being cut, along with credit issues, and that is Costanza’s recipe for higher oil prices. And, oh yeah, let’s not forget about the coming IMO 2020 regulations (sulfur emission reduction in cargo ships which will require heavy crude to be drawn from supplies to comply).

Instinct: US is oversupplying the market with its light crude, and the Saudis are more than making up for Iran sanctions to appease President Trump in light of the Khashoggi killing.

Costanza: low spare capacity will eventually catch up to the Saudis, and lower prices, lower capex, and a credit crunch will cause US production to flat line at a time when it needs to be increased (plus, the light API grade the US produces is not sought after).

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 70%. I think much of the oil decline was technical fund liquidations (most likely large Risk Parity types that were long WTI as their inflation hedge), and all the forward looking supply issues not only remain, but are amplified with lower prices and wider credit. Costanza is usually right and I think this one is a layup. Oil prices will be higher than $45 come this time next year.

Use WTI time spreads as your signal when to get long. As we saw in the fall, time spreads (candles) led spot prices (green line) by about a week. Thus, if time spreads can break the downtrend, that will be your “tell” to get long WTI like Costanza…

7) Long Aussie$

A slowing Chinese economy and therefore slowing commodity demand, trade wars, and a decelerating domestic housing market have all led to a steady decline in the Oz in 2018.

Will keep this one short and sweet, as it is really the same idea as the other long risk asset trades. The AUD will really benefit from anything positive around the China/Trade War negotiations. Some sort of deal and the Aussie$ will scream higher. It’s that simple.

There is one micro issue Costanza should be concerned about and that is the Interest Only (IO) refi wave which will convert those IO mortgages into principle + interest loans. The reset wave started in 2018 and will increase in intensity in 2019. This will cause the average borrower to pay about $7,000 more per year in additional payments. That is a major hit to the housing market via delinquencies, and may be a crushing blow to consumers’ discretionary spending.

The one saving grace for Australia has been the RBA remaining on hold for (jokingly) 37,000 consecutive meetings. As the below chart shows, at this level of housing collapse, the RBA tends to cut.

Instinct: Australia has felt the effects of the China slowdown and trade wars, along with its own domestic issues. The currency will need to continue to depreciate to offset that pain.

Costanza: the equity market weakness will force Trump to play ball with the Chinese which will reverse the AUD higher. Additionally, the new economic weakness in the US and a Fed that could move to cut rates should weaken the USD.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%. Basically a better long than FANGs and credit, as being long AUD$ could also benefit if the Fed moves to an outright easing bias (which will depreciate the USD vs. the AUD). Apparently, long USD is now the most crowded trade in the market (according to a BAML survey). A housing crisis in Australia will be the major headwind for the Costanza long.

8) Short EM

This would be Costanza’s hedge against all the long risk asset bets above. So why is being short EM anti-consensus at a time risk assets are getting rinsed and everyone has turned bearish? Through conversations with street analysts and clients, there is, for whatever reason, an insatiable demand to buy the EM dip. After all, EM has been selling off since January so it should be the first to bounce, right? That thought is “making George angry” and why he is going to take the other side of that.

In a world where the China Manufacturing PMI just went into a contraction, European data is falling off a cliff, and US regional surveys are all pointing to a coming slowdown; is EM growth going to be booming and the place to allocate risk? I understand that it is a short dollar play, but 2019 could be marked by a major global growth slowdown and balance sheet recessions. That is not the ideal environment for EM.

The technicals say the selloff is not yet complete, as a bearish head and shoulder pattern has formed targeting an additional 6% lower…

Instinct: EM has already taken its pain, Trump/China deal likely in 2019.

Costanza: global growth slowdown will hurt EM the most, especially if USD funding issues reemerge. EM has never been a safe haven during growth scares and recessions.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 55%. All signs point to a poor global growth trajectory in 2019.

9) Long Bitcoin

That potential bottom has formed a bullish inverse head and shoulder pattern that sets up for a retest of the 1-year downtrend…

The selloff in bitcoin in 2018 was an once-in-a-lifetime move. From the highs just after New Year’s, Bitcoin spiraled 85% lower to take over as the largest historic bust since the Tulip crisis. The crypto naysayers had a field day this year.

Costanza would hypothesize that if you believe the US Dollar is losing its hegemony, the US government debt issue is ballooning to unsustainable levels, Europe is in the midst of a populist meltdown, and China is on the verge of a hard landing; why aren’t crypto currencies like Bitcoin as viable a store of value as a yellow rock?

Interestingly, Bitcoin has started to potentially bottom during the December equity meltdown, lending some credence to the theory that investors are becoming concerned with the global environment and searching for new stores of wealth.

That potential bottom has formed a bullish inverse head and shoulder pattern that sets up for a retest of the 1-year downtrend….

Instinct: crypto currencies have no use and are on their way to near worthlessness.

Costanza: Bitcoin is starting to rediscover its use as an alternative to traditional stores of value.

Estimated probability of Costanza being right: 50%. No clue and no edge here. However, it is hitting support levels, it has a bullish formation, and there is extreme bearish sentiment which all reek of a Costanza trade.

Bonus: Long Donald Trump

I cautiously put this in here hoping to avoid all political conversations and opinions, but I think this is an interesting nonmarket, yet market relevant idea.

I don’t think many expect much from POTUS next year, given the House swung to the Democrats and many folks (mostly on the liberal side, to be fair) believe there is looming tail risk that Mueller has enough evidence of some sort of wrongdoing that Trump’s presidency could be in jeopardy.

One could argue whether less Trump or no Trump is good or bad for risk assets. On the one hand, the more stable Pence could be welcomed by markets, and perhaps if Trump goes, trade war issues dissipate. On the other, the market rallied on his election victory in 2016, his policies are mostly reflationary, and China has become a legitimate nonpartisan issue. Therefore, even if Trump is ousted, trade wars likely continue unabated.

The surprise, non-consensus idea would be that Trump crosses the aisle to enact Infrastructure. Couple that with an earlier than expected China deal, and that is how Costanza will be paid out on a lot of his risk-on calls. Perhaps the market is underestimating Trump, and he ends up delivering a great deal vs. expectations of a lame duck presidency.

Summary:

As opposed to last year, this year’s Costanza trades (non-consensus calls) have a simple theme. Costanza is looking for a bounce in risk assets. What are the realistic paths to get there versus a market that expects more pain? At least one or more of these have to happen…

Cessation of tariffs/trade wars, which leads to a bounce in Chinese growth and a resumption of the positive growth momentum in the US

A Fed that ends the rate hike cycle and Balance Sheet reduction **coupled with growth remaining ok** (if growth softens further, equities could actually still sell off)

Rebound in the energy complex

US Infrastructure + EU fiscal stimulus + Chinese stimulus (all being discussed currently)

What are the glaring issues that will prove Costanza wrong for the first time in the history of this piece? To name a few…

US Fiscal Impulse dies out in early ’19 + global QT picks up in intensity

Government intervention in Silicon Valley

Passive unwind into a resumption of the explicit and implicit short vol unwind

The potential for a corporate credit blowup in the US and Europe

Housing busts in Australia, Canada, the US, and Asia

There is a lot of be worried about in 2019, and I believe we are only in the beginning stages of a risk asset purge. Costanza is much less worried.

I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year! I look forward to speaking with everyone again soon and telling you more about Prism’s exciting business model.

0 notes

skrisiloff · 8 years ago

Text

Here’s what CEOs said on this week’s earnings calls

Each week we read dozens of transcripts from earnings calls and presentations as part of our investment process. Below is a weekly post which contains some of the most important quotes about the economy and industry trends from those transcripts. Click here to receive these posts weekly via email.

Earnings season started this week with a heavy emphasis on banks. The quarter was relatively good for financial services companies, and economic optimism is high. For now though, the immediate state of the economy feels less important than understanding the role that the incoming administration will have in shaping it.

Two key players in the administration’s economic policy testified before Congress this week: Steve Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross. We picked out some key policy points from their testimony. Aside from tax reform, we think that Mnuchin’s second most important job could be housing reform. He is confident in that area and Fannie and Freddie need to be resolved in some way. He gave some high level thoughts on Fannie and Freddie before Congress. His most important comment in our opinion is that he wants to ensure that capital is still available to support the mortgage market in some way.

Janet Yellen also spoke this week and seems to want to continue to operate as if nothing has changed. She is communicating three rate increases this year, but also says that the Fed’s foot is still on the gas.

The Macro Outlook:

The optimism is palpable

“The optimism for positive change here at Bank of America and among our customers is palpable and has driven bank stock prices higher. We will have to see how these topics play out, but we are optimistic.” —Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan (Bank)

There’s a lot of optimism but not a lot of action

“there’s more optimism and positive commentary for a lot of our business customers. But we haven’t seen a significant change in utilization or actually take down of credit yet. So while the talk is there, the actual action is not yet shown itself.” —US Bank COO Andy Cecere (Bank)

“What I’m cautious about is nothing has actually happened yet, other than there has been a move in rates, right, and it changes sentiment. And I think we need to start seeing some of confirmations get through. We need to see real progress on tax reform. We need to see real progress on infrastructure, spending bills of state and local, and then all of a sudden, this thing takes flight, but right now, it’s just people talking about it.” —PNC CFO Rob Reilly (Bank)

Businesses may just be gearing up

“It’s really a big deal. Optimism is up. I have been talking a lot to clients and to our RPs, regional presidents in the last several weeks, including yesterday, and clearly, CEOs are optimistic. They are making plans to invest and we really think this is going to kick into a meaningful improvement in investment and job growth as we head into the second and third and fourth quarter…I met with some regional Presidents in person yesterday and got a real current update and the message was very, very consistent. They gave me a number of anecdotes in terms of individual companies that were already requesting loans to buy trucks to expand their plan to expand their inventory, etcetera. So it is, in fact, happening. It’s across the footprint.” —BB&T CEO Kelly King (Bank)

The administration wants growth

“The most important issue we have is economic growth…In 1984, we had 7% and in 1998 we had 5% and in 2005 we had 3%. That was the last time we had appropriate growth rates. I share the president-elect’s concern of low growth. Our number one priority from my standpoint is economic growth” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

Growth means that the Fed may pull back faster than anticipated

“The Fed’s decision to raise rates in December and the signal of additional hikes in 2017 suggest that the long period of accommodative monetary policy in the U.S. may finally subside at a faster rate that many have had anticipated.” —Blackrock CEO Larry Fink (Asset Management)

“if fiscal policy changes lead to a more rapid elimination of slack, policy adjustment would, all else being equal, likely be more rapid than otherwise, with the conditions the FOMC has set for a cessation of reinvestments of principal payments on existing securities holdings being met sooner than they otherwise would have been.” —Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard (Central Bank)

A lot of banks are only counting on two rate increases this year

“we have built into our plans two rate increases in 2017, one in June and one in December both 25 basis points.” —PNC CFO Rob Reilly (Bank)

“I know there is a lot of work out there that have a June, September, December, we’re just using June, December projections right now.” —US Bank CEO Richard Davis (Bank)

But Yellen is saying “a few”

“as of last month, I and most of my colleagues–the other members of the Fed Board in Washington and the presidents of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks–were expecting to increase our federal funds rate target a few times a year until, by the end of 2019, it is close to our estimate of its longer-run neutral rate of 3 percent.” —Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (Central Bank)

Growth probably also means more inflation

“I do think that if the economy holds out, which we are forecasting today that it will and business continues to travel which we are forecasting it will, that the opportunity to raise fares in that environment with a lower level of capacity offering from the industry is significant” —Delta EVP Glen Hauenstein (Airline)

“Inflationary pressures are expected to have an impact on annual merit, staff insurance, occupancy and marketing.” —Comerica CEO Ralph Babb (Bank)

“As for inflation, we expect 2017 inflation will be around 3%, which will equate to a cost that is significantly higher than the inflation was in 2016.” —Union Pacific CFO Rob Knight (Railroad)

But the Fed is still pressing on the gas pedal

“Right now our foot is still pressing on the gas pedal, though, as I noted, we have eased back a bit. Our foot remains on the pedal in part because we want to make sure the economic expansion remains strong enough to withstand an unexpected shock, given that we don’t have much room to cut interest rates.” —Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (Central Bank)

International:

The administration is NOT going to push for a border tax

“He’s not suggesting a border tax. What he’s suggested is that for certain companies that move jobs, ok, that there may be repercussions to that. He’s not suggested in any way an across-the-board 35% border tax…he’s in no way contemplated a broad 35% border tax that couldn’t be further from anything that he’d possibly consider” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

Trump’s comment about the strong dollar was not meant to be taken as a long term policy objective

“I think when the president-elect made a comment on the U.S. Currency, it was not meant to be a long-term comment. It was meant to be that perhaps in the short term, the strength in the currency as a result of free markets and people wanting to invest here may have had negative impacts on our ability in trade, but I agree with you, the long-term strength over long periods of time is important” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

Wilbur Ross wants fair, sensible trade

“I am not anti-trade, I am pro trade but I’m pro sensible trade, not pro trade that is to the disadvantage of the American worker and the American manufacturing community. I think we should provide access to our market to those countries who play fair, play by the rules and give everybody a fair chance to compete. Those who do not should not get away with it, they should be punished and severely.” —Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross (Government)

Ross talked tough on China

“China is the most protection protectionist country of very large countries. They have both very high tariff barriers and very high non-tariff trade barriers to commerce. So they talk much more about free trade than they actually practice. We would like to levelize that playing field and bring the realities a bit closer to the rhetoric.” —Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross (Government)

Financials:

Financial services reform is probably not high on the new administration’s agenda

“based on what I understand, the administration that’s going to take office in a few days. The number one issues are health care reform, taxes and infrastructure and somewhere in the top five might be financial services, but it’s not the top three, a lot of financial services issues I think will be dealt with in the early part of the year but with some implications later.” —US Bank CEO Richard Davis (Bank)

Regulators have compiled a huge body of work over the last eight years

“the body of work that’s been created by the regulators whether it’s Basel capital ratios, the implementation of CCAR, stress testing broadly globally, the leverage ratios, the requirements around liquidity, all those things that were designed to address points to systemic risk, clearing, margin requirements, all of that data reporting, I think sometimes gets lost in the narrative and have to step back and look at the past eight years and realize that and it’s an incredible body of work that regulators, the industry participants and the clients have actually created.” —Goldman Sachs CFO Harvey Schwartz (Investment Bank)

The two areas that Mnuchin wants to re-evaluate are the Volcker Rule and regulatory burden on small banks

“The concept of proprietary trading does not belong with banks with — the Federal Reserve put out its own report that that rule has completely limited liquidity in many markets and the federal reserve is concerned that the interpretation of the Volcker rule does not allow banks to create enough liquidity for customers. That is something I would absolutely want to look at” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

“My biggest concern and I fully support regulation for banks with FDIC insurance but my biggest concern is that this regulation is killing community banks, we are losing big community banking business.” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

Mnuchin considers himself an expert on Fannie and Freddie and wants to see housing finance reform

“My comments were never that there should be recap and release. I have been around the mortgage industry for 30 years and I have seen this for a long period of time. This is an area I believe I have expertise in. For very long periods of time I think Fannie and Freddie have been well run without creating risk to the government and they played an important role…I believe these are very important entities for liquidity…What I have said and believe, we need housing reform…We need housing reform and a solution. The status quo is not acceptable of just leaving them there. There are two extremes on this and it is something I look forward to sitting down and talking with you. One, we don’t put the taxpayers at risk and two, we don’t eliminate capital for the housing market. I’m very concerned that middle of income people who need mortgage loans have access to the capital.” —Treasury Secretary Nominee Steve Mnuchin (Government)

Even if regulations go away the extra costs probably don’t

“There’s also a lot of regulatory costs that probably were missing from the industry historically. I’m thinking about to build an AML costs…I’m thinking about general compliance with consumer laws…We are done investing in that by and large, but I don’t think those costs go away, no matter nor should they, no matter what really happens to the regulation.” —PNC CEO Bill Demchak (Bank)

“Our compliance costs in the entire company are now in terms of FTE, there are over 7000 people of our 70,000 and that’s up more than twice what it was a few years ago…it’s not going to go back to where it was, it’s going to stay much higher because that’s the cost of running a high-quality bank.” —US Bank CEO Richard Davis (Bank)

Technology:

Wilbur Ross recognizes that technology is an important factor in the employment equation

“I think more research and development, more encouragement of technological breakthrough, is clearly an important thing, but at the same time, we need to protect our existing industries because they really are very much labor intensive. And I think we also are going to have to cope with the challenge that combined with the opportunity of some of the technological advances. For example, driverless cars are probably a very good thing. They seem to be, in any event, an inevitable thing, but that presumably will also lead to driverless trucks. Well, there’s something like 3 million american adults who depend on over-the-road trucks for their livelihood and it’s a pretty good livelihood…So I think what we have to do is to figure out how to make sure we get the benefits of the improved technology and yet cope with the dislocation that it inevitably will produce in certain of the industries. So I think that’s going to be a real balancing act.” —Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross (Government)

Activity in high tech industries is coming back after pausing in 2016

“the high-tech sector, I think after maybe pausing a little bit in 2016, it seems to be coming back at the year activity, etcetera, the California market, real state values remained strong in California both in Northern and Southern California.” —Comerica CFO Dave Duprey (Bank)

AI is a new computing architecture and that levels the playing field for new players

“AI is – this is new, so the all the algorithm or the architecture, they are all new. So the computing…basically it’s the playing field is level. It’s not as before, where the high component is computing. It has to be a certain architecture to get into this field. This is a leveling playing field, so many players are into this field. That is where the massive innovation can come.” —Taiwan Semiconductor CEO Mark Liu (Semiconductor Fab)

Healthcare:

Healthcare is driving labor cost inflation

“you heard the $35 million inflation on labor…it’s not really on the wage side of things, it’s on health and welfare side so medical inflation obviously there’s always going to be a little bit, little bit higher than we would like.” —CSX CFO Frank Lonegro (Railroad)

Industrials:

Low interest rates facilitate Trump’s infrastructure plans

“I think we’re fortunate to be coming to grips with infrastructure in a relatively low interest rate environment because that will facilitate getting a lot of projects done that could not be done in a lower interest rate environment because there would be a crowding out effect.” —Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross (Government)

General industrial companies are still challenged

“We listen to our Regional Vice Presidents and what they’re seeing in the marketplace…what I would tell you is, the general industrial companies on our lists, they’re still challenged…if you sort of listen to some of our RVPs talk about energy there definitely is more of an enthusiasm”–Fastenal CEO Dan Florness (Industrial Distributor)

Materials, Energy:

The worst of the energy cycle is believed to be behind us

“We expect our provision to be lower in 2017 as we believe the worst of the energy cycle is behind us. Assuming energy prices continue to be stable, we expect non-accruals and charge-offs to remain manageable.” —Comerica CEO Ralph Babb (Bank)

Wilbur Ross wants to boost the fishing industry

“One of the things I’d like to try to help correct is we believe it or not, have a trade deficit in fishing of some $11 billion a year. Given the enormity of our coastlines and enormity of fresh water, I would like to try to figure out how we can become much more self-sufficient in fishing and perhaps even a net exporter of fishing.” —Commerce Secretary Nominee Wilbur Ross

Full transcripts can be found at www.seekingalpha.com

#$BAC #$USB #$PNC #$BBT #$BLK #$DAL #$UNP #$CMA #$GS #$TSMC #$CSX #$FAST

2 notes · View notes

sosayset · 3 years ago

Text

My Little June 6th Social Media Exchange

I’ve got a friend, a former teammate on a hockey team, who is fairly right leaning. I made a post on June 6th, the anniversary of the storming the beaches of Normandy, about my feelings on the Republican Party and their current state of true awfulness. He didn’t respond directly, but definitely threw down on his own so that I could see it. So I responded to him. Harshly. And this isn’t an exchange. I called him out, didn’t do anything other than to acknowledge there was a response that I ignored, actually multiple because I’m sure that I was mentioned by more than one other mouth breather, and then I doubled down. And now, because I am still mad, I’m making it public to my audiences.

My response to his shameless defense of the Republican Party and conservatism in general.

<My Dude>, on your side of the political divide there are unabashed racists. On your side, there are actual Klansmen. On your side there are actual, literal Nazis; we're talking "wir müssen die Juden ausrotten," Nazis. This isn't up for debate, either, this is absolute FACT. Now, and this is important, this isn't me being accusatory, but me pointing out the bare bones of the issue. These horrible people agree with you and your point of view. They are comfortable with you and your point of view. They *identify* with you and your point of view. They are comfortable with you and standing alongside you and supporting you and your perspective and your political point of view and everything you espouse. Actual f***ing Nazis are there with you, shoulder to shoulder. And this is an undeniable reality of irrefutable empirical evidence.

And all of this begs the question of pretty much anyone who might find themselves in a similar position, in a space where the most contemptible, most reviled, most deplorable, people can find comfort and sanctuary; "what does this reflection say about my values and what I believe?" If actual Nazis are on your side, and your first reaction is NOT to take a step back and ask yourself why they are comfortable on your side and not afraid to be beaten within inches of their life, you are in the WRONG. "Why are Nazis comfortable with me and being in my space?" The answer is, "I'm wrong about something, I need to figure out why and shut the hell up until I know exactly why." That's it.

Me? I'm pretty much okay punching them in the face, no questions asked, and leaving them on the ground bleeding. But that's me, and how I feel with the idea of actual Nazis being on my side...on June 6th...in the US of A. I am not a conservative or 2021 Republican so I don't have to make those decisions.

<My Dude>, take a moment. Take your step back. Take a look at things from the outsider perspective on things, both as they are and through the lens of history you keep saying you have. And then please reevaluate yourself. From where I see things, you are in the bunkers on that beach aiming your weapons at those landing vehicles, repeating to your brothers in arms how right those Austrian and Italian f***s in charge of their nations were and that it was and is worth killing and worth dying for to grow their ideologies, and standing in staunch opposition to those storming that beach in defense of democracy. You ARE on the side of Nazis now, how can you possibly believe or defend the idea that your would not have been 70 years ago?

Personally, I believe you are better than that, given a more lucid frame of reference then where you actually stand, as it is. But for now, it is what it is. It can't be stated more plainly; it is 2021 and you ARE on the side with the Nazis and you would have been 70 years ago, too.

As I said, there was a response. Maybe more than one. I ignored them. I posted this article (the transcript I used, and sources, are all below)

If you've read through this <article> and the source material, or at least given some of them a brief look, you'll know that the consensus definition of fascism in the sources says it hasn't *actually* existed after 1945, and I am inclined to agree. At most it has morphed into lesser versions espousing *similar* ideological tendencies. And that's my point in all of this. We've taken minuscule baby steps away from blatant racism as a foundation, but the idea that there are some who belong, and some who don't, while defined less clearly than the past, still exists, and that mentality still serves as a primary motivator for specific beliefs and even prejudices.

That said, <my Dude>, I read all of things you post that the algorithms of this site allow me to see regularly, and I can tell you, that through the scope of that version of neo-fascism outright predicated not on race but on the sense of some belonging, and some not, is reflected in all of your rhetoric CONSTANTLY. All the time. And maybe you believe it, or maybe you don't, that's not for me to say. But the fact remains that, as I said before, you are a vocal supporter on the side that has Nazis. You are on the side that this article basically breaks down as pro-fascist in its core beliefs.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you're actually NOT of that mindset, but to look at just where you're sitting. The Germans have a saying that goes something like, "if you see a Nazi sitting at a table, and ten other people sitting with him, you see a table of 11 Nazis."

And my overall point remains unchanged; recognize the table you are sitting at, right now.

PS- I didn't bother to read yours, or anyone else's responses. You're sitting at a metaphoric table with those most ideologically aligned currently with 1930s and 40s fascism, along with modern Nazis, and I am calling it out, that's all. Any response, it either agrees and like me, are asking you to reevaluate, or they are trying to defend sitting at that table without such a reexamination, which isn't worth my time

Be well.

____

What Is Fascism?

Since before Donald Trump took office, historians have debated whether he is a fascist (1.).

As a teacher of World War II history (2.) who has written about fascism (3.), I’ve found that historians have a consensus (4.) definition of the term, broadly speaking.

Given the term’s current – and sometimes erroneous – use, I think it’s important to distinguish what fascism is and is not.

+Race-first thinking+ Fascism, now a century old, got its start with Benito Mussolini and his Italian allies. They named their movement after an ancient Roman emblem, the fasces (5.), an ax whose handle has been tightly reinforced with many rods, symbolizing the power of unity around one leader.

Fascism means more than dictatorship, however.

It’s distinct from simple authoritarianism – an anti-democratic government by a strongman or small elite – and “Stalinism” (6.) – authoritarianism with a dominant bureaucracy and economic control, named after the former Soviet leader. The same goes for “anarchism,” (7.) the belief in a society organized without an overarching state.

Above all, fascists view nearly everything through the lens of race (8.). They’re committed not just to race supremacy, but maintaining what they called “racial hygiene,” (9.) meaning the purity of their race and the separation of what they view as lower ones.

That means (10.) they must define who is a member of their nation’s legitimate race. They must invent a “true” race.

Many are familiar with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime’s so-called Aryan race (11.), which had no biological or historical reality. The Nazis had to forge a mythic past and legendary people. Including some in the “true race” means excluding others.

+Capitalism is good+ For fascists, capitalism is good. It appeals to their admiration of “the survival of the fittest,” a phrase coined by social Darwinist Herbert Spencer (11.), so long as companies serve the needs of the fascist leadership and the “Volk,” or people.

In exchange for protecting private property, fascists demand capitalists act as cronies (12.).

If, for example, a company is successfully producing weapons for foreign or domestic wars – good. But if a company is enriching nonloyal people, or making money for the imagined subrace, the fascists will step in and hand it to someone deemed loyal.

If the economy is poor, the fascist will divert attention from shortages to plans for patriotic glory or for vengeance against internal or external enemies.

+Might makes right+ Important to most fascists is the idea that the nation’s “patriots” (13.) have been let down, that “good people” are humiliated while “bad people” do better.

These grievances cannot be answered, fascists say, if things remain under the status quo. There needs to be revolutionary change allowing the “real people” to break free from the restraints of democracy or existing law and get even (14.).

For fascists, might makes right.

Since for them the law should be subservient to the needs of the people and the need to crush socialism or liberalism, fascists encourage party militias. These enforce the fascist will, break unions (15.), distort elections and intimidate or co-opt the police (16.).

The historical fascists of Germany and Mussolini’s Italy (17.) extended the might-makes-right principle to expansion abroad, though the British fascists of the 1930s, led by Oswald Mosley (18.) and his British Union of Fascists, preferred isolationism (19.) and preached a sort of internal war against an imagined Jewish enemy of the state. What fascists reject

First and foremost, fascists want to revolt against socialism (20.). That’s because it threatens the crony capitalism that fascists embrace.

Not only does socialism aim for equal prosperity no matter the race, but many socialists tend to envision the eventual extinction (21.) of separate nations, which offends the strong fascist belief in nation states.

Along with getting rid of aristocrats or other elites, fascists are prepared to displace the church or seek a mutually beneficial truce with it (22.).

Mussolini, Hitler and the Falangists in Spain (23.) learned that they had to live with (24.), not replace, the church in their countries – as long as their regimes weren’t broadly attacked from the pulpit.

Fascists also reject democracy, at least any democracy that could potentially result in socialism or too much liberalism (25.). In a democracy, voters can choose social welfare policies. They can level the playing field between classes and ethnicities, or seek gender equality.

Fascists oppose all of these efforts.

+Fascism grows from nationalism+ Fascism is the logical extreme of nationalism (26.), the roughly 250-year-old idea that nation states should be built around races or historical peoples.

The first fascists didn’t invent these ideas out of nothing – they just pushed nationalism further than anyone had before. For the fascist, it’s not just that a nation state makes “the people” sovereign. It’s that the will of righteous, real people – and its leader – comes before all other considerations, including facts.

Indeed, the will, the people, their leader and the facts are all one in fascism.

1. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/164170 2. https://history.case.edu/faculty/john-broich/ 3. https://www.abramsbooks.com/product/blood-oil-and-the-axis_9781468314014/ 4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-twentiethcentury-political-thought/fascism-and-racism/CFB19146B5E63D20089DF0AAC5CD84D9 5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fasces 6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stalinism 7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/ 8. https://books.google.com/books?id=NLiFIEdI1V4C&q=%22racial+thought+for+political+purposes%22#v=snippet&q=%22racial%20thought%20for%20political%20purposes%22&f=false 9. https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1093/embo-reports/kve217 10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/abs/racethinking-before-racism/02AAE753AAD57BAFB03A2F003EF12538 11. https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/breeding-new-german-race 12. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/herbert-spencer-survival-of-the-fittest-180974756/ 13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/260578?seq=1 14. https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http:/www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html 15. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14058/14058-h/14058-h.htm 16. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ss-and-police 17. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/01/mussolinis-racial-policies-in-east-africa-revealed-italian-fascists-ambitions-to-redesign-the-social-order.html 18. https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49405924 19. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1932729.pdf 20. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/128540/the-anatomy-of-fascism-by-robert-o-paxton/ 21. https://books.google.com/books?id=tH0jwbnj7BgC&q=%22withering+away+of+the+state%22#v=snippet&q=%22withering%20away%20of%20the%20state%22&f=false 22. https://www.npr.org/2014/01/27/265794658/pope-and-mussolini-tells-the-secret-history-of-fascism-and-the-church 23. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/spains-civil-war-produced-a-fascist-movement-that-was-disorganized-but-just-as-authoritarian-as-italys.html 24. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state 25. https://theconversation.com/what-or-who-is-antifa-140147 26. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Extreme-nationalism

0 notes

jamieclawhorn · 6 years ago

Text

3 top FTSE 100 growth stocks I’d buy right now

Sales and marketing play DCC’s (LSE: DCC) rich record of double-digit-percentage earnings rises over the past half a decade makes it a brilliant selection for those seeking great growth stocks on the FTSE 100.

Latest trading details from the firm have certainly emboldened my optimism, the business last month declaring that operating profits were “significantly ahead” year-on-year in the three months to December. Titanic acquisitions at its LPG and Health & Beauty divisions helped to drive the result but this was not the only story as, despite the impact of mild weather on energy demand and civil disturbance across France it remained resilient on an organic basis too.

City analysts are predicting earnings rises of 13% and 4% for the years to March 2019 and 2020 respectively, leaving the firm dealing on a forward P/E ratio of 18.4 times. A slightly-toppy rating, sure, but one which is fitting for a share with as strong a growth pedigree as this.

A safe selection

Halma (LSE: HLMA) is another British blue-chip with a brilliant history of earnings growth and therefore another premium rating. In fact, this Footsie health and safety equipment maker’s prospective P/E multiple of 29.6 times soars over the broadly-considered value reservation of 15 times and below.

Health and safety is big business all over the globe, needless to say, and thanks to its wide geographic footprint straddling major economies across Europe, North America and the US it’s well placed to enjoy strong sales growth in the years ahead.

I’m also encouraged by the fact that its appetite for acquisitions shows no signs of dulling. Following the purchase of British radar surveillance specialist Navtech Radar in November, it was breaking out the chequebook again in January with the takeover of US emergency communications system builder Rath Communications last month.

The number crunchers certainly expect profits at Halma to keep sprinting higher and are anticipating rises of 12% in the year to March 2019 and 9% in fiscal 2020.

A tasty selection

Drinks giant Diageo (LSE: DGE) is a FTSE 100 company that I hold in such high regard that I own shares in the company myself.

Now look, its growth record has been not as good as either Halma or DCC’s over the past half a decade, because of a severe demand-drop off in China due to anti-corruption measures there.

However, through a wide variety of measures, from increasing marketing activities to doubling-down on brand innovation, to expanding its presence in the fast-growing premium segment and restructuring its drinks portfolio through acquisitions and disposals, Diageo has put those past pains behind it. City brokers also think so and are reckoning on bottom-line rises of 8% and 7% in the fiscal years to June 2019 and 2020 respectively.

The drinks giant is always in danger of suffering temporary earnings pressure like that mentioned but, because of the formidable strength of its labels, it’s still in prime position to deliver strong profits growth over the long term. And this quality makes the business worthy of a toppy forward P/E multiple of 23.5 times, in my opinion.

You Really Could Make A Million

Of course, picking the right shares and the strategy to be successful in the stock market isn't easy. But you can get ahead of the herd by reading the Motley Fool's FREE guide, "10 Steps To Making A Million In The Market".

The Motley Fool's experts show how a seven-figure-sum stock portfolio is within the reach of many ordinary investors in this straightforward step-by-step guide. Simply click here for your free copy.