United States

Narayana Kocherlakota is a funny guy.

Before abdicating his post at the Minneapolis Fed to former Goldmanite/TARP architect Neel Kashkari, Kocherlakota was the voice of Keynesian “reason” for the FOMC.

Although his pronouncements never measured up to the power of the Bullard, Kocherlakota did call on a number of occasions for MOAR dovishness, noting that if the US economy were to decelerate (which it has), more asset purchases may be warranted.

While the following summary of key recent headlines suggests a broad array of issues leading to the worst start of the year since 2008...

... in broad terms, the biggest worries challenging that bull case in January were twofold: China and commodities, mostly oil. However, over the past week, two new big concerns appear to have emerged. Here, ironically, is Deutsche Bank explaining what these are (for those confused, "tightening in financial conditions in European financial credit" is a euphemism for plunging DB stock among others):

As we reported yesterday, in one of the most surprising developments involving the Syrian proxy war, Saudi Arabia and U.S. presence on the ground, the latest twist is that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are now mulling a full-scale invasion while Russia and the Syrian government continue their progress in wiping out the US and Saudi-funded rebellion. To be sure, there was confusion when CNN Arabia reported first that the Saudis may send as much as 150,000 troops into Saudi Arabia, by way of Turkey, something which Anadolu news promptly denied.

With China offline for the rest of the week, global markets have found a new Asian bogeyman in the face of Japan which as reported last night saw its markets crash, and the Yen soar, showing that less than 2 weeks after the BOJ unveiled NIRP, yet another central bank has lost control.

Earlier this year, Seymour Hersh, America’s leading investigative journalist, published an intriguing article on U.S. policy towards the growing conflict in Syria and Iraq. “Military to Military,” which appeared in the London Review of Books, maintains that the Pentagon’s intelligence analysts have, since 2013, been advising against the White House policy of removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, arguing that it would create a power vacuum in the country that would inevitably be exploited by groups like ISIS.