luni, 14 decembrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Fed Openly Discusses "Permanently High Balance Sheet"; Lie Finally Admitted

Posted: 14 Dec 2015 07:05 PM PST

Merits of Not Shrinking the Balloon

When the Fed first launched QE, they stated they had the "tools" necessary to shrink their ballooning balance sheet.

I quickly made the claim, no thinking person on the planet believed that lie.

ZeroHedge made similar comments, as did others. So no one is a genius for predicting today's non-news headline Fed Weighs Merits of Jumbo Portfolio in Post-Crisis Era.
Once the Federal Reserve lifts interest rates from near zero, likely this week, the focus will turn to the other legacy of the crisis-era policies: the Fed's swollen balance sheet.

The prevailing view is that the U.S. central bank's $4.5 trillion portfolio, vastly expanded by bond purchases aimed at stimulating the economy, will have to shrink once rates are on their way up, and the Fed will just need to decide how quickly.

Now, however, there is a new twist to the debate, with some policymakers and outside experts saying that there are reasons to keep the balance sheet big.

As recently as September 2014, the Fed pledged to eventually "hold no more securities than necessary," in its "normalization" plan, a level widely interpreted as close to its pre-crisis $900 billion size.

A "permanently higher balance sheet ... is something that we haven't studied that much but I think needs a lot more thought," John Williams, president of the San Francisco Fed, said last month.

It could also give the Fed a permanent policy tool with which to target sectors of the economy and certain parts of the bond market.

For example, the Fed could buy and sell certain assets to stimulate or cool the mortgage market or to affect longer-term borrowing costs, says Benjamin Friedman, former chairman of Harvard University's economics department.

Fed researchers have been studying how many and what type of bonds should be stay on the Fed's books in a "post-normalization world" - an effort one source familiar with the work called a "once in a decade" research opportunity.

Ben Bernanke, who as Fed Chairman unleashed the bond-buying that pushed the balance sheet to its current size, also weighed into the debate downplaying any concerns about the Fed's outsized portfolio.

"The Fed could leave the balance sheet where it is and that wouldn't be a problem," he told New York Economics Club last month, noting its size is "internationally normal" in relation to the economy's output.

One result of the swollen portfolio is the $2.6 trillion in excess reserves that banks now park at the Fed, earning interest that will only rise as rates tick higher.

The idea that the Fed is paying extra billions to the very banks blamed for the crisis could re-ignite criticism from lawmakers already sour on the Fed's aggressive stimulus.

A big balance sheet poses "huge optics problems," says John Cochrane, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Still, there are obvious financial stability benefits to keeping the balance sheet large, he says.

One thing is clear: the Fed has not shut the door on keeping a bigger balance sheet for longer, or using it as a policy tool on top of its usual lever of setting short-term borrowing costs.
Lie Finally Admitted

The Fed never had any intention of shrinking its balance sheet by any other method than holding bonds to termination over time, if that.

Supposedly a "debate" is now on.

There is no debate. The Fed will do whatever the hell it wants while labeling the result a new "tool".

Anyone who genuinely believes this is some sort of "new twist" should wear a scarlet sweater with the tag "gullible fool"

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Trump Warns "Dopey" Saudi Prince "Can’t Buy US Politicians When I Get Elected"; Religious Discrimination of Saudi Prince vs. Trump

Posted: 14 Dec 2015 01:06 PM PST

Entertainment Value

Regardless of your other opinions on Donald Trump, he is good for at least one thing in what would otherwise be a rather boring election campaign: entertainment.

And so it was over the weekend after Saudi prince Bin Talal tweeted to Donald Trump "You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win."

Trump, Saudi Prince Exchange Hostile Tweets

Trump smacked back Your Days Of Buying Off American Politicians Will Be Over If I Am Elected President.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is returning fire against the Saudi prince who told him to drop out of the White House race.

Trump called billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal "dopey" and accused him of trying to buy U.S. politicians with "daddy's money" in a tweet late Friday.

"Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get elected," Republican presidential front-runner Donald J. Trump tweeted after the prince told him to end his White House bid.
Has Saudi Arabia Taken Any Syrian Refugees?

The Independent reports Donald Trump calls on Saudi Arabia to take in refugees after spat with Saudi Prince.
Hot on the heels of demanding all Muslims be banned from the US, Donald Trump has called on Saudi Arabia to take in Syrian refugees.

Mr Trump made the demand on Twitter writing: "Has [...] Saudi Arabia, taken any of the Syrian refugees? If not, why not?"

The comment comes after Mr Trump became embroiled in a row with Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the chairman of Kingdom Holding, who branded the businessman was "a disgrace" and should withdraw from the presidential race following his controversial remarks about the apparent threat posed by Muslims.
Religious Immigration Bans OK Unless It's Against Your Religion

The Daily Caller notes the hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia in its post Why Won't The Saudis Who Resent Trump Drop Their Ban On Jews?
The online bickering between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his fellow billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal over Trump's proposal to ban Muslim immigration is seeped with irony: For decades, Saudi Arabia has had a near-total ban on granting visas to Jews.

America's protestations of this blatant bigotry have been largely muted, apparently in deference to the sensibilities our oil-rich ally.

Clearly, the Saudis are not taking a principled stand against religion-based visa discrimination. They think discriminating against a religion is perfectly fine – as long as it's not their religion.

(To be clear, I abhor Trump's proposed policy. That does not detract from the outrageous Saudi inconsistency on the matter.)

The Saudi approach is consistent with Muslim attitudes toward "blaspheming" their prophet. During the 2005 controversy over cartoons depicting Mohammad, Muslims around the world claimed it was wrong to criticize people's religions – but they never objected to images and artwork criticizing Christianity and other non-Muslim religions.

And that's the point. Most Muslim countries and many of their citizens do not share Western-style values of tolerance and respect. They do not tolerate and respect other religions; they just want special treatment for Islam.

The Democrats and Republicans who have been rushing to attack Trump's comments about Muslims who visit America would be wise to condemn religion-based discrimination in all parts of the world. And the Saudis could demonstrate that their protests are based on principle rather than self-interest by changing their visa policies and finally welcoming Israelis and other Jews who wish to visit.

I'm not holding my breath.
How this plays out to US voters remains to be seen.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

High Anxiety Liquidity Trap: Selloff in Junk Continues, Follows Largest Drop Since 2011 on Friday

Posted: 14 Dec 2015 10:59 AM PST

In financial markets rot starts at the periphery and spreads to the core. For weeks, rot has been visible in the junk bond market and that rot has deepened sharply recently.

JNK - Barclays High Yield ETF



HYG - iShares iBOXX High Yield Corporate Bond Fund



Liquidity Trap

A potentially destabilizing run on junk debt has weighed on the bond markets. Investors in one fund are totally locked out of redemptions. Effective yields have soared.

Please consider The Liquidity Trap That's Spooking Bond Funds.
The debt world is haunted by a specter—of a destabilizing run on markets.

Last week, this took on more form even if there weren't concrete signs of panic. Only one mutual fund manager, Third Avenue Management, has said it would halt redemptions to forestall having to dispose of assets in a fire sale. The rest of the industry has been quick to say that while redemptions are elevated, particularly in high-yield bond funds, there doesn't seem to be a rush to for the exits.

 Goldman Sachs, for one, put out a note Friday warning Franklin Resources "is most at risk" given the large high-yield holdings of its funds, poor performance and large outflows. On Friday, its shares fell sharply. Meanwhile, there were unusually large declines Friday in the value of exchange-traded funds that track high-yield debt.

The idea of a "run" on mutual funds might sound strange. Typically, runs are associated with highly leveraged banks engaged in maturity transformation, funding long-term loans with short-term debt. Nearly all the programs designed to avoid destabilizing runs—from deposit insurance to the Fed's discount window to liquidity requirements—are built for banks.

But unleveraged investors, including mutual funds, can also give rise to runs. That is because there is a liquidity mismatch in mutual funds that hold relatively illiquid assets funded by investors entitled to daily redemptions.

Similar to what can happen in a bank run, investors in open-end funds holding relatively illiquid assets have an incentive to withdraw early to avoid being last out the door.

The problem is potentially more acute when it comes to funds that invest in corporate bonds, which don't trade frequently, as opposed to stocks. That is an even greater concern today given questions about bond-market liquidity.

Mutual-fund fragility was highlighted in a speech last year by then-Fed Governor Jeremy Stein and a related paper prepared for a Fed policy forum. Mr. Stein noted fund managers were likely to sell more-liquid holdings to meet the earliest redemptions. This leaves remaining investors even more exposed to illiquid bonds.
Panic Early

The message here is clear. If you are going to sell be the first. In short, panic before anyone else does.

That advice is especially important for junk bond ETF holders as managers tend to sell liquid issues first, presumably holding the most illiquid and likely junkiest of junk on the books.

High Anxiety



Why Now?

It is absurd that CCC-rated debt, right on the verge of default would ever yield as little as it did. In regards to that point, I have noted the bubble in junk bonds numerous times over the past couple years.

Why this took so long to sink is anyone's guess, but undoubtedly the FED's QE played a part.
Bubbles nearly always go on longer than one might think.

But here we are. And here's another important point, equity selloffs frequently begin with bond market dislocations or deteriorating equity-market breadth.

Be forewarned. Today we see both, at a time the stock market is more overvalued than ever.

Further Reading

  1. "War Games" Show Fed Worried About Commercial Real Estate, Interest Rates; Fed Weighs Consequences of "Macroprudential Tools"
  2.  
  3. Stocks More Overvalued Now Than 2000 and 2007 No Matter How You Look at Things

In regards to point one, the Fed after warning about "Macroprudential Tools", does not even realize QE and interest rate policy are the bluntest of blunt instruments, both prone to bubble-blowing episodes. Once bubbles get big enough or attitudes change enough, tools no longer work. And the opposite tool (in this case ending QE and hiking rates) might have an oversized effect.

In regards to point two, Fed timing could hardly be worse, but the only alternative is even bigger bubbles that would pop on their own accord anyway.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics


Flight Attendants Reveal The Craziest Things They've Ever Seen On A Plane

Posted: 14 Dec 2015 02:23 PM PST

Being a flight attendant has its perks. You get to travel the world and go to exotic locations. But the job can also get a little weird sometimes when you're stuck on a plane with crazy passengers.
















Your website on Google [ranking changes]

View Web Version | Unsubscribe from this list


Get better Google rankings and
more customers! Instant access.

Your competitors use this tool to get higher rankings:

New version: better rankings, better keywords, better links, social media, and more.



Get better rankings on Google
SEOprofiler is the proven solution that helps you to get your website on top of Google's search results. You get optimization tools, link analysis, keywords, social media, website analytics ( + a lot more).


Track your results
Find the keywords that deliver the best results. SEOprofiler offers ranking checks on city level. See how your website is ranked for your keywords on Google, Bing and Yahoo in 68 countries and in particular cities. Integrates with Google Analytics.


Impress your boss and your clients
Create beautiful reports in your company design for your boss and your clients. Fully customizable with your own logo, colors, etc.


Remove bad links, monitor social media mentions
Find harmful links that point to your website and eliminate bad links. Monitor social networks for mentions of your company.


Trusted by 50,000 companies
More than 50,000 businesses use SEOprofiler to get high rankings on Google. If you haven't tested SEOprofiler yet, create a free trial account or order the full version risk-free.

SEOprofiler will help you to get much better results. Try it now risk-free and see for yourself. It works.

You receive this email since you have subscribed at http://www.submitstart.com/

Send your own message to 500,000+ subscribers!

View Web Version | Unsubscribe from this list

Seth's Blog : Three elements to go beyond hourly freelancing



Three elements to go beyond hourly freelancing

Hourly freelancing generally involves finding a task that many people can do, and doing it slighly better or slightly cheaper (or slightly more conveniently) than others can. It's not a bad gig, but with some planning, you can do better.

Start by focusing on three things (and a bonus):

1. An audience (organizations or individuals) that has money to invest in having you solve their problem

2. An audience that realizes it has a problem that needs to be solved

3. A skill, a service, a story, a resource or a technology that only you can provide

4. (A bonus): An outcome that your customers will choose to tell other people about

When any of these elements are missing, you're likely to be seen as a replaceable cog, without the leverage you seek. The challenge is in finding an area where you can grow and the committing to earning that asset.

If you find yourself saying, "you can hire anyone, and I'm anyone," then you're selling yourself short. And if you find yourself arguing with potential clients about what this sort of work is worth, it may be that you've chosen the wrong clients.

You are not a task rabbit. You're a professional doing unique work that matters.

[More on this in my freelancer course.]

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

duminică, 13 decembrie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


"War Games" Show Fed Worried About Commercial Real Estate, Interest Rates; Fed Weighs Consequences of "Macroprudential Tools"

Posted: 13 Dec 2015 06:43 PM PST

War Games

Inquiring minds may wish to take a peek inside a Fed 'War Games' Exercise conducted this past summer, just recently reported on by the Wall Street Journal.
Commercial real-estate prices have continued to rise and are projected to far exceed levels they reached before the 2007-09 financial crisis, adjusted for inflation. Debt is building up at companies through the issuance of junk bonds and loans to low-rated firms. Small banks, money-market funds, mutual funds and government-sponsored enterprises have become big players feeding the financial system with credit. However, the large banks subject to heavy regulatory oversight aren't big providers of credit. Borrowers are increasingly reliant upon short-term loans, which could dry up quickly in a downturn. The economy could tumble into recession if a new financial bubble bursts.

What should the Fed do?

The question was posed to five regional Fed bank presidents in early June in a "war games" exercise. The presidents—the Boston Fed's Eric Rosengren, Kansas City's Esther George, New York's William Dudley, Cleveland's Loretta Mester and Minneapolis's Narayana Kocherlakota, had to devise a response. They met at a regional Fed branch in Charlotte, N.C., and worked over three hours, with a whiteboard, briefing papers and lots of coffee. They emerged with a list of the pros and cons of various approaches, but no concrete road map for how to proceed.

Fed officials also looked at whether they could demand that banks require larger down payments on loans to ensure borrowers weren't as exposed to a large drop in real-estate prices. These "loan-to-value" rules also would have required agreement among several slow-moving regulatory agencies. Another problem was that in this scenario, large banks weren't at the root of the problem.

In addition, Fed officials looked closely at a little-used power the central bank has under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to set so-called margin requirements on securities transactions, which could limit how much borrowed money banks, brokers and others can use in securities transactions.

Perhaps the most challenging part of the discussion related to monetary policy. Former Fed governor Jeremy Stein once argued that the most effective way to stop a bubble from building might be to raise interest rates, because that approach "gets in all of the cracks" of the financial system. Some of the Fed officials in Charlotte gravitated toward raising rates for that reason, and because they thought they could use it quickly and without consultation with other bank regulators.

Mr. Rosengren said he emerged from the exercise sympathetic to these arguments, but others disagreed. Among them was Ms. George, who said rates weren't the right tool to address bubbles. She argued the best approach was to ensure the banks at the core of the financial system are required to have larger amounts of capital.

It was an odd turnabout. During most of this expansion, Mr. Rosengren has been a policy "dove" who supported the use of low interest rates to promote economic growth and reduce unemployment. Ms. George was a "hawk" who wanted rates higher because she thought low rates were causing bubbles.

Mr. Rosengren, in an interview, said low rates in this hypothetical scenario were less justified than they were in the years after the financial crisis because the economy in the scenario was back to a normal footing. Ms. George, in an interview, said she didn't support low rates in the first place, but that didn't mean that raising them was the best solution to a bubble after it had already been set in motion.

The disagreement was another sign that six years since the last financial crisis, Fed officials still don't have an answer for dealing with the next boom-bust cycle.
War Games Joke

Shouldn't central banks worry about bubbles before they blow them?

Raising interest rates much stronger mush faster than they did may have prevented some of the housing lunacy that escalated between 2005-2007.

It may also have taken some steam out of the idiotic dotcom bubble. But Neither Greenspan nor Bernanke saw the real estate bubble until it was too late.

But in 1999, Greenspan was worried about Y2K problems and stepped on the gas. Right as the economy was about to crash, Fed minutes showed the Fed became concerned about inflation.

Clueless Fed Weighs Consequences

In further discussion of the "War Games" scenario, the Wall Street Journal reports As Commercial Real-Estate Prices Soar, Fed Weighs Consequences.
Federal Reserve officials participating in a "war game" exercise this year came to a disturbing conclusion: Six years after the financial crisis ended, the central bank remained ill-equipped to quell the kind of dangerous asset bubbles that destabilized the savings-and-loan industry during the late 1980s, tech stocks in the 1990s and housing in the mid-2000s.

The five officials—gathered at a conference table in Charlotte, N. C.—had to determine if hypothetical booms in commercial real estate and corporate borrowing risked collapse and damaging fallout for the broader economy.

The group was asked what to do about it. Fed officials said afterward they saw they lacked clear-cut tools or a proper road map of regulatory measures to help stem the simulated booms. They also disagreed on whether to use higher interest rates to stop bubbles, a blunt instrument affecting the entire economy.

"I walked away more sure about the discomfort I originally had," said Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and a participant in the June exercise. She and others believe the Fed's low-rate policies might have played a role in booming asset prices.

"Signs of valuation pressures are emerging in commercial real-estate markets, where prices have been rising at a solid clip and lending standards have deteriorated, although debt growth has not yet accelerated notably," Stanley Fischer, vice chairman of the Fed, said in a speech Thursday.

Commercial real estate is a relatively small segment of the overall economy, and unsustainable debt hasn't emerged as a problem. But financial bubbles have been root causes of the past three recessions and is a consideration as the Fed nears a decision on interest rates.

Mr. Rosengren arranged the war-game exercise, joined by New York Fed President William Dudley, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester and Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota and Ms. George. Some of them, including Ms. George, said rates weren't the right instrument to use against bubbles. She favored demanding banks hold more capital.

Mr. Rosengren had noticed more building cranes in Boston. It conjured memories of the New England real estate boom in the late 1980s, which led to a regional banking crisis that played a role in the U.S. recession that followed.

"Given our low interest rates, given that it is an interest-sensitive sector, it is probably worthwhile to start thinking about at what point do we become concerned that is growing too rapidly," he said. "And if it were to reverse course at some point in the future what would be the consequences of that?"

U.S. commercial real-estate prices are up 93% from a low in 2010 and 16% above the previous peak in 2007, according to Moody's Investors Service. Among the hottest properties are apartment buildings, which have more than doubled in price since their November 2009 low and are 34% above their 2007 peak.

Such rapid price increases sometimes signal trouble. Another important measure is how investors and buyers use debt. Booms fueled by heavy borrowing can backfire on investors and their lenders.

Bank commercial real-estate loan portfolios are up 10% from a year earlier to $1.76 trillion in late November, a record high, according to Fed data. Nearly two-thirds of these loans are on the books of smaller banks, Fed data show, and foreign banks hold a growing proportion. Private-equity funds and real-estate investment trusts also have jumped in the game, reaching for high-yield returns.

Even though many Fed officials favor using regulatory powers over interest rates to stop bubbles, the U.S. was a "long way" from establishing a regulatory system that could achieve that, Mr. Dudley said in September.

"These tools are not things you just pull off the shelf and say, 'Now I'm going to use them,'" Ms. George said. "They tend to be things that require policy analysis, discussion with other agencies or politicians even. By the time you identify the issue you are already too late in many respects."
Fed Already Too Late, Again!

Now that the Fed realizes it has blown another bubble, it cannot figure out what to do about it.

Moreover, the Fed missed even bigger bubbles in the stock market as well as a bubble in corporate bonds in which companies have gone into debt to buy back their own shares at obscene prices.

And what about the bubble in junk bonds, now imploding? But let's return to the commercial real estate theme for a moment since that is what's on the Fed's mind.

Demise of Malls Coming Up?

Supply Chain ponders the Demise of Malls and Traditional Distribution.
E-commerce and omni-channel fulfillment are the main drivers of transformational change in retail supply chains.

However, there are two other trends also illustrate how retail supply chain networks are changing:

1. the declining role of shopping malls, and;
2. the type of distribution facilities retailers and third-party logistics providers are investing in today compared to just a few years ago.

According to CoStar Group, a provider of commercial real estate information, the number of malls with vacancy rates greater than 40 percent - which generally means the mall is in "a death spiral" - has increased from less than 0.5 percent in 2006 to 3.4 percent in 2014.

And according to real estate research and consulting firm Green Street Advisors, "Since 2010, more than 24 enclosed shopping malls have closed, and 60 more are on the brink of closure."

"About 15% of U.S. malls will fail or be converted into non-retail space within the next 10 years."
Eyes on Wrong Problem?

Since the Fed has its eyes on commercial real estate, it's highly likely a major problem surfaces elsewhere first. Perhaps it already has, in junk bonds.

William Dudley, president of the New York Fed asked in an October speech, Is the Active Use of Macroprudential Tools Institutionally Realistic?
Support for using macroprudential tools in the United States has also been bolstered by our experience during the financial crisis. The U.S. housing boom and subsequent bust might have been less severe had a set of macroprudential measures been in place at the time to limit the degree of leverage and speculative activity in the housing sector. The housing boom was fueled by optimistic expectations for house price appreciation, combined with lax underwriting standards embodied in such practices as no-doc mortgages and widespread speculative activity by investors. I remember, for example, the website, Condoflip.com, which says it all in terms of the degree of speculative fervor that was evident at the time.

[Mish Comment: And although it was indeed obvious, the Fed not only did not spot the problem, it denied existence of the problem when others pointed it out.]

My own view is that while the use of macroprudential tools holds promise, we are a long way from being able to successfully use such tools in the United States.

There is also the problem of responding to an emerging financial stability risk in a timely manner. First, the emerging problem needs to be identified. Then alternative policy responses need to be analyzed and debated. And, there is an understandable bias to start small and to escalate only as needed given the lack of understanding about how big an impact a particular tool may have on the economy.
Lack of Understanding About Tools

Note the irony here. The Fed has absolutely no problem whatsoever using "Macroprudential Tools" such a QE and zero interest rates to blow bubbles, but claims such tools cannot be done to prevent speculative booms in the first place.

And note the second big irony regarding "lack of understanding about how big an impact a particular tool may have on the economy".

  1. Like keeping interest rates too low too long creating a housing bubble? And not even seeing it?
  2. Like blowing the biggest stock and corporate bond bubbles ever with round after round of QE? And not seeing those problems either?

And what will the Fed do if stock prices collapse? Retail spending sputters? Housing dramatically slows? All of the above at once?

The Fed seems oblivious to the strong possibility that multiple problems might hit at once. And it still doesn't know what the hell to do about the obvious problems that it is looking at, created by its own macroprudential tool set that it says it cannot really use.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Le Pen Fizzles in Second Round

Posted: 13 Dec 2015 12:22 PM PST

French exit polls show Marine Le Pen's National Front Behind in Local Elections, so much so that Le Pen may not even win her own region.

I had expected she would win 2-4 French regions in the second round of voting. It appears now she may win none, despite winning 6 of 13 regions in the first round. In the first round of voting, FN topped 40% of the vote in two regions, nearly winning those regions outright.

In French regional elections, any candidate with 10% of the vote or more goes on to round two, unless someone gets more than 50% in the first round.

Five Things Doomed Le Pen

  1. When socialists came in third place in the first round of elections, they dropped out of the race.
  2. A massive fear-mongering campaign ensued when Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister Warned of "Civil War" if Le Pen Won.
  3. Socialists openly campaigned for candidates in the Republican party, the party of former president Nicholas Sarkozy.
  4. Disenfranchised socialists turned out heavily, apparently heeding the warnings of Valls, Hollande, and Sarkozy.
  5. Voter turnout is estimated to be 59% in the second round vs. 50% in the first.

There are 13 regions in France. Le Pen won 6 in the first round, Sarkozy's center-right Republicans won 4, and Hollande's socialists just 3.

The socialists hold all the regions now, but following these elections Sarkozy's Republicans will hold the vast majority.

These elections represent quite a change, and quite a trouncing of the Socialists, just not what Le Pen envisioned.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Seth's Blog : Centered and complete



Centered and complete

These are not the conditions for creativity.

Creative people ship remarkable work because they seek to complete something, to heal something, to change something for the better. To move from where they are now to a more centered, more complete place.

You don't get creative once everything is okay. In fact, we are creative because everything isn't okay (yet).

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.