CPD IN THE NEWS

This article is published in collaboration with Scutify, where you can find real-time markets and stock commentary from Robert Marcin, Cody Willard and others. Download the Scutify iOS App, the Scutify Android App or visit Scutify.com.

Daily Reckoning founder Bill Bonner thinks central banks are waging war on the markets. He also believes they will lose.

I wholeheartedly agree with Bonner's rationale. Let's tune in.

This is a guest post courtesy of Bill Bonner and the Daily Reckoning.

Why the Feds Will Lose Their War on the Markets

The markets continue to dawdle. Not much conviction in either direction.

We've already looked at the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

So let's move on...using our new lens to look at another of the feds' fake wars.

Dirty War

No war was ever officially declared against the markets.

But for four decades the feds conducted covert operations...a dirty war in which they've tried to mislead, obstruct, and suppress market forces.

They used fake money, fake savings, and fake interest rates to confuse investors, businesses, and consumers.

They didn't say so directly, but their purpose was to give out false signals so that people would change their behaviour.

'Demand' was too weak, they said. What to do about it?

They flooded the system with phony savings (credit).

Price signals were distorted. Credit limits seemed to disappear. Debt limits were eased.

Then, in 2008, the war turned hot...with the feds actively and overtly holding down interest rates to push up stock and bond prices.

In response to the crisis they caused - by encouraging too much debt in the housing sector - they claimed that the 'free market' had failed.

They were just responding to the 'emergency', they said.

Soon, everybody got in on the act - expressing an opinion about how high (or low) interest rates should be.

Force and fraud

Believe it or not, an activist group called 'Fed Up' argues that raising rates is...you guessed it...racist!

Institutional Investor magazine reports that a group funded by 32-year-old Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz is lobbying against rate increases on the grounds that higher rates are bad for US workers. From the website:

'The truth about the economy is obvious to most of us: not enough jobs, not enough hours, and not enough pay - particularly in communities of color and among young workers.

'Some members of the Federal Reserve think that the economy has recovered. They want to raise interest rates to slow down job growth and prevent wages from rising faster. That's a terrible idea.

'We stand with millions of workers and their families in calling on the Federal Reserve to adopt pro-worker policies for the rest of us. The Fed can keep interest rates low, give the economy a fair chance to recover, and prioritize full employment and rising wages.'

What? Who are these people? Do they have tails? Horns?

They're right about one thing: When the Fed tries to control the economy, it is politics, not markets, at work.

Markets work by persuasion and voluntary exchange. Politics works on force and fraud. Fed Up is a political organisation trying to influence how the force and fraud is applied.

But let's look at the feds' War on Markets through our now-familiar scope.

Victory is impossible

First, is this a war the feds can win?

No. Of course not.

Markets can be suppressed, delayed, and denied...but never eliminated.

Markets do not stop working just because you try to bend, distort, and even outlaw them. Victory is impossible.

The market for drugs does not stop just because the feds make them illegal. Instead, they reprice illegal drugs, taking into account the increased cost of doing business.

Nor does poverty disappear just because the feds make war on it.

'The poor will always be with you,' said Jesus, wisely.

Wealth and poverty are relative; there will always be some rich and some poor. Passing laws will not change that.

And 'terrorism'?

Those who do not have access to conventional armies always resort to unorthodox attacks.

That's what American colonists did when they launched their war against the British in 1775.

It's what the Jews did when they launched their 'insurgency' against the British in Palestine in 1939.

And it's what the Maquis did during the occupation of France by the Nazis during the Second World War.

Terror won't stop any time soon. Nor will markets cease to function.

Bubbles, bankruptcies, and misery

Second, does the enemy gain strength from the 'war' against it?

Well, yes and no.

Markets work perfectly well whether you make war on them or not. Governments can put any price on anything they want. But only markets can tell you what they are worth.

Just look at what happened in the Soviet Union. Or China, pre-1979. Or Venezuela.

Who bought anything from China when the communists were setting prices?

Who goes to Venezuela to do his shopping today?

We visited Russia soon after the Soviet Union was disbanded. Markets were just opening up. But after 70 years of price fixing, there was almost nothing to buy. Almost everything that was being sold had been pilfered from the army. We bought a pair of boots for $1.00. We still have them. The soles are so stiff they barely bend.

There are really only two types of economies - command economies and market economies. The latter work for everyone - but you never know who the real winners will be. The former work only for the commanders. Then, when they have stolen everything there was to steal, markets reassert themselves.

Economies are price-discovering, information-generating learning systems. On the world market, every economy has access to the same resources, more or less. It's what you do with them that counts.

Dictating prices is like teaching students that Japan won the Second World War...or saying that two plus two equals five...or rounding off Pi to three just to make it easier to remember.

But the more fake information you give out, the more valuable real information becomes.

A war the feds will ultimately lose

Third, did it create a new, corrupt Deep State industry? And fourth, do the combatants on both sides gain as the public loses?

Not exactly.

This is different from other 'wars' announced by the Deep State. This is how the insiders fund their other wars...and how they shift trillions of dollars from the public to themselves.

The War on Markets distorted almost all industries and corrupted the entire economy.

As reported here many times, suppressed interest rates alone probably cost savers as much as $10 trillion since 2008. Goosing up asset prices probably shifted another $10 trillion or so to the people who own them (typically, the elite).

As in all of these fake wars, the casus belli is phony.

Markets do not hurt people; they help them. Price signals, set by markets, are essential. Otherwise, you don't know whether you're adding wealth or subtracting it.

Trying to suppress free markets or abolish them always leads to confusion, bubbles, bankruptcies, and misery. Economies weaken; people grow poorer.

Since 2008, wages have been stagnant or falling for most people...GDP growth has declined and is now probably negative...productivity growth has declined more than any time in the last 40 years...world trade levels are back to 2009 levels...and the bounce-back from the Great Recession was the weakest on record.

For now, the war serves its real purpose: to increase the power and wealth of the Deep State insiders.

But it is a war that the feds will ultimately lose.

Trying to suppress markets is like putting a giant cork in the mouth of a volcano. It doesn't stop the eruption; it just makes it more violent.

Regards,

Bill Bonner,

For The Daily Reckoning, Australia

End Bonner - Mish Start - Fed Up

Let's start with three truths by Bonner.

By Scutify

Source

New York Times - July 15, 2014, by Steve Greenhouse - As more workers find their lives upended and their paychecks reduced by ever-changing, on-call schedules, government officials are trying to put limits on the harshest of those scheduling practices.

The actions reflect a growing national movement — fueled by women’s and labor groups — to curb practices that affect millions of families, like assigning just one or two days of work a week or requiring employees to work unpredictable hours that wreak havoc with everyday routines like college and child care.

The recent, rapid spread of on-call employment to retail and other sectors has prompted proposals that would require companies to pay employees extra for on-call work and to give two weeks’ notice of a work schedule.

Vermont and San Francisco have adopted laws giving workers the right to request flexible or predictable schedules to make it easier to take care of children or aging parents. Scott M. Stringer, the New York City comptroller, is pressing the City Council to take up such legislation. And last month, President Obama ordered federal agencies to give the “right to request” to two million federal workers.

The new laws and proposals generally require an employer to discuss a new employee’s situation and to consider scheduling requests, but they do not require companies to accommodate individual schedules. Many businesses have opposed these measures, arguing that they represent improper government intrusion into private operations.

In a referendum last year, voters in SeaTac, Wash. — the community near Seattle that also passed the nation’s highest minimum wage, $15 an hour for some workers — approved a measure that bars employers from hiring additional part-time workers if any of their existing part-timers want more hours. The move was a response to complaints from workers that they were not scheduled for enough hours to support their families. Some San Francisco lawmakers are seeking to enact a similar regulation.

Representative George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, plans to introduce legislation this summer that would require companies to pay their employees for an extra hour if they were summoned to work with less than 24 hours’ notice. He is also proposing a guarantee of four hours’ pay on days when employees are sent home after just a few hours — something that happens in many restaurants and retailers when customer traffic is slow.

That happened to Mary Coleman. After an hourlong bus commute, she arrived at her job at a Popeyes in Milwaukee only to have her boss order her to go home without clocking in — even though she was scheduled to work. She was not paid for the day.

“It’s becoming more and more common to put employees in a very uncertain and tenuous position with respect to their schedules, and that ricochets if workers have families or other commitments,” Mr. Miller said. “The employer community always says it abhors uncertainty and unpredictability, but they are creating an employment situation that has huge uncertainty and unpredictability for millions of Americans.”

While Mr. Miller acknowledges that his bill is unlikely to be enacted anytime soon — partly because of opposition from business (and a Republican-controlled House), he said the bill would bring attention to what he called often callous scheduling practices. His bill, similar to one in the Senate sponsored by Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, has a “right to request” provision that would bar employers from denying requests from workers with caregiving or school-related conflicts unless they had a “bona fide” business reason.

Corporate groups protest that such measures undercut efficiency and profits. “The hyper-regulation of the workplace by government isn’t conducive to a positive business climate,” said Scott DeFife, an executive vice president of the National Restaurant Association. “The more complications that government creates for operating a business, the less likely we’ll see a positive business environment that’s good for the economy and increasing jobs.”

Mr. DeFife pointed out that the daily ebb and flow of customers necessitated flexibility in scheduling.

David French, a senior vice president of the National Retail Federation, said many people chose careers in retail because of the flexible work hours.

“These proposals may sound reasonable, but if you unpack them, they could be very harmful,” Mr. French said. “Where employers and employees now work together to solve scheduling problems, you’ll have a very bureaucratic environment where rigid rules would be introduced.”

While many of these workers are not unionized, the labor movement has often battled against part-time work and ever-changing schedules. But as unions have grown weaker, employers have felt freer to employ part-timers and use more volatile scheduling. Unions still push for workers to get more hours — and those pressures are one reason Macy’s and Walmart have adopted programs letting employees claim additional, available shifts by going onto their employers’ websites.

In a climate where many retailers, restaurants and other businesses are still struggling after the recession, economists point to the increased uncertainty faced by employees. About 27.4 million Americans work part time. The number of those part-timers who would prefer to work full time has nearly doubled since 2007, to 7.5 million. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 47 percent of part-time hourly workers ages 26 to 32 receive a week or less of advance notice for their schedule.

In a study of the data, two University of Chicago professors found that employers dictated the work schedules for about half of young adults, without their input. For part-time workers, schedules on average fluctuated from 17 to 28 hours a week.

“Frontline managers face pressure to keep costs down, but they really don’t have much control over wages or benefits,” said Susan J. Lambert, a University of Chicago professor who interpreted the data. “What they have control over is employee hours.”

Ms. Lambert said flexible, not rigid or unpredictable, hours would become as important an issue as paid family leave. “The issue of scheduling is going to be the next big effort on improving labor standards,” she said. “To reduce unpredictability is important to keep women engaged in the labor force.”

David Chiu, president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, has created a business-labor group that is trying to find the middle ground.

“We’ve learned that predictability in hours is important not just to help workers juggle their lives, but for economic security — to help workers take a second job to live in expensive cities like San Francisco or New York,” Mr. Chiu said. “We’re confident that we can move forward with policies that work for workers as well as business’s bottom line.”

Sharlene Santos says her part-time schedule at a Zara clothing store in Manhattan — ranging from 16 to 24 hours a week — is not enough. “Making $220 a week, that’s not enough to live on — it’s not realistic,” she said.

After Ms. Santos and four other Zara workers recently wrote to the company, protesting that they were given too few hours and received just two days’ notice for their schedule, the company promised to start giving them two weeks’ advance notice.

Fatimah Muhammad said that at the Joe Fresh clothing store where she works in Manhattan, some weeks she was scheduled to work just one day but was on call for four days — meaning she had to call the store each morning to see whether it needed her to work that day.

“I felt kind of stuck. I couldn’t make plans,” said Ms. Muhammad, who said she was now assigned 25 hours a week.

A national campaign — the Fair Workweek Initiative — is pushing for legislation to restrict these practices in places including Milwaukee, New York and Santa Clara, Calif. The effort includes the National Women’s Law Center, the United Food and Commercial Workers union and the Retail Action Project, a New York workers’ group.

“Too many workers are working either too many or too few hours in an economy that expects us to be available 24/7,” said Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative and an organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy, a national advocacy group. “It’s gotten to the point where workers, especially women workers, are saying, ‘We need a voice in how much and when we work.' ”

Source

Despite a public pledge last year to ease scheduling burdens for its baristas, Starbucks has fallen short of its commitment on a number of fronts, according to a new report released Wednesday based on interviews with the coffee chain’s workers across the country.

The report, titled “The Grind: Striving for Scheduling Fairness at Starbucks” (PDF), said Starbucks baristas across the country were still complaining that they often don’t receive their work schedules soon enough before shifts and that they are under pressure to avoid taking sick days.

The New York-based advocacy group Center for Popular Democracy produced the report, which cited survey data collected from more than 200 Starbucks baristas in 37 states and compiled by Coworker.org, an online platform that supports workplace rights.

“More than six months after Starbucks publicly recommitted to scheduling policies and mandated ten days’ notice, the scheduling issues they sought to address still persist in their frontline stores,” the report said.

After a New York Times investigation in August 2014 highlighted the scheduling travails of a Starbucks worker and single mother named Janette Navarro, the company announced that it would strive to improve work schedules for its employees, whom the company calls “partners.” The workers’ survey cited in Wednesday’s report was conducted in March this year.

“Taking care of our partners is a responsibility I take very personally,” Cliff Burrows, a high-level Starbucks executive, said in an internal company email at the time, according to the New York Times and other news outlets. Burrows was quoted as saying the company would work to aid “stability and consistency” in the schedules of its more than 130,000 baristas.

Burrows pledged then that the company would improve its scheduling software to make it easier on employees to plan their lives.

But the directive has only partially trickled down to the company's more than 12,000 U.S. locations, Wednesday's report says.

“They’ve made some improvements, but they’ve been minor,” said Carrie Gleason, co-author of the report. “A fair workweek at Starbucks exists in some stores,” she said, but “the issue is inconsistency.”

Starbucks did not respond to a request for comment on the report's findings before the time of publication. 

The report said many baristas noted a high incidence of so-called “clopening” shifts, in which a person closes and opens in consecutive shifts, often leaving a span of only a few hours in which to return home before working again. 

Last year Starbucks' Burrows pledged an end to the dreaded clopening shifts, saying “district managers must help store managers problem-solve issues specific to individual stores to make this happen.”

But the report indicated that such shifts were still widespread, with nearly a quarter of workers regularly getting them.

“I feel that baristas should have a minimum of 10 hours in between shifts. Everyone should have a fair chance to get home, settled, and be able to sleep for eight hours before having to get up for another shift," the survey report quoted an Illinois Starbucks worker as saying.

But the majority of workers who do clopening shifts are able to get fewer than seven hours of sleep, the report said.

“Because I was frequently scheduled for clopening shifts, I got just four or five hours of sleep a night. I was doing all I could to get ahead, but Starbucks’ scheduling practices made me question whether that was possible,” said Ciara Moran, a former Starbucks barista wrote in a petition she launched with Coworker.org, asking for further scheduling reforms.

The report released Wednesday said that 48 percent of surveyed Starbucks workers said they received their work schedules a week or less in advance, and that 40 percent reported they had experienced pressure to avoid taking sick days.

"Employees say that it can be extremely difficult to take sick days because they face pressure to work while sick, fear negative consequences or are forced to find their own replacement," the report said.

The report suggested that the experiences of individual workers varied considerably, depending on store locations and personnel. 

“Many of us have different experiences at Starbucks, depending on our manager,” Moran said, asking others to support the cause “for consistent protections across the company, starting with healthy schedules across the board.”

“On a corporate level there isn’t that level of accountability. They’re not looking whether their polices are going far enough,” Gleason said. “For Starbucks, it can be a model for the industry for how to deliver a sustainable workweek.”

“I think they need to engage their workforce in a different way,” she said.

Source: Al Jazeera America

New York Times - October 13, 2014, by Minica Davey and Alan Blinder - After demonstrations that varied from choreographed marches to tense late-night encounters with law enforcement agents, protesters said they expected a series of acts of civil disobedience around the region on Monday, the last of four days of organized protest that has drawn throngs of people to the St. Louis area over questions about police conduct.

Leaders for the protests provided few details of their plans, except to say they would be employing a strategy used by demonstrators in North Carolina, who last year began staging weekly protests known as “Moral Mondays” in response to actions by the state government, which was newly controlled by Republicans. Those protests in Raleigh, the state capital, resulted in hundreds of arrests and served as a template for similar, smaller demonstrations across the South. The website for what organizers here have called a “Weekend of Resistance” said simply, “We’ll be hosting a series of actions throughout the Ferguson and St. Louis area.”

It is an area on edge after more than two months of demonstrations that began in Ferguson, the St. Louis suburb where an unarmed black teenager was fatally shot by a white police officer in August. In recent days, the displays of anger have spread to the city of St. Louis, where protesters have appeared at the symphony hall, outside playoff games for the St. Louis Cardinals and near the neighborhood where another black teenager was killed last week by a white off-duty police officer.

Early Sunday morning, tensions mounted between the police, dressed in riot gear, and a group of demonstrators who held a sit-in at the entrance of a St. Louis convenience store and refused to move. Seventeen people were arrested on accusations of unlawful assembly, pepper spray was used by some officers, and D. Samuel Dotson III, the city’s police chief, said he had seen a rock thrown at an officer and heard of other rocks being hurled.

Although some protesters spoke of plans for nonviolent demonstrations on Monday, organizers warned that frustrations had intensified because of the police response on Sunday morning. “Instead of de-escalating rising tensions in the city, Chief Dotson’s comments are inciting anger and making matters worse,” the organizers of many of the protests said in a statement early Sunday. The demonstrators, they said, “showed the best of our democracy, and the St. Louis police demonstrated the worst of their out-of-control law enforcement agency. The police brutalized peaceful people protesting their brutality.”

One question seemed to eclipse all other concerns here, among the protesters and the police alike: What will happen when a grand jury considering charges against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown, 18, on Aug. 9, returns its decision, perhaps next month?

“It may clearly be a flash point,” the Rev. Osagyefo Sekou said of the possibility that Officer Wilson would not be prosecuted. “People are going to be angry. There are definitely going to be protests.” In an interview before he spoke at a rally Sunday night, he added, “But this is part of a long struggle. It is part of a long struggle against police brutality.”

Chief Dotson, who walked amid the crowd during some of the weekend demonstrations and defended the police handling of the standoff early Sunday, was unwilling to make predictions. “I don’t have a crystal ball,” he said in an interview on Sunday afternoon. “We hope that the community recognizes that the process works.”

Preparing for Monday’s events, several dozen demonstrators sat in a church sanctuary on Sunday morning for what amounted to a tutorial on tactics of civil disobedience. Lisa Fithian, an experienced activist from Austin, Tex., pressed audience members to call out the reasons they were there. She heard responses like “anger” and “solidarity” from a crowd that included people from the American Federation of Teachers and St. Louis’s Coalition of Artists for Peace.

In a parking lot outside the church, Ms. Fithian spoke about breathing deeply to stay calm, especially as the authorities close in on a demonstration. She talked of remaining aware of where the police officers were posted along nearby streets. She explained possible responses by the authorities to an array of actions by a protester being taken into custody. She demonstrated the mechanics of going limp.

“It’s really essential to practice it,” she said. The crowd eventually returned to the sanctuary, where journalists were asked to leave. The organizers said they would be planning specifics of the protests.

Source