Russian Sports Officials Admit to Systematic Doping Effort

http://ift.tt/2hlu7ih


Russian sports officials had vehemently denied the doping operation’s existence despite a detailed confession by the nation’s former antidoping lab chief, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, in a New York Times article last May that was subsequently confirmed by global antidoping regulators.

An investigator appointed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Richard McLaren, published more extensive evidence this month that prompted the International Olympic Committee to open disciplinary proceedings against dozens of additional Russian athletes.

The drastic shift in tone may be motivated by Russia’s desire to reconcile with the regulators, who have stipulated that the nation accept the findings of the recent investigation before the country is recertified to conduct drug testing and be a host again of Olympic competitions.

The officials, however, continue to reject the accusation that the doping program was state-sponsored. They define the Russian state as President Vladimir V. Putin and his closest associates.

Ms. Antseliovich, who has not been directly implicated in the investigations, said she was shocked by the revelations. She and others emphasized that the government’s top officials were not involved.

Photo Anna Antseliovich, the acting director general of Russia’s national antidoping agency. The doping scandal was “was an institutional conspiracy,” she said, “but not state-sponsored.” Credit Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press

“I don’t want to speak for the people responsible,” said Vitaly Smirnov, 81, a top sports official whose career dates back to the Soviet era and who was appointed this year by Mr. Putin to reform the nation’s antidoping system. Mr. Smirnov said he had not met most of the individuals implicated in a report by Mr. McLaren — emphasizing that they had been dismissed as a result — nor did he know where they were.

“From my point of view, as a former minister of sport, president of Olympic committee — we made a lot of mistakes,” he said, echoing Mr. Putin’s broad denials of a state-sponsored system and noting that he would defer to the global governing bodies of each sport to rule on the evidence.

The 2014 Olympics in Sochi were a pet project for Mr. Putin, who was closely involved in politicking and preparing for them. Proud references to the Sochi Games overwhelm the Russian Olympic Committee’s offices along the Moscow River, including a nesting doll standing roughly six feet tall in the building’s lobby signed by Russian Olympians.

Many of the athletes whose pictures decorate the Olympic committee’s offices have been implicated in this year’s doping scandal, with scores formally disciplined and more than 650 others now accused. One photo shows Russians kissing medals and another shows Paralympians in wheelchairs holding victory bouquets above their heads.

“We have to find those reasons why young sportsmen are taking doping, why they agree to be doped,” Mr. Smirnov said, expressing eagerness to move forward rather than assign responsibility for previous violations.

But even as he and other officials signaled their acceptance of the fundamental findings of Mr. McLaren’s investigation, they were largely unconciliatory, suggesting that cheating to benefit Russia had served to offset what they perceived as preferential treatment for Western nations by global sports authorities.

“Have you seen the Fancy Bear records?” Mr. Smirnov said, invoking medical records hacked by a cyberespionage group believed to be associated with G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence agency suspected of hacking computers at the Democratic National Committee. The medical records revealed that hundreds of Western athletes had been given special medical permission to take banned drugs for legitimate therapeutic reasons.

“Russia never had the opportunities that were given to other countries,” Mr. Smirnov said.

“The general feeling in Russia is that we didn’t have a chance,” he added, acknowledging that anabolic steroids like those taken by Russian athletes have never been deemed medically excusable by regulators.

The supposedly tamper-proof bottles that held Russian athletes’ doping samples in Sochi were manipulated — enabling officials to switch out their steroid-laced urine. Mr. Smirnov and his advisers suggested that the same thing had happened at other Olympics.

“It’s lucky that the WADA had Rodchenkov,” said Victor Berezov, a lawyer for Russia’s Olympic Committee. “Maybe in China, London and everywhere — maybe the same things could happen. Because the system is broken.”

Photo Vitaly Smirnov is a top sports official who was this year appointed by Mr. Putin to reform the nation’s antidoping system. Credit Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press

Now, as Russia’s global track-and-field athletes remain barred from competition and its drug-testing operations decertified, Mr. Smirnov and a team of about two dozen people are focused on overhauling Russia’s antidoping system to satisfy global authorities. The group, selected over the summer, includes Russian politicians, Olympians, business people and even a celebrated pianist.

The commission has studied the antidoping systems of countries like France, Germany and Britain, Mr. Smirnov said, conducting seminars for the national governing bodies of various sports and deliberating about how to change cultural mentalities.

Beyond reputational concerns, there are economic considerations also motivating the commission’s work.

Mikhail Kusnirovich, the owner of Bosco, which outfits the Russian national team and the International Olympic Committee, is a member of Mr. Smirnov’s commission.

“We created the idea that it’s cool to be Russian,” Mr. Kusnirovich said, speaking proudly about his company’s designs from his office on Red Square, overlooking the Kremlin and decorated with numerous commemorative Olympic torches, including one from this year signed by the president of the I.O.C.

Hundreds of the uniforms for which his company had fitted Russian Olympians and Paralympians were not worn in Rio de Janeiro, site of the summer Olympic Games, because so many athletes were barred from competition. Russian government officials were also denied accreditation for the Games.

The doping scandal, Mr. Kusnirovich said, had hurt his company’s bottom line, depressing sales of Russian national team merchandise.

Russia’s place as a frequent host of global sports competitions has also been affected. Numerous competitions that were to take place in various parts of the country in early 2017 have been relocated to other nations.

But as officials communicated their sense of resigned acceptance, they also expressed disinterest in assigning specific accountability for systematic transgressions.

“I don’t believe we have enough time in life to clarify everything, to understand who’s the winner and the loser, who’s right and who’s wrong,” Mr. Kusnirovich said, calling on the authorities not to sanction the nation at a future Olympics for what happened at previous Games. “Even during Stalin’s times there was a saying: ‘The son is not responsible for his father’s sins.’”

Continue reading the main story


from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Samsung ranks #2 globally in R&D spending in 2016

http://ift.tt/2inQzJj

Some new numbers have been released detailing just how much R&D money was spent by companies across the globe, and some of the results might be a bit surprising. It’s also astounding just how many billions of dollars were poured into research and development. Samsung pulled up in the #2 spot behind Volkswagen by about […]


Come comment on this article: Samsung ranks #2 globally in R&D spending in 2016



from Google Android News Android Forums http://ift.tt/f5QBpa
via IFTTT

Putin's Hit Teams Of "Chechen Killers" Head For Syria

http://ift.tt/2iAJwAk

Having recently won the crucial battle for Aleppo, which has changed the layout of the ongoing Syrian proxy war between the Assad regime (with the Kremlin's backing), and "rebel" forces including various Al-Qaeda elements (supported by the US-led alliance), hardly content with this crucial victory Russian president Vladimir Putin is only just getting started, and as the Daily Beast confirms reports that had previously circulated in the Russian press, dozens of highly trained "Chechen killer" Russian special military units in red berets are being transported to Syria. Their mission there is largely a mystery.

Chechnya, a North Caucasus republic that fought and lost two separatist wars against Russia in 1994-1996 and 1999-2006, is sending hundreds of its highly trained soldiers to the Middle East to fight against Islamist groups, including the Islamic State, where many soldiers and some leaders are Chechen, too. Various Russian reports mention from 3,500 to 5,000 Chechens enlisted with extremist groups in Syria and Iraq.

Why the dispatch? Because, as the Beast writes, "it is one thing to tell the world that Russian President Vladimir Putin brought peace to Aleppo in Syria, and a completely different story to maintain control over pro-Moscow regions on the ground. The Kremlin is strengthening its aviation and land troop bases in Latakia. The Russian military, meanwhile, sees an advantage in Syria, a chance for officers to “get under fire,” to grow more experienced."

The effort is relatively new: Chechen commanders have been recruiting soldiers for the “Syrian” special units for several months, Novaya Gazeta, the Russian independent newspaper, reported on Tuesday.

“This year ends in the best way for Moscow, beyond its wildest dreams,” Sergei Markov, a Russian official and adviser to the government, told The Daily Beast. “President Putin has won his battles on many fields, including Syria’s Aleppo, America and the EU. More and more people agree that he is right, that Russia’s power and rightness is growing,” said Markov. “The agenda for Chechens is secret but most probably they will be participating in combat against ISIS in Raqqa [the ISIS capital] in the north of Syria.”

The Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov spent a lot of effort building special units, widely known as “death squads,” of men fearless, merciless, experienced in warfare in the streets and in the mountains.

As the Beast adds, in a video report by a local Chechen TV channel Kadyrov personally reviewed his soldiers. Kadyrov told me back in 2014 it was “a matter of honor” to bring Chechens back home from ISIS. He said that he personally traveled to Syria to consult with Bashar Assad’s military and help Chechen relatives find their daughters and sons in Syria.

That means that alongside various Iranian special forces fighting quietly alongside the Russian, and of course, Syrian government troops, the next line of special forces escalation will be arrival of hundreds of Chechens to keep any ISIS guerilla operations at bay.

Carnegie Moscow Center has argued that the issue of Chechens in ISIS is a crucial test for Kadyrov’s power: Islamists have already promised to support a revolution in Chechnya and even offered a $25 million reward for the heads of Kadyrov and his associates.

Ultimately, It seems that at the end of 2016, Putin’s Russia is in a hurry to fight and keep its ground on many fronts. Inspired by success in Syria, Putin reportedly plans support a strong Libyan military leader, Khalifa Haftar (who once was reputedly in bed with the American CIA). Ukraine continues to blame Russia for attacking its military. And another hacker scandal erupted in the past week: this time the Ukrainian military claimed that its soldiers’ cell phones were hacked by a Moscow group.

* * *

Incidentally, Putin's recent dispatch of Chechen special forces to Syria was also the topic of a recent post by the Saker, whose take on these recent surprising development is presented below:

First, even though the Russian sources make it sound like we are talking about two full battalions, I suspect that this is not the case and that a few companies will be formed from elements drawn from these battalions.  Why?  Because these battalions are part the backbone of the Russian security system in the Caucasus and that to use such elite forces just to guard 2 military installations makes no sense.

 

Second, this does beg the question of what these “Chechens” (actually a misnomer – see below) will really be doing Syria.  The only circumstance in which it would make sense to send them to protect the Russian bases in Kheimim and Tartus would be if a massive attack was expected against these installations and no other reinforcements were available, which is clearly not the case.

 

Third, these two battalions are mostly, but not exclusively, composed of Sunni Muslim operators.  That yields obvious advantages.  Furthermore, these battalions have had a history of successfully defeating the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnia.  This might be crucially important because Wahabi Chechens also compose some of the best forces available to the Daesh/ISIS/US command in Syria.

So what is really happening here?

 

First, it should be stressed that these two battalions are really quite unique units.  While formally they are just part of the larger Russian special forces community, they have a unique history and unique reputation.  Traditionally, Russia has always relied on elite Muslim shock forces, and most of those have been Chechen.  This was true before the 1917 Revolution as it was true after.  For example, the so-called “Muslim battalion” played a key role in the invasion of Afghanistan.  And 2008, the Chechen battalions “West” and “East” played a key role in the Russian counter-offensive against the Georgian forces.  To make a long story short: not only are these battalions known for their amazing courage and skills, their appearance often sends the opposing forces into a panic.

 

Second, Ramzan Kadyrov has been pouring huge resources, with the full support of Putin, of course, into the creation of a unique special forces training facility Chechnia were special operators from all over Russia are coming to learn, teach and share their experience.  As a result, the so-called “Chechen” units are, in reality, a mix of special operators from all over Russia who have been specially trained to deal with Daesh-like insurgencies.

 

This means that regardless of the actual size of the force sent to Syria, to use it to protect installations is total overkill and nobody in Russia really believes that all these lads will be doing is manning check-points.  Their true mission will be something very different.

 

Some Russian analysts have been speculating that their real function will be to clear Aleppo from the remaining al-Nusra/Daesh/ISIS forces.  Maybe, but I doubt it.  I find it much more likely that these men will be sent in to train Syrian special forces in advanced counter-insurgency intelligence operations.  For one thing, the Russians have admitted that they have Chechen intelligence agents infiltrated into Daesh.  It would only make sense now for the Russians to share their experience with their Syrian counterparts.  The key reason here is that rather than fighting the war for the Syrians, the Russians needs to enable the Syrians to fight their own war.

 

Alas, the actual record of the Syrian security forces has been, according to Russian sources, checkered at best and the Russians are, reportedly, unimpressed.  While the Syrians do have some elite combat units, they do not have high quality intelligence operatives.  What is needed in this case is not just a good solider (say, like a Russian paratrooper or a US Ranger), but a fully trained combatant and a fully trained intelligence officer, something similar to the CIA’s Special Activities Division or the Russian “Vympel” force.  The kind of training needed to prepare for such a function is much more complex, costly and time-consuming than what it takes to train a good paratrooper or Ranger.  My guess is that while the “Chechens” will, when needed, provide immediate support for the Syrians, they will also have a longtime role in organizing an effective counter-terrorist/counter-insurgency force.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT

A Year of Lives Lost to Diseases Science Has Yet to Tame

http://ift.tt/2ib98R9


The year 2016 may be remembered for important medical advances, but a glance at the headlines also offers a grim reminder of the many diseases that remain unyielding adversaries for science.

Parkinson’s disease claimed tens of thousands of Americans, including former US Attorney General Janet Reno; Maurice White (founder of Earth, Wind & Fire); and, quite possibly, Muhammad Ali. (The boxer, who suffered from Parkinson’s, died of sepsis, his family said.) Pancreatic cancer claimed the actor Alan Rickman, author Pat Conroy, and singer Sharon Jones. And former first lady Nancy Reagan was among the many who were felled by congestive heart failure.

Here are some other reminders of the hills medicine has yet to climb.

Gene Wilder, 83, Alzheimer’s disease

Credit: Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The beloved film star quietly carried his diagnosis for three years before his death in August. His family said he’d been reluctant to sadden young fans, especially, by publicly disclosing his condition. (Pat Summitt, the legendary women’s basketball coach who went public with her diagnosis in 2011, also died of the disease this year.) Alzheimer’s remains one of science’s most agonizing mysteries, with more than 5 million Americans living with the disease. Earlier this year, the Alzheimer’s community was crushed by the failure of yet another once-promising experimental treatment.

Prince, 57, fentanyl overdose

Credit: Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Little is publicly known about how or when he first discovered fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more powerful than heroin, but Prince’s death coincided with a rising wave of such overdoses nationally. Last year, more than 27,000 people died from opioid-related overdoses, not including heroin — a sharp increase over 2014, and authorities say the death rate continues to climb.

Joey Feek, 40, cervical cancer

Along with her husband, Rory Feek, she was one half of the country singer duo Joey + Rory. Just a few months removed from the birth of their daughter, she was diagnosed in 2014 with cervical cancer, which kills more than 4,000 women in the US annually — though overall numbers have declined steadily with the widespread adoption of Pap tests. Targeting the HPV virus may also be helping, as some women with persistent HPV infections can, over the long term, develop cancer. Feek’s cancer was thought to have been cleared by surgery, but it returned a year after diagnosis. Her blog, which was read by millions, chronicled her cancer journey to its heartbreaking end, and continues under Rory’s pen.

Gwen Ifill, 61, uterine cancer

Credit: Wikimedia (CC BY 2.0)

Ifill, a pioneering journalist, was the first African-American woman to anchor a major news program — among many other professional distinctions. In her role as moderator of two vice presidential debates, Ifill pushed often-overlooked health topics into the discussion, most notably when she quizzed Senator John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney on the prevalence of AIDS among black women. Ifill was less inclined to speak publicly about her own health issues. The most common form of uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, strikes around 60,000 women annually, and the death rate is roughly the same as it was in 1985. One particularly cruel cause of the disease: pelvic radiation and chemotherapy treatment for other cancers.

Glenn Frey, 67, rheumatoid arthritis

Credit: Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The cofounder of the Eagles, Frey was the band’s first guitarist and, along with Don Henley, one of the principal songwriters. Media reports suggest Frey was first diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 15 years before his death in January, and that he also suffered from colitis. While some have speculated that Frey’s colitis was caused by arthritis medications — which can sometimes lead to bowel disease — others say he may have contracted both separately. Either way, those with rheumatoid arthritis will see in Frey’s battle a familiar theme: Powerful medications that bring relief from excruciating symptoms can also take a long-term toll. Life expectancy for those with the rheumatoid arthritis has improved in recent decades, but it remains lower than that of the general population.

Garry Shandling, 66, suspected heart attack

Heart disease remains the nation’s top killer, accounting for 1 in every 4 deaths. The causes are manifold, of course, and they are growing more elusive. In 2015, deaths from heart disease increased while all other leading causes of death remained steady or, in the case of cancer, dropped. In Shandling’s case, the exact cause of death remained unclear. Months before he died, in an appearance on Jerry Seinfeld’s “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” Shandling revealed a recent diagnosis of hyperparathyroidism, a relatively rare condition which, the writer James Fallows pointed out in an essay about his experience with the condition, can increase the odds of heart disease.

Malik Isaac Taylor (aka “Phife Dawg”), 45, diabetes

Credit: fuseboxradio Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

As a member of the iconic rap group A Tribe Called Quest, Taylor rose from his Queens, N.Y., roots to become a prominent artist. The diminutive Taylor had a soft spot for underdogs — he was a Mets fan, after all — but even commercial and financial success could not help him overcome an admitted addiction to sugar, and the health issues that followed. Taylor’s diabetes led to a kidney transplant eight years ago, and he continued to perform even as complications mounted. It’s a pernicious hallmark of diabetes: Many of those who suffer from the condition can function well enough even as their underlying conditions worsen, a reality that sometimes prevents them from seeking treatment or changing their behaviors until it is too late. To others the disease is fully invisible. More than 29 million Americans have diabetes. One quarter of them do not know it.

Bob Tedeschi can be reached at tedeschi@statnews.com
Follow Bob on Twitter @bobtedeschi

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on December 27, 2016



from Scientific American http://ift.tt/n8vNiX
via IFTTT

32 and lost

http://ift.tt/2izbhF4



from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT
Hello,

I am 32 yo and started programing since 14. I am a self learner and programing is far from being a passion, it is my life. Through the time, I programed using, QBasic, QuickBasic, Visual Basic, C++, C, HTML, JS, CSS, PHP and Python. Actually I only use the 6 last.

I live in democratic republic of the Congo, in the heart of Africa. In my country, developer jobs are quasi-non-existent. My wish is to work remotely. But, many remote Jobs I find online require being USA resident.

My Wish is to have an employer accept me working for approval even for 3 months. I learn quickly and I can add new languages to my fingers if required.

Thank you.

Four men arrested on suspicion of raping US tourist in New Delhi - STV News

http://ift.tt/2ixA4xv


Women hold an anti-rape demonstration in New Delhi. Reuters

Four men have been arrested in India on suspicion of raping a US tourist who visited New Delhi alone earlier this year, local police said.

A tour guide and his associate, a car driver and a hotel worker were arrested after the woman said the men drugged and raped her in a hotel room in April.

The alleged victim also said the men filmed the attack and threatened to make it public if she reported the incident.

The suspects deny the accusations.

The woman returned to the US and registered an email complaint to New Delhi's police commissioner.

She returned to India in December to pursue the case because she was dissatisfied with the progress of the police investigation.

During questioning, the suspects told investigators that the woman was trying to falsely implicate them because she had accompanied them to Agra to see the Taj Mahal, the monument of love, a day after accusing them of the crime, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.

The incident follows of string of high-profile incidents of sexual violence that have outraged the nation and prompted widespread protests.

Last month, a gang-rape victim in the southern Indian state of Kerala alleged that police asked her which perpetrator gave her the greatest pleasure.



from Top Stories - Google News http://ift.tt/1OhtLUV
via IFTTT

Seven Ways to Teach Kids How to Manage Money

http://ift.tt/2hhFreW

As adults, we’ve had a lifetime to learn how to manage our money and spend smart—but are we teaching our kids how to do the same? Finance may seem like a grown-up concept, but it’s never too early to start teaching your children about managing money.

This post originally appeared on DealNews.

Though you’ll want to keep lessons simple for young children, starting early will help them learn the value of money and the basics of budgeting, so they’ll have those skills when they’re older. Not sure where to start? We have some advice. Here are seven ways to teach kids how to budget and value a dollar, so they can start off on the right financial foot.

Give Your Kids Money to Manage

While a teenager may have a summer job, a younger child has no source of income unless you dole out an allowance. You can tie the allowance to chores (representing how adults need to work to earn money), give it out freely (to be sure they have money to manage), or some combination of the two. Whatever you decide, making sure your child has his or her own money is the first step toward teaching money management.

For younger children, keeping their cash in a clear jar can help, as it gives an easy visual representation of how much they have. Once they’re teenagers, however, it may be time to trust them with their own bank account.

Teach Them Budgeting Basics

When children get cash of their own, they need to decide how to spend it—and that’s the time to talk about savings. Let’s say your child has an allowance of $5 per week, but wants to buy a toy that costs $30. While going out and buying that toy immediately isn’t possible, your kid can set aside some money every week, then buy the toy later. That’s the value of a savings account in a nutshell.

Sesame Street offers a simple suggestion to teach younger children about budgeting and saving. Instead of having your kids put their entire allowance in a single jar, get them to split it up into several jars: one for money they can spend now, one for money they’re saving, and one for money to give to charity (or any other arrangement you’d like). Help guide your children in the right direction, but let them decide how they want to spend and save. Congratulations: Your children have just made their very first budget!

As your children grow older, move their budget to paper using a budget spreadsheet of some kind, whether it’s digital or just kept in a notebook. They should record how much money they have, where their money came from, and what they’re spending it on. This means that when they get their own bank accounts, they’ll already know how to balance a checkbook.

Help Children Understand That Everything Costs Money

Your children need to know the value of their allowance compared to the value of the things they’d like to buy. When they want a new toy, point out the cost and remind them how much they have to spend. (This is a good opportunity to encourage kids to save money.)

When they’re buying something with their allowance, make the process visual: Take the money from their jar, bring it to the store, and hand it to the cashier. They’ll clearly see their amount of money shrink, though they’ll get a toy (or whatever else they want) in return.

As your kids decide how to spend their money, also teach them to prioritize. If they spend all their savings on one item, they won’t have the money to spend on other things they might want. Because they don’t have enough money to buy everything they’d like, they need to figure out what’s most important to them.

As they get older, you can give them more financial responsibility; for example, teenagers can pay for their own gas or cell phones. This is where tougher financial decisions come into play. In particular, kids must differentiate the things they want from the things they need. Your teen may want a new pair of shoes, but needs to have enough money to buy gas to get to work.

Show Them How to Shop Smart

While everything costs money, some options cost less. From buying generic products to doing cost comparisons, adults try to make their budgets stretch as far as possible—and you can teach your kids to do the same with their allowances.

If your children want to buy a new toy, help them check the price at Target, Toys”R”Us, and Walmart to see which retailer has the best price. (Or visit Dealnews and find out faster!)

Also talk about sales and coupons, which require patience but can stretch their allowance money a little further. Again, this will help teach your children how to prioritize: Would they rather pay full price for an item or wait for it to go on sale and keep the extra cash? Your children will be delighted to have more spending money, and will learn how to make the most of a limited budget. That’s a skill that will come in handy later.

Let Them Make Decisions (and Mistakes)

Offer advice, but don’t dictate what your children do with their money; allow them to make their own spending decisions. While they’re likely to make mistakes along the way, it’s better to make those mistakes—and learn from them—now rather than later.

Teach Your Teens About Credit Cards

Though credit cards are a useful financial tool, they can trick you into overspending and send you spiraling into debt. Explain to your teens how credit cards and interest rates work before they start getting inundated with credit card offers. Knowing the potential dangers can help them avoid getting in over their heads with credit card debt.

Set a Good Financial Example

Your kids watch what you do, so practice the same smart financial habits you’re teaching them. One way to teach your children about finance is to involve them in your own financial decisions, which gives them context for the choices they see you making. For example, if you tell them you can’t afford something they want, then turn around and buy a new television, that sends mixed signals. But if they know you’ve been saving up for a new television—that the entire family can enjoy—they’re more likely to understand.

Depending on what you feel your kids are ready for, you could involve them in some financial decisions, like what the family should save for next (that new television or a beach vacation).

Readers, how are you teaching your kids to make smart financial choices? What’s worked for you? Let us know in the comments below!

7 Ways to Teach Kids How to Manage Money | DealNews

Elizabeth Harper is a professional writer and a non-professional technology enthusiast, with a keen interest in how tech is changing the world we live in.

Photo by Mario Bollini (Flickr)



from Lifehacker http://lifehacker.com
via IFTTT

The widowhood effect: What it’s like to lose a spouse in your 30s

http://ift.tt/2h0etO1


I sit cross-legged on a white mat spread on the bathroom floor and examine the rows of medication lined up on the shelf of the vanity – neat piles of green-and-white boxes of blood thinners, a rainbow of pill bottles, painkillers worth thousands of dollars. I study the labels: Percocet, Zofran, Maxeran, dexamethasone. Take daily. Take twice daily. Take with food. Do not crush. Do not chew. Take as needed.

I wonder if a one-month supply of drugs intended to save a sick person’s life is enough to end a healthy one’s. It probably is if you consume them not as directed. Chew them, crush them, don’t take with food. Take handfuls at the same time. But the order matters. You must swallow an anti-nausea pill first so you don’t vomit up a $248 cancer pill. This, I know. I’ve watched someone take cancer medication when he was trying not to die.

I remember the day we brought these drugs home. On the afternoon of June 1, 2013, my 36-year-old husband, Spencer McLean, was discharged from Calgary’s Tom Baker Cancer Centre. As he changed from his hospital gown to his jeans, he let out a sob; he’d grown so thin that his jeans kept sliding down even with his belt cinched as tight as it could go.

On our way out of the cancer centre, we stopped at the hospital pharmacy to fill his prescriptions. We picked up a one-month’s supply that cost twice our monthly mortgage payment, despite our private insurance and government coverage of his $7,000-a-month cancer therapy. We sat as we waited nearly an hour for the medications to be prepared; Spencer was too tired to stand. When the pharmacist called us to the front, he handed us three white plastic bags filled with boxes and bottles.

We stepped into the foyer of our condo nervously. Our parents had come by to clean up the packaging and plastic needle covers the paramedics had tossed to the floor of our living room in a rush one week earlier before they whisked Spencer to emergency. Neither of us was comfortable being home. We knew a fair amount about medicine and cancer – he, a surgeon; me, a medical journalist. We knew Spencer’s cancer was extraordinarily aggressive. In the three weeks after his diagnosis, cancer galloped through his body at a ruthless pace, laying claim to his kidneys, his lungs, his liver. In its wake, clots formed in his blood, threatening to block arteries and veins. One had already clogged the vessel carrying blood to his liver, causing the organ to swell so large it extended across his abdomen and hogged any space that rightfully belonged to food. Each day became a balancing act in blood consistency: too thin, his kidney bled profusely; too thick, clots threatened to meander into his lungs and kill him.

At home that evening, right on schedule at 7 o’clock, Spencer took his cancer medication, then vomited it up. By morning, he was peeing out blood clots and couldn’t eat or drink. We reached our oncologist on his cellphone and he agreed we needed to return to hospital. We’d been home less than 24 hours.

Spencer and I lay down on our queen-size bed, on top of the white-and-beige duvet we’d received as a wedding present. On the other side of our open window, a bird tapped its beak on a metal vent. Spencer lay on his left side; his right ached too much to place pressure on it. I nuzzled in behind him and put my nose to his back, where I imagined his diseased kidney to be. We wept like that for half an hour. I inhaled deeply and pretended that I was drawing cancer out of his body and into mine. Then, Spencer said, “Let’s go.”

That was the last time we were home together. Three and a half weeks later, Spencer died of complications from renal-cell carcinoma – an agonizing 42 days after the day we sat holding hands and stunned on a hospital bed, as a nephrologist told us the diagnosis.



The widowhood effect

Now, our home is my home. Spencer left everything to me; he’d no time to be more deliberate in his will. He gave me his beloved bikes and skis, his damn pager that woke us up in the middle of the night, his collection of model leg bones and pelvises, and a bathroom full of drugs that were supposed to save his life.

The pile of medication in our bathroom – my bathroom, now – is a remnant of a life that no longer exists. I don’t know whether to dispose of these drugs or keep them in case I need them to end my own life. At 36, I am a widow.

The widowed are two and a half times more likely to die by suicide in the first year of widowhood than the general population. We are, in fact, more likely to die of many causes: heart attacks, car accidents, cancer, many seemingly random afflictions that are not so random after all. There’s a name for this in the scientific literature: the widowhood effect.

It’s dated now but a 1986 paper in the British Medical Journal explored death after bereavement. It opens atypically for a scientific paper: “The broken heart is well established in poetry and prose, but is there any scientific basis for such romantic imagery?” Indeed, there is, according to the author. He found that a strong association exists between spousal bereavement and death.

Multiple studies in the last 40 years have confirmed these findings. A meta-analysis published in 2012 that looked at all published studies of the widowhood effect found widowhood is associated with 22-per-cent higher risk of death compared to the married population. The effect is most pronounced among younger widows and widowers, defined as those in their 40s and 50s. The widowed in their 30s, like me, also die at higher rates than our married counterparts but the difference is not statistically significant – not because it is insignificant but because there are too few in this age group to detect measurable differences.

We are too few and too young to be significant.




I longed for traditions for mourning to give my private grief a public face. But there are no traditions for how a North American woman in the 21st century mourns her partner.


A terrible first act for a widow

We were in a fourth-floor hospital room facing the parking lot. My husband lay in a bed; directly beside it, the cot I slept in each night. Ten people – me, his parents, my parents, our siblings, our nurse – settled in around him, rubbing his feet and hands, telling him that we loved him.

A palliative-care doctor once told me that we die cell by cell until enough cells succumb that we cross over a line. But if you are watching the person you love the most die, you track their breaths, not cells. When someone is dying, their breath slows. Ever-widening gaps form between the end of the exhale and the beginning of the next inhale. In that space, you, the watcher, wait to find out if the unimaginable has happened. You don’t know if this breath is the last one, or if there is another to come. You only know it’s the last breath when it’s too late to go back and tell them you love them one final time.

When Spencer didn’t inhale again, I waited and waited. I was overcome with fury when I felt my lungs expand to inhale while his remained still. He was now there, dead, and I remained here, alive. I put my head on our hands, still intertwined, and I whispered to him over and over, “You were supposed to stay with me.” I kept my head on Spencer’s bed; someone – one of my sisters, I think – kept a hand on my unwashed hair. The nurse, crying herself, started to lower the head of Spencer’s bed.

In the next seconds, I committed a terrible first act for a widow, but I did not care. I wanted to delete the memory of what cancer had done to my husband. Once strong and so preternaturally warm that I’d put my cold feet on his stomach after a day of skiing, he’d grown so thin that his collarbones poked out from the neck of his hospital gown; his hands were cold, his fingers curled in like claws. Adding insult to injury, his belly had swelled on his skinny frame as his abdomen filled with a cancery fluid due to liver failure. Spencer said to me once, bitterly, in the middle of the night as we drank milk sitting on his bed, that cancer turned him into Humpty Dumpty. He’d raged at the changes in his body. I took up his cause.

“I don’t want to see him like this any more.”

I thought I shouted it. My sister would tell me later it was a mumble, indiscernible. Ten bodies, plus Spencer and our two beds, blocked the space to the door of his hospital room. I stood up and moved quickly, so quickly that I tripped over someone’s legs, falling into their lap. I don’t know whose. When I got to the door, I froze, knowing the hallway contained nurses and patients and our friends watching the door. They had seen the photograph of a white rose that a nurse taped to the door to indicate someone was dying in the room. When I walk out, they will know he is dead. My father followed me to the door.

“I don’t know where to go,” I told him.

In a shining moment of dad-wisdom, he responded, “We’ll just go forward.”



Scenes from our life before cancer

My first minutes as a widow launched an ongoing education in how ill-prepared I was for this role. The charge nurse asked me if arrangements had been made for his body. I answered her confidently; it was one thing I knew with certainty. “He wants to be cremated and hiked up to the top of Polar Peak.”

She paused as she absorbed how far from the mark was my answer. “That’s lovely,” she said, after a moment. “Have you selected a funeral home?”

I never thought about how a body goes from a hospital bed to a funeral home to ashes scattered on top of a favourite mountain. My dearest girlfriend offered to call her dad, a funeral-home director in Saskatchewan, for his recommendation. A nurse asked me if I wanted to donate Spencer’s corneas for transplant. I paused, then answered yes because Spencer had just graduated from surgical residency with a specialization in trauma. I was guided into the nurse’s office and instructed to speak to a woman from the transplant centre on the phone. After I gave my consent, the woman on the phone told me in clear terms that she needed to put me on hold for a few minutes while she confirmed information on her end. I hung up because I misunderstood her instructions. Eventually, another nurse called her back and finalized the transplant.

I spent the first night at my parents’ house. The next day, despite protests from my parents and Spencer’s, I drove myself home, taking an unusual route because the city had flooded in the biggest storm in a century and my favourite road home was under water. I had heard the rain tinging off the ledge by our hospital room for four days straight – ting, ting, ting as Spencer lay dying. A nurse had told me that parts of the city close to our condo had been evacuated. As I drove home under a sunny sky, I saw the ordinarily blue waters of the Bow River had overflowed their banks. Water flowed through streets of the downtown and nearby communities. I absorbed this information without reaction; of course, the city is flooding, I thought.

Inside our house, Spencer’s orthopedic surgery textbooks lay open on the dining-room table where he spent hours studying. A duffel bag half-packed with ski gear had been left on the floor of the closet, marked for our upcoming move to California. On our fridge, a page ripped from a magazine, a kitchen for our dream home. Scenes from our life before cancer, interrupted by the visuals of life after cancer. Lance Armstrong’s autobiography folded open on the coffee table. A canary-yellow plastic bin held a few used needles in the bathroom. Our crumpled duvet bore the marks of two bodies that lay side by side that last afternoon at home. I was numb; stunned. I crawled under the covers and lay there without tears.

I needed to shower. I got out of bed, undressed, turned on the water and stepped in. I spotted Spencer’s green bar of Irish Spring soap, resting, partially used, on the edge of the bathtub; its letters had rubbed off weeks ago against his body. I lifted it to my nose. As soon as the scent reached me, I crumpled to the floor of the shower, the smell triggering a flood of memories. That is the smell of our intimacy, of my head on his chest. I curled up with the bar of soap and cried. Then, the dilemma began and I will spend months thinking about this: I have to lather the soap to get that smell. The more I lather, the less soap remains. I hid the soap at the back of the tub, protected from water, and pulled it out on the worst sorts of days. It bubbled into smaller and smaller pieces until, some time in year two, it disappeared down the drain.

Our crumpled duvet bore the marks of two bodies that lay side by side that last afternoon at home. I was numb; stunned. I crawled under the covers and lay there without tears.


Spencer smiled like a little kid

We met skiing at Lake Louise in 2007 when Spencer was a medical student. He was skiing with a friend who knew the man I was dating at the time. The four of us converged midway down a powdery run on a bluebird day that sparkled in the aftermath of a massive snowfall. We were introduced again several months later when we happened to be seated next to each other at a restaurant. By the end of that night, we knew we could make the other laugh in an extraordinary way. Later in the fall, when we were both single, Spencer invited me for coffee. From that first date, we forged speedily onward. Within two months, as we drove from Calgary to his hometown of Fernie, B.C., Spencer shyly suggested that we get married one day at a back-country ski lodge not far from his home. Three years later, we did.

He smiled like a little kid, employing every muscle in his face to express maximum delight. He loved camping, cycling, the Vancouver Canucks and buffalo mozzarella. He relished the cold of winter, and griped against two-faced politicians and ski hills that charge too much. He used to whip his nephews around in a speedy game of airplane that made me wince. He was razor-sharp, mischievous and observant. He once sent me a text message at a restaurant while seated beside me. “The girl across from us has OCD. She keeps straightening everything. I’m going to make our table crooked. Hee hee!”

He swore he’d never buy me a Valentine’s gift, but proposed an idea in lieu. For a year, he’d find a new way to tell me he loved me every day. I’d discover “I love you” written on Post-it notes stuck to the fridge, documents left open on my computer, texts sent to me late at night. I still find notes at the bottom of old grocery lists in my iPhone: “I love you. SM.”

We married as Spencer started his third year of his orthopedic-surgery residency. He regularly worked 90 hours or more a week and went long stretches without a day off. He left our bed for the hospital so often in the middle of the night that he claimed I could say goodbye in my sleep without realizing he’d gone. He missed ski trips, Saturday-morning sleep-ins, family dinners. He was working in Lethbridge, Alta., on my birthday; volunteering in Haiti for his.

We once enjoyed the short bliss of a pregnancy followed by the devastation of an early miscarriage. I cried frequently during the second year of our marriage. I tried to hide my heartache by weeping in the bathtub. I wanted to try fertility treatment; he didn’t. He worried our problems with infertility initiated at his kidneys, malformed from birth due to a spontaneous mutation – a freak accident in his genes, a small blip in the assembly line during DNA replication that resulted in one tiny, atrophic kidney and another large kidney smothered in cysts. He didn’t look as though he had anything wrong with him, blazing his way down a mountain in one ski-chattering rip. But his kidneys were concerning enough that we’d been turned down for life insurance. Spence feared his kidney problems could be passed onto our children. We decided we would adopt some time after residency.

In June, 2013, we were supposed to be celebrating the end of residency over a bottle of wine. We were supposed to give our condo keys to a young Australian surgeon named Kate, who’d already wired us several thousand dollars in down payment for a year’s accommodation. We were supposed to pack our most important belongings into our 2005 Toyota Rav 4 and drive off to California where Spencer was starting a fellowship. We were supposed to cross the border into the United States on July 2, as per our visas from the U.S. government. Our visa categorized Spencer as “resident alien physician,” and me, in the dehumanized lingo of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, his “complete dependent.” I’d been furious when the lawyer first showed us. We were supposed to get that sorted.

But nothing is as it’s supposed to be.



The right suit, the wrong box

“Which casket do you want, Chris?”

We stood in a room of empty, open caskets. My friends, my siblings, Spencer’s brother looked at me, waiting on an answer. I wanted to say, “I don’t want a casket. I just want Spencer to come home.” But things were hard enough. I didn’t need to add difficulty to the day.

I couldn’t think coherently to make decisions so I grabbed answers at random. I chose a cherry wood casket with a white satin lining. I’d promised Spencer that I’d hike his ashes 1,052 metres up a mountain so windy and pebbly at the top that hiking poles are a must. The urn I selected was a heavy wooden box, 25 centimetres wide and almost as tall, which needed to be dismantled in order to access the ashes.

I returned home to pick a suit for Spencer to wear at his funeral. I stood in our closet and considered the two options: the suit he wore at our wedding or the suit he was supposed to wear to the exam he missed because he almost died in our living room. On that night, as we’d watched television, he suddenly couldn’t inhale without pain ripping up his side. He’d put his head on my shoulder and his hands on my thighs while I sat on a coffee table in front of him, my legs on either side of his, shouting to a 911 operator on the phone.

“My husband can’t breathe,” I told her. “He is 36 and was diagnosed two weeks ago with metastatic kidney cancer. He can’t breathe.”

To him, I kept saying, “Spencer, are you still with me? Squeeze my leg.” And he would.

By the following morning, we knew Spencer was dying faster than we’d understood. We had barely grown accustomed to the phrase “a life-limiting disease” and now we were dealing with a life-ending disease. His survival would be measured in weeks, rather than years.

He wore his navy blue exam suit to his funeral. I sprayed it with a perfume of mine that he loved, because I wanted something of me with his body that day. I added a pair of dress socks from the company Happy Socks and the fellowship tie the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons had given him a week before he died. I put his dress shoes inside our front door to remember them the next morning when I carried his suit to the funeral home. That afternoon, I returned home after a run and saw his shoes there, just like he’d kicked them off after a day of work. I indulged the fantasy for a few seconds.

“Hey babe, I’m home,” I called out.

I revelled in that split-second where I could pretend that he was around the corner, out of sight, studying at the dining-room table. But the silence that met my call destroyed me. I lay on the floor and cried there for a long time, an ugly, snotty, gasping cry. On the other side of the door, I heard the elevator ding, followed by the sound of my next-door neighbour pulling out her keys. She stopped at her door, less than a metre from mine. I covered my mouth to quiet the sobs and remained still. She waited; I waited. Then she put her key in the lock and carried on. After that day, on the worst nights, I would take Spencer’s pillow, the one he died on, and a blanket from our bed, and curl up on the hallway floor. I’d whimper there until sleep or morning came. I did this as many as 70 times over the ensuing three years.

The day of Spencer’s funeral arrived sunny and record-breakingly hot. Seven hundred sweaty people crammed into a church. The heat caused the fire alarm to buzz, briefly, thrice during the funeral. This made me laugh out loud. Spencer would have relished it, these ridiculous blasts shattering the solemnity of his memorial. After, we toasted Spencer in a pub while our nephews flew remote-control helicopters on the patio.

Late in the evening, one of his friends said to me: “It’s a shame you never had kids. You love your wife but, boy, you really love your kids.”



Days filled with ‘widow tasks’

I longed for traditions for mourning to give my private grief a public face. But there are no traditions for how a North American woman in the 21st century mourns her partner. For the grief-stricken, we’ve no identifying adornment to alert the world – no sad equivalent of a wedding ring. My closest reference as a widow is my Greek grandmother, my Yiayia, widowed for the last quarter-century of her 100-year life. She wore a black dress with black stockings on her bowlegs and, sometimes, a black kerchief around her hair. Unintentionally, I drifted to ensembles of black, grey and beige. I carried Spencer’s wedding ring on a chain around my neck, and I wore his shirts with the sleeves rolled up. I blurted out my plight in conversations with strangers – the person beside me on a plane, a source I was interviewing for a story. I felt a need to justify my thinness, my red eyes, my habit of staring straight ahead without seeing. A plea to the world: Go gentle with me, please. I am not entirely here.

The first month, my days were filled with what I called “widow tasks.” I left the house every morning with a copy of his will and his death certificate tucked into my purse. I grew accustomed to being called the executrix, a term not nearly as powerful as it sounds. I visited the bank to discuss what to do with $160,000 in student loans. The woman at the bank was stunned at Spencer’s age; her husband, too, died at 36, many years before, she told me. I cancelled his credit cards and his membership in the Canadian Medical Association, and started his taxes. I was interviewed by a woman at the organ-transplant centre who asked me how many sexual partners Spencer had had. As I looked through his e-mails for taxable receipts, I found the password for a lock he bought for his laptop: ilovemywife.

After a few hours of widow tasks, I sat, dumb, in front of the television. The Tour de France began a few days before his funeral. Spencer had bought me a road bike as a wedding present. We watched the tour together the year before he died. He explained to me how the peloton and domestiques and crosswinds worked. After he died, I watched each day’s stage once in the morning before I left our condo and the replay that night when I got home. Eventually, I brought my bike into the living room and practised clipping my feet in and out of the pedals in front of the television. I’d never been on my road bike without him. The summer after he died, I refused to take it out of the house.

People asked, “How are you?” and I’d stumble over a response. One night, my sister and I came up with a warped but useful method of answering this question. Every day, sometimes several times a day, I’d give her a number on a scale of 0 to 100, 100 being as happy as I’d ever been; below seven possibly suicidal. Several times, I croaked out sevens or lower, and she’d come over.

I read a statistic that, on average, a widow loses 75 per cent of her support base after the loss of a spouse, including loss of support from family and friends. Many friends disappeared as grief set in. On the day of Spencer’s funeral, I said a teary goodbye to eight of my closest friends who, like Spencer, had just finished residency and were moving around the world for fellowships. Of those who stayed, many drifted away – some immediately, others more slowly.

But, while I cried from loneliness, I found consolation in isolation. This seems incongruent, I know. But home, alone, in our condo, I didn’t have to pretend to anyone that I was okay. I didn’t have to listen to anyone say time heals everything or that I am still young and other inanities. On my own, I could wear Spencer’s dirty T-shirts around our house. That was a genuine solace. It still is.

There is a term used in bereavement literature for a young death: an “off-time” death. I find it graceful and apt. When your spouse dies an off-time death, you, too, fall out of time. You drop out of sync with your contemporaries. In the same summer I bought a casket, my sister, who is pregnant with twins, bought two cribs. I scrolled through my Facebook stream of people getting married, having babies, watching their kids ski their first black-diamond runs until I could no longer look. New parents grumbled about sleepless nights with crying babies. I wrote imaginary responses in my head: I’m exhausted, too. I also woke up to someone crying loudly in my bedroom. But it was me, dreaming Spencer had sent me a letter saying he was never coming back.

A friend in Montreal, a mother of two, posted a Washington Post story about a study published in the journal Demography. The story was titled, “It turns out parenthood is worse than divorce, unemployment – even the death of a partner.” I fumed over the post for days. I found the original study; I read their methods, reviewed their conclusions. I needed to confirm that this story had it all wrong. I am right. The investigators looked at why birth rates are low in Germany, why some people don’t have a second child after a first. Parents who are unhappy after a first child generally do not have a second. Happiness levels drop for some parents – sometimes significantly – after the birth of their first child, but the dip is usually temporary.

Parenthood is nothing like the devastation of having your spouse die young.

Those of us who have lost a spouse endure a particularly gutting kind of stress that eats away at our protective barriers. In 1949, two psychiatrists at the University of Washington set out to study stressful life events and the ways they contribute to illness. For 15 years, the duo studied 5,000 patients. At the end of the study period, death of a spouse topped their list of cataclysmic life events. The authors assigned it a value of 100. Far behind in second place, with 73 points, was divorce. Nearly 50 years have passed since they published that study, and the results still stand. The stress of losing a spouse permeates every part of one’s body, affecting each cell and manifesting tremendous physiological changes. Cortisol levels rise, and sleep is disrupted. Heart rate and blood pressure increases. Your neutrophils – a white blood cell that fights infection – become less effective, particularly in the elderly. Your cells begin to falter in their responsibilities, your immune system weakens, and you fall prey to countless illnesses that, under normal circumstances, would be held at bay.

My body began a revolt the moment we heard the words “suspicious for cancer.” That day, I vomited so many times in the hospital bathroom that Spencer’s physician asked me if I was okay. I couldn’t keep food down. My menstrual cycle became erratic, arriving every few weeks and lasting for four to 17 days. Nearly a year after Spencer died, my family doctor suggested I take birth-control pills to control my period – a recommendation hard for her to make and for me to hear after years of doctors’ visits to improve our fertility. Even my blood cells, now strangely large and low in number, showed the effects of missing Spencer. An ultrasound revealed a small benign tumour on my right kidney – same as his. My wee, asymptomatic, I-miss-you tumour.

I am still keen to speak with Spencer about all this. I suspect he would say things like, “These tumours are common”; “It’s no big deal.” I’ve needed to speak with him about many things in the last three years. I didn’t know the password to our computer backup system. One of his colleagues called me to say, hesitantly, that the department of surgery needed his pager for the incoming batch of residents. I couldn’t find it. My right Achilles tendon often aches from too much running and I know he’d say the same thing he said the last time this happened – “rest is the most undervalued aspect of training” – but I’d like to hear him say it anyway. I want to tell him our accountant, who has been very good to me, has Asperger’s syndrome. I want to talk to Spencer about the medications in the bathroom, and how I have felt like I am dying too slowly from unhappiness and I don’t know what to do. I would like to point out to him that, based on my family history, I am probably going to survive another 65 years, barring an unnatural death, and that is very long time to be unhappy. He’d wrinkle up his face at that last one; he hated histrionics. More than that, he hated to see me unhappy.

Mostly, I need to speak with him about the day he died. For the 42 days he had cancer, we were inseparable. We walked laps around the hospital floor, the nurses calling out, “Hey, lovebirds” every time we passed their station. When he couldn’t walk any more, I sat beside him in a chair during the day and slept on a stretcher at his feet at night. We had what we called “milk picnics” in the middle of the night when we couldn’t sleep. I’d get us two small cartons of milk from the hospital kitchen and I’d sit cross-legged on his bed while we talked. We dissected every step of our cancer adventure: that time a nephrologist made us stand in a hospital hallway to read on a computer screen the report confirming that cancer had scattered like polka dots through Spencer’s lungs; whether it would be better for one of us to have Stage 4 cancer or both of us to have Stage 2 cancer; the time I stole an adult diaper off a nurse’s cart and Spencer dressed up in it to make the nurses laugh. I yearn for a milk picnic to ask Spencer what he felt and heard when he was dying. The combination of medications, disease and exhaustion eroded his ability to think coherently in the last days. My husband, who had helped save the lives of patients in the same hospital where he lay dying, was confused by the remote control to operate his bed. Sometimes, he’d reach up and rub his head in thought, look up at me with complete trust, only to ask something bizarre: “Chris, do I have somewhere to go today?”

The worst, in a panic: “Chris, I have my passport but I can’t find yours.”

He kept pressing the button on his morphine pump. The doctors believed it was delirium rather than pain, but I will always agonize over whether he was hurting. In the last hours, when he could no longer speak, I kept telling him that I loved him, that he was very brave. I want to know if he could hear me and if it was annoying to hear the same things repeatedly. I want to know if he knows that I was the first to leave after he stopped breathing.

The desire to talk to your spouse after they’ve died is a recurring theme in studies in scientific journals and online support groups for the grief-stricken. I understand why: My brain has not yet caught up with the reality of my life. I am accustomed to reflecting on the world through the language of Chris and Spencer – what we find funny, sad, interesting. Now that he’s gone, I’m the only one left who speaks our language.

Our third wedding anniversary arrived while I was alone at my family’s summer home on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. That morning, I listened to a voice message Spencer recorded three days before he died, speaking into the voice-memo app on my phone. Steroids have eroded his voice. He is so tired that he pauses in the middle of sentences to catch his breath.

He starts out by saying, “You are my favourite,” because we always used to say that. He pauses a long time. There is a crack as he inhales. “You are the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met.” He pauses again. “Indubitably.” Then, he asks me to look after his wife. “You are the only person she will listen to. Please make sure she is happy.”

“I will miss you and I will love you forever.”

He signs off as if it is a letter. “Love, Spencer.”

I met a woman once who told me that her husband died in a car accident after they’d had a fight. How beautiful and smooth my story seemed next to hers.


How grief changes you

No one warned me about the cognitive impairment that comes with grief. Tears, heartache, depression – these are expected, but the sustained diminishment of my thinking skills astonishes me. I lost my husband, and then I kept losing things: credit cards, a favourite running shoe, my way home as I was driving a road I’d driven a hundred times before. I regularly forget the keys in the front door of the condo. I woke up one morning to discover that I’d left it wide open through the night. More than once, I bought groceries and forgot them in the trunk of the car. I often think about older widows whose spouses die after many years of marriage. How lost they must be. That’s borne out in studies of elderly widows, which suggest bereavement can be a factor in the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease. In my 36-year-old brain, I find myself unable to access the most rudimentary information. I no longer instinctively know the year with certainty; I do a mental check by calculating how long he’s been gone.

I couldn’t read novels for many months after Spencer died. My interest in the fantasies of someone else’s imagination plummeted to nil. This, to me, indicated that I was truly broken. I felt some comfort when I read an interview with the poet Edward Hirsch. Hirsch, who lost his son in 2011 to a drug-related accident, said he couldn’t read in the aftermath of his son’s death. “To be left with myself and being unable to read meant I was unrecognizable to myself,” he said.

I read Buddhism and found its concepts on death quite lovely, but I was too addled to embrace them. I read Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations and came to rely on the pep talks from this old Roman emperor. Look well into thyself: There is a source of strength which will always spring up if thou will always look. But sometimes I lose patience with Aurelius’s stoicism. Easy for you to say, dude, I’d tell him. You’ve got your wife, kids, an army and all the wealth of the Roman empire.

I read the poet Rebecca Lindenberg, whose partner, the poet Craig Arnold, disappeared while hiking on a volcano in Japan in 2009. He was 41. Her lines stuck in my head, none more this:

FRAGMENT, I am a fragment of us.

I am a fragment composed of fragments.

In the first fall after Spencer’s death, I was invited on a date, the first time I was asked out as a widow. We met the day before during a press conference. I asked him several questions; each time he answered, he opened his response by addressing me by my first name. He was handsome and dark-haired, charming and smart. He asked if I was married; and I told him that my husband had died 107 days earlier. I have zero game when it comes to dating. He put a hand on my arm and told me he was sorry. I looked down at his hand, back up at him, and down at my arm again. It was an uncomfortable thing. He asked me to dinner. I told him I had work to do that evening and hid out in my hotel room for the rest of the night.

In my third year of being a widow, I ran into a man I’d known a decade earlier. As we caught up, we found out that we’d each lost a spouse to cancer in the same summer. “Are you still as fucked up as I am?” he asked me.

“Probably,” I told him. “Maybe more.”

Even in this space of deep sadness, there are things to be cherished and things to be envied. How envious I am to hear that someone has died after a one-, two-, 10-year survival with cancer, that they had time for bucket-list trips or an appetite for dinner in a favourite restaurant. On the other hand, there are people who believe I’m lucky. My husband and I enjoyed a rock-solid marriage. We had 42 days to say goodbye. This has buoyed me through the worst. To lose a partner without warning seems to me the cruellest thing. I met a woman once who told me that her husband died in a car accident after they’d had a fight. How beautiful and smooth my story seemed next to hers.



The hike to Polar Peak

Spencer’s ashes rested on my nightstand for more than a year, where the weight of the box imprinted its shape permanently into the wood. I moved it onto my desk in the spare room during year two.

In the third year after Spencer’s death, I told his family that I was finally ready to take his ashes home. Spencer’s brother and wife organized a trip so we could carry out my promise to hike his ashes to the top of Polar Peak, the highest mountain looking out over the town where he grew up. We started out in the early-morning light. Spencer’s brother, his wife, my sister’s husband and I hiked from the base of the ski hill. Spencer’s brother carried the urn in his backpack. As teenagers, he and Spencer used to hike up with their skis in the winter. After an hour and a half of climbing, we arrived at the top of a chairlift where we met my mother and Spencer’s parents. We switched backpacks; now I carried the urn.

The terrain was loose scree, the incline steep. We watched our parents carefully as they picked their steps up the mountain. I carried on a secret conversation with Spencer in my head, chiding him for choosing this spot; we would have a major orthopedic disaster on our hands if anyone slipped at this elevation. The sky started to drizzle and broke into a freezing, sideways rain as we arrived at the top. We hid out in a ski-patrol hut. We sat on rolled-up snow fences and ate bagels. A sign at the back of the shed bore the warning: Welcome to Polar Peak!! Extreme terrain with big exposure over large cliffs. You must fight to self-arrest if you fall! I thought: He’d get a kick out of that.

When the storm eased, we walked out to the mountaintop, still encircled by clouds of black and indigo. Spencer’s brother unscrewed the screws on the bottom of the wooden box. My sister-in-law had researched how to spread ashes and cautioned that we might see bits of bone along with ashes inside the box. My teeth chattered and I shivered. We passed around the bag of ashes and each of us spread some over the mountain. I went last. I sobbed and sobbed and sobbed, and was astonished at how much ash there was to spread.



Home as a Christmas-free zone

Our last Christmas together, Spencer worked late on Christmas Eve. He met me at my parents’ house after most of the household had gone to bed. We flopped side by side on the couch. He yawned and I put my head on his shoulder. We made a pact to spend our next Christmas on the beach in California.

The next day, he woke with a crippling stomach ache. He joined my family for coffee and breakfast, which he picked at, then disappeared back to bed, whispering to me, “Tell your family that I’m tired.”

We worried; my mom kept asking me, “Is Spencer okay?” I’d go check and bring him apple juice. The following day, Spence drove to Edmonton to write an exam he needed for accreditation to practise medicine in the United States. He texted me when he finished, frustrated that there was too much about the kidney. I passed the info onto my brother, who was also prepping for the test. I signed it, “The exam widow.”

Between work and study, it took us weeks to take down our Christmas tree. Its branches were covered in ornaments we’d bought over the last seven years: a gaudy sparkling streetcar from a trip to San Francisco, a dainty wooden fairy from an adventure in Berlin where he accidentally got on a train without me, a bear in a white coat from the year he graduated from medical school.

When we packed everything up, we tucked the tree and our box of ornaments into a space at the back of my parents’ basement. We told them we didn’t know when we’d be back for them.

Four Christmases later, the tree and the box remain in my parents’ basement, unopened and unmentioned. My home is a Christmas-free zone, a refuge from the merriment of the season. This is a survival tactic. In a season that celebrates togetherness, I need one place where it’s comfortable to be alone.

If I charted my emotional state over the last three and a half years, you would see what researchers call a lot of noise. Dots spread chaotically over a time plot, no discernible pattern to their location. The five famous stages of grieving would be represented: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. But they are less stages and more viewpoints that I revisit time and again.

One winter day that first year he was gone, I packed up his medications and took them to a drug store to dispose of them. The pharmacist wouldn’t take them; something about how the blood thinners needed to be ejected first. I didn’t understand. So home we went again, me and my bags of medications. I restocked them in the vanity.

Some time in year two, I gave the drugs to my parents and asked them to get rid of them. I renovated the bathroom; the old vanity doesn’t exist any more.

This is where I am supposed to tell you how I have moved on. We like pretty endings for young widows. Jackie Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis; Lady Mary found a handsome new groom on Downton Abbey. Loneliness is averted, parity restored. Studies show remarriage negates the widowhood effect, neutralizing any negative influence on mortality. But I don’t believe you can replace one person with another, or that young widowhood is simply a time gap between a funeral and a remarriage. I think it’s about withstanding a blow that fundamentally changes your architecture. Some days, you are wobbly; other days, less so.

I’ve come across little things of Spencer’s in the last three years, a ghostly version of the way he used to leave me notes around the house. One day, I delighted to find a stick of Chapstick in his ski jacket. I smeared it on my lips and stored the tube separate from all the other tubes of Chapstick in the house so it could never be confused. I discovered a piece of paper he kept folded in his sock drawer with a typed-out protocol for Achilles-tendon recovery on one side and my initials scribbled on the other. I wonder if he stored it there the first time I hurt my Achilles tendon, or after he was diagnosed because he knew that I was likely to run myself into injury from grief.

I still have days where I lie on the floor and miss him so terribly that I keep repeating, “I want you to come home.” It does not happen as frequently as in year one or year two but it slays me just the same. I got a rambunctious puppy called Ajax, named for the character in The Odyssey who misses his best friend, Achilles, so much that he dies from grief. Like Spencer, Ajax hates to see me cry. She begs to be let up on my lap so she can lick my tears away. It’s nearly impossible to derive therapeutic benefit from tears when a puppy’s tongue pokes into your eyeball, putting you at risk of some kind of zoonotic conjunctivitis. She refuses to let me sleep on the floor of the foyer. This, I suppose, is progress. I’ve even taken many of Spencer’s clothes to Goodwill, minus a collection of my favourites – soft-flannel shirts, ski sweaters, a jacket. They hang in the closet beside my own.



MORE FROM THE GLOBE AND MAIL




from Hacker News http://ift.tt/YV9WJO
via IFTTT

Irrational Exuberance in US Stock Market Grasps at 20K for Dow

http://ift.tt/2hlkLrH

This article by David Haggith was first published on The Great Recession Blog:

Celebrate because the Epocalypse is here!

Since Trump’s election, the US stock market has climbed unstoppably along a remarkably steep path to round off at a teetering height. Is this the irrational exuberance that typically marks the last push before a perilous plunge, or is the market reaching escape velocity from the relentless gravity of the Great Recession? 

This burst of enthusiasm in response to Trump’s victory, flew in the face of almost everyone’s predictions. That it lifted the market from seven months of languor certainly makes 20K on the Dow look like the elevation marker of a breathtaking summit.

While breaking 20k, if it happens, may be as meaningless as one more mile on the odometer when all the numbers roll over, it is psychologically potent for many. Breaking through it, could cause fear as eyes turn down and see how far below the earth now is, or the rarified air up here may bring euphoria that lifts the market to even greater levels on a rising current of hot air.

Investors have been buying and selling with as much frenzy as Christmas shoppers. Now there will be much eating and drinking to celebrate this record-setting Santa-Clause rally, even if it doesn’t top 20, before Christmas, as investors take a brief rest to enjoy their surprise gains, fat and happy in belief that 2017 will be a prosperous new year.

There is almost no evidence of fear amongst all the cheer. According to Gallop, economic confidence has never been higher in the general population. Some are calling it Trumphoria as people seem to be relieved that eight years of Obamanomics are ending, and business is seizing the reins of government, guided by one of the world’s richest and most dazzling developers.

 

The first positive double-digit index score since the inception of Gallup Daily tracking in 2008 reflects a stark change in Americans’ confidence in the U.S. economy from the negative views they expressed in most weeks over the past nine years.

 

A similar CNBC survey indicates this is the greatest breath of fresh air for consumer confidence since Obama was elected in 2008, and it is not just stocks that are soaring. The US dollar has reached its highest peak in fourteen years. TechonoMetrica also says consumer confidence has just hit its highest level since 2006 (just in time for Christmas shopping).

 

The surge in consumer confidence is primarily due to a collective sense of relief among Americans over the conclusion of the contentious 2016 presidential election season, as well as a feeling of hope regarding the prospect of a new administration taking office…. Consumers are ecstatic that the election is finally over.

 

 

Will this exuberant ride continue in 2017?

 

Many analysts believe the push through a major milestone, if it happens, confirms a strong new market trend; but what does history say about breaking past such major psychological resistance barriers? When the Dow first broke past the 100 level in 1916, it tumbled below the line immediately and then sputtered along that ceiling for almost ten years. It didn’t break through with any continuance again until the mid 20s! When the Dow flirted with the 1,000 mark for the first time in 1966, it tumbled down and again stumbled along near that ceiling for seven years. When it finally passed it at the end of 1972, it did continue a tiny ways higher; but in less than three months the market fell for the next two years, eventually plumbing a depth 44% lower, while the nation sank into recession. The Dow didn’t permanently break through 1,000 again until 1982! And, after the Dow broke major, major milestone of 10,000 in 1999, it made it about 10% above that and then fell about 30% from 2001 to 2003 in what became known as the dot-com crash.

What if we look at what history has to say about irrational exuberance by using other measures than the Dow? The ratio of stock prices against corporate earnings is one of the most common ways of assessing the relative height of a market peak. Here again, there are only a few times in history that the S&P 500 has climbed to prices that are 27.9 times more than corporate earnings of the last ten years, which is where the S&P stands now. Once was in 1929 just before the Great Depression, then again in an ill-fated boom of the 60’s, and only one other time in 2002.

The altimeter I’m using here to assess our present peak is called the CAPE (the Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings ratio that won Yale’s Robert Schiller his Nobel Prize). In market terms, our present mark on the gauge means we’re entering the stratosphere! Even in 2007, the market was not this overpriced by the CAPE’s measure, and irrational exuberance has always accompanied this level: (Some will argue otherwise, but hang with me a minute.)

 

Early 1929 was actually a fantastic time to get into the US stock market — so long as you didn’t stick around. So were the late 1990s. Someone who sold their stocks in late 1996, when the CAPE hit 28, missed out on the biggest free-money bubble bonanza in recorded history…. Nonetheless … over the past 150 years, it has generally been an extremely poor move to invest in U.S. stocks with the CAPE at these levels. (Market watch)

 

Not everyone thinks passing this mark on the CAPE matters. In fact, apparently many don’t, or the stock market wouldn’t have kept climbing into the CAPE’s red zone this month, but according to Valentin Dimitrov of Rutgers University and Prem Jain of Georgetown, the measure has been applied too simplistically by those who disregard it:

 

In a nutshell: Investors shouldn’t flee stocks simply because the Shiller PE is above average. They shouldn’t flee stocks even when the Shiller PE is way above average. But history has said they should flee stocks when the Shiller PE is at extreme levels — like now. Only when the CAPE is “higher than 27.6”, they conclude, has the stock market proven to be a really bad investment. (Marketwatch)

 

It is, however, not just the height of this peak, but the rate of rise that evidences irrational exuberance. This month, the US stock roller coaster ratcheted its way relentlessly up its highest hill one clanky link at a time. If the Dow closes above 20,000 this week, it will be the fastest 1,000-point rise in market history! The previous record rate of rise came in 1999 in the run-up to the dot-com bubble crash. Of course, the higher the market is, the less meaningful a thousand-point rise is.

 

Do these graphs look like irrational exuberance?

 

Sometimes a visual says more than words:

 

 

Irrational exuberance in stock market?

Fastest, longest rise of the Dow in the past two years. Irrational exuberance?

 

 

 

Notice that it is not just prices that have shot up. Sometimes prices soar while trading volume treads flatly. In other words, there are very few traders, but those that are buying are willing to pay more. This time, trading volume has gone astronomical (lower part of graph) as money floods  into stocks. That means it’s a flurry of high-stakes trading. The last time we saw this kind of trading volume was …

 

 

 

Irrational exuberance in stock market seen in steepest rise and highest volume in a decade

Is the steepest climb in a decade irrational exuberance, particularly when accompanied by the highest trading volume since the Great Recession began?

 

 

Yes, the last time trading volume (lower graph) reached this frenzy was in 2008 and 2009 when we experienced the greatest stock market crash since the Great Depression. And look how long and steep the post-Trump rally (right end of upper graph) looks compared to any other climb during the past decade, including the run-up to the Great Recession. It’s almost a straight-up wall!

 

How irrationally exuberant are investors right now?

 

Forget about measures for a moment, let’s look at forecasts by the revered experts in the industry because if everyone is running with glee in the same direction …

 

Some market experts are espousing an unequivocally bullish outlook for equities. That level of enthusiasm was on full display after Robert Doll, Nuveen Asset Management’s chief equity strategist, on Wednesday said he was “fully invested” in the market. Asked by one CNBC reporter if he recommended keeping any cash holdings … Doll had this to say: Hold cash? “What for? Market’s going up!” (Marketwatch)

 

Clearly, Doll sees no top to the hill in sight. Apparently neither do others: in spite of our present nose-bleed heights, Wall Street’s gauge of investor fear, the CBOE Volatility Index VIX, rests comfortably at a 16-month low. Seems almost no one sees any reason for concern at all.

Lance Roberts writes,

 

Over this past weekend, Barron’s Magazine published its big story the “2017 Market Outlook….” After 8-years of a bull market advance not one of the forecasters had a “bearish” outlook. In fact, as the article concludes: “If all goes smoothly, our experts’ forecasts might even prove too tepid. The old bull isn’t ready to call it quits yet….” Of course, since it is rising asset prices which drives their business – being “bullish” is good for business…. However … it is extremes in both “psychology” and “behaviors” that tend to give us the best indications as to future outcomes. The legendary Bob Farrell had two rules specifically relating to today’s topic. The first was … “When all the experts and forecasts agree – something else is going to happen.”

 

Barron’s panel of ten experts (from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Citi, Morgan Stanley, BofA, Blackrock and others) were unanimous in their cheer that the US stock market will ascend well beyond its present record heights.

But, if everything is so rosy, Wolf Richter asks, why are bank insiders and big industrials selling their own company’s stocks faster than ever: (Someone has to be selling for all that buying to happen.)

 

Why are insiders at banks and industrial companies selling their shares as if there were no tomorrow? Banks had a blistering run. The shares of Wells Fargo, the most hated bank in America these days, soared 28% over the past 30 days, Citigroup 25%, JP Morgan 26%, Goldman Sachs, which is successfully placing its people inside the Trump administration, 37%. It has surged 50% since the end of October…. But high-ranking insiders have been dumping their shares faster than at any time in the data going back to 2003. These executives are considered the “smart money.”

 

Have market insiders just lost their appetite for dizzying heights, or do they have reason to believe they are selling into the stock market’s last hurrah? Are their banks, perhaps, getting clobbered by the bond crisis that is now developing on the other side of all this trading?

Even the Wall Street Journal, notes Richter, saw this high-volume trading as a bullish sign. They couldn’t, however, say why it was bullish, but only that it might be profit-taking. Well, why take profits now if you’re confident your bank has room to run? Is WSJ’s bullish note just more irrational exuberance from all market experts who can smell nothing but roses since Trump’s victory?

 

This is how BofA’s Michael Hartnett explains it: Wall St. is bullish: expectations of “above trend” growth at five-year highs … global inflation expectations at second highest % since Jun 2004 … global bank stock positioning has hit record highs. (Zero Hedge)

 

Bonds are smarter … and far from exuberant

 

One old adage says that bond traders are the smart money. Money is now fleeing bonds at a record rate of fall that matches the record rate of rise we are seeing in the stock market. Bond money has to go somewhere; so, it could easily be that stocks are going up less because of Trumphoria and more because of bond phobia, triggered by Trump.  Fear of what could easily turn into the biggest bond-bubble crash in the history of the world makes stocks look like the safest haven.

The global realization that central banks are not so enthusiastic about additional stimulus anymore, has bond investor’s realizing that the longest bull market in bond history may finally be waning. At the same time Trump’s plan of spending somewhere between half a trillion and one trillion dollars on infrastructure investments (financed on national credit) means interest rates will have to rise in order to attract enough creditors, which they are already doing in anticipation. In many nations, investors’ money is trapped in bonds near zero-percent interest. Knowing higher interest on new bonds is almost inevitable now, these investors want to get their money out of current bonds. Even in the US, who wants to be stuck in bonds at 2.5% for ten years when two to three years from now, interest may be at 5%?

The prevalent thinking is that Trump’s credit-card spending spree will heat the economy with numerous new jobs, and those new jobs will raise wages in order to attract enough workers. The increased demand for great amounts of materials will also drive up the cost of materials for everyone. The combination of many more workers flush with new cash and rising demand for materials means inflation will rise significantly; and inflation eats away at the value of money stored in bonds. So, one more reason to exit bonds. Goldman Sachs believes the main effect from fiscal stimulus this late in the employment recovery curve will be to drive up interest and inflation.

In my view, all of that means the Fed’s statement that it will be raising interest more often next year is now irrelevant. I said that before the Fed’s last meeting, and I think we see it is true in the stock market’s relative indifference to what the Fed said. Interest rates are already rising everywhere in the US economy, regardless of the Fed’s target. So, the Fed is clearly failing to accomplish anything with its stated target rate because the market is finally taking over and driving interest. That is why it was easy for the Fed to say it will increase its number of rate increases. I suspect its stated target will play catchup all year in 2017 to what the market is already doing with interest rates.

So the bond bull is breaking; but that break can cause major bond funds to wind up in liquidity traps where they cannot pay off investors who want out fast enough because the more they sell bonds that people don’t want anyway to raise cash and pay out investors, the more they have to lower the price to make a sale, driving down the value of the bonds they continue to hold, causing more investors to want out. The breaking of the longest and highest bond bull market in history could become a financial vortex, and bond values have already been falling at their fastest rate in history.

David Gundlach, the bond king who manages the DoubleLine Total Return Bond Fund, sees trouble if bonds get about half a percent higher than they are today:

 

We’re getting to the point where further rises in Treasurys, certainly above 3 percent, would start to have a real impact on market liquidity in corporate bonds and junk bonds…. Also, a 10-year Treasury above 3 percent in my view starts to bring into question some of the aspects of the stock market and of the housing market in particular. (Newsmax)

 

If bond funds go bust, they will likely take banks and retirement funds and ultimately the whole economy down with them, since almost everyone has been parking large amounts of money in bond funds because they are typically viewed as safe havens in uncertain times. If all of that goes down, the stock market likely does, too. It’s hard to see how it wouldn’t. It’s always been hard for me to see which would go first in the next big drop back into the Great Recession because both look so dangerous, and it is still hard to say. Will the insolvency of bond funds wipe out some banks and hedge fund managers, taking their stocks down to nothing, or will irrational exuberance in the stock market give way to panic? Right now, it appears to me that bonds will lead the crash.

Of course, I predicted the Epocalypse of 2016, so you might not want to listen to me. (Though I did say it might not happen until after the election when the Fed gives up and lets Trump take the fall.) I also predicted a second plunge in the price of oil in 2016, and that didn’t happen either. My predictions for 2016 were apparently badly off (at least in timing) for the first time in almost a decade. I started writing regularly on eonomics after predicting the crash of the housing market nearly to the month back in 2007, which I said would quickly become an enduring global catastrophe, the likes of which few people alive had ever seen.

That said, I anticipate the remainder of this December will go something like last year’s transition into the new year where the market crashed in the manner I said it would by going up first (due to euphoria that the Fed’s interest rate increase didn’t bring down the house), then rounds off and then falls off a cliff; but we’ll see. I’m not certain of that this year, as I was last year, and the fall off the cliff last year was not as severe as I thought it would be … though it was the worst January in the history of the stock market. This year, the euphoria is MUCH higher, so the fall could be much greater and be the kind that I anticipated for 2016.

 

Is it irrational for stocks to rise due to betting on the Trump card?

 

It could be. Consider that the entire marketplace began shifting overnight out of bonds and into stocks when Trump won, and it’s still shifting like a huge landslide. What if it repositions to this large degree, and then Trump changes his positions … again? As a matter of fact, he’s already started to backpedal from his infrastructure pledge just as he has been doing from almost all of his stated campaign pledges since being elected:

 

Trump made rebuilding the nation’s aging roads, bridges and airports very much part of his job-creation strategy in the presidential race. But lately lobbyists have begun to fear that there won’t be an infrastructure proposal at all, or at least not the grand plan they’d been led to expect…. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to tamp down expectations last week, telling reporters he wants to avoid “a $1 trillion stimulus.” And Reince Priebus, who will be Trump’s chief of staff, said in a radio interview that the new administration will focus in its first nine months with other issues… He sidestepped questions about the infrastructure plan. In a post-election interview with The New York TimesTrump himself seemed to back away, saying infrastructure won’t be a “core” part of the first few years of his administration…. He acknowledged that he didn’t realize during the campaign that New Deal-style proposals to put people to work building infrastructure might conflict with his party’s small-government philosophy. “That’s not a very Republican thing — I didn’t even know that, frankly,” he said. (Newsmax)

 

Seriously? Wow! How could he not know this, given that Republicans have resisted doing any infrastructure stimulus plans for eight years? He is either scarily out of touch if he didn’t realize he’d have a fight from the Republican congress, or this statement is proof that Trump was a Trojan horse from the beginning. This is a remarkably rapid turn from the New-Big-Deal plan that Steve Bannon advocated as being the economy’s salvation, given that Trump is not even in office yet.

We could have one wild roller coaster ride in 2017 since the market is entirely repositioning itself toward Trump’s infrastructure pledge if that plan takes a few years to come about or doesn’t make it through congress at all … or maybe doesn’t even get presented. It certainly never had a chance of making it through congress unless Trump pushed hard and leveraged his campaign victory toward that end, and the above statements don’t sound like Trump has any push left!

Zero Hedge recently reported on growing Republican resistance to Trump’s tax and infrastructure plans:

 

[In an article titled] “A “Big Problem” Emerges For Trump’s Economic Plan” … we reported that while the market may (still) be blissfully unaware about the emerging conflict between Trump’s debt-fueled vision for the future, Republican politicians had started to notice…. Republican lawmakers warned “that there could be a major obstacle to enacting President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda: the national debt.” “I was disappointed that it wasn’t brought up in the campaign,…” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said of deficits and debt. “So I’m very concerned about it. It’s going to be tough to address if there’s no push from outside of the Congress,” he added. “I’m very concerned about it. It’s the biggest problem we face, by far.”

 

Rapidly rising interest rates already mean the infrastructure program will become much harder to finance. If Trump waits three years to get seriously started, interest rates could make the plan nearly impossible, plus he will likely have expended all his political capital that comes from a surprise election victory, which will be ancient news by then. He will need that capital to get the plan through a reluctant congress.

Rising interest rates already mean the mammoth national debt that came about as the result of the Great Recession will become much harder to finance over the next few years, even without taking out another trillion for new infrastructure. So, that will be a new and serious burden on the economy unless so much money flees Europe to bond and stock safety in the US that we’re saved by dumb luck … as once again being the best horse in the glue factory.

So, is the stock market irrational in its exuberance for shifting so much just because of Trump’s pledges, which are far, far from becoming reality? I think so. I haven’t even talked about Democrat resistance to Trump’s plans, and he’s already got resistance from the Republican leader of the senate. He is already fading back on his own push for the plan … before he is even in office. He has faded back on almost everything he has promised.

So, I think it is extremely irrational for the market to completely reposition from bonds to stocks — especially banking stocks — when Trump is hedging his words on all of his pledges … backpedaling hard on immigration enforcement and on putting Hillary in jail and now even on infrastructure spending.

David Rosenberg, chief investment strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates Inc., agrees:

 

The bullish run “probably can get extended into the new year,” but “we’ve just taken a very big leg up here, and levels of sentiment, levels of market positioning and levels of valuation do have me a bit worried that if we see any disappointment at all, it could lead to the sort of pullback we had last year….” Rosenberg calls current valuation levels “extreme.” (Newsmax)

 

 

1929 stock market crash

Gathering around the stock ticker in the US stock market crash of 1929.

 

That doesn’t mean the market won’t keep going up. Who knows what the maximum height or duration of irrational exuberance is (because who knows how crazy people can get); but I am certain of this much: the higher stock market rockets upward on such irrationality, the harder it falls into the chasm of ever-growing debt from which it has been constructed. NO significant economic reforms have happened since the start of the Great Recession. There has been no significant improvement in corporate earnings, just a lot of expanded debt to buy back shares in order to improve Price-Earning ratios, which still look terrible. The entire market is but a poof of speculative hot air.

But, for the time being, Merry Christmas. If you’re not heavily invested in stocks or bonds, raise a glass of cheer and party on because you have less to fear. There is nothing you’re going to do that can stop the markets (in stocks and bonds) from having their hangover when the bubbly stuff is over and irrational exuberance suddenly looks like delirium. Our greatest economic crashes have always happened when least expected.



from Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/qouXdu
via IFTTT