• If You Like To Sleep, Move To Holland
  If You Like To Sleep, Move To Holland

  Getting 7-9 hours sleep is essential for our physical and mental well-being.

  

  To celebrate World Sleep Day, Statista’s Niall McCarthy takes a look at the countries which are getting the most sleep on average.

  If you live in the Netherlands or New Zealand, you’ll probably manage to get slightly more than eight hours per night, according to a study published in the journal Science Advances.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  However, if you live in Japan or Singapore, you’ll probably sleep about a half hour less then eight hours.

  

  While that might not seem like much, the study claims that even a half hour of less sleep can have a detrimental effect on your health over time.

  The sleeping gap between countries is more than likely due to cultural and social factors.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 03/22/2021 – 02:45

• Nord Stream 2 Behind Biden's Gratuitous Slander Of Putin
  Nord Stream 2 Behind Biden’s Gratuitous Slander Of Putin

  Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Relations between the United States and Russia have reached a dangerous watershed following an unprecedented personal insult by American President Joe Biden to Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

  

  But note the sequence here. Biden’s insults were then followed by U.S. threats of draconian sanctions to kill the Nord Stream 2 gas project between Russia and Europe. Just who is the killer here?

  The world may be thankful that Russia is being so magnanimous in its response to Biden’s puerile and slanderous sniping. The crisis in bilateral relations provoked by the U.S. president has the potential to escalate, but it is only down to Moscow’s restraint that further deterioration in relations is being checked – for now.

  In an interview with ABC News, aired on Wednesday, Biden was asked if he agreed that Russia’s leader was a “killer”. To which the American president replied in the affirmative, “I do.” He also warned that Russia “would pay a price” over allegations of interfering in the U.S. elections and other supposed malpractices.

  One can safely assume that the Biden administration is hellbent on making relations with Russia even worse as its intelligence agencies “review” over the next few weeks already-made presumptions about Russia’s purported culpability.

  For his part, the Russian president responded calmly and generously, saying that he wished Biden good health. Putin even offered to hold a live conversation with his American counterpart on a range of issues. One might infer that these are oblique references to suspicions about Biden’s mental health and his apparent loss of cognitive powers when speaking in public.

  One other comment by Putin was telling. He said of Biden’s “killer” remark, “it takes one to know one”.

  Joseph Biden’s career as a politician spans nearly half a century, first as a long-time senator, then as vice president in two administrations and now the 46th president of the United States. During that period, Biden has been a key player in facilitating countless U.S. overseas wars and military operations which have resulted in millions of deaths and destruction of whole nations. As a senior senator on the foreign affairs committee, it was Biden who was instrumental in drumming up congressional support for the American war on Iraq beginning in 2003. That war alone – based on lies and fabrications concerning weapons of mass destruction – led to at least one million dead and unleashed terrorism across the Middle East and beyond.

  More recently, just four weeks after his inauguration, Biden ordered airstrikes on Syria on February 26 causing multiple deaths. It was a murderous act of illegal aggression.

  So indeed the American president knows what it is to be a killer. He sees it every time he looks in the mirror.

  The casual arrogance and ignorance of the American political class is astounding. They make accusations against Putin based on flimsy rumors, such as the alleged poisoning of conman Alexei Navalny. And then they have no decency or decorum by bandying about vulgar labels. Meanwhile, the piles of dead bodies lying under American politicians’ feet are mountainous. They have no shame.

  Following the latest outburst from the American president and his intelligence agency groundlessly accusing Russia of interfering in the 2020 election, Moscow has temporarily recalled its ambassador to reassess bilateral relations. It is the first time this has happened in over 20 years. There is no factual or diplomatic precedent for the evident American attempt to provoke a crisis. Not even during the frozen Cold War decades did U.S. leaders stoop to such gross and offensive rhetoric. There seems to be a more general degeneration in Washington’s diplomatic conduct over recent administrations. America no longer has statesmen. Its political ranks are full of hacks and hicks and mumbo-jumbo conspiracists.

  When Biden won the election, he promised to revamp American diplomacy with intelligent statecraft and skillful negotiators. An early positive sign was his prompt contact with Russia to extend the New START treaty governing nuclear weapons. But apart from that move, the Biden administration has sought to undermine bilateral relations with Russia. The prospects of a new detente or reset have been jettisoned. (The same is also apparent regarding U.S. relations with China and Iran.)

  It seems likely that Biden and his team are deliberately provoking a crisis with Russia in order to justify a geopolitical policy of hardening hostility towards Moscow.

  Foremost in this context is the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the American objective to terminate that project. The day after Biden sent relations with Russia into a downward spiral, his Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the U.S. would be imposing tough new sanctions on “any entity involved the Nord Stream 2 pipeline”. Blinken stated there was “a whole of government commitment in the United States to stopping” the gas supply project between Russia and Europe.

  It cannot be overstated that the $11 billion pipeline is a huge geopolitical issue. It is front and center to Washington’s global ambitions. The Americans want to kill it in order to sell their own more expensive gas to Europe for decades to come. Washington also views the energy partnership between Russia and Europe as an obstacle to its hegemonic position.

  Germany and other European states have remained steadfast in their support for completing the construction of Nord Stream 2 which is about 95 per cent finished, nearly 1,200 kilometers of pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany’s coast. When it becomes operational the flow of gas to Germany from Russia will double in volume. Thus it is vital for Germany and Europe’s long-term growth.

  In a desperate bid to thwart the strategic partnership between Russia and Europe, Washington is resorting to ever-more frantic threats of sanctions and other disruptive measures. Biden is playing the personal insult card in a gambit for blowing up bilateral relations with Russia as a way to sabotage Nord Stream 2.

  It’s a pathetic move, one that actually speaks more of America’s historic enfeeblement rather than pretensions of power. Russia would do well to stay calm and let the Americans make fools of themselves.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 03/22/2021 – 02:00

• China: What To Do About It?
  China: What To Do About It?

  By Gordon G. Chang, via The Gatestone Institute,

  What does China really want?

  Well, China really wants to rule planet Earth. It also wants to possess and rule the near portions of the solar system. No, I am not exaggerating. No nation in history has been this ambitious.

  With regard to our planet, Xi Jinping wants the world to reject the current Westphalian international system, in place since 1648. In its place, he wants China’s imperial-era system, where Chinese emperors believed they not only had the right to rule tianxia, all under heaven, but also the heavens compelled them to do so.

  

  Xi has been grabbing territory from his neighbors. In just the past few months, the Chinese have been encroaching on India’s Sikkim as well as Nepalese territory.

  With regard to Nepal, let us talk about how China actually moves against its neighbors. In January, Beijing’s propagandists, as they have in the past, bragged about how Chinese scientists were able to come up with the exact measurement of a mountain in Nepal. Not in China, in Nepal.

  Now, the Chinese, and only the Chinese, call this feature Mount Qomolangma. The rest of the world, all of us, know it as Mount Everest.

  What is China doing by bragging about its measurement? It is establishing the basis for a territorial claim to this mountain, which happens to be close to China. They are eventually going to say, “Well, look, we named the place, we measured it, therefore, it’s ours.”

  This is subtle, but that is the way Beijing has been working. Of course, sometimes Beijing is not so indirect. We have also seen in recent months China’s encroachments into India’s Ladakh, high in the Himalayas, and its killing of Indian soldiers.

  Chinese planes have regularly been flying through Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. China’s armed ships have been intruding into Japanese waters in the East China Sea around those uninhabited islets, the Senkakus. Beijing has been trying to take territory from its neighbors. It is acting especially provocatively. We have got to be concerned.

  Amendments to China’s National Defense Law, effective the beginning of this year, take sweeping powers from the State Council, which leads China’s civilian government, and give them to the Communist Party’s Central Military Commission. These powers include the power to mobilize all of society for war.

  Moreover, Xi Jinping himself in January told the troops of the People’s Liberation Army that they must be prepared for conflict “at any second.” Beijing could well start history’s next great conflict.

  Many people will tell you that China is just bluffing, but we know from history that countries that continually talk about war, that continually bluff about it, usually manage to start them. This is the situation in which we find ourselves.

  On the topic of controlling the solar system, China will land a rover, its rover, on Mars in either May or June. Mere exploration for the good of humanity? China’s officials have been talking about the moon and Mars as if they are sovereign Chinese territory — part of the People’s Republic.

  They look at near heavenly bodies the same way they do the South China Sea, something that should be theirs. This means that if they get there, China believes it has the right to exclude other nations.

  Everything they do, whether it is seemingly innocuous, such as measuring a mountain or putting a rover on Mars, is a means of claiming sovereignty, of enlarging the People’s Republic.

  Now, of course, there are, in addition to these acts, China’s militant, hostile, belligerent actions. We see these all the time.

  We all have heard about China’s behavior, but today let’s focus on three things that China is doing relating to genetics.

  • First, China is collecting the world’s DNA.

  • Second, China is genetically engineering the Chinese to become a superhuman race, in other words, eugenics.

  • Third, Chinese researchers are working on pathogens, new pathogens, artificial ones, to create the world’s next pandemic.

  First, China is gobbling up the world’s DNA. So far, it has amassed the world’s largest collection of DNA profiles of humans. It claims about 80 million of them. Of course, it wants more. We need to be concerned about the way China is doing this.

  Chinese hackers, for instance, are going after insurance and healthcare companies to get DNA profiles. We saw this in January 2015, when we learned that China had hacked Anthem, America’s second‑largest insurance company. It got health information on 80 million Americans who were either insured or Anthem employees.

  Beijing is building this massive database also with its Phase 3 trials for its two vaccines, especially in Africa, both north and south of the Sahara. Think of Morocco as well as Nigeria.

  China is also getting DNA by buying American businesses. For instance, China’s BGI Group, the world’s largest genomic sequencing company, collected the largest group of DNA profiles of Americans when it purchased Complete Genomics in 2013. In January, China’s Harbin Pharmaceutical Group passed its last hurdle in purchasing GNC, which has health information of Americans as well.

  Another way China is collecting DNA is by offering low‑cost genetic sequencing services to ancestry companies and also to research laboratories and others. In 2019, there were 23 Chinese or Chinese‑linked companies that were accredited in the US to provide DNA sequencing services.

  We know, of course, that China has had a number of research partnerships and other ventures with American institutions, such as Johns Hopkins.

  If you want to find the largest collection of genetic information of Americans, you do not go to America. You go to Beijing.

  The story here is that we allowed the Chinese to plunder our society for data.

  The second point, eugenics, is downright frightening because biological research in China is heading in very distressing directions.

  Bing Su, a geneticist at the state‑run Kunming Institute of Virology, recently engaged in a number of experiments putting human genes into monkeys, including the MCPH1 gene relating to brain development. That means these monkeys will have intelligence closer to humans than to lower primates.

  Bing Su is not stopping there. His next experiments are going to be taking the SRGAP2C gene, which relates to human intelligence, and the FOXP2 gene, which permits language development, and also putting them into monkeys. It is as if nobody in China has seen the “Planet of the Apes.”.

  In China, there is an unrestrained ambition to experiment in weird ways. For instance, if you want to know what happens when you mix pig and monkey DNA, well, just ask the Chinese. They have been involved in other similar experiments as well.

  This whole subject was brought to the attention of the American public by John Ratcliffe, then director of National Intelligence, when he wrote that China was trying to grow super‑soldiers. Ratcliffe mentioned that China is already conducting experiments on people in the People’s Liberation Army to enhance their abilities, to create, as he called it, “biologically enhanced capabilities.”

  The Communist Party is also experimenting with humans other than soldiers. It was, for instance, a Chinese researcher who was the first, and so far only, person to use gene‑editing tools on human embryos to create live births.

  A Chinese professor, He Jiankui, in Shenzhen in southern China, actually used CRISPR, a gene‑editing tool, to remove the CCR5 gene to create live births of twins in late 2018.

  He said he did this because he wanted to make the twins resistant to HIV, but there are also suggestions he was enhancing the intelligence of the twins. This, of course, evokes the eugenics experiments of the Third Reich to create a “master race.”

  He is not the only person to experiment on human embryos. We are seeing similar experiments across the Chinese research community. Chinese geneticists are now trying to use the CRISPR tool to fundamentally alter humans.

  The Chinese regime does not have ethics or morality. It is not restrained by law. It does not have a sense of restraint. The regime is trying to create the perfect communist. China has the ability and the will to do this, which means that the world has got to prevent this experimentation.

  As for the third topic, pathogens, a little background might help. China uses its doctrine of Comprehensive National Power, CNP, which they got from the Soviet Union. It is an empirical tool to rate the strength of countries. China is relentlessly seeking the Number One CNP ranking.

  China can become number one in two ways. It can enhance its own CNP ranking by becoming stronger, or it can decrease the CNP rankings of other countries. That’s where pathogens come in. This notion of decreasing CNP of others meant that China had no inhibitions about spreading the coronavirus around the world.

  We don’t know whether the pathogen causing COVID‑19 naturally jumped from animals to humans, a zoonotic transfer, or whether it was cooked up in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That has yet to be determined.

  We do know one thing. We know that China’s leader, Xi Jinping, took steps deliberately to spread the pathogen beyond China’s borders. He did that primarily in two ways. First of all, he lied about the contagiousness of the disease. He knew it was highly transmissible human-to-human. He told the world it was not.

  Then he leaned on countries to not impose travel restrictions and quarantines on arrivals from China while he was locking down Wuhan and other portions of China, which meant he thought that these travel restrictions and quarantines were effective in preventing the spread of disease. This means, of course, that he thought he was spreading disease by forcing other countries to take arrivals from China. That shows malicious intent.

  Now, China’s ranking of CNP will increase dramatically, of course, if the next disease leaves the Chinese alone and sickens only foreigners. This is where some particularly distressing information has come to light.

  China’s State Council which, as mentioned, is the civilian government, in May 2019 imposed new rules preventing the transfer of DNA profiles of Chinese out of the country. At the same time, Chinese officials started enforcing existing rules and the new rule more effectively.

  That points to a sinister intention, but we do not really have to speculate because China’s National Defense University, in its 2017 edition of The Science of Military Strategy, actually talked about a new form of biological warfare of “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”

  Bill Gertz of The Washington Times recently quoted an unnamed American official, who said China was working on germ weapons capable of attacking only specific groups. Now, China denies it has the doctrine of “unrestricted warfare.” That term comes from a 1999 book by two Chinese Air Force colonels: Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.

  The spreading of the coronavirus is indeed an application of unrestricted warfare. Many analysts have said that biological warfare does not work. I can understand why they say that, but unfortunately we have just seen a disease kill about 2.4 million people as well as hobble societies across the world. [Editor’s note: The toll, since this talk was given, has increased to 2.7 million].

  COVID-19 is the ultimate proof that biological weapons work. If Chinese scientists actually succeed in developing viruses that attack only foreigners, China could end up as the only viable society in the world. This is communist China’s weapon against the world and against the United States as well.

  About two decades ago, Chi Haotian, then China’s defense minister, reportedly gave a secret speech about how China should use germ weapons to exterminate Americans so that the Chinese could then inhabit North America. “Living space.” You have heard this concept, “Lebensraum,” before.

  Also, in October of last year, Dr. Li Yi, a Chinese sociologist, returned to the extermination theme, this time in public. “We are driving America to its death,” Dr. Li approvingly said at a forum.

  Before the Chinese actually succeed in exterminating Americans, we should start thinking about what we can do to block China.

  I’m now going to give you my to‑do list. Many of the items may sound pedestrian, but remember that American policy towards China had been devoid of common sense for decades, especially during the Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

  These presidents maintained policies that were the opposite of common sense. I’m afraid it looks as if that is where Biden is heading to. His administration right now is engaged in a top-to-bottom review of China policy, which will probably be finished sometime in April. We do not know how it will turn out.

  Yet we know what Biden has done in his first month as president. He has issued a slew of executive orders dismantling protections the Trump administration built against a militant China.

  Some of Biden’s actions have been merely questionable, but some of them have been downright inexcusable and indefensible. For instance, on January 20 — just hours after taking the oath of office — Biden issued an executive order that repealed President Trump’s executive order of May 1st, 2020, preventing grid operators in the US from buying Chinese equipment.

  This means China is now free to sell sabotaged equipment to the US. This is not just a theoretical concern.

  Every administration looks at the China policies of its predecessors. I’m not saying Biden shouldn’t do that. What he should do is leave President Trump’s protections in place while he engages in that review because he should not leave the United States vulnerable in the interim.

  China’s Communist Party, of course, has not been shy in attacking the United States. We should not be defenseless in the interim.

  Moreover, whatever one thinks of Biden’s executive orders, he has ordered big giveaways to China and gotten nothing in return. In other words, his giveaways have been unilateral, a unilateral taking down of America’s protections.

  There are a few things that we should be doing now to protect ourselves against China’s genetic initiatives.

  Here goes:

  The first thing we should do is require everyone that maintains a computer network in the US, whether they are private or whether they are government, to harden them against espionage. The Chinese are villains, but we have allowed them to be villainous by leaving our networks undefended.

  I am angry at the Chinese for stealing our stuff, but I’m much more angry at a series of presidents who decided to do nothing or do nothing effective. Let us impose a cost on China for stealing US intellectual property. That means we have got to go well beyond the Section 301 tariffs that President Trump imposed in 2018 for the theft of our IP.

  Then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, in his December 3, 2021 Wall Street Journal op‑ed, put the figure of China’s theft at about $500 billion a year. This means the costs we impose are going to have to be greater than that amount if we are going to deter China.

  Second, we should simply prevent China from buying any American company that possesses DNA profiles of Americans or is involved in biotechnology or genetic research. That’s just common sense.

  Third, we should prohibit any Chinese or Chinese‑linked company from providing sequencing services for the DNA of Americans.

  Fourth, we should end all research partnerships with Chinese institutions.

  Fifth, we should withdraw from the biological weapons convention. China is almost certainly violating it at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other locations. The convention has no inspections regime. That means this is a unilateral obligation on our part.

  Sixth, we should get out – again – of the World Health Organization. The WHO was complicit in Xi Jinping’s spread of the disease. The WHO didn’t make a mistake. It absolutely knew what it was doing.

  Senior doctors at the WHO knew that the coronavirus was highly transmissible, yet on two occasions, January 9th and January 14th, 2020, the political leadership of WHO spread China’s false proposition that the disease was not transmissible. I think the WHO is unreformable.

  Seventh, we should impose costs on China for spreading COVID‑19. Recently, we passed that grim milestone of more than 500,000 deaths. This pathogen is not finished with us yet. We have to impose these costs on China to convince Xi Jinping that he cannot spread the next disease beyond his borders.

  The next virus, as mentioned, could leave the Chinese alone and sicken everyone else. It could be a civilization-killer, which means that China could be the only viable society left on earth.

  When I talk about Xi Jinping believing that he should rule the entire world, people say, “Oh, that’s ludicrous,” or, “It’s impossible.”

  No, it’s not ludicrous. It’s not impossible if China is the only functioning society on this planet.

  We are far stronger than China. We can defend ourselves.

  The Chinese unrelentingly attack us, and we do not have the political will to defend ourselves.

  Let me end with one question. What are our children going to think when they realize that we had the means to protect them but chose not to do so?

  *  *  *

  Question: You mentioned that the CCP is collecting DNA. What are they utilizing this knowledge for?

  Chang: There are two things. First of all, they want to be a leader in biotechnology. We know this because biotech was one of the 10 original areas in Xi Jinping’s Made in China 2025 initiative, announced in 2015. That initiative is designed to make China both self‑sufficient and a world leader in the enumerated areas.

  The second thing is, as mentioned, they want to build a biological weapons capability. They have got a dual purpose here ‑‑ to lead biotech and, second, to be able to kill everybody else on the planet.

  Question: What would you tell these American businesses who are eager to open up on China?

  Chang: Business is business. Business will always want to make money. It will go anywhere, do anything. We have seen this, of course, with regard to China, but we also saw it in the run‑up to World War II. IBM, for instance, was providing census‑tabulating machines so that the Third Reich could count Jews.

  They were doing this even after war in Europe started with the bombing of London. We know how bad and how free of morals business can be.

  This is really up to the President of the United States to use his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 or the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 because he can prohibit businesses from going to China. He can prohibit investment into China’s markets. He can do all of the things we need as a society to do.

  I know this sounds drastic to many people, but China uses all its points of contact with the United States to undermine us. Right now, the FBI and local law enforcement are just overwhelmed by what China is doing.

  We do not have the capability to keep up. Until we can get a handle on this, the president, I believe, has the constitutional responsibility to end these contacts with China, business and otherwise. Yes, it is drastic, but our republic is at stake.

  We know, for instance, that China does not really believe in capitalism. People say — Bill Gates has said this a number of times — that China is more capitalist than the United States. If we look at what China has been doing with regard to Jack Ma and others, we can see that no, they are not capitalists. They want to use capitalists to further their objectives, but they are not capitalists themselves. Until we come to that fundamental understanding, we are at risk.

  Question: What are your thoughts about China hosting the Winter Olympics in 2022?

  Chang: The International Olympic Committee should move the games to a country not tainted with crimes against humanity and other atrocities. Plus, there’s something else the IOC must do. It must ban China’s teams from athletic competition.

  If we go back to 1963, the IOC banned the teams from South Africa because a large portion of the South African population was not permitted to participate in sport. That was because of apartheid.

  We have the same situation in China today where Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others are not permitted to participate in sport. The IOC, I believe, has an obligation to ban China’s teams until the regime stops committing those crimes against humanity, until others can participate in sport just as well as the majority Han athletes can.

  If the IOC does not do both these things, move the games and ban China’s teams from competition, we should boycott the 2022 games. I do not like the boycott idea because this punishes athletes, but ultimately, we have to do this if the IOC doesn’t make the two moves.

  Question: What is the state of play today between Iran and China, especially given that the Iran deal is apparently back on with the US?

  Chang: About eight months ago, we learned Tehran and Beijing signed a 25‑year, $400 billion strategic partnership deal. That, of course, would cover business relations. Also, it is military-linked. A lot of analysts correctly say that this strategic partnership will not end up being as robust as it now appears. Nevertheless, Beijing’s support of Iran will be crucial.

  Indeed, what Iran has been doing in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon, almost certainly has Beijing’s blessing, because Tehran knows China has its back—and will back it with money.

  China, of course, has made sure that its nuclear weapons technology has found its way to the mullahs. It has done that a number of different ways, one of them through the A. Q. Khan black market network run by Pakistan and since rolled up by the United States. It was not rolled up before Pakistan was able to send enrichment technology to the Iranians.

  Also, China has facilitated North Korea’s sale of ballistic missiles and ballistic missile technology to Iran, which gives Iran the ability to deliver nuclear weapons.

  You put all that together and it shows that the relationship between Beijing and Tehran is sinister, and it will continue to grow over time because Iran, right now, needs a backer and it has found it in Beijing.

  Question: We are all frightened, of course, of China’s strengths. What do you see as their weaknesses? Is it their internal oppression? What is happening in Hong Kong?

  Chang: China is making great progress in imposing its system on Hong Kong. It did that with the June 30 imposition of the National Security Law, which has given Beijing the ability to do whatever it wants in the territory, including extraditing people to be prosecuted in China. As people have said, the National Security Law is the end of law in Hong Kong. That’s about right.

  Beijing’s most recent initiatives, if reports are correct, will be to further restrict those people who can sit on the Election Committee, which is composed of 1,200 people who choose the chief executive, the top political officer. Beijing is also going to add, according to rumors, 20 members to the 70-seat Legislative Council.

  As the war correspondent Michael Yon says, what we witnessed in Hong Kong in 2019 especially, was not a protest movement but an insurgency. Yon points out insurgencies rarely die out. They can disappear for a time. They can go into tactical retreat, but they almost always come back.

  That is essentially what exists in Hong Kong right now. This is going to be a long‑term struggle. It is not going to be easy, but we need to have the President of the United States impose costs on China for what it’s doing in Hong Kong. President Trump started imposing costs but did not do enough.

  I hope that Biden, who ran on a campaign of trying to help the people of Hong Kong, will do so.

  With regard to the broader question of China’s weaknesses, it is really a matter of overstretch. Paul Kennedy, the Yale professor, talked about this. It is a good way, a framework, of looking at it because China does not have the money to accomplish all its objectives.

  Beijing spends an enormous amount of its resources on repressing the Chinese people. The government has been moving back to totalitarian controls with its social credit system, surveillance cameras, and Great Firewall. All of this is not cheap.

  Also, the Belt and Road Initiative, which is to connect the world to China, means China is putting a lot of money into infrastructure that the private sector has not wanted to build. Indeed, a number of countries are not paying back China on their loans, which is a drain, certainly, on the Chinese treasury. Yes, China ends up owning infrastructure and assets, but the cost to it is exceedingly high.

  This overcommitment is also evident in China’s rapid expansion of its military, for a purpose that makes people in Asia realize the aggressiveness of China’s regime.

  We can see that Beijing does not really have the resources to accomplish all these outsized ambitions.

  Right now, the Chinese economy may be growing, but it did not grow at the 2.3 percent that Beijing announced for 2020. It is probably just a smidgen over zero, if it is zero. We are seeing a lot of weakness in the Chinese economy, especially in the consumption area, which is a bad sign for Beijing.

  Ultimately, it is a question of how productive their economy can be. It really cannot be that productive as Xi Jinping goes back to more of a state‑dominated system, where state enterprises have a greater role in the economy. They are the least productive part of that economy. The private sector is far more important and far more productive, but it now being deemphasized.

  We are approaching a point where ‑‑ this will be critical ‑‑ where Biden will have to decide whether to run to the rescue of China’s regime. We know that Nixon in 1972, George H.W. Bush in 1989, and Bill Clinton in 1999 rescued Chinese communism. I hope Biden does not do that a fourth time.

  Question: How do you think China will now be acting towards Taiwan?

  Chang: China is especially aggressive with its aerial maneuvers. They have been doing two things. They have been flying through Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, AZID, as mentioned.

  An ADIZ includes international airspace, so China has every right to fly through it. Flying through another country’s air defense identification zone is nonetheless considered to be hostile. China’s been doing that regularly.

  The other thing that China has been doing in the air is flying on Taiwan’s side of the median line. The median line runs straight down the middle of the Taiwan Strait. For decades, there has been an understanding between Beijing and Taipei that Taiwan’s planes stay to the east of that line and Beijing’s planes stay to the west.

  Over the last six months or so, Beijing has been violating that commitment and has been flying on Taiwan’s side of the line.

  The reason why all this is important to us is that on January 23 there was a very large incursion into Taiwan’s air defense zone by nuclear‑capable H‑6K bombers.

  Those bombers then, as part of this incursion, flew a simulated attack against our Theodore Roosevelt strike group, also in the South China Sea at the time. This is extremely dangerous.

  Most people believe that China is not going to invade Taiwan. I agree, with one possible exception I’ll talk about later. Generally, it is not going to invade Taiwan because it does not have the capability to do so.

  All of this bluffing, however, does have consequences. China has been engaging in these hostile air maneuvers. One of these maneuvers could go wrong. A plane could hit the deck. That could create a dynamic that ends up in a conflict.

  That that almost occurred on April 1st, 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet clipped our US Navy EP‑3, an unarmed reconnaissance plane.

  The Bush administration avoided conflict by offering to pay China a ransom, by allowing China to strip the plane, by allowing China to keep our aviators in custody, which was, in my mind, the most disgraceful incident in recent US diplomatic history. This is a stain that George W. Bush will never be able to erase, but put that aside for a moment.

  I did say there was one exception where China might actually engage in aggression against Taiwan. Some of Taiwan’s islands are only two miles off China’s coast, Kinmen and Matsu.

  China could grab one of those islands and then say to the world, “What are you going to do about it?” That is a real possibility. That is what I worry about, but I do not worry about an invasion of the main island of Taiwan. So far, we have been able to deter them.

  The question is whether the Biden administration will act. So far, Biden has been really good on Taiwan. He has been better on Taiwan than anything else with regard to China. At least there is a little bit of comfort here. Nonetheless, this is something that could change day by day and change in a way that leads to the next great war.

  Question: What do you think, in order, are the most serious, what would be your most urgent messages to the new US administration on China?

  Chang: China has done so many awful things that it is really hard to put them in order.

  The most important thing that Biden needs to understand is that China’s regime is not legitimate. We have to understand the fundamental nature of China’s challenge. Last year, China engaged in a series of acts of war against the US.

  They were actively trying to foment violence on American streets, which is more than just subversion. They fomented violence this year in connection with the Capital Hill riots of January 6^th. Both before and after that, they were openly urging Americans to engage in acts of insurrection.

  I do not see how you can have a dialogue with a country like that. The first indication is that the Biden team — and they have talked about this in public — they say, “We will impose costs on China for those things which are unacceptable, we will criticize them on others, and we will cooperate where there are common interests.”

  I don’t think we can do that because I do not see that we have common interests with a country that’s trying to overthrow our government. My message is understand the fundamental nature, the hostility, and the maliciousness of China, and remember one other thing.

  That is, China deliberately released the disease that has killed more than 500,000 Americans. That alone means there can be no cooperation with China.

  Question: If indeed China is working with Iran, how do we warn Israel where every second biotech company start‑up looks to a China exit?

  Chang: This is a broader question of US relations with Jerusalem. So far, American presidents have been pretty tolerant of Israeli links with China. I generally believe that the United States ‑‑ and this is not just Israel ‑‑ we need to say this to France, to Germany, to everybody else, that this is a zero‑sum game.

  You either work with the US or we do not consider you to be our friend. I think Israel would choose the right side. I’m not so sure about some of the other countries I mentioned. The point is this is something American presidents have not communicated to our friends, allies, and partners, how we feel about China.

  I say we should no longer support China’s Communist regime. We consider it to be an enemy, and we will act to protect ourselves in an appropriate fashion. Remember, in May 2019 People’s Daily ran a piece that declared a “people’s war” on the US. That is all Biden needs to know.

  Question: “What do they want all that DNA for?”

  Chang: The more DNA you have, the better you will be able to develop, for instance, biotechnology products. The more DNA you have, the easier it will be to figure out how to create the next penicillin or whatever. The more DNA you have, the better you are able and the faster you are able to come out with drugs. Then, of course, there is their biological weapons program: the more DNA they have, the better they can figure out how to create a pathogen that attacks us and leaves them alone. The more you have, the more you can do.

  Question: You mentioned that China saying that the US was not a legitimate state. Could you amplify on that a little bit more?

  Chang: China is committing atrocities. Forget about what it is doing to its own people, the Han. It is committing atrocities in what it calls Xinjiang, what it considers to be the northwest part of its country and what the Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and others consider to be East Turkestan, conquered by Mao in 1950.

  China’s regime has not only been running concentration camps where they have held somewhere between 1.1 and 3.3 million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and others, but it has also institutionalized slavery, offering labor to both domestic and foreign companies, — and not just in Xinjiang, but across China, as Uyghurs are being transported in cattle cars to provide labor in factories that look like concentration camps.

  The regime has institutionalized rape, with Han Chinese officials in Uyghur homes, where the male has been sent off to a concentration camp. This is the BBC story of about a few weeks ago, plus other reporting, which is absolutely horrific. Rape is used as a policy of the government to subdue the Uyghurs.

  There has been the violation of Uyghur girls, minors. There has been forced organ harvesting, in all probability. That is the tribunal led by Geoffrey Nice in London. They have put children into basically jails. Because the parents get sent off to “re-education” camps, the children are put into “orphanages” that look like prisons. The list goes on and on.

  We know the Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and others are dying in these facilities. The only thing that separates the People’s Republic of China from the Third Reich is that China has not gone to mass exterminations — yet.

  Its acts meet the definition of “genocide” in the Genocide Convention of 1948. If Biden needs another message, this is not just a policy choice for him. We are a party to that Genocide Convention, which requires signatories to “prevent and punish” acts of genocide.

  Yes, China is committing genocide. Secretary of State Pompeo issued that formal determination on January 19th of this year. Candidate Biden, during the campaign in August of last year, said the Chinese were committing genocide. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during his confirmation hearings, said China was committing genocide. China’s regime is committing genocide. We have an obligation to do something about it.

  Question: It appears we are dealing — or not dealing with — a Chinese Communist Party that is promoting “a superior race” and “a superior government,” which has, as you say, horrible echoes of the 1930s. How would you suggest the Biden administration deal with it?

  Chang: I would force every US company off Chinese soil. I’d force every Chinese company in the US, every Chinese bank, to leave. I would close every Chinese consulate. There are four remaining consulates. I would strip the embassy staff in Washington down to the ambassador, his family, his secretary, and maybe a few personal guards.

  I would close all the Confucius Institutes on our college campuses. I would toss out every Confucius Classroom in our secondary schools. [Editor’s note: China is rebranding Confucius Institutes “to avoid scrutiny.”]

  The list goes on. I would cut all these contacts with China. As mentioned, they are overwhelming us right now. We cannot deal with it. Until we can deal with it, as a practical matter, we need to cut these contacts.

  China is committing atrocities. We should have nothing to do with it. It’s not a legitimate state. It’s a danger to humanity. China is a threat to humanity.

  We have got to recognize the threat. We have got to defend our society. We have an obligation, if not to ourselves, to our children.

  Question: Another important question: Does the popular DNA testing company 23andMe, where you send in a sample of your DNA for information on your ancestry, have any connection to China?

  Chang: This is really murky, but China has tried to compromise 23andMe, to get a bigger ownership interest in it. I believe, but I am not positive, that some of the 23andMe sequencing is done by Chinese‑linked companies. There is that link there.

  The 23andMe chief executive mentioned recently about China’s attempts to take over her company, and that she successfully resisted.

  Question: A final question. Xi has said that he wants all tariffs lifted to repair the relations with the US. What would you advise the US do?

  Chang: I would increase those additional tariffs, which are at 10% or 25% percent, to 1000% or 5000%. I would prevent China from selling stuff to us. Even if you put aside all the things we talked about, just if you look at this as a trade matter, those Section 301 tariffs were put in place to stop China’s theft of US intellectual property.

  Whatever figure you take, whether it is $125 billion at the low end or $600 billion at the high end, China is stealing our intellectual property. Obviously, what we have been doing so far has not been sufficient to stop them. We cannot do what China wants.

  Wang Yi, the foreign minister, a couple weeks ago ‑‑ and this is a continuation of things that Chinese officials have said for several months – he is saying, “Look, you have to get rid of the tariffs, you have got to do X, you have got to do Y, and you have got to Z in order to create a favorable relationship.” In other words, we have to make a lot of unilateral concessions and then China will think about reciprocating.

  Of course, they never will reciprocate. My sense is if you look at this as just a tariff matter, our tariffs should go to the sky. In other words, no trade until China stops stealing our tech and know-how and IP. When China stops stealing, then we can talk about reducing tariffs.

  You have asked, “What should Biden do?” One of the things Secretary Pompeo said that really unnerved the Chinese was talking about in‑person diplomacy, talking to the Chinese people directly.

  He also mentioned this at his Nixon Center speech in July of last year. Biden needs to do the same thing. Not every solution is military. As a matter of fact, our solutions with China are not military. They really start with talking to the Chinese people.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 23:30

• War Futurologist Sums Up Combat Robots Will Dominate Modern Battlefield
  War Futurologist Sums Up Combat Robots Will Dominate Modern Battlefield

  We’ve always questioned what wars in the future would be like. To answer that mystery is Yevgeny Kuznetsov, a member of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign Defense Policy, head of Singularity University in Moscow, who told Russian state-owned newspaper RIA Novosti that high-quality combat robotics will dominate the modern battlefield. 

  Already, conflicts over trade, technology, and capital markets continue to worsen between the US and China, the world’s global superpowers. Meanwhile, rising geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia continue to surge under the Biden administration. 

  While the US, China, and Russia, along with other countries, race to modernize their forces with robotics, artificial intelligence, stealth fighters, new main battle tanks, upgraded infantry weapons, and, of course, how could we forget, hypersonic weapons, it appears the US is destined for war. 

  Kuznetsov, also a futurologist, explains while combat robots were only for wealthy countries, technological costs have dramatically dropped, allowing developed countries to obtain advanced weaponry. He said the side with the most advanced robots has a higher probability of winning future battles. 

  “Previously, robots in the army were the lot of wealthy countries such as the United States. Now Turkey and Israel have broken through the barrier and are making aircraft drones a mass product, which, as we have seen from the example of Azerbaijan, make a significant contribution to the outcome of hostilities. War is turning into a competition of economies: whoever has assembled more and better robots is more successful in solving problems on the battlefield, “Kuznetsov said.

  

  He said the massive integration of unmanned aerial vehicles, sea and ground vehicles “will change the centuries-old perception of the state as a community of people, of which the more, the better since these are both working hands and potential soldiers. Robots break this scheme because they replace people in the workplace and in the army. The model of a state that is strong not by people, but by robots – we are simply not ready for that.” 

  Research analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses’ International Affairs Group, Samuel Bendett, sums up Kuznetsov’s interview with RIA:

  “Future wars are not just going to be battles between robots, but contest between advanced economies capable of manufacturing such robotics in large numbers.” 

  From the cold war to the trade war to the tech war, the US, China, Russia, and many other countries, are increasing military budgets to procure enough combat robots that would hopefully increase their odds at winning future wars. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 23:00

• Diversity Or The Bigotry Of Low Expectations
  Diversity Or The Bigotry Of Low Expectations

  Authored by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com,

  Value Traps and Economic Ignorance

  A financial analyst is often, or at least should be, more of a psychologist than a financial expert. There are companies that I knew fifteen years ago that had inherent value a multiple of what their stocks were trading at. Today, there continues to be similar upside, except that upside targets and share prices are lower. What went wrong?

  

  A problem reaches the far North faster than climate change can melt all the ice. [PT]

  Such companies are often value-traps. A financially astute person might invest in them, hoping that eventually, the market will recognize the value. Unfortunately, some managements do not understand the concept of value-creation or are unfocused, innumerate, or crooked. One must learn early that even in the private sector, top leadership positions do not necessarily end up in the hands of the most competent people.

  I mostly analyze mining companies. An example of a value-trap is a Hong Kong-listed entity, G-Resources, which was a mining company in the past. Today, it has most of its value is in treasuries and cash, worth US$1,500 million. Its market capitalization (at a HK$0.05 share price) is, however, a mere US$200 million. I don’t see any hope of it ever going up to match its inherent value.

  An analyst must screen out the bad apples as quickly as possible. I want to address some areas in which companies actively destroy value.

  Many mining companies, whose focus should be geology and mining engineering, spend too much time worrying about the commodity market. The commodity business is a specialization in its own right, and there is a reason why commodities are called “commodities”: It is hard — perhaps impossible — to project their future prices.

  When mining companies project a future of scarcity, they show a lack of understanding of economics: About the elasticity of demand and supply and how futures and options markets take care of shortages through a complex web of hedging by suppliers and users. The extent to which a specific  commodity can rise in price is limited, because at some point substitution kicks in.

  

  A typical, but hugely erroneous graph provided by many companies.

  Holier than Thou with ESG

  Over the last couple of years, many companies have implemented ESG programs. And EDI, a recent advent, has gone into hyper-drive. Of course, only the acronyms are quoted, for every “woke” person should know what they mean. ESG stands for Environment, Social, and Government.

  No one cares to explain how ESG is different from the need to follow legitimate laws. It has become a checklist, devoid of the spirit of ethical conduct, a way to earn brownie points by acting holier than thou.

  

  From a recent presentation of Franco-Nevada – this is something now common across businesses, and is not meant to criticize it specifically.

  ESG policies have institutionalized corruption, with NGOs, which should be working for the welfare of locals, taking fat checks from companies. ESG has encouraged locals to become whiners and has created space for crooked local leaders to emerge, with NGOs as mediators. ESG has become a vicious cycle of entitlements, grievances, corruption and dependence.

  It is not the job of mining companies to do social work, for which they are not trained, skilled or competent. What they do is for marketing, propaganda, and virtue-signaling purposes, forcing their leadership to be hypocritical and spread such conduct downstream. Naïve investors, distant from on-the-ground realities, ultimately support this trend.

  When conducting on-site visits, we analysts used to discuss the propaganda related to ESG. As time has gone by, we are talking less and less about this, for such discussion has come to be seen as politically incorrect. The new generation of analysts, people who have been brought up in the “woke” culture, cannot even see the game being played.

  Condescension via EDI

  EDI stands for Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion and is gaining momentum very rapidly. In a recent panel discussion I took part in, analysts were grilling mining companies. The first question a $8 million company faced was from a colored female who wanted to know why their board of directors lacked diversity.

  Small companies simply do not have patience or the necessary leeway to get into virtue-signaling, although the damage that EDI causes to big companies is no less, even if it is hidden.

  

  Since the time Justin Trudeau became the Prime Minister of Canada, it has become elitist to have top leadership reflecting society’s demographics.

  Why should “minorities” and women be dependent on a specific section of society, which of course, are males of European ethnicity? By implication EDI constitutes evidence that people of color, women, and LGBTQs cannot stand on their own feet and rise in life through their merit. And if this is true, why not accept it?

  EDI is the bigotry of low expectations, much worse than on-the-face racism, where you know at least what the bigotry is about. EDI is extraordinarily condescending toward the so-called under-privileged groups. I find it repulsive if someone thinks I should get an extra push because of my skin color. I wonder why more women, people of color, and LGBTQs are not riswing up against the condescending approach, racism, and sexism inherent in EDI.

  In India, where affirmative policy has a long history, I have no choice but to question how competent someone from the lower caste would be in a position of authority. Would I go to doctor from the lower caste? But similar thinking has to start in the West as EDI continues and grows. Suffering the most will be the competent people among the beneficiaries of EDI.

  The true believers make the hollow concepts of ESG and EDI sound like the end of history.

  When I see too much of ESG/EDI in a company’s presentation, I move on without wasting any more of my time.

  The path of political correctness and virtue-signaling that the West has undertaken always reminds me of South Africa, which at one point in time had First World infrastructure.

  During my first visit to a company in Johannesburg more than a decade ago, I thought I had come to a car-show—the parking lot had some of the most expensive cars in the world. Black Economic Empowerment, their EDI, had enabled blacks to rise in the leadership hierarchy without any need for merit. As time has gone by, South Africa’s infrastructure has fallen apart. Power outages, lack of water supply, crime, potholes on the road, and a general lack of law and order have worsened continuously.

  The Boeing 737 Max airplane suffered two fatal accidents. To what extent were the accidents attributable to design work had been done in low-cost, low work-ethic jurisdictions? Did those in leadership positions discuss the possibility of such risks, or was this deemed too politically incorrect?

  To what extent were forest fires in California or the recent power outages in Texas a result of EDI, where people have been elevated to positions of authority despite a lack of competence? We will never know the specifics, for people in the West no longer say anything that might be seen as bigoted. Those who dare say something get booted out.

  Errors accumulate with no one to challenge them. The ESG/EDI concepts pursued in the West are essentially copying the South African model of social change, which is anti-meritocratic and will destroy institutions and civilization.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 22:30

• Americans Are Losing Billions Due To Internet Crime
  Americans Are Losing Billions Due To Internet Crime

  The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) has released its 2020 Internet Crime Report which found that 2020 was a record year for both victims of internet crime and dollar losses in the United States.

  791,790 complaints were logged by IC3 in the last calendar year with total losses amounting to $4.2 billion. Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that the most frequent internet crimes recorded in 2020 were phishing, non-payment/non-delivery scams and extortion. Business Email Compromise schemes were the costliest internet crimes last year with adjusted losses of $1.8 billion.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  2020 was notable for the emergence of schemes exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic with both individuals and businesses targeted. Some 28,500 complaints were received relating to Covid-19 scams with most of them aimed at the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). They mainly involved grant fraud, loan fraud, and phishing for Personally Identifiable Information. In many cases, victims did not realize they had been targeted until they attempted to file their own legitimate claims for unemployment insurance benefits.

  Another growing problem throughout the pandemic has been criminals impersonating government representatives over the phone, via email and through social media. Through charades and threats, they managed to gain both money and personal information. Scams have also emerged as the pace of vaccinations accelerated where people have been asked to pay for jabs out of pocket or to provide personal information in exchange for appointments.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 22:00

• Headed For A Collapsing Debt Bubble
  Headed For A Collapsing Debt Bubble

  Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

  A $1.9 trillion stimulus package was recently signed into law in the United States. Can such a stimulus bill, plus packages passed in other countries, really pull the world economy out of the downturn it has been in 2020? I don’t think so.

  The economy runs on energy, far more than it operates on growing debt. Our energy problems don’t appear to be fixable in the near term, such as six months or a year. Instead, the economy seems to be headed for a collapse of its debt bubble. Eventually, we may see a reset of the world financial system leading to fewer interchangeable currencies, far less international trade and falling production of goods and services. Some governments may collapse.

  [1] What Is Debt?

  I understand debt to be an indirect promise for future goods and services. These future goods and services can only be created if there are adequate supplies of the right kinds of energy and other materials, in the right places, to make these future goods and services.

  I think of debt as being a time-shifting device. Indirectly, it is a promise that the economy will be able to provide as many, or more, goods and services in the future compared to what it does at the time the loan is taken out.

  Common sense suggests that it is much easier to repay debt with interest in a growing economy than in a shrinking economy. Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff unexpectedly ran across this phenomenon in their 2008 working paper, This Time Is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises. They reported (p. 15), “It is notable that the non-defaulters, by and large, are all hugely successful growth stories.” In other words, their analysis of 800 years of governmental debt showed that default was almost inevitable if a country stopped growing or started shrinking.

  The IMF estimates that the world economy shrank by 3.5% in 2020. There are many areas with even worse indications: Euro Area, -7.2%; United Kingdom, -10.0%; India, -8.0%; Mexico, -8.5%; and South Africa, -7.5%. If these situations cannot be turned around quickly, we should expect to see collapsing debt bubbles. Even the US, which shrank by 3.4%, needs a rapid return to growth if it is to keep its debt bubble inflated.

  [2] The Inter-Relationship Among (a) Growing Debt, (b) Growing Energy Consumption and a (c) Growing Economy

  When we are far from energy limits, growing debt seems to pull the economy along. This is a graphic I put together in 2018, explaining the situation. A small amount of debt is helpful to the system. But, if there gets to be too much debt, both oil prices and interest rates rise, bringing the braking system into action. The bicycle/economy rapidly slows.

  

  Figure 1. The author’s view of the analogy of a speeding upright bicycle and a speeding economy.

  Just as a two-wheeled bicycle needs to be going fast enough to stay upright, the economy needs to be growing rapidly enough for debt to do what it is intended to do. It takes energy supply to create the goods and services that the economy depends on.

  If oil and other energy products are cheap to produce, their benefit will be widely available. Employers will be able to add more efficient machines, such as bigger tractors. These more efficient machines will act to leverage the human labor of the workers. The economy can grow rapidly, without the use of much debt. Figure 2 shows that the world oil price was $20 per barrel in 2020$, or even less, prior to 1974.

  

  Figure 2. Oil price in 2020 dollars, based on amounts through 2019 in 2019$ from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy, the inflationary adjustment from 2019 to 2020 based on CPI Urban prices from the US Department of Labor and the average spot Brent oil price for 2020 based on EIA information.

  Figure 3 below shows the historical relationship between the growth in US energy consumption (red line) and the dollar increase in US debt growth required to add a dollar increase in GDP (blue line). This chart calculates ratios for five-year periods because ratios for individual years are unstable.

  

  Figure 3. Comparison of five-year average growth in US energy consumption based on EIA data with five-year average amount of added debt required to add $1 of GDP.

  Based on Figure 3, the US average annual growth in energy consumption (red line) generally fell between 1951 and 2020. The quantity of debt that needed to be added to create an additional $1 dollar of GDP (blue line) has generally been rising.

  According to Investopedia, Gross domestic product (GDP) is the total monetary or market value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period. Notice that there is no mention of debt in this definition. If businesses or governments can find a way to make large amounts of credit available to borrowers who are not very credit worthy, it becomes easy to sell cars, motorcycles or homes to buyers who may never repay that debt. If the economy hits turbulence, these marginal buyers are likely to default, causing a collapse in a debt bubble.

  [3] Analyzing Energy Consumption Growth, Debt Growth and Economic Growth for Broader Groupings of Years

  To get a better idea what is happening with respect to energy growth, debt growth, and GDP growth, I created some broader groupings of years, based primarily on patterns in Figure 2, showing inflation-adjusted oil prices. The following groupings of years were chosen:

  • 1950-1973

  • 1974-1980

  • 1981-2000

  • 2001-2014

  • 2015-2020

  Using these groupings of years, I put together charts in which it is easier to see trends.

  

  Figure 4. Average annual increase in energy consumption for period shown based on EIA data versus average increase in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP for the period shown based on data of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  Figure 4 shows that for the US, there has been a general downward trend in the annual growth of energy consumption. At same time, real (that is, inflation-adjusted) GDP has been trending downward, but not quite as quickly.

  We would expect that lower energy consumption would lead to lower growth in real GDP because it takes energy of the appropriate kinds to make goods and services. For example, it takes oil to ship most goods. It takes electricity to operate computers and keep the lights on. According to the World Coal Association, large quantities of coal are used in producing cement and steel. These are important for construction, such as is planned in stimulus projects around the world.

  Also, on Figure 4, the period 1981 to 2000 shows an uptick in both energy consumption growth and real GDP growth. This period corresponds to a period of relatively low oil prices (Figure 2). With lower oil prices, businesses found it affordable to add new devices to leverage human labor, making workers more productive. The growing productivity of workers is at least part of what led to the increased growth in real GDP.

  

  Figure 5. Dollars of additional debt required to add $1 dollar of GDP growth (including inflation), based on data of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  Figure 5, above, is disturbing. It strongly suggests that the US economy (and probably a lot of other economies) has needed to add an increasing amount of debt to add $1 of GDP in recent years. This pattern started long before President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package in 2021.

  To make matters worse, GDP growth in Figure 5 has not been reduced to remove the impact of inflation. On average, removing the impact of inflation reduces the above GDP growth by about half. In the period 2015 to 2020, it took about $4.35 of additional debt to add one dollar of GDP growth, including inflation. It would take about double that amount, or $8.70 worth of debt, to create $1.00 worth of inflation-adjusted growth. With such a low return on added debt, it seems unlikely that the $1.9 trillion stimulus package will increase the growth of the economy very much.

  [4] Falling interest rates (Figure 6) are a major part of what allowed the rapid growth in debt after 1981 shown in Figure 5.

  

  Figure 6. 10-Year and 3-Month US Treasury Rates through February 2021, in a chart prepared by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis.

  Clearly, debt is more affordable if the interest rate is lower. For example, auto loans and home mortgages have lower monthly payments if the interest rate is lower. It is also clear that governments need to spend less of their tax revenue on interest rate payments if interest rates are lower. Changes made by US President Ronald Reagan when he took office 1981 also encouraged the use of more debt.

  A major concern with respect to today’s debt bubble is the fact that interest rates are about as low as they can go without going negative. In fact, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is now 1.72%, which is higher than the February 2021 average rate shown on the chart. As interest rates rise, it becomes more costly to add more debt. As interest rates rise, businesses will be less likely to take on debt in order to expand and hire more workers.

  [5] Interest expense is a major expense of governments, businesses, and homeowners everywhere. Energy costs are another major expense of governments, businesses, and homeowners. It makes sense that falling interest rates can partly hide rising energy prices.

  A trend toward lower interest rates was needed starting in 1981 because the US could no longer produce large amounts of crude oil that were profitable to sell at less than $20 per barrel, in inflation-adjusted prices. Lower interest rates made adding debt more feasible. This added debt could smooth the transition to an economy that was less dependent on oil, now that it was high-priced. The lower interest rates helped all segments of the economy adjust to the new higher cost of oil and other fuels.

  [6] The US experience shows precisely how helpful having a rapidly growing supply of inexpensive to produce oil could be to an economy.

  US oil production, excluding Alaska (blue “remainder” in Figure 7), rose rapidly after 1945 but began to decline not long after hitting a peak in 1970. This growing oil production had temporarily provided a huge boost to the US economy.

  

  Figure 7. US crude oil production, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.

  Up until almost 1970, US oil production was rising rapidly. Figure 8 shows that during this period, incomes of both the bottom 90% of workers and the top 10% of workers increased rapidly. Over a period of about 20 years, incomes for both groups grew by about 80%, after adjusting for inflation. On average, workers were about 4% better off each year, with the rapid growth in very inexpensive-to-produce oil, all of which stayed in the US (rather than being exported). US imports of inexpensive-to-produce oil also grew during this period.

  Once oil prices were higher, income growth for both the lower 90% and the top 10% slowed. With the changes made starting in 1981, wage disparities quickly started to grow. There suddenly became a need for new, high-tech approaches that used less oil. But these changes were more helpful to the managers and highly educated workers than the bottom 90% of workers.

  

  Figure 8. Chart comparing income gains by the top 10% to income gains by the bottom 90% by economist Emmanuel Saez. Based on an analysis of IRS data, published in Forbes.

  [7] Most of the world’s cheap-to-extract oil sources have now been exhausted. Our problem is that the world market cannot get prices to rise high enough for producers to cover all of their expenses, including taxes.

  Based on my analysis, the world price of oil would need to be at least $120 per barrel to cover all of the costs it needs to cover. The costs that need to be covered include more items than an oil company would normally include in its costs estimates. The company needs to develop new fields to compensate for the ones that are being exhausted. It needs to pay interest on its debt. It also needs to pay dividends to its shareholders. In the case of shale producers, the price needs to be high enough that production outside of “sweet spots” can be carried on profitably.

  For oil exporters, it is especially important that the sales price be high enough so that the government of the oil exporting country can collect adequate tax revenue. Otherwise, the exporting country will not be able to maintain food subsidy programs that the population depends on and public works programs that provide jobs.

  [8] The world can add more debt, but it is difficult to see how the debt bubble that is created will really pull the world economy forward rapidly enough to keep the debt bubble from collapsing in the next year or two.

  Many models are based on the assumption that the economy can easily go back to the growth rate it had, prior to COVID-19. There are several reasons why this seems unlikely:

  • Many parts of the world economy weren’t really growing very rapidly prior to the pandemic. For example, shopping malls were doing poorly. Many airlines were in financial difficulty. Private passenger auto sales in China reached a peak in 2017 and have declined every year since.

  • At the low oil prices prior to the pandemic, many oil producers (including the US) would need to reduce their production. The 2019 peak in shale production (shown in Figure 7) may prove to be the peak in US oil production because of low prices.

  • Once people became accustomed to working from home, many of them really do not want to go back to a long commute.

  • It is not clear that the pandemic is really going away, now that we have kept it around this long. New mutations keep appearing. Vaccines aren’t 100% effective.

  • As I showed in Figure 5, adding more debt seems to be a very inefficient way of digging the economy out of a hole. What is really needed is a growing supply of oil that can be produced and sold profitably for less than $20 per barrel. Other types of energy need to be similarly inexpensive.

  I should note that intermittent wind and solar energy is not an adequate substitute for oil. It is not even an adequate substitute for “dispatchable” electricity production. It is simply an energy product that has been sufficiently subsidized that it can often make money for its producers. It also sounds good, if it is referred to as “clean energy.” Unfortunately, its true value is lower than its cost of production.

  [9] What’s Ahead?

  I expect that oil prices will rise a bit, but not enough to raise prices to the level producers require. Interest rates will continue to rise as governments around the world attempt more stimulus. With these higher interest rates and higher oil prices, businesses will do less and less well. This will slow the economy enough that debt defaults become a major problem. Within a few months to a year, the worldwide debt bubble will start to collapse, bringing oil prices down by more than 50%. Stock market prices and prices of buildings of all kinds will fall in inflation-adjusted dollars. Many bonds will prove to be worthless. There will be problems with empty shelves in stores and gasoline stations with no products to sell.

  People will start to see that while debt is a promise for the equivalent of future goods and services, it is not necessarily the case that those who make the promises will be able to stand behind these promises. Paper wealth generally can be expected to lose its value.

  I can imagine a situation, not too many years from now, when countries everywhere will establish new currencies that are not as easily interchangeable with other currencies as today’s currencies are. International trade will dramatically fall. The standard of living of most people will fall precipitously.

  I doubt that the new currencies will be electronic currencies. Keeping the electricity on is a difficult task in economies that increasingly need to rely solely on local resources. Electricity may be out for months at a time after an equipment failure or a storm. Having a currency that depends on electricity alone would be a poor idea.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 21:30

• Goldman's Clients Are Starting To Sweat The Coming Tax Hikes
  Goldman’s Clients Are Starting To Sweat The Coming Tax Hikes

  One week after Goldman’s clients were focused on capital markets, asking the bank’s chief equity strategist David Kostin if there were any cheap stocks left in a time of sudden bursts of volatility and not so sudden spikes in yields, in the past week they have voiced somewhat more pragmatic concerns, and while they “remain anxiously focused on interest rates and inflation as core PCE rises above 2%” in his latest Weekly Kickstart Kostin writes that “a looming macro issue is the next round of fiscal legislation, which will include corporate and personal tax hikes.“

  In other words, having priced in all the good news from Biden’s mega stimulus, investors are finally starting to realize that all those trillions in spending will lead to (much) higher taxes.

  Here, as usual, Goldman tries to downplay the potential hit, writing that while “full implementation of candidate Biden’s tax plan would reduce S&P 500 EPS by 9%…. the eventual impact will depend on the specifics” and Goldman’s current 2022 EPS estimate assumes just a 3% drag from taxes.

  

  Some more details.

  One week after seemingly putting to rest fears that everything is massively overvalued – spoiler alert, it is…

  

  … Kostin writes that a looming macro focus for investors is the next round of fiscal legislation:

  The final $1.8 trillion American Rescue Plan ended up close to the $1.9 trillion size of President Biden’s original proposal. Although details of the administration’s next fiscal plan have not yet been released, our economists currently expect a package that will include at least $2 trillion in infrastructure spending and could reach $4 trillion if it also funds health care, education, and child care initiatives.

  The problem is that while the US could and probably should just issue a few more trillion in debt to fund the whole thing, Goldman notes that the next package will be paid for in part by higher tax rates, including on corporate earnings. Sure enough, the tax plan proposed by President Biden in his election campaign would raise the statutory corporate tax rate on domestic income from 21% to 28%, partially reversing the cut from a rate of 35% passed in the Trump tax cuts. The plan would also raise the tax rate on foreign income (also called the “GILTI” tax) and institute a minimum corporate tax rate.

  All of this will hit the corporate bottom line: Goldman estimates the Biden tax plan would reduce 2022 S&P 500 EPS by about 9%, however, the bank’s economists believe Congress will pass a smaller increase: its current $197 EPS estimate assumes the statutory rate rises to 25%, representing a 3% drag on earnings. That said, Kostin concedes that “a hike to a rate above 25% or the passage of other proposals like the GILTI tax hike would represent downside risk to our estimate.” Alternatively, hikes implemented with a phase-in period could spread the earnings hit across multiple years, but as usual investors will price the full impact as soon as it becomes clear.

  How to trade this

  Kostin notes that the relative winners and losers of the next fiscal package will depend on the specific provisions. For example, traditional infrastructure investment would benefit industrial and construction materials companies, while green investment would expand the winners to include renewable energy companies. With regard to corporate tax reform, increases to the domestic statutory rate would primarily affect companies with high domestic business exposure and effective rates close to the statutory rate, which were the primary beneficiaries of the 2017 tax cuts. In sector terms, this includes Financials, Industrials, and Consumer firms. In contrast, proposals like a minimum tax rate on foreign earnings pose the greatest risk to low-tax “growth” sectors like Info Tech and Health Care and would have a much smaller impact on domestic-facing sectors

  

  In addition to corporate rate hikes, Goldman economists note that higher capital gains taxes to be a key part of the next fiscal package. They predict the capital gains tax rate for top earners will be increased from 20%, although not all the way to the ordinary income rate as proposed by President Biden. And in a potentially ominous outcome for a market that is already redlining on steroids, Kostin warns that “past capital gains tax hikes have corresponded with reduced equity allocations, lower equity prices, and Momentum reversals. The good news is that all of those patterns were short-lived and reversed following the hikes, and Goldman expects that “any selling triggered by capital gains hikes late in 2021 would be similarly short-lived.”

  What about timing

  Goldman economists expect the White House will begin to outline its proposal in April and that legislation will eventually be passed around September.President Biden is scheduled to address Congress next month, when he will likely discuss his plan. Legislation should then be written in May and June, with passage likely ahead of the expiration of the five-year federal highway bill at the end of September. While parts of the infrastructure plan may be passed with bipartisan support, that the majority of the package will eventually pass through reconciliation and rely only on Democratic votes. Ultimately, Goldman’s EPS forecasts assume tax policy changes go into effect starting in 2022, so no retroactive adjustments to 2021.

  And while investors are becoming concerned about taxes in general, Goldman points out that even as equities are pricing in optimism around infrastructure spending, they should little concern about tax hikes.

  

  A Goldman Infrastructure basket (GSXUINFS) that primarily consists of Construction Materials, Machinery, and Construction & Engineering firms has returned 27% since the Georgia Senate runoff races in January, outperforming the Materials sector by 18% and the Industrials sector by 14%.

  

  This matches or exceeds the basket’s other periods of outperformance following President Trump’s 2016 election and various infrastructure proposals during his term. Meanwhile, a basket of Renewable Energy stocks has declined by 3% this year but gained 156% last year and has been particularly vulnerable to rising rates in recent weeks. In contrast, after trading closely with prediction market odds during the months ahead of the general election in November 2020, a pair of tax baskets containing the biggest winners and losers from the 2017 tax cuts has reversed and now appears to be pricing little risk of higher tax rates. Finally, screens of stocks facing potential risk from proposals like the GILTI tax hike have broadly performed in line with industry peers in recent months

  

  That said, Kostin does not rush into specific recos, conceding that a dearth of details makes it hard to model and trade on the potential earnings impact of legislation that hasn’t yet been outlined. Indeed, reform focused on a higher statutory domestic tax rate would have very different implications than a plan focused on a minimum tax. Curiously, Goldman notes that many investors still remain very skeptical that Democrats will hike taxes given the ongoing economic recovery and the recent policy focus on fiscal expansion. Amusingly, Kostin then implicitly suggests that Republicans are likely to retake control of Congress next year: “A repeated pattern of corporate tax reversals each time political control of Washington, D.C., changes hands should also reduce the degree to which investors price the long-term earnings impact of each new tax legislation.

  So between the lack of details and the political practicalities of any tax hike, Goldman concludes that “the market’s current focus on other macro issues like interest rates also makes it hard to justify trading on uncertain potential future tax hikes.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 21:00

• Trump Returning To Social Media With "His Own Platform" In Several Months: Adviser
  Trump Returning To Social Media With “His Own Platform” In Several Months: Adviser

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  Former President Donald Trump will set up his own social media platform and will return to posting online in two to three months, said his adviser and spokesman, Jason Miller, in a new interview.

  

  For years, Trump favored Twitter and had amassed nearly 90 million followers before the social media platform suspended him in January. Facebook, YouTube, Twitch, Snapchat, and others also moved to suspend the former president—and at the same time, Trump hasn’t indicated that he would use other social media websites favored by conservatives such as Gab, MeWe, or Parler.

  Miller told Fox News on Sunday he expects Trump will “[return] to social media in two or three months” with “his own platform” that will “completely redefine the game” and attract “tens of millions” of users.

  https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6242421322001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

  Miller, who is Trump’s most prominent spokesman, did not elaborate on details or a possible name for the social media venture.

  Since Twitter suspended his account, the former president has instead opted to release press statements via advisers and email. For the most part, he has released statements endorsing his favored political candidates for the 2022 midterm elections.

  Also in the interview, Miller said that Trump still holds a considerable amount of sway in the Republican Party.

  “He’s already had over 20 senators, over 50 members of Congress call … or make the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago,” he said. “Pay attention to Georgia on Monday,” as there is a “big endorsement coming.”

  In an interview last month, Trump said he is “negotiating with a number of people, and there’s also the other option of building your own [social media] site.” He added, “Because we have more people than anybody. I mean you can literally build your own site.”

  “I really wanted to be somewhat quiet. They wanted me very much on Parler, you know they had a phony report that the man who was in there didn’t—I mean just the opposite, they really wanted me on Parler,” Trump continued.

  The former commander-in-chief speculated that Parler would not be able to handle the amount of traffic he would bring to the website. “Mechanically, they can’t handle” the number of users, Trump noted in the interview.

  The former president provided a lengthy interview last week, saying that he’s not sure whether he will run for president again in 2024.

  “First thing is for us, we have to see what we could do with the House,” Trump said. “I think we have a very good chance at taking back the House. We were going to lose 15-25 seats the last time, [until] I got involved. I worked very hard.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 20:35

• Owned: A Tale of Two Americas
  Owned: A Tale of Two Americas

  If you’ve been searching for a documentary that breaks down the housing market historically – well, we might have found one on Amazon Prime Video titled “Owned: A Tale of Two Americas.” 

  

  The 83-minute documentary unearths the complex and often troubling history of house policies in the US in a post–World War II era. It covers a lot of ground, such as the federal government’s housing policies that have, for decades, contribute to current racial/wealthy inequalities. 

  This is a bold attempt to address racial, cultural, socio-economic factors in one way to describe today’s record wealth inequalities. 

  

  Here’s a synopsis of the documentary: 

  The United States’ postwar housing policy created the world’s largest middle class. It also set America on two divergent paths — one of imagined wealth, propped up by speculation and endless booms-and-busts, and the other in systematically defunded, segregated communities, where the American dream feels hopelessly out of reach.

  Some ten years after the last housing collapse and well into a perceived upswing, the election of Donald Trump and urban uprisings in places like Baltimore suggest that there’s a far more fundamental problem with housing policy in America. And we haven’t even begun to recover.

  Owned is a incisive look into the dark history behind the US housing economy. Tracking its overtly racist beginnings to its unbridled commoditization, the doc exposes a foundational story few Americans understand as their own

  “Home ownership to me means freedom—strictly. The more and more I evaluate this world, the more and more I understand: when you don’t own anything, you are nothing.” That’s how Greg Butler, a young black house flipper, sums up his view of the American dream.

  In 2008, the US housing market became the epicenter of an unprecedented global economic collapse. In the years since, protests in cities like Baltimore have highlighted the stark racial disparities that define many American cities. The crash of suburbia and urban unrest are not unrelated — they are two sides of the same coin, two divergent paths set in motion by the United States’ post-war housing policy.

  The prevailing narrative is that the migration from American cities that began in the 1950s, often referred to as “white flight,” was caused by the degradation of city centers and the growth of suburbia. But this was neither a matter of preference, nor a natural selfsegregation

  After World War II, the US government sought to provide housing for returning veterans and their families, while enabling them to build wealth through homeownership. Postwar policies spurred a decadeslong construction boom and enabled millions of Americans to buy homes — and they benefited white people exclusively. So racial segregation determined how communities grew. Government policies directly subsidized white America, while denying opportunities to black people and other minorities

  Here’s a statement from Giorgio Angelini, the director of the documentary: 

  This film began for me in graduate school while studying architecture at Rice University. It was in the depths of the 2008 real estate collapse that I began questioning what recovery really looked like.

  In searching for a story, I was awarded a travel grant to photograph the abandoned McMansions that proliferated the mountainous desert landscape of Inland Empire, California. What I ultimately encountered was an environment far more perverse and disturbing than I had initially anticipated. Thousands of square miles, once replete with thriving orange groves, had burnt down to make way for a new commodity—conditioned square footage. But with access to cheap money no longer available, the charred remains of orange groves sat alongside these half-built McMansions. Commodities in limbo—their Tyvek wrap flapping in the wind. It was clear there was a larger story at play.

  It’s been nearly ten years since the crisis began. And for many folks, the perception is that we’ve moved on. We’ve “recovered.” What this documentary project proposes, however, is that recovery is an illusion. We have not fixed the housing economy. And in fact, much of the underlying, endemic problems surrounding housing policy have only been compounded.

  The election of Donald Trump and the uprisings in places like Baltimore are two sides of the same disgruntled coin: a housing policy wildly anachronistic for today’s time. It’s a housing market that disproportionately benefits an increasingly sheltered class of wealth, while keeping the rest of the population in a permanent state of economic anxiety.

  Housing is everything. It dictates where we go to school, our probability to move up socio- economically. It defines who we interact with and how we raise our children. And we have done very little to change the system.

  There has been no recovery. And the sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can hopefully have a real conversation about how we can build a new system. One that helps to rebuild a middle class decimated by globalization. One that extends government support to people of all races. And one that sees home as a right rather than as a commodity.

  Here’s the trailer of Owned: A Tale of Two Americas.

  To watch the full documentary click here. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 20:10

• Morgan Stanley: This Cycle Will Burn "Hotter And Shorter" So Start Thinking About Rotating Out Of Early-Cycle Winners
  Morgan Stanley: This Cycle Will Burn “Hotter And Shorter” So Start Thinking About Rotating Out Of Early-Cycle Winners

  By Andrew Sheets, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist for Morgan Stanley

  A Shorter Cycle

  Our experience informs our beliefs. The last four US economic expansions have been unusually long, ranked by the NBER as the first, second, third and sixth longest among 34 business cycles over the last 164 years. We think that the current cycle could burn hotter and shorter, with important implications for investment strategy.

  This discussion needs to start with an obvious question: Is this even a ‘new’ cycle? COVID-19 brought the global economy to a sudden stop, while an aggressive policy response drove a rapid recovery. Some investors argue that both were so fast that conditions never ‘reset’ in the way they usually do during recessions.

  All cycles have their quirks. The last three US recessions were adjacent to: 1) The largest equity bubble in history; 2) The largest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and 3) A global pandemic. If you’re looking for a ‘normal’ recession, good luck!

  Surprisingly, as different as these three recessions were, they were all preceded by similar phenomena. All three saw an inverted yield curve within ~6 months before they started. All three followed a Fed hiking cycle and core CPI above 2.4%Y. All three were preceded by high consumer confidence, low unemployment and declining equity market breadth.

  Those are an awful lot of similarities. And they carry through to the recovery. Since the lows of activity in April 2020, ‘normal’ early-cycle investment strategies have worked very well. Corporate default rates have been similar to other recessions when measured on a rolling two-year basis. If it walks like a new cycle and talks like a new cycle, we think that investors should treat it like a new cycle.

  Yet while this cycle has so far followed many ‘normal’ patterns, its evolution could be unique. For several reasons, in the US and globally, this cycle could burn unusually hot.

  • The first is stimulus. The global economy is seeing record levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus at the same time. ‘Unprecedented’ is an overused word in our business, but this cycle qualifies and is unique among other post-recessionary periods.

  • The second is savings. Savings rates stand at historical highs in the US, Europe and China. While the distribution of these savings is uneven, they provide substantial fuel for consumption. Corporate cash balances are also elevated, a buffer against COVID-19 uncertainty that could find its way into spending as confidence returns.

  • Third is the labor market. Our economists note that the majority of recent job losses were in COVID-19-related sectors. If the economy can reopen safely, it seems reasonable that we could see an unusually fast labour normalization as these sectors come back.

  • Finally, there is the future path of policy. Global central banks are signalling a strong commitment to supporting growth and returning inflation to more normal levels. Governments are showing little desire to eventually raise taxes or cut spending. Both stances suggest a hotter cycle, less likely to be restrained by policy tightening than the previous expansions.

  For all these reasons, our economists think that growth and inflation will exceed expectations over the next two years. But just like in the cosmos, what burns hotter may also burn shorter. Unlike the long expansions that defined the last 40 years, this one might look more similar to the late 1940s or 1950s.

  Short cycles can still mean good growth and multi-year expansions. The Roaring Twenties saw recessions in 1920, 1923 and 1926 (and, of course, 1929). The US economy grew at an enviable 4% rate between 1947 and 1960, despite recessions in 1948, 1953, 1957 and 1960. Each expansion lasted at least three years.

  But this does mean that investors need to be more nimble. Different investments work in different parts of the economic cycle. If this cycle burns hotter and shorter, we need to start thinking about rotating out of early-cycle winners.

  Where should we look? US small-cap versus large-cap equities, copper versus gold and corporate credit are all strategies that we’ve liked given historically strong performance following recessions. But all do less well as the cycle extends. My colleague Michael Wilson recently downgraded US small caps (see US Equity Strategy: Weekly Warm-up: The Cycle vs Liquidity; Downgrading Small Caps; Earnings > Multiple, March 15, 2021), an example of how we are looking to exit some early-cycle strategies.

  Sector and regional leadership can also vary significantly as the cycle progresses. Emerging market equities historically do best following a recession, but then lag. Stocks in Europe and Japan have done better as the economy matures.

  Will conditions run too hot? One metric I’m following closely is the US breakeven expectations curve. At the moment, it is reflecting a modest overshoot of inflation over the next 2-5 years…

  

  … followed by lower levels of inflation thereafter. That would appear to be exactly what the Fed hopes to deliver, wrapped up neatly with a nice little bow.

  

  As long as that curve remains inverted, the market is signalling that inflationary pressure will be transitory, and there is little need for central banks to sharply change tack. Maybe this is correct. Maybe it is an example of expectations being driven by recent experience. Either way, it’s an important dynamic to watch.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 19:45

• Venezuela Says Massive Blast Hit Natgas Pipeline In 'Terrorist Attack'
  Venezuela Says Massive Blast Hit Natgas Pipeline In ‘Terrorist Attack’

  A massive explosion rocked a gas pipeline in eastern Venezuela Saturday afternoon, according to a report from state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), seen by Reuters. 

  The blast occurred at a 36-inch pipeline providing natural gas to the Pigap II gas reinjection plant in northern Monagas. PDVSA had to shutter operations at the facility to extinguish flames and evaluate damages. 

  

  Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami announced on state television Saturday evening that the incident was considered a “terrorist attack.” He provided no evidence about such claims. 

  “This terrorist action has affected the operations center in El Tejero that serves as a gas injection plant, and, thank God, no casualties are reported from this attack,” El Aissami said.

  Video footage shared on Twitter shows the pipeline’s initial explosion unleashed a massive column of fire into the sky. 

  Explosion en la planta PIGAP II de el tejero Estado Monagas. pic.twitter.com/6tnc7HUzc8

  — wilfredo jose febres (@wilfredofeb) March 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #MONAGAS 🇻🇪🔴 | @MariaGMonagas reportó la explosión ocurrida el día de ayer 20 de marzo en #Monagas en la Dirección Ejecutiva de Producción Oriente. División Punta de Mata / U.P Pirital (PIGAP II). #PDVSA #Noticias24 #Venezuela pic.twitter.com/lgIUtBIjmY

  — Noticias24 Venezuela (@N0TICIAS24) March 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  El Aissami also said the blast was part of a series of “criminal attacks” with the intent to disrupt PDVSA operations. Again, the oil minister made accusations but did not name any group or country.

  Venezuela has the world’s largest crude oil reserves, but production has been crushed by economic collapse. Its production stands around 550,000 b/d in February, according to the latest S&P Global Platts survey.

  President Nicolas Maduro has repeatedly blamed the US for organizing attacks on energy facilities in the oil-rich country. 

  Two months into the Biden administration, the White House continues to recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, despite Nicolás Maduro clearly being the socialist country’s actual leader.

  It remains to be seen if the pipeline explosion was a “terrorist” attack as Venezuelan officials have yet to present evidence – but there is concern that the Biden administration will continue to carry on former President Trump’s harsh policies against Maduro. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 19:20

• Trump Rages Over "Huge Cover-Up" At The Border As Biden Starts Releasing Illegals Without Court Date
  Trump Rages Over “Huge Cover-Up” At The Border As Biden Starts Releasing Illegals Without Court Date

  After the Biden administration began blaming the border crisis on former President Trump leaving them with a ‘dismantled’ immigration system, Trump hit back in a Sunday statement claiming that he “proudly handed the Biden Administration the most secure border in history,” adding “All they had to do was keep this smooth-running system on autopilot.”

  

  “Instead, in the span of just a few weeks, the Biden Administration has turned a national triumph into a national disaster. They are in way over their heads and taking on water fast.“

  Trump then turned his attention to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – who went on several news networks Sunday morning claiming that “the border is closed.” Mayorkas’ performance was “pathetic,” “clueless,” and a “national disgrace.”

  “His self-satisfied presentation – in the middle of a massive crisis he helped engineer – is yet more proof he is incapable of leading DHS. Even someone of Mayorkas’ limited abilities should understand that if you provide Catch-and-Release to the world’s illegal aliens then the whole world will com.”

  Trump then slammed Mayorkas for a “Gag Order on our Nation’s heroic border agents and ICE officers,” which the former president said should be the subject of an immediate congressional investigation.

  “But it’s clear they are engaged in a huge cover-up to hide just how bad things truly are,” Trump continued.

  Trump then suggested that the Biden administration should “immediately complete the wall, which can be done in a matter of weeks,” adding “they never should have stopped it” and are “causing death and human tragedy.”

  Trump releases statement on latest developments in border crisis: pic.twitter.com/G2qHsxTgZI

  — Byron York (@ByronYork) March 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Trump’s statement came minutes after Fox News reported that Biden’s border agents in the Texas Rio Grande Valley are releasing illegal migrants into the United States without a court date.

  Multiple Border Patrol agents confirmed the new process to Fox News, revealing that they have been directed to use prosecutorial discretion (PD) to forgo the hours-long process of paperwork required to issue an NTA amid the surge of migrants at the border.

  Instead, migrants are registered into the system with biometrical data taken and largely released into the public – in one instance – at a bus station in McAllen, TX. The processing is being done mostly at a temporary outdoor processing site. Border Patrol agents emphasized that this does not apply to unaccompanied children. –Fox News

  A senior source with Customs and Border Protection told Fox News on Saturday that immigration officials are resorting to this type of catch-and-release because the border crisis “has become so dire that BP [Border Patrol] has no choice but to release people nearly immediately after apprehension because there is no space to hold people even to do necessary NTA paperwork.”

  The immediate catch-and-release does not apply to child migrants – 15,500 of which have been sitting in ‘cages’ built by the Obama-Biden administration – many beyond the legally allowed 72-hour limit.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 18:54

• Dalio Wants You To Swap Treasuries For Chinese Debt
  Dalio Wants You To Swap Treasuries For Chinese Debt

  By Ye Xie, Bloomberg macro commentator and analyst

  Three things we learned last week:

  1. It seems like everyone loves Chinese bonds now.

  China’s bonds have shown incredible stability during the global debt selloff. Yields on 10-year Chinese bonds fell 3 bps over the past month, while the U.S. rates surged 39 bps. Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio noted last week that investors dumping U.S. Treasuries for Chinese bonds is part of a “classic” historical cycle where capital markets of a rising “empire” challenge the existing superpower.

  The current environment where central banks and other international investors hold more than a third of their bond portfolio in U.S. Treasuries and just 6% in Chinese bonds is inconsistent with the relative economic positions of the two countries, according to Dalio.

  “Their overweighted position in U.S. bonds is largely because of the ‘exorbitant privilege’ the U.S. has had being the world’s leading reserve currency, which has allowed the U.S. to overborrow for decades,” Dalio wrote on LinkedIn. “As part of this cycle, there is the emergence of the currency and capital markets of the rising and competing empire. Consistent with this classic cycle there is now a shifting from U.S. bonds to Chinese bonds going on.”

  

  2. The Alaska meeting is a microcosm of the cycle of competing empires.

  The bickering at the first high-level talks between the U.S. and China since Biden took office underscores the deep divide between the two countries. An optimist might argue that the public squabble may turn out to be a good thing as it resets the expectations and allows both sides to be more pragmatic and realistic about what they can achieve. “Despite the spat, is there a second path other than to learn to co-exist in this fierce power struggle?” said Hu Xijin,chief editor at the Global Times. Climate change, Covid-19, and cybersecurity are among the low-hanging fruits for co-operation, said Gabriel Wildau, a China analyst at Teneo, a consultant firm.

  3. Central banks are starting to diverge.

  Russia, Turkey and Brazil raised interest rates last week to cool inflation. Norway’s central bank expects to start raising rates in the “latter half” of this year, putting it on path to be the first in the rich world to tighten policies. In contrast, the Fed signaled it may keep rates unchanged through 2023, even as it expects inflation to exceed its target. The Bank of Japan widened the range of bond yields it targets to gain flexibility.

  The policy divergence has been the missing ingredient for higher currency volatility. It looks like we are getting some.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 18:30

• Bitcoin ATMs Are Landing At Gas Stations, Delis And Convenience Stores Near You
  Bitcoin ATMs Are Landing At Gas Stations, Delis And Convenience Stores Near You

  The trend of Bitcoin ATMs has already started in some delis and gas stations in places like Montana, the Carolinas and New York City.

  Companies like CoinFlip and Coin Cloud have installed “thousands” of the ATMs across the country, according to Reuters. Coin Cloud has 1,470 machines around the United States and is aiming for 10,000 by the end of 2021. 

  Quad Coin founder Mark Shoiket said: “I just assumed there was demand and people wanted bitcoin everywhere.” He just recently flew to Montana to find 7 new places to install bitcoin ATMs, including a local vape shop.  

  There’s currently 28,185 bitcoin ATMs in the United States. About 10,000 of those have popped up over the last 5 months, the report notes. Some people use the ATMs because they sometimes feel more comfortable interacting with a physical machine, while others do it for anonymity purposes. Fees can range from 6% up to 20% of a total transaction. 

  There’s now Bitcoin ATMs in every state except Alaska. 

  

  51 year old Pittsburgh resident Rebecca White said: “When we do our grocery shopping and we have $60 left, I will stop at the bitcoin ATM.”

  Pamela Clegg, director of financial investigations and education at cryptocurrency compliance firm CipherTrace, said: “The growth of the ATM market – it is not even a gentle increase, it is almost a 45% increase. The growth is quite astonishing.”

  But regulators have been watching the pop-up of the machines closely. The New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, for example, recently published a report called “Scams, Suspicious Transactions and Questionable Practices at Cryptocurrency Kiosks.”

  Coin Cloud CEO Chris McAlary said: “We expected the worst as Covid hit, but stimulus payments came out and that helped quite a bit. Some people took stimulus and bought digital currency with it.”

  CoinFlip CEO Daniel Polotsky said: “There are people who don’t have bank accounts or don’t like to use them.”

  Bitcoin Depot, from Atlanta, has also grown its number of ATMs from 500 to more than 1,800 in the past year. Customers are mostly “25-40 years old”. General Bytes, a Bitcoin ATM manufacturer, said that demand “soared” and the company ran out of stock last year.

  They sold 3,000 machines last year. 90% of those machines went to North America, the report says. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 18:00

• Another Mega Short Squeeze On Deck
  Another Mega Short Squeeze On Deck

  At the end of the first week of March which saw an eruption in violent market turbulence in the aftermath of the sharp spike in bond yields and the catastrophic 7Y auction …

  

  … we pointed out an observation from Goldman’s Prime Broker desk, which noted that halfway through the week, Goldman traders saw the “largest global short sales since May” with the GS Prime book was net sold yesterday (-0.9 SDs vs. the average daily net flow of the past year), driven by short sales outpacing long buys 1.7 to 1.” In fact, the mid-week puke wasn’t so much selling as short-selling, as “modest net selling (-0.5 SDs) was driven by short sales outpacing long buys 1.5 to 1.”

  

  This prompted us to predict that what was coming would be a “mega squeeze” in stocks.

  Sure enough just a few days later, on March 10, when stocks did explode higher in the second week of March, Goldman’s Prime Brokerage Service observed that Tuesday’s eruption was the result of “risk unwind in Macro Products vs. large net buying in Single Names” led by TMT and Consumer Disc stocks, with the Goldman Prime book net bought for a fifth straight day in which “trading flows were risk-off with short covers outpacing long sales 4 to 1.”  And just to make sure there is no confusion, Goldman prime said that “yesterday’s de-grossing activity – short covers and long sales combined – was the largest since late January (-2.0 SDs).“

  Furthermore, Bloomberg added that short covering in unprofitable tech firms helped the group halt seven straight days of selling and score the third-biggest net buying of the year. In fact, in the first two days of that week, Goldman basket of the most-shorted tech stocks soared 7%, more than double the return of the Russell 3000.

  

  Commenting on the move, Andrew Brenner, the head of international fixed-income at NatAlliance Securities in New York told Bloomberg that “we see yesterday’s move as short covering without legs.” Ok fine, but tell that to any Nasdaq shorts whose legs – and everything else – was steamrolled in the historic move higher.

  We concluded our post by saying that “with the latest iteration of shorts now out of the picture, it’s time for a new cohort of bears to take their place, and we wouldn’t be surprised if we see renewed weakness in the Nasdaq as a flood of new shorts hammers the tech index only to then suffer another massive squeeze and so on, rinse, repeat.”

  Well, one again that is indeed what happened because while the Nasdaq did move sharply higher for a few days, it closed on Friday precisely at the March 10 short squeeze high as every squeeze higher has been met with a fresh burst of shorting.

  

  We bring all this up because we now have the latest Goldman Prime data and – drumroll – we appear to be headed for another mega squeeze!

  As Goldman’s hedge fund client-facing desk wrote after the close on Friday, in a reversal of last week’s buying activity, “the GS Prime book saw the largest $ net selling since Dec ‘18 (-2.5 SDs), driven by short sales and long sales (3 to 1).” The bank then reveals that all regions and sectors saw increased shorting on the week with “Single Names/Macro Products were both net sold and made up 70%/30% of the $ net selling. With the exception of Asia which was net bought driven by long buying in Japan, all regions were net sold led by North America and Europe.” Finally, broken down by industry, “10 of 11 global sectors were net sold led by Consumer Disc, Comm Svcs, Info Tech, and Materials, while Financials was the only net bought sector.”

  But what is most notable is that like two weeks ago, Goldman Prime reveals that “the largest net selling in US TMT Mega Caps since Mar ’20 driven by short sales” and the aggregate long/short ratio (MV) in FAAMG dropped -34% week/week on the GS Prime book to 10.41, which is the lowest level since Mar ’20 and in the 19th percentile vs. the past five years.

  One final – and perhaps remarkable observation in light of the juggernaut that FAAMG had been for much of 2020 – the TMT Mega Caps (FAAMGs) collectively now make up 13.5% of the overall US net exposure in Single Names, down from 13.9% at the end of last week and 14.6% at the start of this year, according to GS Prime. The current level is in the 16th percentile vs. the past year and in the 55th percentile vs. the past five years. In short: traders are rapidly rotating away from the best performing sector of 2020.

  

  Adding insult to injury the latest Goldman Prime data also shows that hedge funds haven’t generated any net alpha since the start of 2020 (!) for one simple reason: while the longs are modestly in the green, it is the collective shorts that keep steamrolling the “2 and 20” space, and every time hedge fund layer on shorts, an initial spike in covering leads to a furious cascade of closing out of bearish positions perhaps as a result of the market’s muscle memory where every attempt to go short has lead to pain and suffering for the bears leading to the lowest marketwide net short in history!

  

  What does all this mean? Well, as a result of last week’s aggressive attempt to pile on shorts – the most since Dec 2018 when stocks collapsed due to Powell’s final rate hike which was seen as a huge policy mistake – we are once again facing the threat of a massive short squeeze, one exacerbated by the fact that hedge funds are now once again red for the year, as shown by the black line below…

  

  … making them extremely jittery and likely to close out any potentially devastating shorts at the sign of even the faintest of bullish catalysts. Well, with not one, not two but three appearances by Fed Chair Powell this week, all eager to make up for his latest FOMC fiasco that sent yields to fresh 2021 highs, there will be ample triggers for another face-ripping squeeze in the week ahead, and we are confident that in just a few days we will be once again discussing the latest “mega squeeze” leading to another historic market meltup with the full blessing of the Federal Reserve.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 17:41

• "White Supremacist Thinking": San Fran School Board VP Under Fire For Allegedly Anti-Asian Tweets
  “White Supremacist Thinking”: San Fran School Board VP Under Fire For Allegedly Anti-Asian Tweets

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  We previously discussed the controversial position of Alison Collins, Vice President of the San Francisco school board, in her campaign against meritocracy and effort to shut down the gifted programs at Lowell High School. 

  

  The Asian community was particularly opposed to Collins’ efforts since Asian students composed 29 percent of the students but 51 percent of the Lowell student body. Now Collins is under fire for prior tweets attacking Asians as promoting “the ‘model minority’ BS” and of using “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead.’”

  These do not appear recent tweets but their content is obviously insulting for any Asian American. The Yahoo News story included such tweets as accusing “many Asian American Ts, Ss, and Ps” — teachers, students, and parents — of promoting “the ‘model minority’ BS” and of using “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead.’” It also include a demand to know “[w]here are the vocal Asians speaking up against Trump?” and statements on how Asians are deluding themselves by not speaking out against former president Donald Trump: “Don’t Asian Americans know they are on his list as well?” Collins continued. “Do they think they won’t be deported? profiled? beaten? Being a house n****r is still being a n****r. You’re still considered “the help.”

  

  While the use of the censored version of the “n word” has led to calls to terminate academics, I do not believe that such objections are fair in this or the prior cases. Indeed, this controversy should not take away from the campaign against meritocracy and the effort to eliminate programs for advanced or gifted students in the public school system. As I have previously discussed, I long been a supporter of public schools.  These advanced programs are needed to maintain a broad, diverse, and vibrant school systems for cities like San Francisco.

  Race politics seems a focus on every level in the school system, even in the regulation of student elections. Likewise, the controversy in San Francisco follows another controversy in Los Angeles where United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) Cecily Myart-Cruz has also criticized “Middle Eastern” parents in joining “white parents” in seeking school re-openings.  The UTLA was criticized after Maryam Qudrat, a mother of Middle Eastern descent, was asked by the UTLA to identify her race after criticizing the union’s opposition to reopening schools despite overwhelming science that it is safe. This effort to racially classify critics of the teachers followed Myart-Cruz attacking critics by referring to their race:

  “Some voices are being allowed to speak louder than others. We have to call out the privilege behind the largely White wealthy parents driving the push for a rushed return. Their experience of this pandemic is not our students’ families’ experiences.”

  The remarks of school board and teacher union officials clearly fuel racial tensions and divisions at at time when the public schools are facing enormous challenges. For Asian families (constituting roughly a third of the families in the San Fran school system), the remarks of Collins are legitimately unsettling as they fight for the educational advancement of their children. It is precisely the opposite of what most of us seek in our public school systems as a synthesis of different cultures and races. While districts like San Francisco prioritized renaming schools in the middle of a pandemic (until recently being forced to suspend the effort), families simply want to maintain an educational system with a focus on academic excellence and advancement.

  As I have previously discussed, many of us still believe in a diverse and thriving public school system. Growing up in Chicago during the massive flight of white families from the public school system, I remained in public schools for much of my early education. My parents organized a group to convince affluent families remain in the system. They feared that, once such families left, the public schools would not only lose diversity but political clout and support. They also wanted their kids to benefit from such diversity. My wife and I also believe in that cause and we have kept our four kids in public schools through to college.  We believe public education plays a key role in our national identity and civics. They shape our next generation of citizens.  My children have benefitted greatly from public schools and the many caring and gifted teachers who have taught them through the years.

  I hope that San Francisco parents of all races can prevail in seeking to refocus the school system on educational advancement. We have too much at stake for our kids and our country if parents allow this type of reckless and insulting rhetoric to lead them to abandon our public school systems.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 17:30

• Lira Crashes, Turkey CDS Soar As Erdogan Launches Another Epic Crisis
  Lira Crashes, Turkey CDS Soar As Erdogan Launches Another Epic Crisis

  Turkey has become the sovereign equivalent of a Swiss Watch: every 6 months or so Turkey has a brand new crisis, and the latest one arrived late on Friday when just days after the Turkish Central Bank hiked rates by 200bps, double the consensus expectation (a move which we correctly predicted would provoke Erdogan “to replace yet another CBRT governor”), Erdogan indeed announced that CBRT governor Naci Agbal – who was on the job just over 3 months after his November 2020 appointment – would be fired and replaced with some political zealot named Sahap Kavcioglu, whose only claim to fame is believing in the ludicrous and farcical concept of Erdoganomics where lower rates somehow magically lead to lower inflation. He is also the country’s fourth central bank governor in the last two years.

  Sadly for Erdogan (and Turkey’s population) that’s not how the real world works and now that Turkey’s attempt to tighten and contain inflation by cutting rates inflation is about to explode in one of the most important Developing Markets; but what’s worse for international investors – who once again took a gamble on Turkey and lost – is that Erdogan just single-handedly crushed what little credibility the country’s central bank had built up in recent months and in early Asian trading, the Turkish Lira cratered as much as 17%, wiping out 5 months of progress, with the USDTRY soaring as high as 8.42, up some 120 pips its Friday close of 7.2185.

  

  The currency was quoted at 8.2621 per dollar as of 4pm ET, the weakest since November just before Agbal was appointed in the midst of an aggressive rate hike cycle, one which will now rapidly reverse as the new top central banker cuts rates in response to the country’s soaring inflation.

  

  Erdogan’s decision to fire Governor Naci Agbal, who had sought to restore the central bank’s credibility, is a blow to investor confidence and raises concern the country will once again embark on a path of rock-bottom rates.

  According to Bloomberg, “the initial backlash exceeded some analysts’ estimates” – but not ours – “and marks a swift reversal of investor enthusiasm toward Turkish markets.” Ironically, headed into today, the lira had been the best carry-trade currency of the year, outperforming every other EM as money managers cheered Agbal’s move to raise interest rates and efforts to bring inflation under control.”

  

  However, as we also correctly said last Thursday, Agbal, “was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t: on one hand the lira was plunging angering Erdogan, so he had to stabilize it… on the other the only way to do so was by hiking rates, which would anger Erdogan even more.”

  In the end, Agbal’s tightening proved too much for Erdogan to handle, and now comes the real pain.

  “Capital will flow out on Monday and the CBRT has limited resources left to protect the lira,” according to Per Hammarlund, chief EM strategist at SEB AB in Stockholm, referring to the central bank. “A hawkish central-bank governor cannot be replaced by a dovish governor without markets expecting a shift in policy. The circumstances of Agbal’s dismissal coming two days after a rate hike will produce an even sharper shift in investor expectations.“

  Let this be (another) lesson to all real money accounts: if you invest in banana republics, be prepared to lose all your money and get nothing more than a banana in return (if you’re lucky).

  Agbal’s replacement, Kavcioglu, pledged on Sunday to use monetary-policy tools effectively to deliver permanent price stability… translation: he will do whatever Erdogan tells him, which considering the Turkish president’s eccentric views on monetary policy means that Turkey may have NIRP soon alongside 100% inflation. And speaking of, any weakness in the lira could add to inflationary pressures building in the economy and erode Turkey’s real rate, currently the highest in emerging markets after Egypt’s.

  Commenting on the chaos in Turkey, Bloomberg chief EM economst Ziad Daoud, said that “the hit to the central bank’s credibility and independence can’t be overstated. Erdogan has battered the institution with interventions that have repeatedly backfired. Financial markets were willing to give Agbal a chance, his successor will find it hard to build that trust again.”

  Since 2019…

  Italy have had 2 Prime Ministers

  Chelsea have had 3 different managers

  Turkey has had 4 different Central Bank Governors since 2019

  (and managing in the Premier League was meant to be difficult)$TRY pic.twitter.com/zIvcGla5wZ

  — Viraj Patel (@VPatelFX) March 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “We must conclude, for now, that Kavcioglu will be mandated with reducing and keeping rates as low as possible,” Cristian Maggio, head of emerging markets at TD Securities in London, correctly predicted. “If this hypothesis proves true, not only will we see a looser policy setting in Turkey in the coming months, but we will also likely experience a return to managing policy through unorthodox measures.”

  That’s just part of it: now that one of the largest DMs has lost all central bank credibility, what is a currency crisis can quickly mutated into a full-blown sovereign debt crisis, and the latest blowing out CDS prints confirm this:

  • TURKEY 5Y CDS 410/455 +125

  A reason for the panicked response, one which brings back flashbacks to the Asian debt crisis of 1997…

  Who knew this generation’s “Asian crisis” would start in Turkey

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 21, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  … is that Turkey is now effectively without FX reserves and has virtually no way to short-circuit the current puke. Last year, Turkish banks spent more than $100 billion of the nation’s foreign reserves to support the sinking currency, according to a Goldman report (full report below). That prompted calls by Turkish opposition for a judicial probe into the nation’s official reserves.

  In comparison, always oblivious foreign investors who are confident that central bankers will always save them, purchased a net $4.7 billion worth of Turkish stocks and bonds in the months following Agbal’s appointment. Overseas inflows to Turkey through swaps were about $14 billion during that period, Istanbul-based economist Haluk Burumcekci said. All that money is about to be pulled now amid the sheer chaos.

  Among those who may find themselves on the wrong side of the trade are Japanese retail investors, according to Bloomberg, i.e., Mrs Watanabe. Long positions by individuals in lira-yen stood at 263,585 contracts as of Friday. They’ve climbed about 9% since the start of the year.

  “We will never know how successful Agbal’s approach could have been, but initial signs were positive,” said Emre Akcakmak, a portfolio adviser at East Capital in Dubai, who anticipated challenges to intensify in the near future and a reversal on some of the recent and large hot money inflows in the face of the unexpected decision. “Even when the market stabilizes after a while, investors will have little tolerance, if any, in case the new governor prematurely cuts the rates again,” Akcakmak said.

  Meanwhile, those hoping for guidance from all those who were bullish on the lira, like Goldman with its 6.20 price target, are advised to keep a low profile: as Goldman says in a note published earlier today, “our EM/FX strategy team are putting their forecasts for USD/TRY under review, with significant risks of a near-term discontinuous move weaker in the Lira.”

  That’s a big of an understatement by a bank whose advise just cost its clients massive losses.

  Then again, in a world as insane and upside down as this one, it just may be that Erdogan will have the final laugh, and Turkish inflation will indeed tumble as the CBRT cuts rates as low as possible, perhaps even dipping negative eventually.

  * * *

  Below we have excerpted Goldman’s full note, “Turkey: President Erdogan Appoints Sahap Kavcioglu as New TCMB Governor”

  • Kavcioglu has been appointed as the new Governor with a presidential decisionpublished in the Official Gazette on Friday, March 19.
  • This is the third time a TCMB Governor has been replaced in the last two years, following the removal of Murat Cetinkaya from his post in July 2019 and the removal of Murat Uysal from his post in November 2020.
  • The decision came after a hawkish 200bp policy rate hike by the TCMB on Thursday (March 18). That said, it may be part of a more fundamental repositioning of policy as it follows changes in the senior leadership in the Turkish Statistical Institute and the Sovereign Wealth Fund in the last few weeks. In addition, Turkey’s chief prosecutor launched a lawsuit on Wednesday (March 17), seeking closure of the HDP, one of the three main opposition parties, supported by large parts of the Kurdish population. Turkey pulled out of the IstanbulConvention (The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and CombatingViolence Against Women and Domestic Violence) with another presidentialdecision also published in the Official Gazette on Friday, March 19.
  • Governor Kavcioglu published a statement today, noting that the TCMB “will continue to use the monetary policy tools effectively in line with its main objective of achieving a permanent fall in inflation” to foster macro economicstability and sustainable growth. The statement also noted that the MPC meetings will be held as previously scheduled. Hence, the next meeting should take place on 15 April.
  • Although significant uncertainty remains around how monetary policy will change following this appointment, we do have some sense of Governor Kavcioglu’s economic views as he has written numerous columns on topics such as interest rates, the Turkish Lira and the use of reserves (see here and here, only available in Turkish). Governor Kavcioglu wrote in his column on February 9that monetary policy should not insist on a high policy rate and that higher rateswill indirectly lead to inflation. Governor Kavcioglu also believes that the TRY has been kept too strong in recent years by offering high rates, undermining economic competitiveness. Given these and similar comments, it is likely that markets will question the TCMB’s forward guidance of keeping the monetary stance tight for a prolonged period, and the TRY may come under pressure. Local banks are already quoting to buy TRY at 7.70-7.80 vs the USD in the retail market over the weekend, up from 7.23 in the spot market on Friday.
  • Given the stated dovish views of Governor Kavcioglu, the risks are now for a much more front-loaded cutting cycle than our forecast of a first rate cut only in Q4. Nevertheless, we think that the potential impact of this decision on central bank credibility and on the currency is likely to limit any dovish move in the near term. More broadly, we think inflation will remain a constraint on how early and fast rate cuts can take place. We expect inflation to fall to just 12.5%yoy by the end of the year, significantly above the TCMB’s estimate of 9.4%yoy. Any premature rate cut would also add to inflationary pressures, in our view.
  • There have been significant capital inflows from mid-November, following the appointment of Naci Agbal. Nonresident inflows into local government debt and equity amounted to US$4.0bn and US$0.7bn, respectively. It is likely that the flows into Lira due to swaps were larger. We do not have a time series on this specifically but a growing off-balance-sheet position of banks against declining TCMB swaps since mid-November suggests that there was an increase in the swaps conducted with nonresidents, around US$6.0bn on our estimates. With this build-up of foreign positioning, attracted by the belief that the TCMB will likely keep rates sufficiently high to stabilize the TRY, a reversal in capital flows going forward appears likely.
  • The build-up in foreign positioning is not the only reason why the market reaction is likely to differ from those when previous governors were replaced. When Murat Uysal was appointed as TCMB Governor in July 2019, gross reserves were higher and a cutting cycle was expected. The market reaction to Naci Agbal’s appointment was positive as he was seen as a technocrat and the President had followed up this appointment decision with a market-friendly speech.
  • Our assessment of the TCMB’s reaction function has been that the TCMB would tighten policy when faced with sufficient pressure, rather than look for non-market solutions. For this reason, our base case last year (when reserves were being depleted at a rapid pace and some market participants were discussing the possibility of non-market measures) was that the TCMB would eventually hike rates and engineer a soft landing.

  

  • The developments from November until recently seemed to confirm this. Following the removal of Naci Agbal from his post, we  think that the risks to our view that monetary policy (rather than alternative administrative measures) will ultimately respond to market pressures and macroeconomic imbalances have increased.
  • It is likely that pressure on the TRY will pick up. A restart of FX interventions similar to 2020 may be the initial response, but the buffers are comparatively low. While gross reserves stand at US$91.6bn, US$17.0bn are due to swaps with Qatar and China, and US$38.9bn are gold. On our estimates, gross foreign currency reserves are US$35.7bn. Although this is higher than the US$23.4bn at the trough in mid-November, it is still not sizeable enough to sustain continued interventions, in our view. For comparison, the TCMB’s gross reserves fell on average by US$6bn a month from March to September before rates were raised.
  • Our forecasts for the current account in 2021 and the country’s external financing needs do not differ significantly from what we were forecasting for 2020 in Q1-20.We forecast a current account deficit of US$28bn for this year(TCMB survey: US$25bn). The current account deficit did ultimately widen significantly more than we had initially thought in 2020 to US$37bn, mostly due to rising gold imports, and a repeat of that scenario cannot be excluded.
  • Other measures the authorities may consider if the TRY comes under pressure are (1)finding sources of non-market funding, (2) administrative measures or (3) once again raising policy rates. Given the stated dovish views of the new Governor and the context in which he has been appointed, the market is likely to be sceptical of the likelihood of rate hikes. Nevertheless, it may once again come up as a possibility if the TRY comes under significant pressure.
  • With markets less likely to fund the Turkish current account deficit, and in the absence of other official flows, we think that a rapid adjustment in the current account may be necessary and the risks of a hard landing have increased. Under this scenario, we see downside risks to our growth forecast +5.5%yoy in 2021 and upside risks to our already above-consensus end-year inflation forecast of 12.5%yoy.
  • Our EM/FX strategy team are putting their forecasts for USD/TRY under review, with significant risks of a near-term discontinuous move weaker in the Lira.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 17:15

• Ram Truck Production Delayed Amid Global Chip Shortage
  Ram Truck Production Delayed Amid Global Chip Shortage

  Stellantis, the world’s fourth-largest automaker, announced Saturday production of its Ram Classic pickup trucks in Saltillo, Mexico, and Warren, Michigan, will be affected for “a number of weeks” due to a worsening global semiconductor shortage, reported Reuters. 

  Assembly plants in Saltillo and Warren will build and hold the Ram 1500 Classic trucks for final assembly until semiconductor components become available. 

  

  A Stellantis spokeswoman told Reuters the issue could take “a number of weeks” to resolve, declining to share the actual number of trucks affected by the chip shortage. 

  “We continue working closely with our suppliers to mitigate the manufacturing impacts caused by the various supply chain issues facing our industry,” a statement read, quoted by Bloomberg. 

  The global shortage in semiconductors forced Ford Motor Company on Thursday to build its top-selling F-150 trucks and Edge SUVs without certain semiconductor components and hold the vehicles until the chips arrive. 

  Production woes for Ford don’t stop there. Ford canceled three production shifts through Friday at a Kentucky plant that produces Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair crossovers. This coming week, Ford expects to limit production of the Ford Fiesta car made in Germany.  

  On Friday, Toyota Motor Corp. suspended operations at a plant in the Czech Republic for two weeks due to chip shortages. 

  Carmakers have repeatedly warned about shortages developing worldwide. 

  A report from Goldman Sachs summarizes recent media reports on supply chain disruptions. 

  The semiconductor shortage appears to be “very widespread” and could begin to drag on global auto production. Goldman economist Jan Hatzius notes that many consumer goods – from headphones to sofas to roller skates – have also faced supply challenges this year.

  

  Goldman’s conclusion to the worldwide supply-chain turmoil is that it may not alleviate until 2022. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 17:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Brandon Smith: Is The Illegal-Immigration Crisis All About New COVID Lockdowns?
  Brandon Smith: Is The Illegal-Immigration Crisis All About New COVID Lockdowns?

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  In multiple articles I have published recently I outlined why an attempt at a new national covid lockdown in the US is inevitable. In my article ‘The Real Reasons Why Millions Of Americans Will Defy Covid Mandates And Vaccines’, I examined new polling numbers which show that a vast portion of the US population is refusing to comply with medical controls. The bottom line is this: Covid is a non-threat to 99.7% of the public, and the citizenry is getting wise to this fact.

  However, there are certain people that NEED the pandemic lockdowns to continue regardless of what the public wants.

  The Biden Administration and its globalist handlers have BIG plans for the next few years, and all of it relies on pandemic fears and totalitarian restrictions.

  The “Great Reset”, as Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum calls it, is never going to happen unless global populations are locked down and placed under control. Unconstitutional pieces of legislation that undermine or destroy the 2nd Amendment, like HR 127, will be impossible to enact if Americans are organized and unified to resist. Carbon taxation and “shared economy” policies will never be allowed to touch ground. Conservative Americans and many moderates will stamp out such measures like cockroaches within their own states. Law enforcement agencies in most areas would have no interest in being used as cannon fodder to enforce them.

  The only option the globalists have at this stage is to barrel forward with the pandemic narrative despite the fact that Covid has turned out to be a hollow issue with a death rate of 0.26% outside of nursing home patients. At least half the country is ready to revolt over the mandates, and almost half the country is refusing to take the vaccines or accept medical passports. That is millions of people that are laughing in the face of the Reset agenda.

  So, the question for the thwarted globalists is this: How do they turn their conservative enemies into unwitting allies? What is a 4th Generation warfare solution to their problem? How do they get a larger number of conservatives to support their own enslavement through the lockdown mandates?

  Well, one method would be to cause a convincing distraction that compels conservatives to embrace the notion of the lockdowns as an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for dealing with a potentially more dangerous problem.

  

  The crisis of mass illegal immigration is turning into a growing national debate right now. I suspect we haven’t even begun to see the consequences yet, and I also suspect that there is a plot hidden within these events.

  But let’s look at the surface arguments first…

  Obviously, most conservatives are going to view a huge influx of illegals into the US as a means for Democrats to secure elections for decades to come. I’m sure most people reading this article are aware of the “Cloward Piven Strategy”, and I won’t delve into it too much here except to say that I get it, and I realize it’s a problem; it’s just not the biggest problem that conservatives should be worried about right now.

  Yes, this exact program of social dilution was used in Europe only a few years ago, and to be clear, this is not a problem of “race”, it is a problem of culture and ideology. Muslim culture and Sharia law, for example, are for the most part incompatible with Western society. Forcefully mixing the two is a recipe for disaster as we have seen already in the EU. When Muslims immigrate LEGALLY and individually assimilate into Western culture instead of trying to import their own culture by attrition, things work. Otherwise things do not work. This is reality.

  By extension, mass illegal migration without assimilation of people from Central and South America into the US will also lead to disaster. These migrants are coming from predominantly socialist countries that have failed systems (that’s why these people are leaving and coming to the US). But, illegals tend to bring their socialist politics with them. They have no experience living within a culture that treats freedom as inherent and inalienable and are often motivated by access to government programs and handouts.

  This is why we have borders in the first place – to protect our society from intrusion and co-option by another society or group of people with incompatible values. Despite what leftists and some false libertarians might claim, without borders, freedom dies.

  Conservatives easily understand this simple concept, but leftists just don’t get it. They live in a Marxist fantasy land where Utopia is right around the corner and open borders are a magical tool for peace and prosperity. They also hate conservatives and that pesky Bill of Rights that we defend so much. They think inviting an army of potential socialists into the country will help to marginalize us and make us disappear. They’ll even brag about it openly on occasion.

  So, it’s not surprising that whenever a giant caravan of illegals starts marching towards the southern border, conservatives rally in opposition. We might even put more energy into this issue than we do for gun rights.

  Here is the problem…

  The migrant crisis is suddenly receiving heavy attention from the mainstream media after being ignored for months. Why is that? It feels as if there was a complete blackout on this issue, and now, the floodgates have opened and the media coverage is growing. With the amount of protection Biden has been lavished with by the MSM so far, their sudden critical position on his border policies has me suspicious. Since when do leftist corporate journalists care about the border?

  Well, reports of a possible “surge in covid” due to mass illegal migrations into America might explain everything.

  Think of it this way – The establishment and Biden need some kind of rationale for a new covid lockdown. I continue to predict that Biden will try to institute a Federal lockdown mandate similar to the Level 4 lockdowns used in parts of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. They know that there is too much conservative opposition and that they will not be able to get red states to comply. But, what if conservatives were made to think that the border would be more heavily guarded and illegal immigrants rounded up if they supported a new lockdown policy?

  What if conservatives were tricked into supporting covid lockdowns as a means to control illegal immigration?

  The solution should be obvious: Biden should be enforcing border protocols and laws WITHOUT needing covid lockdowns. But, he’s not going to do that. What he’s going to do is keep the border as porous as possible, do little to stem the tide of immigrant caravans until the situation devolves into chaos, and then announce that a “new wave” of covid infections has been brought to the US by the caravans.

  Again, covid is a non-threat to 99.7% of the population outside of nursing homes, but what about a “covid mutation”? Brazil has been conveniently reporting such a mutation that is supposedly “more dangerous” than the original covid virus.

  As this variant spreads, whether or not it presents any actual danger, Biden will then announce a national lockdown including a hard lockdown on the southern border. The question is, will some conservatives be more inclined to back off of their opposition to the mandates if it means illegal immigration will be stopped?

  This is essentially a protection racket. In other words, Biden will refuse to protect the border until we comply with the pandemic restrictions, just as he and the establishment will continue to push for restricted freedoms until ALL Americans submit to vaccinations and medical passports.

  However, there is another way…

  Counties on the southern border can take over the job of securing the region and refuse to allow illegal migrants to pass. If the border patrol is understaffed or is being hobbled by the federal government, then the locals can take control and do the job that Biden refuses to do. Furthermore, if the problem persists and the federal government seeks to interfere in local efforts to secure the border, then it may be time to create new borders. It may be time to do that anyway.

  Conservatives and moderates have almost nothing in common with the political left anymore; conservatives want freedom of speech, the right to self defense, the right to honest and accurate information, self reliance, economic freedom, secure borders and small government. Leftists support mass censorship, disarmament, business shutdowns, lockdown mandates, open borders, the big government nanny state, centralization and tyranny. Perhaps it is time we separate and build the societies we want, and well away from each other.

  Let’s see which system thrives and which one collapses. Let’s see which system people want to join and which system people want to escape.

  My point is, at no time should conservatives feel compelled to accept covid lockdowns or other totalitarian measures just to get border protections from the federal government in return. And, I probably don’t need to say this, but don’t buy into the covid mutation narrative. The pandemic is a failed part of the Reset agenda, nothing more. The elites are trying to pick up the pieces and turn garbage into gold. As long as conservatives and liberty minded people refuse to comply, their plans will crumble. And, if the border needs to be secured and the federal government refuses to do their job, then we should take control and make the border safe ourselves.

  *  *  *

  If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/21/2021 – 00:00

• If You Move To These Cities, The American Dream Is Still Achievable
  If You Move To These Cities, The American Dream Is Still Achievable

  Owning a piece of ‘The American Dream’ – if all that means to you is buying a house – has become out of reach for many (if not most Amercians) and the situation is getting worse.

  The serial-bubble-blowing Federal Reserve is making the same mistake it made during the mid-2000s and late 1990s by allowing untethered monetary policy to inflate housing prices to unaffordable levels.

  In many parts of the country, housing prices have outpaced household incomes. 

  A combination of factors during the pandemic resulted in surging home prices. First, the Fed slammed mortgage rates to record lows, and the socio-economic collapse of metro areas created an exodus to suburbia. The combination of the two has inflated overall US home prices. 

  Using data from job search site Zippia, this graphic below reveals the most and least affordable cities to purchase a home. 

  

  Head of content at Zippia, Kathy Morris, wrote that “the American dream of homeownership is still possible for the average worker.” She lists the top ten most affordable areas to live in: 

  1. Detroit, Michigan

  2. Akron, Ohio

  3. Toledo, Ohio

  4. Fort Wayne, Indiana

  5. Fishers, Indiana

  6. Pearland, Texas

  7. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

  8. Lee’s Summit, Missouri

  9. Cleveland, Ohio

  10. Grand Prairie, Texas

  To develop the list, Morris used the average home cost, monthly mortgage, and the minimum salary to determine which area is most affordable for working-class folks. She recommended that no more than 28% of gross (i.e., before tax) monthly income go toward mortgage payments. The sweet spot of home affordability was areas where people paid less than 28% of their incomes towards their mortgage. However, she said,

  “We did not take into account PMI, taxes, down payment size, or home insurance, since those differ greatly based on individual circumstances and loan type.”

  .. and being a dream, the bottom 90% of Americans need to be asleep to believe in it, or they will either wind up renting for life or own an unaffordable home and be house poor. Morris lists the ten least affordable cities for homeownership:

  1. Los Angeles, California

  2. San Francisco, California

  3. Honolulu, Hawaii

  4. New York City, New York

  5. Oakland, California

  6. Long Beach, California

  7. Miami, Florida

  8. Huntington Beach, California

  9. Anaheim, California

  10. San Jose, California

  How times have changed over the course of the past couple of decades as taking part in The American Dream now means you must move in Detroit – not exactly an all inspiring metro area. 

  Living the American Dream of runaway home prices juiced by Fed policy. Every time I hear word “inclusive,” I think to myself: Why don’t they start by ceasing policies that exacerbate the k-shaped entry price to put roof over all Americans’ heads? Too easy?@Quillintel@SoberLook pic.twitter.com/zX8QJSfGRA

  — Danielle DiMartino Booth (@DiMartinoBooth) March 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 23:30

• The Never-Ending Battle Between Leviathan And Liberty
  The Never-Ending Battle Between Leviathan And Liberty

  Authored by James Bovard via The Mises Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  The notion that Americans will always be free is part of the catechism that is force-fed to public school students. For hundreds of years, philosophers, politicians, and reformers have touted a law of history that assures the ultimate triumph of freedom. “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come,” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

  

  But few political follies are more hazardous than presuming that one’s liberties are forever safe. None of the arguments on why liberty is inevitable can explain why it has not yet arrived. Most of the human race existed with little or no freedom for 95+ percent of recorded history. If liberty is God’s gift to humanity, then why were most people who ever lived on Earth denied this divine bequest?

  Many efforts at limiting state power have failed almost immediately. In the thirteenth century, oppressed English nobles revolted and sought to bind their kings in perpetuity. King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, petulantly accepting a limit to his prerogative to pillage everything in his domain. While the Magna Carta is celebrated nowadays as the dawn of a new age, it failed to even bind the king who signed the document. The ink on his signature was barely dry before King John brought in foreign forces and proceeded to slaughter the barons who forced his signature. King John died just after his vengeance commenced, providing a respite for Englishmen. In the final realm, the Magna Carta was simply a political pledge that was honored only insofar as private courage and weaponry compelled sovereigns to limit their abuses.

  History is a chronology of nations pillaged by reckless regimes. English kings recited coronation oaths that limited their power. Such oaths were as binding as a congressional candidate’s campaign promises. Rampaging kings sometimes converted smouldering discontent into a raging fire of resistance. Historian Thomas Macaulay summarized England’s path to its Glorious Revolution of 1688: “Oppression speedily did what philosophy and eloquence … failed to do.” King James II was ousted in 1688 and Parliament speedily enacted laws to curb all subsequent monarchs.

  The United States was the first government to be created with strict limitations on its power, enshrined in the Constitution. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The Founders included numerous checks and balances in the Constitution to restrain political ambition. But they were never so naïve as to presume that a parchment barrier would keep American liberty safe in perpetuity.

  Within the first decade of the nation’s existence, Congress and President John Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which destroyed freedom of the press and speech. Thomas Jefferson responded by writing a resolution in 1799 that warned, “Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence…. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Senator John Taylor, in his 1821 book Tyranny Unmasked, scoffed at presuming “our good theoretical system of government is a sufficient security against actual tyranny.”

  Those “chains of the Constitution” have often been illusory or merely a placebo phantasm for government victims. Politicians perennially invoke the Constitution to prove that citizens have no reason to fear the government. When the House of Representatives considered the PATRIOT Act in October 2001, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) assured fellow members of Congress that “the bill does not do anything to take away the freedoms of innocent citizens. Of course we all recognize that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, and that is why this legislation does not change the United States Constitution or the rights guaranteed to citizens of this country.” Sensenbrenner talked as if that the mere existence of the Bill of Rights shackled Congress. This is akin to claiming that because automobiles have brakes, drivers can never exceed the speed limit. The PATRIOT Act unleashed a constitutional crime wave, as the Bush administration suspended habeas corpus and conducted waves of secret arrests, unleashed the FBI to conduct hundreds of thousands of warrantless searches, and entitled the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans’ emails and other personal data.

  American presidents take an oath of office solemnly swearing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But this has long been an empty ritual, akin to Roman emperors making public sacrifices to pagan gods they knew did not exist. Fealty to the Constitution has evaporated in part because philosophical trends have long favored absolute power.

  Intellectual servility has been perennially profitable and there has never been a shortage of writers exalting supreme rulers. Writing in 1651, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes labeled the state as Leviathan, “our mortal God.” Leviathan signifies a government whose power is unbounded, with a right to dictate almost anything and everything to the people under its sway. While Hobbes was reviled in the first century after his book was published, his ideas later became fashionable as academics rushed to echo his derision of “tyrannophobia.” Hobbes declared that it is forever prohibited for subjects in “any way to speak evil of their sovereign” regardless of how badly they are abused. Hobbes offered “suicide pact sovereignty”: to recognize a government’s existence is to automatically concede the government’s right to destroy everything in its domain.

  Hobbes profoundly influenced subsequent political philosophers, including German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, who trumpeted the doctrine that history is the actualization of freedom. But Hegel was not using “freedom” in the sense that the Founding Fathers did. Instead, Hegel declared, “The State in-and-for-itself is the ethical whole, the actualization of freedom.” Hegel also proclaimed that “[t]he State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth” and derided the notion of freedom as individual choice as “uneducated superficiality.” Hegel’s slavish version of freedom was difficult to distinguish from Hobbes’ s totalitarian vision of sovereignty.

  Hegel had a profound influence on communism (via Marx), fascism, and on the most popular philosopher in Washington in recent decades. Francis Fukuyama, a State Department functionary, hailed Hegel as the supreme “philosopher of freedom.” In 1989, Fukuyama proclaimed the “unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism” and boasted that “we in the liberal West occupy the final summit of the historical edifice.” He announced “the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

  Fukuyama’s “law of history” supposedly proved that government was no longer a threat to freedom. By making political power appear innocuous, Fukuyama became an instant hero inside the Beltway. Fukuyama’s “end of history” revelation was zealously embraced by the political-media establishment. Fukuyama provided a law of history that supposedly negated all the warnings from history about political power.

  Fukuyama’s doctrine “liberated” presidents in the name of freedom. In his 2002 National Security Strategy, President George W. Bush echoed Fukuyama’s view: “The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.” At a 2002 Republican fundraiser dinner, Bush declared: “We will do whatever it takes to make the homeland secure and to make freedom reign across the world.” In his 2005 inaugural address, Bush whooped, “We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.” Bush used “freedom bosh” to sanctify his wars, torture regime, and militaristic threats against any foreign regime that disobeyed Washington.

  Why would history stop after either liberty or democracy is achieved? The experience of many countries has been “one person, one vote, one time.” Faith in democracy as a perpetual guarantor of freedom is tricky to reconcile with the collapse of more than thirty democracies around the globe in recent years. Few of the democracies that have survived have fastidiously respected citizens’ rights.

  Some libertarians are confident that, despite post–9/11 debacles, liberty will inevitably triumph in the end. But why would freedom be safer in the future than now? Because of a law of history that was never enacted by God, a convocation of cardinals, or even the Arkansas state legislature?

  Presuming that America or any other nation is destined to be free lulls people against potential oppressors. Author Robert Anton Wilson observed, “Every national border in Europe marks the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each other any more and signed a treaty.” Similarly, the current extent of government power marks the boundary of political onslaughts into the private domain of liberty.

  There will be no perpetual truce along this border, because political marauders will continually create new pretexts to invade citizens’ lives. The private domain relies primarily on voluntary agreements, independence, and peaceful coexistence. The political domain relies on command and control, subjugation, and threats and penalties.

  One of the greatest perils to the private domain is the notion that Leviathan is more legitimate than liberty. Downplaying government coercion is the key to this propaganda coup. For most of the American media, compelling submission to political commands is a nonissue, equivalent of the sun rising in the east each morning.

  At the time when political power began soaring, in the 1930s, American political thinking systematically disregarded the danger from government. In the 1940s, as Professor David Ciepley observed, “the State was dropped from American social science, as part of the reaction to the rise of totalitarianism. All traces of state autonomy, now understood as ‘state coercion,’ were expunged from the image of American democracy.” Ciepley explained that “the emergence of Hitler and Stalin as the ultimate social engineers led American political scientists to … fall silent about all such activities in the American governmental system. If totalitarianism means elite social engineering, then American democracy must mean popular control.” Democracy became the purported champion of freedom, because people were taught that democracies were inherently nonoppressive. But as Senator John Taylor warned two centuries ago, “Self-government is flattered to destroy self-government.”

  For many people, liberty is an abstraction until government agents ravage their lives. A lucid recognition of the coercive nature of Leviathan is vital for the defense of freedom. Leviathan’s abuses and atrocities must be weaponized to awaken as many people as possible to the perils they face.

  “Legitimacy” spawns a political fog that obscures people’s recognition of their own victimhood. Lenin reputedly said that the capitalists would sell communists the rope with which the capitalists were hanged. Similarly, Leviathan perennially provides ample gunpowder for detonating its legitimacy. Leviathan without legitimacy is simply a regime that must rely on brute force to compel submission to its decrees. At some point, the brute force becomes too great for regime lackeys to cover up.

  Once legitimacy is lost, governments can collapse like overheated soufflés. For instance, East Bloc regimes imploded much faster than almost anyone expected. Prior to 1989, Soviet leaders believed that cosmetic reforms would keep people subdued despite a failing economic system. CIA analysts predicted that 100+ million people in East Europe would remain docile and downtrodden for decades longer. But proliferating protests in several nations spurred the Hungarian government to permit a breach in the Iron Curtain along the Austrian border in May 1989. That breach quickly spurred a flood of humanity rushing to escape communism, taking with them the tattered remnants of regimes’ legitimacy. Six months later, the Berlin Wall was breached and governments fell like dominos. On Christmas Day, Romanian soldiers celebrated by lining their dictator and his wife up in front of a stone wall and executing them.

  Most contemporary governments have more popular support than Soviet Bloc regimes received in the 1980s. But sustained abuses can be an acid drip that eventually topples any government regardless of its purported mandate. More Americans believe in witches, ghosts, and astrology nowadays than trust the federal government. In the covid-19 era, America is degenerating into a cage keeper democracy, where voters merely select the politicians who place them under house arrest.

  Expecting liberty to permanently triumph would require rulers to miraculously become selfless if not self-sacrificing. But, as Hayek warned in his essay “Why the Worst Get on Top,” power is a magnet for the dregs of humanity. Faith in the state will continue reviving as long as some people feel entitled to domineer other people. Political action pays a higher premium on deceit than almost any other human activity and thus will remain perilous to everything decent. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” as our forefathers recognized in the nineteenth century.

  To presume that liberty is inevitable is to absolve oneself from fighting oppression. As soon as people drop the reins on government, politicians will leash the people. Rather than hoping for an “end of history” triumph, people must battle forever to defend their rights. As long as individuals continue to defy oppressors, the seeds of resistance will produce bountiful harvests of freedom in better times.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 23:00

• Meet "Digit," A Humanoid Robot Testing Package Delivery From Curb To Doorstep
  Meet “Digit,” A Humanoid Robot Testing Package Delivery From Curb To Doorstep

  The virus pandemic has accelerated the push by some companies to develop driverless automobiles for deliveries. But there’s a common problem developing among many of these robot-delivery vehicles. How do packages go from the delivery vehicle to the customer’s doorstep?

  Some have proposed drones, while others, such as Oregon-based Agility robotics, have proposed a bi-pedal robot deployed from the rear of a robot-delivery van that will walk the package to a customer’s doorstep without the risk of face-to-face interaction.

  

  Agility intends to solve not the last-mile delivery problem but the last-foot delivery issues from robot-van to customer’s doorstep. 

  The goal of the robot, dubbed “Digit,” is to reach complicated areas where traditional robots would have issues traversing, such as stairs, tight spaces, and other complex terrains.  

  Agility Robotics founder Jonathan Hurst told local news station KOBI that Digit “can lift a 40-pound package.” He said, “the robot catches itself when it falls and reorient to get back up.”

  Hurst outlined the most significant problem in last-mile deliveries: 

  “Once you’ve got an autonomous vehicle that does a lot of it on the road. But now you’re stuck at the curb, right? And in order to really provide that service that people want, you need to then get from the curb to the doorstep. And that’s where we solve this problem.”

  Agility has sold two prototype robots to Ford Motor Company, who experimented with the bi-pedal robot launched from the rear of an autonomous delivery van to take a package from the vehicle to the customer’s doorstep. 

  “So many jobs that are basically robot jobs, they’re the dull, dirty, dangerous kinds of things that are injury prone and incredibly repetitive,” Hurst said. “That’s how you can then really increase the value of the jobs that the people get to do.”

  KOBI interviews Hurst and gets a first-hand view of the robot. 

  While autonomous delivery vehicles and Digit could one day lower last-mile delivery costs for companies – the combination of the two may result in a surge of technological unemployment. 

  … and to be frank, Digit is creepier than Boston Dynamics’ Spot. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 22:30

• "A Threat To American Democracy" – Federal Judge Alleges Democrats Control Almost All Major News Outlets
  “A Threat To American Democracy” – Federal Judge Alleges Democrats Control Almost All Major News Outlets

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  A federal judge this week said that the Democrat Party is close to controlling the press as he detailed what he described as shocking bias against Republicans.

  

  D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits.

  Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

  “The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.

  “Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician).

  Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe).

  Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along,” he added.

  The news outlets mentioned didn’t return requests for comment.

  The judge also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

  Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.

  Silberman added that there are few notable exceptions to the outlets he mentioned: Fox News, the New York Post, and the Journal’s editorial page.

  “It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship,” he wrote.

  The uniformity of news bias has a political impact, the judge continued, pointing to author Tim Groseclose’s 2011 book: “Left Turn.”

  The George Mason University professor said in his book that he found the way outlets report more favorably on Democrats aids the party’s candidates by 8 to 10 percent in a typical election.

  Silberman was writing a partial dissent in the case of Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain versus Global Witness Publishing, an organization that investigates human rights abuses.

  “It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman concluded.

  “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 22:00

• Blame Millennials For The Dramatic Surge In Cord-Cutting
  Blame Millennials For The Dramatic Surge In Cord-Cutting

  Cord-cutting is not a new problem, but new data from a Pew Research Center survey shows an accelerating trend among millennials abandoning cable and satellite providers. 

  The survey of more than 1,500 US adults from Jan. 25 to Feb. 8, 2021, found cable and satellite users among all US adults have plunged from 76% in 2015 to 56% last month. About 71% of respondents said they don’t subscribe to cable or satellite because video content is abundant online. In comparison, 69% said cable or satellite costs are too high, and 45% of them don’t watch enough TV to justify to costs of cable or satellite. 

  The acceleration of cord-cutting is rapidly transforming how content is viewed. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated the trend as many gravitated towards popular streaming services like Netflix and Hulu have gained popularity. 

  Among respondents who don’t have cable or satellite, 61% said they had cable or satellite service in the past, while 39% said they never subscribed. 

  Pew finds, “27% of U.S. adults are “cord cutters” and 17% have never had a cable or satellite subscription.” 

  The survey reveals demographic trends among cord-cutters. What’s notable in the chart below is that the share of 18 to 29-year-olds subscribing to cable or satellite has plunged from 65% in 2015 to 34% as of last month. Meanwhile, baby boomers are perfectly contempt with cable or satellite with a minimal decline over the previous six years. 

  

  “Not only do young adults stand out for not using cable or satellite TV, they are also much more likely than their elders to have never gotten TV at home via cable or satellite – and to say they don’t subscribe because they can find the content they want online,” said Pew

  What should be shocking for cable or satellite companies is that 61% of those who are ages 18 to 29 have never been a subscriber – with 91% of them indicating there’s enough content online to watch – 57% say cable or satellite services are too expensive – and 53% of them say they don’t watch enough TV. 

  

  The evidence continues to mount that younger generations are not just abandoning cable or satellite, but many have never been subscribers. It remains to be seen what the cable-TV industry has up its sleeves to attract millennial subscribers.   

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 21:30

• America's Upside-Down Economy Just Took Another Bizarre Turn
  America’s Upside-Down Economy Just Took Another Bizarre Turn

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  Is this a good economy or a bad economy?  Well, that all depends on who you are talking to. 

  For most Americans, economic conditions have been absolutely horrible ever since the COVID pandemic first arrived.  More than 100,000 businesses have permanently shut down, approximately 10 million Americans are in danger of being evicted from their homes, and weekly unemployment claims have been above the old record set in the early 1980s every single week for nearly an entire year.  Meanwhile, the absolutely insane polices that the Federal Reserve and our politicians in Washington have been pursuing have made the wealthy far wealthier than ever before.  In early 2020, M1 was sitting at about 4 trillion dollars, and now it is up to 18 trillion dollars.  Much of that money has ended up in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy, and now they are spending it is some pretty odd ways.

  

  For example, NFT art is one of the latest crazes.  You can’t hang NFT art on your wall, but that isn’t stopping people from paying ridiculous amounts of money for it.  In fact, things have gotten so crazy that one film director has decided to sell audio clips of himself farting as NFTs…

  A Brooklyn-based film director is simultaneously mocking and attempting to profit off the cryptocurrency craze for non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by selling a year’s worth of fart audio clips recorded in quarantine.

  “If people are selling digital art and GIFs, why not sell farts?” Alex Ramírez-Mallis, 36, told The Post of his dank addition to the blockchain-based NFT market.

  You would have to be absolutely nuts to purchase such a thing, but apparently someone has already purchased one clip for 85 dollars…

  Individual fart recordings are also available for 0.05 Ethereum, or about $85 a pop. The gassy group has so far sold one, to an anonymous buyer.

  “If the value increases, they could have an extremely valuable fart on their hands,” he said.

  Pizza Hut has decided that they want to get in on the NFT craze as well.

  In Canada, the company originally listen an NFT of a pizza slice for 18 cents, but it ended up selling for $8,824…

  Pizza Hut Canada has announced it is releasing “1 Byte Favourites,” aka digital images of pizza, as non-fungible tokens. “Pizza Hut believes no world should exist without pizza, especially their pan pizza. That’s why they wanted to make sure it was enshrined in the digital universe,” they said in a release. Each week the company will release a new image of a pizza slice, each of a different recipe, for purchase on Rarible. The first-ever “slice” was listed for $0.0001 ETH (a cryptocurrency the equivalent of 18 cents), but wound up being sold for $8,824.

  This is madness, and it is also a grave insult to all of those that are deeply suffering out there.

  Could it be possible that we are rapidly approaching our own “let them eat cake” moment?

  As the ultra-wealthy continue to throw their money around in absurd ways, most people are just struggling to get by from month to month.  On Thursday, we learned that another 770,000 Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week…

  Figures released Thursday by the Labor Department show that 770,000 Americans filed first-time jobless claims in the week ended March 13, higher than the 700,000 forecast by Refinitiv economists.

  Weekly jobless claims have remained stubbornly high for months, hovering around four times the typical pre-crisis level, although it’s well below the peak of almost 7 million that was reached when stay-at-home orders were first issued a year ago in March.

  After all this time, the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits each week is still about four times higher than pre-pandemic levels.

  And we just learned that retail sales fell pretty dramatically during the month of February…

  Americans shopped less in February, leading retail sales to fall 3% on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

  It was a much steeper drop than the 0.5% decline economists had predicted, according to Refinitiv.

  Bad weather across many states were part of the reason sales declined last month.

  When things go badly, they love to blame the weather.

  Of course the new stimulus checks that Americans are now receiving should help to boost retail sales temporarily.

  But at this point there are no plans to cut checks every month, and any short-term assistance will only briefly alleviate the long-term suffering that so many Americans are enduring.

  We are currently in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and a lot more pain is on the horizon.

  Even though I write about this stuff on a daily basis, I was surprised to learn that the results of a recent survey show that finances have now become the number one source of stress for the American people…

  WalletHub’s new Coronavirus Money Survey also reveals that the nation’s focus is now shifting from the virus to finances. The survey of over 750 Americans in March 2021 finds money is now the biggest stressor around the country.

  Three in 10 respondents say money is their greatest concern this year, a 15-percent increase over last year. COVID-19 is still the top stressor for 28 percent of Americans. As coronavirus safety measures fade however, researchers find people are getting back to worrying about how to make ends meet.

  If you don’t know how you are going to pay the bills this month, that can be a source of stress that never leaves you day or night.

  Those that have gone through this sort of emotional torment know exactly what I am talking about.

  So when the ultra-wealthy throw their money away on “farting art” or “Pizza Hut art”, that is like rubbing dirt in the faces of tens of millions of Americans that are desperately trying to figure out some way to survive from month to month.

  The ultra-wealthy can continue to flaunt their wealth, but already we are seeing the rise of the “Robinhood mentality” that so many have warned about.

  When things get bad enough, the poor will start venturing into rich neighborhoods, and they won’t be there for a social visit.

  We still have relative stability for this brief moment, but it won’t last very long at all.

  *  *  *

  Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 21:00

• If Bitcoin Didn't Exist, We'd Have To Invent It Right Now
  If Bitcoin Didn’t Exist, We’d Have To Invent It Right Now

  Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

  The conventional take on Bitcoin and crypto-currencies in general from the mainstream skeptics is that it’s some sort of speculative bubble. The recent mania in NFTs seemingly adds credence to this argument. However, the NFT craze, as unfathomable as it is, even to somebody like myself, has precedents that show it doesn’t invalidate the crypto thesis.

  Coming up in the domain and DNS business, I’ve seen this movie before. I’ve also made the point back in the 2017 crypto cycle that the Tulipmania analogy for Bitcoin was a bad one for many reasons, and that it was a more accurate comparison to the domain name aftermarket of the 2000’s era. When companies and speculators were paying millions of dollars for strings of words from the dictionary with “.com” appended to them, that was a speculative mania and it was akin to Tulipmania. And from our vantage point in the present we can draw the comparison to NFTs.

  But when the .com aftermarket fizzled, the entire internet kept right on plugging along using DNS as the carrier tone, and domain names for endpoints. That didn’t change and to this day, without DNS you’ve basically  got nothing.  It’s part of the internet plumbing (yes, there are multiple projects seeking to supplant DNS via blockchain, separate convo for another day).

  The overall point is, a seemingly speculative mania can erupt out of a relatively new protocol, be it the long defunct hedge fund that rang the bell at the top by purchasing “fund.com” for $10M USD, or an NFT selling today for $69M USD, and that doesn’t make the underlying protocol from which it sprang forth a speculative bubble (we discussed this along with attention markets and BAT on the latest AxisOfEasy Salon #40).

  But if everything from NFTs to stonks to real estate and gold and cryptos are all hitting fresh all-time-highs, it seems to be that the obvious pattern here isn’t necessarily that “Everything is in a Bubble” as much as that the numéraire is collapsing.

  

  Most people reading these kinds of articles know that bonds are a dead man walking and M2 money supply is going up everywhere. I was going to pull in charts from multiple places (my home country of Canada’s is below). Japan, Eurozone, China, there’s no point, they all look the same, everything looks like this:

  

  And if you zoom in on the last year, the Pandemic Year that will bisect modern history into The Beforetimes and The New Normal, they all look like this:

  

  The Pandemic panic and the monetary response to it pulled forward what I’ve been calling The Great Bifurcation by decades.

  That acceleration and its intensity is a big reason why everything that can be construed as an asset in the world is going like this:

  

  We aren’t in a hyperinflation yet. Policy makers are still trying to pretend inflation is undershooting and they’re still trying like hell to ignite it. As Charles Hugh Smith noted recently, money velocity is plummeting, even as M2 is blasting off (hold that thought).

  When you read about historical hyperinflationary episodes, you will find that what invariably happens is that capital flight occurs in all directions and people end up using some sort of “notgelt”. From Jens O. Parsson’s “Dying of Money”

  “The seas of marks which had been stored up… flooded forth and fought to buy into other investments, foreign currencies, tangible goods, almost anything but marks

  Germany’s money printing industry could not turn out enough trillions to keep up. States, towns, and companies got into the act by issuing their own “emergency money” (Notgeld). Barter became prevalent. Still money grew scarcer while prices continued to soar.”

  “Notgeld” could be a peculiar word. It might connote “not money”, “geld” or “gelt” being the German for money. If the money is worthless, people would want what isn’t that. However that’s because we’re thinking in English.  “Not money” in German would probably be nichtgeld. Notgeld actually does mean “emergency money”.

  In Zimbabwe it was prepaid cellphone cards. In 90’s Yugoslavia things came somewhat full circle and everybody flocked to Deutsche Marks.

  One time at easyDNS (in 2019), we found a customer who kept pre-funding his account with us and had enough of a balance in there to prepay his single website out to 2085. When I asked him what the hell he was doing, it turned out he was an Argentine trying to  protect his savings through one of their incessant currency collapses. He was using us as a bank.

  In all previous hyperinflations people just needed to get out of their local currencies and they’d come up with all manner of ways to do it. But when hyperinflation goes global, across all currencies in all nations, then what do you go into?

  Bitcoin in particular and crypto currencies in general are this coming hyper-inflationary event’s “Notgeld”.

  The recent institutional move into Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is a reaction against systemic, global financial repression. What the naysayers like Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubani don’t get about where we are in history is this:

  If Bitcoin didn’t exist, we would have to invent it, right now.

  Fortunately Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies do exist, and they’ve enjoyed a spectacular debut onto the world stage and into monetary history.

  Fortunately proof-of-concept has already occurred and countless FUD cycles surmounted.

  Fortunately the decentralized crypto ecosystems are ready for prime time, exactly when humanity needs it the most. Necessity really was the mother of invention.

  In my Crypto Capitalist Manifesto (30 pages), which is one of the documents subscribers receive after they sign up to my new Crypto Capitalist Letter, I lay out some scenarios which show the theoretical effect of an exodus from bonds and cash on the price of bitcoin, I’ll extract a couple below:

  

  This one estimates the lift to the Bitcoin price in nominal terms based on capturing a fraction of a fraction of a secular exodus from the nearly $20 Trillion USD in negative yield bonds. If half of the capital fled negative yielding debt and of that, 10% moved into Bitcoin, it would push it up over $100K (extrapolating in linear terms of the price is where it is today when this happens).

  

  There’s at least another $100 Trillion USD in nominally positive yield bonds, but mostly negative real returns that would also be good candidates for re-allocation. The second table tries to model Bitcoin capturing a fraction of a fraction of that as well. If there was a 25% exodus out of bonds and Bitcoin caught 10% of that, that alone would put Bitcoin up over $6 Trillion. Other alternative assets like other cryptos, and gold and silver and real estate would all experience similar lifts.

  Of course those are all linear extrapolations based on the current price. In the manifesto I model out a bit more, such as Bitcoin capturing more of the exodus out of bonds as it accelerates. There would also be a generalized acceleration of the Bitcoin price once the market participants became increasingly aware of this dynamic.

  In other words, this is what I think is happening, metaphorically….

  

  The Crypto Capitalist Letter will (hopefully) be in the tradition of The Privateer, but with a tactical focus on investing in crypto stocks.

  Given what has happened to asset prices and crypto in response to just an inkling of inflation, imagine if Charles Hugh Smith is right, looking at the collapse in money velocity occurring now, that this is one final deflationary “tide receding” before the inflationary tsunami hits. Then what happens to the price of Bitcoin, cryptos and gold?

  *  *  *

  To receive future posts in your mailbox join the Bombthrower mailing list or follow me on Twitter. We had to push the launch of The Crypto Capitalist Letter into the week of March 22nd, get on the invite list here for when that goes live.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 20:45

• Defiant US Soldiers Openly Questioning Why BLM Riots Weren't Treated Like Capitol 'Insurrection'
  Defiant US Soldiers Openly Questioning Why BLM Riots Weren’t Treated Like Capitol ‘Insurrection’

  Soldiers “from every echelon” of the US military have been openly questioning why last year’s violent BLM and Antifa riots weren’t treated like the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, a comparison which has flown sideways up the ass of the military’s top enlisted leader, Chief Master Sergeant Ramón “CZ” Colón-López.

  In a Thursday briefing at the Pentagon, Colón-López (CZ) told reporters that some troops have asked “How come you’re not looking at the situation that was going on in Seattle prior to that? [Jan. 6 riot]”

  “This is coming from every echelon that we’re talking to,” CZ added.

  The Pentagon is freaking out bc the extremism standdowns are backfiring and the troops keep asking about BLM riots and Antifa https://t.co/SGre8T7rNT

  — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to Military.com, CZ told reporters that he is “concerned about the way that some people are looking at the current environment.”

  Colón-López said the confusion some younger troops have expressed shows why the training sessions on extremism are needed.

  Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the stand-down Feb. 5 and gave units across the military 60 days to discuss extremism in the ranks with troops.

  The military’s policies are clear, he said: Troops are not to advocate for, or participate in, supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology or causes. –Military.com

  Others are wondering why leadership’s view is so disproportionate.

  Similar that’s ridiculous. The Capitol riot was 1 day. BLM had 600+ in just 90 days & they have the support of the mainstream media. Way bigger threat https://t.co/eEOubfM5Qf

  — Sean Fitzgerald (@IamSean90) March 20, 2021

  CZ claims that the military ‘remains an apolitical organization,’ and that it doesn’t matter if extremist groups are far left or right, adding “both are off limits.”

  “If it’s an organization that is actually imposing harm, threat, destruction, criminal activity and so on, then we don’t condone that behavior,” he said, adding “We’re focusing on letting people know exactly what the oath tells us to do when it comes to obeying lawful orders, remaining apolitical and basically being good stewards of society.”

  But as the training sessions took place, some themes emerged that worried leaders.

  Those conducting the sessions wanted “to make sure that military members understand the difference between Seattle and [the Jan. 6 riot in] Washington, D.C.,” Colón-López said. “But some of our younger members are confused about this, so that’s what we need to go ahead and talk to them about and educate them on, to make sure that they know exactly what they can and cannot do.” –Military.com

  According to CZ, ‘younger troops need to be educated’ on the difference between the broad (Marxist-organized) BLM and Antifa movement and extremists within said movements.

  

  Meanwhile on Saturday… it begins again:

  Protesters march down Michigan Highway 99/S Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard for today’s pro-socialism, Black Lives Matter protest in Lansing this afternoon #Lansing #Michigan #LansingProtest pic.twitter.com/AeWmhTj1Jy

  — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) March 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Say her name – Breonna Taylor!” chants during today’s “Michigan People’s March” in Lansing #Lansing #Michigan #LansingProtest pic.twitter.com/kDXNhU2IDt

  — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) March 20, 2021

  Nothing to see here – just a group waving a communist flag that wants to disband the country’s law enforcement and usher in a state of lawlessness. Totally different from the January 6 ‘insurrection.’ 

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 20:30

• The Great Donkification
  The Great Donkification

  Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

  “Right here, boys!  Right here!  Get your cake, pie, dill pickles, and ice cream!  Eat all you can!  Be a glutton!  Stuff yourselves!  It’s all free, boys!  It’s all free!  Hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry!”

  – Pleasure Island voiceover, Walt Disney’s Pinocchio (1940)

  

  Welcome To Pleasure Island!

  Did you get your stimmy check, yet?  If so, what are you going to do with it?

  Are you going to park it in your savings account, pay down debt, and pay off a few bills?  Are you going to buy Chinese ‘stonks’, cryptocurrencies, and digital NFT art?

  What about a new iPhone, fancy dinners, or a plane ticket to Cabo?  How about a new living room rug, a wood pellet grill, or a 75-inch flat screen TV with a sound bar?

  The collective answer to these questions is the difference between deflation, asset price inflation, and consumer price inflation.

  Billionaire folk hero Warren Buffett says you should use your stimmy check to “pay off credit card debt.”  His rationale is sound enough:

  “If I owed any money at 18 percent, the first thing I’d do with any money I had would be to pay it off.  You can’t go through life borrowing money at those rates and be better off.”

  Yet paying off credit card debt is the last thing Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell wants you to do with your stimmy check.  Because paying off debt is deflationary – it contracts the money supply.

  Powell wants inflation of both consumer prices and asset prices.  He wants prices to rise, and the dollar to fall, so that long-term public and private debt burdens are slowly inflated away.  He also wants the stock market to maintain a permanently high plateau; the retirements of millions of Baby Boomers are banking on this.

  Congress wants you to believe stimmy check money is free.  They want you to stuff yourself.  Be a glutton.  Eat all you can.  And vote for big government.

  Welcome to Pleasure Island!  By law, in the year 2021, free money – like free education, free food, and free drugs – is a human right.  Just don’t ask about the stealth inflation tax or the other dire consequences…

  Nation Of Donkeys

  “If we play our cards right, we’ll be on easy street!  Or my name isn’t Honest John!”

  – J. Worthington Foulfellow, aka Honest John, Pinocchio (1940)

  One option is to take your stimmy check money and go ‘all in’ on moonshots.  If you gamble on the right ‘stonk’, cryptocurrency, SPAC, or digital NFT art, you could quickly 10x or even 100x your money.  If you play your cards right, like Honest John says, you’ll be on easy street.

  Without question, there’s something irresistibly magical and intoxicating about the promise of free money.  For it promises life without labor…and life without limits.  Moreover, once a nation has taken a trip to Pleasure Island there’s no going back.  Free money, you see, is so delicious that too much is never enough.

  But beware.  Pleasure Island is a trap.  Those who stay too long succumb to a deadly curse.  If you recall from Pinocchio, after making complete jackasses of themselves on Pleasure Island, and behaving like destructive animals, the curse turns the boys into donkeys.

  First they grow donkey ears, then a tail, and their head turns furry with donkey hair.  After that, their laughing becomes braying, their hands and feet become hooves, and they lose the ability to talk.  Finally, they go on all fours.

  But wait, it gets worse!  The donkeys are then rounded up, stripped of their clothes, thrown in crates, and taken back to the mainland via ferry where they are sold into hard labor in salt mines.

  The point is two decades of extreme monetary intervention and several rounds of fiscal stimulus have turned America into a nation of donkeys.  We’ve been cursed.  So, too, Europe, China, Japan, and practically all other countries have also been curse by similar money printing experiments.

  

  What’s more, the stated intent of the American Rescue Plan Act is a lie.  The bill has little to do with rescue from the COVID-19 pandemic.  But it has everything to do with being a giant giveaway…

  • Pension fund bailouts ($86 billion).

  • State, local, and tribal governments bailouts ($350 billion).

  • Transportation provisions ($62.9 billion), including a new $2 billion gravy train for Amtrak.

  • Agriculture relief ($10.4 billion).

  • Cybersecurity funding ($3.67 billion).

  • Rental assistance ($21.6 billion).

  • Homeowner assistance ($10 billion).

  • Funding for colleges and universities ($40 billion).

  • Extensions to expanded unemployment benefits and stimmy checks (too much to tally).

  • And much, Much, More…

  Hee-haw?  HEE-HAW!

  The Great Donkification

  “Go too far.  Stay too long.  Can’t get back.”

  – Words of an old preacher

  The U.S. national debt has now eclipsed $28 trillion.  The budget deficit for the 2021 fiscal year will likely run up to nearly $3 trillion – possibly more.  Hence, it will be financed with printing press money…that is credit created from thin air by the Federal Reserve and loaned to the Treasury.

  Hee-haw?  HEE-HAW!

  Moreover, after two decades of extreme monetary intervention and several rounds of stimmy checks the economy has been led to dependency.  Institutions, individuals, and businesses have been donkified.  There’s no going back.  What remains is a terrible choice…

  Voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion and a crisis now.  Or further credit expansion and the final and total catastrophe of the dollar system later.

  Hee-haw?  HEE-HAW!

  This week the Fed doubled down – again – on the great donkification…and total catastrophe of the dollar system later.  On Wednesday, the Fed issued its FOMC statement.

  In the spirit of Jack and Jenny Assery, the Fed will hold the federal funds rate near zero until at least 2023.  The Fed will also continue to create credit from thin air to buy $80 billion per month of Treasuries and $40 billion per month of mortgage backed securities (MBS).

  Hee-haw?  HEE-HAW!

  But what’s this?  Are the stubborn donkeys now inhibiting Powell’s grand plans?

  On Thursday, as if to spite Powell, the yield on the 10-Year Treasury note topped 1.75 percent.  By our estimation, this puts us now about 30-basis points to disaster.  In anticipation, the NASDAQ dropped over 400 points.

  Hee-haw?  HEE-HAW!

  Such is the curse of the great donkification.  To break it, there’ll be hell to pay.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 20:00

• Gross Profits For House Flippers Hits Record As Fed Turbocharges Real Estate Bubble 
  Gross Profits For House Flippers Hits Record As Fed Turbocharges Real Estate Bubble 

  The housing boom unleashed by the Federal Reserve during the virus pandemic was built on historically low mortgage rates, low inventory, city-dwellers moving to rural areas, and remote-work phenomenon. Housing prices in all 20 major US cities have been rising at the fastest pace since 2014. A red hot market has lured house flippers who are pocketing record profits.  

  Research firm Attom Data Solutions’ latest note specifies homes flipped in 2020 generated a gross profit of $66,300 nationwide (the difference between the median sales price and the median amount initially paid by investors). 2020’s gross profits were up 6.6% from a year earlier and were at the highest levels since the housing boom in 2005. 

  

  Even with a red hot real estate market, flippers find they have to pay up for homes, which is compressing their return on investment, averaging 40.5% in 2020 compared with 41.5% in 2019. Average home prices across the 20 cities rose a stunning 10% year-over-year in December, its fastest acceleration since 2014.

  

  On top of soaring home prices, flippers found out everything from lumber to copper prices increased build costs and squeezed margins. The National Association of Home Builders recently said soaring lumber prices added an extra $24k in costs to builders for the average home in 2020. 

  Even though margins are compressing, profits on flips remain strong, as second-tier regional banks are handing out fix-and-flip loans at increasing paces. Small banks, many of which most people have never heard of, such as Cutter Hill Capital, Builders Capital, and Temple View Capital, have seen a surge in loan originations for flipper loans. The average annual rate on a fix-and-flip loan is around 7.09%, about twice the level on a 30-year mortgage. These loans are short-term and are often measured in months than years – making them appealing for banks and other institutions attempting to obtain yield. 

  John Piazza, a contractor, based in Wilmington, Delaware, said he’s never seen business like this in four decades. 

  “Banks are just throwing money at you,” Piazza said.

  There’s an issue of speculation in the real estate market. As we’ve previously outlined, home prices are rising faster than personal incomes – the last time this happened was in the mid-2000s. We all know what happened next. 

  

  Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said the current state of the housing market is downright unsustainable and that the market is likely to calm down in the near term.

  As for now, flippers are profiting off city dwellers who are fleeing urban pandemic life and looking to purchase homes in the suburbs. 

  However, fears are mounting the housing boom is not just overheating but there could be a cooldown as 30-year mortgage rates jump and are no longer under 3%. 

  Flippers expect the housing boom to continue this year as families still leave cities for bigger homes in suburbia or rural communities. AlphaFlow estimates that flippers could sell $75 billion worth of homes over each of the next two years, compared with the $56 billion average each year for the next three years. 

  But not everyone is convinced the flipper paradise will continue. Curt Altig, CEO of Seattle-based lender Builders Capital, said low inventory is not producing enough opportunities for finding underpriced homes to fix up. He said more flippers are chasing fewer transactions. 

  Maybe if forbearance programs for mortgages end, more opportunities will arrive for flippers, which would add supply to the housing market and reverse prices. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 19:30

• Taliban Warns Of "Reaction" If US Stays In Afghanistan Beyond May 1st
  Taliban Warns Of “Reaction” If US Stays In Afghanistan Beyond May 1st

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  The Taliban warned the US on Friday that there would be a “reaction” if President Biden failed to withdraw from Afghanistan by the May 1st deadline set by the US-Taliban peace deal signed in Doha last year. The comments were made from Moscow, where the warring sides met to discuss the peace process.

  “They should go,” said Suhail Shaheen, a member of the Taliban’s negotiation team. He warned if the US stayed beyond May 1st, it would be a violation of the Doha agreement. “After that, it will be a kind of violation of the agreement. That violation would not be from our side… Their violation will have a reaction,” Shaheen said.

  

  Shaheen also called for “expedited” peace negotiations. “It is important that the negotiations should be expedited because it will help us to achieve a permanent ceasefire and countrywide peace and this is our goal,” He said. “As we talked with Afghan politicians, they also insisted that the process should be expedited.”

  Shaheen’s comments come after a report from NBC News said President Biden is considering staying in Afghanistan in November. Sources told NBC that Biden was pushing back against the Pentagon’s efforts to stay in Afghanistan but was convinced to consider extending the withdrawal deadline to November, although no decisions have yet been made.

  Any deadline extension would have to be agreed with the Taliban, or the group would again target US troops, something Shaheen’s warning makes clear. February 8th marked the first full year that no US troops died in combat in Afghanistan since the war began.

  While the Taliban held up its commitment not to attack the US troops, US airstrikes still occasionally target the group. A US military spokesman announced on Wednesday that the US bombed Taliban targets this week.

  Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy for the Afghan peace process, attended Afghanistan talks in Moscow on Thursday. Russia has been hosting Afghanistan summits for years now, but the US is usually not involved. The US, Russia, China, and Pakistan released a joint statement calling for a political settlement.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 19:00

• One Year Ago: 'Gather In Crowds', 'Masks Are Useless', 'Only A Few Percent Are Vulnerable'
  One Year Ago: ‘Gather In Crowds’, ‘Masks Are Useless’, ‘Only A Few Percent Are Vulnerable’

  Amid the always-fearmongering, always-pessimistic, always-more-control-demanded, (and almost always wrong) daily headlines from Dr. Fauci, Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb dared to speak optimistically about the way forward on Friday:

  “We now know that the vaccines dramatically reduce your chance of both contracting COVID and becoming symptomatic to the point where you are going to have a bad outcome; we also know it reduces asymptomatic disease and reduces transmission… we are seeing that in the data.“

  The Pfizer board member does hedge a little by suggesting those who are high risk should still take precautions.

  By many measures, March was supposed to be a “difficult month” but as the vaccine campaign continues uninterrupted, April and May will “look much more clear.”

  “…people can be more liberal… people will be taking off their masks because we are going to see prevalence decline around the country and people who’ve been vaccinated can go out with more confidence.”

  Then Gottlieb dropped some serious truth bombs (which were mysteriously edited out of CNBC’s clip above) saying that within a few weeks, it could be “obvious” that masks may be safely removed, and even more significantly, following CDC’s flip-flopping and confusing rules this week on distancing in schools:

  “This six-foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID… and it really wasn’t based on clear science… we should have readjucated this much earlier.“

  Watch this 70 seconds and consider the source – this is not some ‘white supremacist, disinformation-spreading, alt-right blogger’, this is the former FDA Commissioner who many mainstream media outlets have listened to verbatim through the crisis.

  “This six-foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID,” says @scottgottliebmd. pic.twitter.com/M5tmgj3kTY

  — CNBC’s Closing Bell (@CNBCClosingBell) March 19, 2021

  But, but, but, what about Fauci’s “science”?

  

  This shocking revelation comes just days after Senator Rand Paul destroyed Dr. Fauci’s so-called “science”-based reasons for various restrictions – from mask-wearing to social-distancing – as ‘useless political theater’.

  Interestingly, Gottlieb said “both [Paul and Fauci] made valid points,” but specifically said that “Senator Paul was right, we need to see light at the end of the tunnel and have guidance that prescribes an environment where people can start doing things again.”

  

  Amid the now-politicized divide between nanny-state-obeyers and science-denying-extremists (there is no middle ground anymore), it would appear the entirely opposite-think statements, declarations, and proclamations made by officials one year ago have been almost entirely ‘memory-holed’.

  As Sharyl Attkisson points out in an extensively researched note, around this time last year:

  • Vaccine propagandist Dr. Peter Hotez made the case against travel bans

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci said there was no reason to walk around wearing masks

  • New York City’s Health Commissioner urged people to go to crowded places and busy restaurants

  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) encouraged people to get out and be around others in San Francisco’s Chinatown

  And one year ago, the World Health Organization gave what many scientist called confusing guidance on wearing masks for Covid-19. 

  World Health Organization, March 19, 2020: “Wearing medical masks when not indicated may result in unnecessary costs and procurement burdens and create a false sense of security that can lead to the neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices. Further, using a mask incorrectly may hamper its effectiveness in reducing the risk of transmission.”

  It was just ten days after Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, on March 8, “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

  Dr. Fauci also, notoriously, testified to Congress that coronavirus was ten times deadlier than flu about the same time he published a scientific paper that said something quite different: Covid’s lethality was akin to a bad flu season. 

  President Trump’s ban on travel from China had been installed January 31 when there had only been a few confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the U.S. 

  Here’s a look back at some of the most notable statements made by public officials from January through March 31, 2020. 

  Some of the comments, guidance, and reflections proved accurate in the long run; some did not. Some seem to have long been forgotten or deposited down the selective memory hole.

  Nothing to fear, It’s a ‘bad flu’, ‘masks, schmasks’…

  Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House Coronavirus Task Force, Jan. 21, 2020: “This is not a major threat to the people in the United States and it is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”

  Dr. Fauci, in sworn testimony to Congress, March 11, 2020: ’Coronavirus ten times more lethal than flu.’ but Dr. Fauci in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 26, 2020: “…the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)…”

  Dr. Oxiris Barbot, New York City health commissioner, Jan. 27, 2020: People “who had recently traveled from Wuhan were not being urged to self-quarantine or avoid large public gatherings.” “There is no reason not to take the subway, not to take the bus, not to go out to your favorite restaurant, and certainly not to miss the parade next Sunday.”

  and

  “As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear [Chinatown parade] in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus…We are here today to urge all New Yorkers to continue to live their lives as usual.”

  and

  “…there’s no risk at this point in time…about having it be transmitted in casual contact, right?” “The risk to New Yorkers for Coronavirus is low, and our preparedness as a city is very high.”

  LA Times, Soumya Karlamangla, Jan. 31, 2020: For Americans, flu remains a bigger threat than coronavirus. “…unlike the coronavirus, which so far hasn’t led to any deaths in the U.S., influenza has killed approximately 10,000 Americans since October, according to federal data released Friday.” “…a much deadlier killer already stalking the United States has been largely overshadowed: the flu.”

  Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, Feb. 24, 2020: Urged people to visit San Francisco’s Chinatown. “That’s what we’re trying to do today is to say everything is fine here. Come because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation.”

  New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, March 2, 2020: “…I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus…” 

  Cuomo, March 23, 2020: “Many people will get the virus, but few will be truly endangered. Hold both of those facts in your hands: Many will get it, up to 80 percent may get it, but few are truly endangered and we know who they are.”

  Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health and White House Task Force, March 8, 2020: “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

  Read more hypocritical insanity here…

  So what changed? Why did all these officials suddenly flip to fearmongering the deadliest of deadly things imaginable (that leaves 99.7% of those ‘infected’ unharmed)?

  

  It couldn’t be politics, surely?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 18:30

• What FBI Stats Really Reveal About Asian Hate Crimes
  What FBI Stats Really Reveal About Asian Hate Crimes

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  FBI crime statistics debunk the media’s narrative that white people represent the biggest violent crime threat to Asians, with figures showing whites significantly underrepresented in crime stats compared to their per capita population.

  

  Since the killing of six Asian women who worked in massage parlors in Atlanta, the media has amplified the false narrative that “white supremacy” is to blame.

  They hyped this explanation despite the fact that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with race and despite two white women also being killed during the shooting.

  Despite admitting the attack had no racial motive, CNN still blamed it on “white nationalism and domestic extremism” in an article titled ‘White supremacy and hate are haunting Asian Americans’.

  However, official crime stats show that white people are significantly underrepresented in terms of the violent crime threat they pose to Asians.

  Article cites sources from justice department

  — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As the Washington Examiner highlights, citing FBI statistics, whereas whites comprise 62% of the population, they committed 24% of crimes against Asians in 2018.

  In comparison, blacks, who comprise 13% of the population, committed 27.5% of all violent crimes against Asian Americans in 2018.

  So clearly, white people do not represent the biggest crime threat to Asian Americans.

  The figures once again underscore how the media has contrived another hysterical moral panic in order to bolster what can no longer be seen as anything other than institutional racism and hatred towards white people.

  *  *  *

  In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 18:00

• Bargain-Hunting Millennials Jump At Cheaper San Francisco Rents 
  Bargain-Hunting Millennials Jump At Cheaper San Francisco Rents 

  After a year-long exodus of residents, San Francisco begins to see people returning as the economy gradually reopens. The folks who are moving back are taking advantage of deeply discounted rents and high concessions offered by landlords desperate for new tenants. 

  The return of people to the metro area should not be viewed as recovery as deep economic scarring, caused mainly by government public health orders, has resulted in the decimation of small and medium-sized enterprises. Also, remote-work turbocharged the exodus from the metro area as many people moved to suburbia or out of state. The result is soaring vacancies putting downward pressure on rents as landlords have lost pricing power. 

  “It’s going to take years for the average landlord’s revenue to get back to pre-Covid levels,” said John Pawlowski, an analyst at real estate data and research firm Green Street, who Bloomberg quoted. The rapid decline in rents has made higher-end apartment buildings in the city more affordable for broke millennials.  

  Rents at San Francisco buildings owned by Essex Property Trust Inc plunged 17% during the pandemic. The company offers record concessions, such as three months of free rent and a preloaded debit card with $2k. 

  A similar trend is happening in Manhattan, where folks capitalize on cheaper rents and record concessions, resulting in a surge of new leases in early 2021. 

  The pandemic has transformed both San Francisco and Manhattan into ghost towns, but recently some life has returned, though nothing like the boom times of the pre-COVID era. 

  Data from the Cleveland Fed revealed San Francisco suffered the most significant outflow of people from last year than any other US metro area. In October, the entire downtown area of the city, once vibrant with business and tourism, transformed into a ghost town, mainly due to some of the country’s strictest public health orders, closing restaurants, cafes, bars, nightclubs, among other attractions. 

  According to Apartment List data, rents in San Francisco sank 27% during the pandemic to an average of around $2,000 per month. In early 2021, there appears to be some stabilization. 

  

  “It’s a turning point,” said Igor Popov, the chief economist at Apartment List. “People are moving back in, but we’re not jumping back to pre-Covid rents because the group occupying those units are different and have different price points.”

  People like Lindsay Albert, a director of programming for an arts organization in San Francisco, left the city last April because her living situation with other people made her uncomfortable during the pandemic. 

  

  Albert is now living in a one-bedroom apartment in the inner Richmond district for $2,000. She said the rent is $1,000 less than what she was looking at one year ago. 

  “I feel like I’ve won the lottery,” she said as the apartment complex showered her with amenities. “I’m 34 years old and I haven’t ever been able to live alone,” she added.

  

  Miles Garber, vice president of research with real estate marketing company Polaris Pacific in San Francisco, said, “while things have improved recently, there’s still a long way to go.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 17:30

• House Democrats Propose 4,350 Earmarks A Year Costing $13 Billion
  House Democrats Propose 4,350 Earmarks A Year Costing $13 Billion

  Submitted By Adam Andrzejewski of Forbes,

  Congressional earmarks are back. The Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives will allow up to $13 billion in earmarks on House appropriations bills, 10 per member, for a total of up to 4,350 earmarks for fiscal year 2022.

  

  House Republicans released a statement arguing that earmarks are a pathway to congressional corruption. One member of the caucus, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), argued that earmarks are “little more than legislative bribery.”

  The late Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) frequently called earmarks “the gateway drug” to corruption and overspending, and spearheaded the 2011 ban.

  Even President Barack Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union speech, said he would veto any bill containing earmarks, saying “… the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it.”

  At the height of earmarking in 2005, Congress passed 15,000 Congressional earmarks, at a cost of $29 billion, according to The Heritage Foundation. And from the earmark largess flowed corruption, convictions, and waste.

  One notorious 2005 earmark, Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere,” cost an estimated $80 million to connect Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island, home to 50 people.

  Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) went to jail after he tearfully confessed conspiring to pass out earmarks and pocketing $2.4 million in bribes, including a Rolls-Royce, a yacht and a 19th-century Louis-Philippe commode. (President Trump gave Cunningham a conditional pardon in Trump’s final days in the White House.)

  In 2005, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) used a $207 million federal transportation earmark to construct the “Prairie Parkway” near some newly purchased farmland, which his trust proceeded to sell a few months later for a multi-million dollar profit.

  That same year, lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates were convicted for bribing legislators with gifts and campaign contributions for votes on earmarked funding.

  Over the years, other earmarks drew scrutiny and scorn: a $3.4 million earmark for turtle tunnels under a Florida highway, a $50 million earmark for an indoor rain forest in Iowa, $1 million for a Woodstock Museum in New York, $500,000 for a North Carolina teapot museum, and $273,000 to study Goth culture in Missouri, among others.

  Rep. DeLauro says the COVID-19 crisis has forced the House to return to funding the much-maligned pork projects, otherwise known as earmarks: “Members want Congress to help their communities, particularly now as the pandemic exposed so many inequalities and needs,” she said in a statement released by the House Appropriations Committee.

  The House started a moratorium on earmarks in 2011, but now Members are coining a new term to refer to earmark spending, pork projects, and “Member-directed spending.”

  Rep. DeLauros’ announcement introduced the new euphemism: “Community Project Funding.”

  “Community Project Funding will allow Members to put their deep, first-hand understanding of the needs of their communities to work to help the people we represent,” she said.

  The newly renamed earmarks will come with a small-sounding set-aside: “no more than 1 percent of discretionary spending,” Rep. DeLauro announced.

  Of course, one percent is not so small when Congress designated $1.298 trillion in discretionary spending for FY2021. Setting aside one percent for House appropriation earmarks in fiscal year 2022 would mean earmarks (or, ahem, “community project funding”) could equal $12.98 billion or more.

  There’s no telling what amount the Senate might add, and reports are they’re still negotiating on how and if to bring earmarks back. It’s also worth noting this appropriations committee policy will not count toward to transportation and infrastructure bills or those in future emergency spending bills.

  But many current members of Congress ran on the promise they would fight exactly the kind of pork barrel spending House Democrats are trying to resurrect.

  In one 2014 campaign ad, then-candidate Joni Ernst, now a Republican U.S. Senator from Iowa, talked about castrating hogs on her childhood farm and concluded, “So when I get to Washington, I’ll know how to cut pork …because Washington’s full of big spenders… Let’s make ’em squeal.”

  If noise from Washington’s Republican lobbyists is any indication, it’s likely Ernst will soon be fighting her own party. One former senate staffer, Mark Strand, recently argued that earmarks “can lead to healing.” Strand’s old boss, former Senator Jim Talent (R-MO), was a proponent and frequent user of earmarks.

  Senator Ernst and her waste-fighting colleagues argue otherwise: “There’s good reason why earmarks are referred to as pork: They stink, and they’re messy. With the national debt headed toward $30 trillion, the last thing Congress needs to be focused on is finding other ways to waste money.”

  Earmarks cross party lines—but not in a good way. Politicians from both sides of the aisle love directing taxpayer funds, and we’ll be seeing much more pork from the House in the coming years.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 17:00

• Biden Border Crisis: ICE Secures Hotel Rooms For Migrants; Admin Plans Flying Illegals To Canadian Border
  Biden Border Crisis: ICE Secures Hotel Rooms For Migrants; Admin Plans Flying Illegals To Canadian Border

  Biden’s migrant crisis along the southern US border has reached epic proportions.

  As we reported on Thursday, not long after Biden said he would “reverse Trump’s immigration policies” and vowed to give illegal aliens “a pathway to citizenship”, the ensuing chaos at the border has resulted in over 13,000 unaccompanied migrant children detained in federal custody (a third of whom have been sitting in the same ‘cages’ built by the Obama-Biden administration) and 3,000 of whom have been held beyond the 72-hour legal limit. In a desperate attempt to ease the crisis, Biden did a complete U-turn and told migrants to stop coming, after begging Mexico’s president to help stem the flood of illegal migrants

  According to the New York Times, after Biden halted construction on the border wall (leaving gaping holes at construction sites), stopped turning away children, and proposed a pathway to citizenship, the surge in migrants – i.e., future democrat voters – has overwhelmed the Biden administration’s ability to process them. Faced with a crisis of his own making, Biden reportedly asked Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ‘whether more could be done to help solve the problem.’

  Biden and AMLO even discussed the possibility of the United States sending Mexico some of its surplus vaccine supply, a senior Mexican official told the Times, which notes that “Mexico has publicly asked the Biden administration to send it doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has not been approved for use in the United States.”

  According to Mexican officials, efforts to secure vaccines are separate from immigration talks, but they have acknowledged that a shipment of doses would “help” relations.

  “Both governments cooperate on the basis of an orderly, safe and regular migration system,” said Roberto Velasco, director general for the North America region at Mexico’s foreign ministry, though he added that there is no quid pro quo for the vaccines.

  In other words, not only did Biden’s reckless promises to accept all immigrants backfire spectacularly, he is now is forced to beg and bribe Mexico with promises of a vaccine that nobody wants to prevent the migrant crisis that he started from getting even worse.

  But perhaps because the president lacks faith in his own diplomatic skills (justifiably so as demonstrated by last week’s catastrophic US-China summit), on Friday the Biden administration was reportedly considering flying migrants who illegally cross the US-Mexico border to near the US-Canada border for processing as a way to ease pressure on overwhelmed facilities in Texas, the WaPo reported.

  The tactic is under consideration amid an unprecedented surge in border crossings resulting from Biden’s policies and reform legislation that would create a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants.

  Some data: the number of migrant family members caught crossing the southwest border more than doubled between January and February — rising from 7,000 to nearly 19,000, according to the most recently released agency data. And while border officials continue to use a Trump-era order to quickly return many families to Mexico. But Mexico has limited capacity to take in migrant families and won’t accept some with young children, according to administration officials. In total, the CBP reports that there was a record for February 100K “land encounters” along the border in February.

  

  42% of families were expelled to Mexico last month — down from 64% in January and 91% in October, according to the data. More than 13,000 family members who crossed the U.S. border illegally have been allowed into the country since the start of January, many released into border communities.

  In any case, in a move that is sure to delight Canada, Department of Homeland Security officials told the Washington Post that the administration is considering air lifts to the northern border due to large numbers of unaccompanied children and families crossing in the south. Officials told the Washington Post that on Friday morning 1,000 people who were either unaccompanied minors or in family units crossed the Rio Grande into Texas, and that another 1,000 still were awaiting processing from Thursday night.

  But wait, there’s more.

  In an apparent backup plan, Axios reports that the Biden administration has awarded an $86 million contract for hotel rooms near the border to hold around 1,200 migrant family members who cross the U.S.-Mexico border on behalf of ICE.

  The contract through Endeavors, a Texas-based nonprofit, is for six months but could be extended and expanded. The hotels will be near border areas, including in Arizona and Texas.

  ICE, which oversees the custody of migrant adults and families who cross the border illegally after they are apprehended by border patrol agents, is already transforming its family detention facilities into rapid-processing centers with the goal of releasing families within 72 hours. 

  While immigration agencies have used hotels in the past, unlike border patrol stations, they but do not have to follow the same safety protocols that official government detention spaces do, and as such could result in fresh covid “superspreader” events amid news that many of the migrants have covid. This is happening just as many predict that the US will be able to emerge from the covid pandemic within months, and for the conspiratorialy minded this latest development would provide the government with just the right catalyst to spark a new covid wave… which would naturally transform into trillions more of Universal Basic Income stimmy checks down the line, just as big government wants it.

  Finally, some have asked whether it would not be more practical, not to mention more patriotic to spend millions on hotel rooms for the 60,000 homeless American veterans, than the thousands of illegal immigrants who are only here because of the admin’s latest Plaxico.

  I’ll just leave this here. pic.twitter.com/e1o3AfPhAb

  — Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) March 20, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 16:55

• It's Official: All Foreign Travelers Barred From Attending Tokyo Games
  It’s Official: All Foreign Travelers Barred From Attending Tokyo Games

  As was forewarned and expected, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and local organizers of the Tokyo Olympics have reached a final decision on the admittance of foreign spectators to the games, ruling that outside travelers will be barred from attending the summer games. 

  “In order to give clarity to ticket holders living overseas and to enable them to adjust their travel plans at this stage, the parties on the Japanese side have come to the conclusion that they will not be able to enter into Japan at the time of the Olympic and Paralympic Games,” the Tokyo organizing committee announced in a statement Saturday.

  The government of Japan had a little under two weeks ago put additional pressure on the organizing committee to prevent foreign spectator attendance, saying that in response to public fears over a ‘super-spreader’ scenario due to an influx of hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of people, it will move to ban them from entering the country.  

  

  This ‘final verdict’ on the matter similarly echoed the Japanese government’s stance that a “safe” and secure games must be held with the Japanese public in mind. The committee said the foreign spectator entry ban will “further contribute to ensure safe and secure Games for all participants and the Japanese public.” 

  Reuters this month cited the latest surveys revealing rising fear and anxiety among locals that the games would lead to a surge in the coronavirus pandemic, citing Japanese newspapers:

  Most Japanese people do not want international visitors to attend the Games amid fears that a large influx could spark a resurgence of infections, a Yomiuri newspaper poll showed.

  The survey showed 77% of respondents were against allowing foreign fans to attend, versus 18% in favor.

  Some 48% said they were against allowing any spectators into venues and 45% were in favor.

  It’s further been confirmed that even the opening torch ceremony will be conducted without fans or spectators in the stadium. 

  Earlier this month the recently installed president of the Japanese committee Seiko Hashimoto forewarned that the health and medical situation in Japan would have to be “perfect” to hold the games without threat to athletes or the Japanese population – strongly hinting that this wouldn’t be possible with an influx of foreign travelers. 

  “We would really like people from around the world to come to a full stadium, but unless we are prepared to accept them and the medical situation in Japan is perfect, it will cause a great deal of trouble also to visitors from overseas,” Hashimoto said. The games kick off Friday, July 23.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 16:30

• Father Arrested After Continuing To Call His Child "She" Following Court-Ordered Gender-Transition Treatments
  Father Arrested After Continuing To Call His Child “She” Following Court-Ordered Gender-Transition Treatments

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender.  The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

  

  We have previously discussed how such pronoun disputes (called “misgendering“) lead to criminal investigation in other countries like Great Britain.

  The Canadian courts withheld the father’s name but he has since gone public in interview and has a GoFundMe site under his real name.

  

  Previously, in a 2019 decision, Justice Gregory Bowden rejected the parent’s view as largely immaterial:

  In view of the established law regarding the right of a mature minor to consent to medical treatment and the assessments of a number of physicians that A.B.has capacity to consent as well as the evidence of his health care providers that the proposed treatment is in A.B.’s best interests, there is no serious question to be tried.

  At the second stage of the RJR test, the inquiry is whether the litigant who seeks the interlocutory injunction would, unless the injunction is granted, suffer irreparable harm. A.B.’s father has not demonstrated that a refusal to grant the injunction would adversely affect or irreparably harm him.

  After that decision, there was a gag order put into place that barred the father from even trying to convince his son to change his mind:

  “[1] AB, a 14 year old transgender boy, applies for a protection order to restrain his father, CD, from publishing, speaking or giving interviews about this case or about AB’s personal and medical information.

  “a) CD shall be restrained from: i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties;

  “b) CD shall not directly, or indirectly through an agent or third party, publish or share information or documentation relating to AB’s sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental or physical health, medical status or therapies.”

  The evening of the Bowden’s decision, CD spoke to the Federalist and said “because she is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments that they do.” He added:

  “I had a perfectly healthy child a year ago, and that perfectly healthy child has been altered and destroyed for absolutely no good reason. She can never go back to being a girl in the healthy body that she should have had. She’s going to forever have a lower voice. She’ll forever have to shave because of facial hair. She won’t be able to have children… Sometimes I just want to scream so that other parents and people will… jump in, understand what’s going on. There’s a child—and not only mine, but in my case, my child out there having her life ruined.”

  That led to a conviction of the father for “family violence” in April 2019. Furthermore, Judge Francesca Marzari even issued an order authorizing Clark’s arrest “without warrant” by any police officer who might catch him referring to his daughter “as a girl or with female pronouns.”

  Later YouTube interviews with the father were removed.  In addressing one of those interviews, Justice Michael Tammen of the British Columbia Supreme Court even ordered that Laura-Lynn  Thompson to pull her interview and, when she did not, he sent police to her house.

  The decisions reject any substantive weight given parental rights. I have long opposed an absolutist position against parental rights in areas like abortion with minors. The use of criminal penalties against this father only magnify those concerns.

  I personally disagree with the father in the use of the pronoun if his son has made this choice. I would yield to the child’s preference. However, the question is whether the state should play such a coercive and intrusive role in a family. 

  Ordering a parent not to speak to his child about the issue or arresting him for referring to the child’s biological gender raises very serious parental and free speech rights in my view.   I realize that many experts believe that opposing such gender transition is abusive and harmful. I do not discount that view. However, that is a position best left to persuasive rather than coercive means. We can debate this question and many can oppose the use of such pronouns as abusive. 

  Yet, arresting a parent for continuing to oppose such a transition or referring to the wrong pronoun is chilling. There is an utter disregard of the countervailing interests and rights of parents in these decisions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 03/20/2021 – 16:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Why HR1 Threatens Election Integrity
  Why HR1 Threatens Election Integrity

  Authored by Justin Riemer via RealClearPolitics.com,

  Much ink has been spilled warning of the ramifications should Democrats pass their election “reform” package, HR1 — and for good reason, given how the bill would upend our nation’s electoral system.

  Democrats claim HR1 is aimed at maximizing voter participation and ending corruption in our election systems, but the truth is that the legislation would do neither. Instead, it will only serve to open up our states’ elections to fraud and public mistrust at a time when we need to bolster voter confidence.

  

  Let’s look at just a few of the many areas where HR1 would nationalize elections and cancel out state integrity and confidence-building measures.

  First, the measure voids dozens of longstanding state voting procedures, many of which are relatively non-controversial and serve to give voters confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our elections process. HR1 would invalidate photo ID requirements — such as those in Indiana — that the Supreme Court have found constitutional and important confidence builders. These laws are popular with large majorities of Americans, and despite critics’ fearmongering they have not negatively impacted voter participation.

  HR1 would also force states to allow ballot harvesting, a practice where third parties, usually political operatives, collect and return marked mail ballots. Laws restricting harvesting, which are also popular, deter fraud because they preserve a marked-ballot chain of custody and prevent coercion and undue influence on the elderly and other voters. Yet Democrats want to override these laws and normalize harvesting.  

  Just last week we saw additional criminal charges against candidates in an all-mail city council election in Paterson, N.J., for vote fraud related to harvesting and tampering with ballots. The fraud was so pervasive that a local judge voided the election and ordered a new one. There was also the infamous congressional race in North Carolina in 2018, when the election had to be thrown out because of fraud initiated through ballot harvesting. The good news is that ballot harvesting bans help prevent and detect these exact types of crimes. But if Congress nationalizes ballot harvesting through HR1, these stories may go from being cautionary tales to the new norm.

  To date, the Republican National Committee has been successful in beating the Democrats in court challenges to harvesting bans and has been vocal about the need for bans. And they are not inherently partisan since many states, both blue and red, either prohibit harvesting or severely restrict it. Now, after losing in the courts, Democrats seek to impose the practice from Washington, D.C., with the arrogant belief that they know better than state legislatures about the election integrity measures their states require.

  HR1 will also further restrict states from cleaning up their voter rolls. Under current federal law, a state must stop programs that remove ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days before a federal election. This blackout period already significantly limits a state’s ability to remove voters who may have moved away,  died, or are otherwise ineligible to vote because it applies to periods before both primaries and general elections. The Democrats propose expanding that blackout period for many programs to six months before any federal election. Not only will this prevent states from cleaning up their rolls in a federal election year, it will expand that period for many states into the off years.

  Voter roll maintenance not only enhances election integrity by ensuring only eligible voters can cast ballots, it also promotes access by ensuring voters are properly registered when they do go to vote, thus preventing lines and provisional ballots that may not count. No wonder both parties have historically agreed on the importance of voter registration list upkeep. HR1’s restrictions make Democrats’ intentions clear: They have abandoned any pretense that they still care about this issue that was once welcomed as reasonable and routine. 

  Cynics say that Republicans oppose this legislation because we want to restrict people from voting. This could not be further from the truth. The reality is that we want all eligible voters to be able to vote and vote easily — but voters must also have confidence that our elections systems have safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure accuracy. Previous federal election legislation such as the NVRA and HAVA made some attempt to balance the interests of voter integrity and access. But HR1 eliminates any pretense altogether by invaliding states’ reasonable ID requirements, mandating ballot harvesting, and enacting obstacles to critical voter roll maintenance.

  The American people do not want a Washington takeover of their elections at the hands of congressional Democrats. They want election transparency and confidence in their future elections restored. These motives are exactly what the RNC will continue to fight for, both in the lead-up to the critical midterms and ahead of all elections to come.

  *  *  *

  Justin Riemer is the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 23:40

• DARPA Wants Jetpack Soldiers On Modern Battlefield
  DARPA Wants Jetpack Soldiers On Modern Battlefield

  Jet suits are commonly associated with science fiction movies or shows, but high-tech miniature turbine engines have quickly advanced this new type of mobility to become a reality. 

  Now Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is searching for an Iron Man-style jet suit as per its new solicitation on website Sam.Gov (System for Award Management). DARPA is calling on private industry to deliver jet suits or “Portable Personal Air Mobility System.” 

  

  DARPA requests, “these platforms could serve a variety of military missions, enabling cost-effective mission utility and agility in areas such as personnel logistics [and] urban augmented combat.” Some requirements include a range of at least 3.1 miles, can take off anywhere, and assembly in under ten minutes. “Systems may be air deployed to allow for [infiltration] to hostile territory, or ground deployed to allow for greater off-road mobility,” DARPA wrote.

  Jet suits have already been well-established technology in the last five years. 

  British jet suit company, Gravity Industries, unveiled its “flying” medic jet suit in October. The company showed how first responders could use the flying suit, powered by multiple kerosene-fuelled micro gas turbines, to respond to emergency incidents in rugged terrain quickly. Here’s a clip of a mock rescue: 

  WATCH: U.K.-based company, Gravity Industries, has been working with paramedics in the rural Lake District to test their jet suit’s capabilities in emergency situations. pic.twitter.com/AvOHsUgr5C

  — NBC News World (@NBCNewsWorld) September 29, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Royal Navy has also been testing a real-life version of Marvel’s Tony Stark jet suit. The service may use the jet suits “to rapidly swarm and board ships,” according to the U.S. Naval Institute. 

  #FunFactFriday – The Royal Navy has been testing Jet Suit assault teams to determine if the Iron Man-like suits could be used to rapidly swarm and board ships. U.S. Special Operations Command is also evaluating a jetpack that can reach speeds of more than 200 mph. pic.twitter.com/mo5FoGWkDu

  — U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) October 16, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  California-based JetPack Aviation is working on a version of the jet suit that could carry soldiers 200 miles an hour, for up to 10 minutes. 

  The request also states: “When deployed, the platform will be designed with simplified operations in mind, so that someone unfamiliar with the platform could be educated in its safe and effective use with relatively little training.”

  Jet suits are on their way to the modern battlefield and perhaps could be in civilian use before the military. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 23:20

• Digital Trails: How The FBI Is Identifying, Tracking, & Rounding-Up Dissidents
  Digital Trails: How The FBI Is Identifying, Tracking, & Rounding-Up Dissidents

  Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Americans deserve the freedom to choose a life without surveillance and the government regulation that would make that possible. While we continue to believe the sentiment, we fear it may soon be obsolete or irrelevant. We deserve that freedom, but the window to achieve it narrows a little more each day. If we don’t act now, with great urgency, it may very well close for good.”

  – Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson, New York Times

  Databit by databit, we are building our own electronic concentration camps.

  

  With every new smart piece of smart technology we acquire, every new app we download, every new photo or post we share online, we are making it that much easier for the government and its corporate partners to identify, track and eventually round us up.

  Saint or sinner, it doesn’t matter because we’re all being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals.

  This is what it means to live in a suspect society.

  The government’s efforts to round up those who took part in the Capitol riots shows exactly how vulnerable we all are to the menace of a surveillance state that aspires to a God-like awareness of our lives.

  Relying on selfies, social media posts, location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing, government agents are compiling a massive data trove on anyone and everyone who may have been anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

  The amount of digital information is staggering: 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage; 1,600 electronic devices; 270,000 digital media tips; at least 140,000 photos and videos; and about 100,000 location pings for thousands of smartphones.

  And that’s just what we know.

  More than 300 individuals from 40 states have already been charged and another 280 arrested in connection with the events of January 6. As many as 500 others are still being hunted by government agents.

  Also included in this data roundup are individuals who may have had nothing to do with the riots but whose cell phone location data identified them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  Forget about being innocent until proven guilty.

  In a suspect society such as ours, the burden of proof has been flipped: now, you start off guilty and have to prove your innocence.

  For instance, you didn’t even have to be involved in the Capitol riots to qualify for a visit from the FBI: investigators have reportedly been tracking—and questioning—anyone whose cell phones connected to wi-fi or pinged cell phone towers near the Capitol. One man, who had gone out for a walk with his daughters only to end up stranded near the Capitol crowds, actually had FBI agents show up at his door days later. Using Google Maps, agents were able to pinpoint exactly where they were standing and for how long.

  All of the many creepy, calculating, invasive investigative and surveillance tools the government has acquired over the years are on full display right now in the FBI’s ongoing efforts to bring the rioters to “justice.”

  FBI agents are matching photos with drivers’ license pictures; tracking movements by way of license plate toll readers; and zooming in on physical identifying marks such as moles, scars and tattoos, as well as brands, logos and symbols on clothing and backpacks. They’re poring over hours of security and body camera footage; scouring social media posts; triangulating data from cellphone towers and WiFi signals; layering facial recognition software on top of that; and then cross-referencing footage with public social media posts.

  It’s not just the FBI on the hunt, however.

  They’ve enlisted the help of volunteer posses of private citizens, such as Deep State Dogs, to collaborate on the grunt work. As Dinah Voyles Pulver reports, once Deep State Dogs locates a person and confirms their identity, they put a package together with the person’s name, address, phone number and several images and send it to the FBI.

  According to USA Today, the FBI is relying on the American public and volunteer cybersleuths to help bolster its cases.

  This takes See Something, Say Something snitching programs to a whole new level.

  The lesson to be learned: Big Brother, Big Sister and all of their friends are watching you.

  They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

  Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

  Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.

  Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

  In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

  The government has the know-how.

  It took days, if not hours or minutes, for the FBI to begin the process of identifying, tracking and rounding up those suspected of being part of the Capitol riots.

  Imagine how quickly government agents could target and round up any segment of society they wanted to based on the digital trails and digital footprints we leave behind.

  Of course, the government has been hard at work for years acquiring these totalitarian powers.

  Long before the January 6 riots, the FBI was busily amassing the surveillance tools necessary to monitor social media posts, track and identify individuals using cell phone signals and facial recognition technology, and round up “suspects” who may be of interest to the government for one reason or another.

  As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

  All it needs is the data, which more than 90% of young adults and 65% of American adults are happy to provide.

  When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

  As for the Fourth Amendment and its prohibitions on warrantless searches and invasions of privacy without probable cause, those safeguards have been rendered all but useless by legislative end-runs, judicial justifications, and corporate collusions.

  We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

  Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

  This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, social media posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

  For example, police have been using Stingray devices mounted on their cruisers to intercept cell phone calls and text messages without court-issued search warrants. Doppler radar devices, which can detect human breathing and movement within a home, are already being employed by the police to deliver arrest warrants.

  License plate readers, yet another law enforcement spying device made possible through funding by the Department of Homeland Security, can record up to 1800 license plates per minute. Moreover, these surveillance cameras can also photograph those inside a moving car. Reports indicate that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been using the cameras in conjunction with facial recognition software to build a “vehicle surveillance database” of the nation’s cars, drivers and passengers.

  Sidewalk and “public space” cameras, sold to gullible communities as a sure-fire means of fighting crime, is yet another DHS program that is blanketing small and large towns alike with government-funded and monitored surveillance cameras. It’s all part of a public-private partnership that gives government officials access to all manner of surveillance cameras, on sidewalks, on buildings, on buses, even those installed on private property.

  Couple these surveillance cameras with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology and you have the makings of “pre-crime” cameras, which scan your mannerisms, compare you to pre-set parameters for “normal” behavior, and alert the police if you trigger any computerized alarms as being “suspicious.”

  State and federal law enforcement agencies are pushing to expand their biometric and DNA databases by requiring that anyone accused of a misdemeanor have their DNA collected and catalogued. However, technology is already available that allows the government to collect biometrics such as fingerprints from a distance, without a person’s cooperation or knowledge. One system can actually scan and identify a fingerprint from nearly 20 feet away.

  Developers are hard at work on a radar gun that can actually show if you or someone in your car is texting. Another technology being developed, dubbed a “textalyzer” device, would allow police to determine whether someone was driving while distracted. Refusing to submit one’s phone to testing could result in a suspended or revoked driver’s license.

  It’s a sure bet that anything the government welcomes (and funds) too enthusiastically is bound to be a Trojan horse full of nasty, invasive surprises.

  Case in point: police body cameras. Hailed as the easy fix solution to police abuses, these body cameras—made possible by funding from the Department of Justice—turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras. Of course, if you try to request access to that footage, you’ll find yourself being led a merry and costly chase through miles of red tape, bureaucratic footmen and unhelpful courts.

  The “internet of things” refers to the growing number of “smart” appliances and electronic devices now connected to the internet and capable of interacting with each other and being controlled remotely. These range from thermostats and coffee makers to cars and TVs. Of course, there’s a price to pay for such easy control and access. That price amounts to relinquishing ultimate control of and access to your home to the government and its corporate partners. For example, while Samsung’s Smart TVs are capable of “listening” to what you say, thereby allowing users to control the TV using voice commands, it also records everything you say and relays it to a third party, e.g., the government.

  Then again, the government doesn’t really need to spy on you using your smart TV when the FBI can remotely activate the microphone on your cellphone and record your conversations. The FBI can also do the same thing to laptop computers without the owner knowing any better.

  Drones, which are taking to the skies en masse, are the converging point for all of the weapons and technology already available to law enforcement agencies. In fact, drones can listen in on your phone calls, see through the walls of your home, scan your biometrics, photograph you and track your movements, and even corral you with sophisticated weaponry.

  All of these technologies add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence, especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

  These digital trails are everywhere.

  As investigative journalists Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson explain, “This data—collected by smartphone apps and then fed into a dizzyingly complex digital advertising ecosystem … provided an intimate record of people whether they were visiting drug treatment centers, strip clubs, casinos, abortion clinics or places of worship.”

  In such a surveillance ecosystem, we’re all suspects and databits to be tracked, catalogued and targeted.

  As Warzel and Thompson warn:

  “To think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence… This collection will only grow more sophisticated… It gets easier by the day… it does not discriminate. It harvests from the phones of MAGA rioters, police officers, lawmakers and passers-by. There is no evidence, from the past or current day, that the power this data collection offers will be used only to good ends. There is no evidence that if we allow it to continue to happen, the country will be safer or fairer.”

  As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

  There is no gray area any longer.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 23:00

• NASA Tests "World's Most Powerful Rocket" Ahead Of 2024 Moon Mission
  NASA Tests “World’s Most Powerful Rocket” Ahead Of 2024 Moon Mission

  NASA’s Artemis program to land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024 has been a widely spoken about topic in recent months. The space agency is collaborating with commercial and international partners to make the lunar mission possible. 

  On Thursday afternoon, NASA completed the testing firing of deep space rockets made by Boeing/Aerojet. For eight minutes, four main engines remained ignited. This follows a failed test in January. 

  

  NASA tweeted a video of the ground-based rocket engine test, saying, “Ready to see the world’s most powerful rocket come alive?”

  Ready to see the world’s most powerful rocket come alive?

  🚀 Watch this recap of our @NASA_SLS‘s hot fire test with all 4 of its engines firing, just as they will during the @NASAArtemis I launch to the Moon this year: https://t.co/lsjhVU9h30 pic.twitter.com/wdUqG0HCGN

  — NASA (@NASA) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The four engines will be the core stage of the Space Launch System or SLS rocket, a Space Shuttle-derived super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle that will propel astronauts to the Moon in the coming years. 

  “With this critical test finally finished — and assuming everything went well — NASA can now send the rocket segment to Florida’s Kennedy Space Center to prepare it for launch,” said AP. 

  Officials declined to tell AP if the first SLS launch will occur this year or next, but timelines suggest the rocket could launch an empty Orion capsule to the Moon sometime this year or next. Then by 2022, a crewed test flight is expected, with the crewed lunar mission in 2024. 

  

  Credit goes to the Trump administration, who pushed very hard to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024. The Biden administration has yet to fiddle with timelines. 

  NASA Acting Administrator Steve Jurczyk said it would take a few months to accurately gauge when the crewed mission to the lunar surface occurs.  

  Boeing is the prime contractor on the SLS project. Aerojet Rocketdyne builds the rocket and engines. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 22:40

• Syrian Oil Minister Reveals US Has 'Pirated' $92 Billion In Crude
  Syrian Oil Minister Reveals US Has ‘Pirated’ $92 Billion In Crude

  Via AlMasdarNews.com,

  The Syrian Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources, Bassam Tohme, said on Thursday, that the total losses in the direct and indirect oil sector in Syria have exceeded $92 billion (USD).

  The Syrian minister said in statements to the state-owned Al-Ikhbariya TV channel (and subsequently translated in Iranian state media), that the areas under the control of the US and their allied forces contain more than 90% of the oil reserves of Syria.

  

  He stated that “the Americans and their followers act as pirates in targeting the Syrian oil wealth and the ships of supplies to it.”

  Tohme said that the US was deliberately preventing the Syrian government from benefitting from the oil reserves inside the country.

  The oil minister added that the Syrian waters are “qualified in terms of oil reserves, but what distinguishes exploration contracts is that they are expensive and are long term,” pointing out that “there is a promising oil future in those waters, and the matter needs calm and stable logistical conditions.”

  The US military and their allies from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) currently control the Al-Umar Oil Fields, the largest oil fields in Syria, which they captured from the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh) during the eastern Euphrates campaign.

  (In no world of international law is this legal.) #Syria says U.S. oil firm secretly signed deal with Kurdish-led rebels https://t.co/ZfoVCG0iOb

  — Sarah Leah Whitson (@sarahleah1) August 6, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Making matters worse, Syria is currently witnessing a gas crisis, following a new spike in prices for Octane 90 and Octane 95.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 22:20

• Researchers Believe It's Possible To Become Immortal 
  Researchers Believe It’s Possible To Become Immortal 

  Might future humans resurrect the dead? 

  Well, Russian researchers Alexey Turchin and Maxim Chernyakov, who belong to the transhumanism movement, wrote a paper explaining the “roadmap to immortality” that involves superintelligent AI systems powered by Dyson spheres as the primary technology might someday make resurrection possible. 

  Turchin and Chernyakov wrote, “there no evidence of an afterlife. But there’s also no proof that medical death is the end of subjective experience, or that death is irreversible, or immortality impossible.”

  The paper, which Popular Mechanics first reported, is titled “Classification of Approaches to Technological Resurrection,” which offers a roadmap to immortality. 

  

  “Death seems to be a permanent event, but there is no actual proof of its irreversibility,” the authors write. And “while no method is currently possible, many…may become feasible with future technological development.”

  Turchin and Chernyakov examine both conventional and future technologies of making humanity immortal, from cryogenics to uploading brains onto the cloud then transplanted into clone bodies. They said “strong AI” will be the most critical technology to download the brain’s contents, but that technology could years away. 

  “The development of AI is going rather fast, but we are still far away from being able to ‘download’ a human into a computer,” Turchin told Russia Beyond. “If we want to do it with a good probability of success, then count on [the year] 2600, to be sure.”

  The authors said the power supply behind the AI would be so powerful that it would need a “Dyson spheres,” a megastructure of solar panels that encompasses a star and captures a large percentage of its power output. 

  

  The paper describes life as a “continued stream of subjective experiences” and death as an end of that stream. Immortality, to the researchers, is a “life stream without end,” and resurrection is the “continuation of that same stream of experiences after an arbitrarily long gap.”

  Digital immortality is inevitable…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 22:00

• The Anatomy Of The Scam
  The Anatomy Of The Scam

  Authored by Quintus Curtius via Fortress of The Mind,

  There has been a big surge in online scammery and con artistry in the past two years. Economic hardship and desperation have been contributing causes, but this kind of activity has been with us since the dawn of time. And con games will always be with us, because they are rooted in the timeless and predictable ingredients of human nature.

  My purpose in this article is to provide a rudimentary outline of the basic features that I believe most, if not all, scams and con jobs share. I have worked as a criminal defense lawyer for over twenty years, and have seen a few scenarios that have helped me compile this information. I have also benefitted from observing scam artists in action on Twitter and in other electronic arenas. I have also learned much from watching the “infomercial” hucksters of the 1990s, such as Don Lapre, Kevin Trudeau, and many others. Readers looking for demonstrations of these ideas in action may profit from watching several movies of David Mamet, who seems to have an interest in con games. One of Mr. Mamet’s mainstay actors was the late magician Ricky Jay; and my understanding is that Mr. Jay, as a scholar of the magician’s art, provided a great deal of insight into the psychological bases of con games in the Mamet films House of Games and The Spanish Prisoner.

  

  All con jobs follow a sequence of identifiable stages. The mark (the “pidgeon”) must be led through a series of steps that “soften him up” and make him more pliable to suggestion.  We must remember that all con games play on two elements: greed and ignorance. Other emotions can be used, such as pity or guilt, but greed and ignorance are the mainstays. Greed, meaning the mark’s desire to gain easy money; and ignorance, in that the mark will be led into unfamiliar waters, where he can be more easily parted with his money. Young or old, rich or poor, all human beings are vulnerable to cons. Never believe you are exempt. I have seen highly educated people fall victim to them, as well as the humblest laborer.  Here are the basic stages of the traditional scam…

  The Picture. A successful frame-up has to begin with an image that the scammer is selling. He wants to show you just how successful he is. He wants to overwhelm you with cars, money, hotels, exotic locales, and, of course, women. The reason for this is very simple: he must establish himself as someone who has “made it big.” The message conveyed to the mark is a simple one: “Look how rich and great I am.  You can be just like me if you do what I recommend.”

  It does not matter whether The Picture is true. It is important to remember this. The scammer may indeed be very rich. Some scammers rent their luxury cars and lifestyles; some scammers lie about their lifestyle completely and without shame. But some scammers actually are rich. Remember: some con artists really do have what they say they have. You may find this a paradox, but it is not. There really are rich people who love to scam others. Their motivations may be darker than the purely financial impulses of lesser scammers. They are not so much interested in squeezing money out of marks; what they are after is power, validation, and an affirmation of their own superiority.  We are dealing with psychological factors here, friends: some people are just sadistic, and love to “lord it” over others.

  In establishing The Picture, some con artists can get very aggressive. They will demand you acknowledge their “superiority.” They will yell. They will castigate. They will berate. They will try to shame you with bullying tactics. They will try to question your manhood, your character, your intelligence. All of this is part of the well-staged con. The goal is to throw you off balance, to make you question your judgment or value system.

  The Secret. This is a critical part of the scam. All successful cons must have an enticing secret involved. What it amounts to is this. The secret involves some “special knowledge.” The scammer will communicate to you, in one way or another, that he has special knowledge of some trade, industry, or whatever. He will play on your desire to make a quick buck. He will play on your desire to cut corners and find shortcuts. “I have a secret, and if you listen to me, you can be just as rich as I am.” This is the essence of The Secret.

  In the days of cold-calling stock brokers, there was a certain scam that I was once told about.  A crook would send two batches of letters to two groups of people. One batch would say, “You should buy stock X because it’s going up.” Another batch would say, “You should sell stock X because it’s going down.” Of course, one batch would be a correct “prediction.” To the people who received the correct prediction, the scammer would then send another two groups of letters, following the same principle as before: one batch recommending a buy, the other recommending a sell. Over time, and as the sample group narrowed, eventually a very small group of people would have received “correct predictions” multiple times. The marks would get excited, thinking that the broker knew some special secret. The scammer would then say, “I’ve been right in every prediction I’ve made. You should invest with me.” The pitch was often irresistible.  Of course, the marks would not know that the scammer was not a wizard; he just used mathematics and probability to his advantage.

  The Huddle. This refers to the stage where the scammer draws the “pigeon” deeper into his world.  Have you ever seen players on a field huddled together, sharing the details of their next play? That’s what this refers to. The mark will be asked to join a team, a group, an email list, a special clique that will share all the coveted “insider knowledge,” playing back to the “I have a secret” pitch. Isolation is a very effective technique for convincing someone to do something he does not really want to do.

  

  The Directive. Once the psychological groundwork has been laid out as described above, the pigeon will be softened up for the big pitch. Now comes The Directive. The mark is told what to do with his money: what to buy, what to invest in, or what to put his confidence in. The reason why confidence games are called confidence games is because the mark is giving his confidence to the scammer. A frequently used technique here is called the “pigeon drop,” in which the mark is enticed to put up a small amount of money based on the hope that he will receive an even greater payout in the future.  This is also the basis for one of the oldest and most effective of cons, the so-called “Spanish Prisoner.” In the Spanish Prisoner con, the mark is enticed by both the prospect of a beautiful woman, and a large sum of money. All he has to do is leave a deposit of money under terms of strict secrecy. Of course, the scammer then vanishes with the money.

  Do not underestimate the effectiveness of scams and cons. Good scammers are sociopaths. They can be extremely convincing. You may not even know you have been taken, even after losing your money. Once you underestimate them, you become that much more vulnerable.  As I said earlier, extremely intelligent people can fall for them, because they operate at the most basic level of human need:  the desire to be secure, wealthy, handsome, or beautiful.  The only effective defenses against scams are: (1) a true understanding that nothing in this world is for free, and there is not such thing as easy money; and (2) success takes a long time.  Along these lines, I would recommend readers revisit my previous comments on investing.

  Scammers are not genial rascals. They are manipulative, depraved people who find satisfaction in preying on others. Understand what is going on around you. If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. There is no such thing as a quick buck. That was true in 5000 B.C., and it is true today.

  Quintus Curtius is author of several books, which can be found here.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 21:40

• Turkey In Turmoil Again: Erdogan Fires Second Central Bank Chief In 4 Months, Sparking Foreign Capital Panic
  Turkey In Turmoil Again: Erdogan Fires Second Central Bank Chief In 4 Months, Sparking Foreign Capital Panic

  On Thursday, moments after the Central Bank of Turkey unexpectedly hiked rates by a whopping 200bps – double the consensus expectation – to 19% from 17%, the highest rate since the country’s panicked scramble to contain the collapse of the Turkish lira during the economic turmoil of 2018, we said that “unfortunately for Turkey – whose economy will now grind to yet another halt –  it had no choice: inflation had accelerated for a fifth month in February as oil rallied and the impact of last year’s lira weakness lingered, while capital outflows soared. The upward trend fueled expectations the central bank would try to rein in prices by raising interest rates… but nobody had expected a 200 bps rate hike.”

  Also in our kneejerk response to the rate hike decision, we said that the relatively new CBRT head, Agbal, “was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t: on one hand the lira was plunging angering Erdogan, so he had to stabilize it… on the other the only way to do so was by hiking rates, which would anger Erdogan even more.“

  We also quoted from the CBRT’s decision, noting that the bank has decided “to implement a front-loaded and strong additional monetary tightening,” explicitly stating that this “statement is guaranteed to enrage Turkey’s dictator.”

  Bottom line: Erdogan would be furious either way.

  Finally, we quoted SocGen EM strategist Phoenix Kalen who tried to justify the rate hike with some lofty sleight of logic by saying that “in a challenging context of domestic business and political pressure against further interest rate hikes, the CBRT has stepped up to the plate and delivered a resounding home run to underline its commitment to an inflation-targeting framework.” Kalen then said that the move “will go a long way toward bolstering both retail and foreign investor confidence that the CBRT under Governor Agbal will stay engaged in addressing deterioration in inflation expectations.”

  While we were impressed with Kalen’s attempt to make 5-D chess out of what was basically total chaos, our take was far more cynical

  Maybe… or maybe it will just force Erdogan to replace yet another CBRT governor.

  Two days later, our cynical view proved correct again, because shortly after midnight on Saturday, and just two days after the larger than expected rate hike, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan fired the country’s third central bank governor in less than two years and replaced him with a fan of lowering interest rates.

  Naci Agbal, Turkey’s former finance minister who was appointed central bank chief last November, was fired by Erdogan and was replaced with Sahap Kavcioglu, according to a decree published after midnight on Saturday in the Official Gazette. Agbal’s abrupt termination is a clear retaliation by Erodgan for last week’s unexpectedly big rate hike, one which does not fit within the absurd confines of “Erdoganomics” whereby lower rates are somehow needed to fight inflation.

  And while Erdoganomics appeared to have ended some time in late 2020 when shortly after Agbal’s appointment, Erdogan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak – then finance minister – also unexpectedly quit in a move that encouraged battered foreign investors to redeploy capital into the capital-starved Turkey as monetary orthodoxy appeared to be making a comeback, it is now clear that this was just one giant fakeout, and that Erdogan was merely biding his time before he pulled the rug from under a new cohort of offshore investors who are about to suffer devastating losses on their Turkish exposure.

  Agbal took the job as Turkey’s top banker last November after weeks of declines in the lira and raised the benchmark one-week repo rate by a cumulative 875 basis points since, boosting the central bank’s damaged credibility among investors.

  

  Meanwhile, Erdogan, the man behind the eponymous bizarro monetary policy which posits that high interest rates cause inflation, was oddly silent during the latest rate hike episode even though he had for years frequently chastised the central bank when he thought it was keeping borrowing costs too high.

  Well, we now know that the Turkish despot was – like a dormant volcano – merely building up his anger and frustrations, and finally exploded early on Saturday morning in a move that will decimate any leftover trust in Turkey.

  Erdogan’s latest pick for central bank head is Sahap  Kavcioglu, a professor of banking at Marmara University in Istanbul and a columnist at the pro-government Yeni Safak newspaper. The paper attacked Agbal’s latest interest-rate increase on its front page on Friday…

  Erdogan assigns Şahap Kavcioglu, an academic and a columnist for conservative pro-gov’t Yeni Şafak, as replacement to the Turkish Central Bank

  Yeni Şafak on Friday attacked Agbal from the front page, accusing him of conducting an operation against the Turkish economy by hikes pic.twitter.com/5MV3NP9X7U

  — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  … saying the decision “turned a deaf ear” to Turkey’s 83 million people, would hurt economic growth and primarily benefits “London-based owners of hot money.”

  As Turkey’s correspondent for the Middle East Eye, Ragip Soylu, further notes, last month Kavcioglu said that:

  • CBRT shouldn’t insist on its high interest rate policy
  • Many countries with domestic/foreign problems have negative real interest rates so could Turkey
  • Rate hikes indirectly creates inflation

  Turkey’s new governor of Central Bank in February:

  • CBRT shouldn’t insist on its high interest rate policy
  • Many countries with domestic/foreign problems have negative real interest rates so could Turkey
  • Rate hikes indirectly creates inflation https://t.co/sY518SKSiI

  — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As Bloomberg further notes, in a column on Feb. 9, Kavcioglu said it was “saddening” to see Turkish columnists, bankers and business organizations seeking stability in high interest rates at a time when other countries had negative interest rates.

  “The central bank shouldn’t insist on high interest rates,” he wrote. “When interest rates in the world are close to zero, raising interest rates here won’t solve our economic problems. To the contrary, it’ll deepen them in the period ahead.”

  He also seconded Erdogan’s unorthodox theory on the relationship between interest rates and inflation, saying that raising interest rates would “indirectly open the way to increasing inflation.” And while most central bankers are idiots, one thing that is relatively accurate is that raising interest rates does generally control excessive inflation.

  But wait, it gets worse: Kavcioglu, who’s also a former lawmaker for the ruling Ak Party, defended reserve policies executed from 2018 to 2020, when Turkey began spending its foreign-currency reserves to try and prop up the lira in times of volatility. The use of the central bank’s foreign-exchange coffers then helped to rein in inflation, interest rates and the exchange rate, he said.

  In other words, the new head of the CBRT is not only an ideological carbon copy of Erdogan (which explains his ascent to the monetary throne), but is a firm believer in Erdoganomics. Which means that last week’s rate hike will be prompted reversed, perhaps as soon as Sunday, leading to yet another episode of “Turkey in Turmoil”, and all out current account panic as foreigners pull all their money from Turkey now that the country has lost any last trace of credibility and collapses into an Erdogan singularity, a process which will most likely culminate with economic collapse, domestic conflict and/or civil war.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 21:32

• People Are Snapping Up Virtual Land Like Hotcakes — And Now There's A Fund
  People Are Snapping Up Virtual Land Like Hotcakes — And Now There’s A Fund

  Whether you’re shaking your fist like an old man with kids on his lawn, or a true believer in Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) looking to make millions, there’s a booming ‘virtual reality’ real-estate market where people are buying and selling parcels of ‘land’ across several online “metaverses” – where people are building virtual hotels, stores, and other properties in the hopes of increasing their value.

  

  And if you’re an accredited investor willing to drop at least $25,000 – and you’re invited – there’s a fund for those who want to get in on the NFT real estate market.

  Republic Real Estate – which buys distressed condos in the real world, is launching the virtual land fund next week. Founder Janine Yorio, head of Republic, says “Real-world real estate is very uncertain now,” adding “Housing prices are at an all-time high. Meanwhile, offices are empty, hotels are empty. This feels insulated from a lot of those real-world risks.”

  

  Bloomberg unpacks:

  Plots sell daily in online worlds such as Decentraland, a virtual place with its own economy, currency and social events calendar, accessible to anyone with a web browser. And values for such assets are multiplying.

  This year through March 15, the average price paid per parcel in Decentraland was $2,703 — more than triple what it was in 2020, according to NonFungible.com, which tracks the sales. Land prices quadrupled in the metaverse called Cryptovoxels, from $821 a parcel last year to $3,895 in the first two and half months of 2021.

  Republic, meanwhile, has purchased over 30 parcels across four metaverses, and is in talks with a real-world hospitality brand to co-develop a hotel and bar on one of those sites. We assume you have to mix your own drinks. According to Yorio, the lodging firm would collaborate on the virtual hotel design – paying Republic to develop it. The goal is to become a well-regarded watering hole, which then draws other retailers and developers to snap up nearby parcels.

  We assure you, this is real. This week, contemporary artist Krista Kim recently sold an NFT-minted digital house, called “Mars House,” for 288 ether – valued at more than $500,000 based on Friday’s trading price.

  “Right now, a lot of the [NFT] art that’s currently available on platforms, it’s a very limited parameter of how you can present the art,” said Kim in a Wednesday CNBC interview. “It’s presented, basically, as a digital file, a beautiful drawing or video on your screen, but my intention was to look beyond that.”

  “For me, I actually foresee that we will be living in an augmented reality lifestyle within a very short period,” Kim added, saying it could happen in “a couple years.”

  

  The new owner of Mars House will be able to upload the property to various metaverses.

  In February, meanwhile, eight lots of virtual real estate sold for a combined $1.5 million on gaming platform Axie Infinity, according to NonFungible.

  

  “There is obviously some fear-of-missing-out phenomenon behind this,” says NonFungible COO, Gauther Zuppinger, in an email to Bloomberg. “The best, rarest places are almost all purchased. The secondary market shows that the first buyers sell their assets for way more than the initial price.”

  Each land parcel is a non-fungible token, or NFT — a unique asset that can’t be forged or replicated, just like physical land in the real world.

  The value of online real estate rises as more people buy digital art or other collectibles and need a place to showcase them, according to Zuppinger. Many artists and designers also are turning to the virtual world to host what they create, as consumers spend more time there, Yorio said.

  And now, there’s a functional market in which prices have more than quadrupled in a matter of months for well-trafficked space.

  “Buying land today in virtual worlds may end up feeling a lot like buying land in Manhattan in the 1750s,” says Yorio. “There is massive growth ahead, and now is the time to get in on the ground floor.“

  Now might be a great time to read Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell or watch Lawnmower Man if you’re uninitiated, as it seems we may be headed in that direction.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 21:20

• The Puppet Masters: Is There Really A Deep State?
  The Puppet Masters: Is There Really A Deep State?

  Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The danger posed by the Deep State is that it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable…

  

  As a former intelligence officer, I find it amusing to read articles in the mainstream media that blithely report how the latest international outrages are undoubtedly the work of CIA and the rest of the U.S. government’s national security alphabet soup. The recurring claim that the CIA is somehow running the world by virtue of a vast conspiracy that includes the secret intelligence agencies of a number of countries, using blackmail and other inducements to corrupt vulnerable politicians and opinion makers, has entered into the DNA of journalists worldwide, frequently without any evidence that the current crop of spies is capable to doing anything more complicated than getting out of bed in the morning.

  One problem with the theory about total global dominance through espionage is the sheer logistics of it all. Directing political and economic developments in two hundred nations simultaneously must require a lot of space and a large staff. Is there a huge office hidden in Langley? Or the Pentagon? Or in the White House West Wing itself? Or is it in one of the secure facilities that have been popping up like mushrooms just off of the Dulles Toll Road in Herndon Virginia?

  To provide evidence that intelligence agencies extend their tentacles just about everywhere, the other claim that is nearly always made is that all former spooks are part of the conspiracy, as once you learn the secret handshake to join CIA, NSA or the FBI you never stop being “one of them.” Well, that might be true in some cases but the majority of former spooks are quite happy to be “former,” and one might also observe that many voices in the anti-war movement, such as it is, come from intelligence, law enforcement or military backgrounds. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will explain that away by claiming that it is a conspiracy within a conspiracy, making the dissidents little better than double agents or gatekeepers who are put in place to make sure that the opposition doesn’t become too effective.

  Given the fact that how the so-called American “Deep State” actually gets together and plots is unknown, one would have to concede that it is an organization without much structure, unlike the original Turkish Deep State (Derin Devlet), which coined the phrase, that actually met and had centralized planning. I would suggest that the problem is one of definitions and it also helps to know how the national security state is structured and what its legitimate mission is. The CIA, for example, employs about 20,000 people, nearly all of whom work in various divisions that collect information (spying), analysis, technology and also are divided into staffs that work transnationally on issues like terrorism, narcotics, and nuclear proliferation. The overwhelming majority of those employees have political views and vote but there is a consensus that what their work entails is apolitical. The actual politics of how policy comes out the other end is confined to a very small group at the top, some of whom are themselves political appointees.

  To be sure, one can and probably should oppose the policies of regime change that the Agency is engaged in worldwide but there is one important consideration that has to be understood. Those policies are set by the country’s civilian leadership (president, secretary of state and national security council) and they are imposed on CIA by its own political leadership. The Agency does not hold referenda among its employees to determine which foreign policy option is preferable any more than soldiers in the 101st Airborne are consulted when they receive orders to deploy.

  Nearly all current and former intelligence officers that I know are, in fact, opposed to the politics of U.S. global dominance that have been pretty much in place since 9/11, most particularly as evidenced by the continued conflict with Russia, the ramping up of aggression with China, and the regime change policies relating to Syria, Iran and Venezuela. Those officers often consider the invasions and exercise of “maximum pressure” to have been failures. Those policies were supported by truculent language, sanctions and displays of military readiness by the Trump Administration but it now appears clear that they will all be continued in one form or another under President Joe Biden, likely to include even more aggression against Russia through proxies in Ukraine and Georgia.

  The officers engaged in such operations also observe that regime change has basically come out of the closet since 2001. George W. Bush announced that there was a “new sheriff in town” and the gloves would be coming off. Things that the intelligence agencies used to do are now done right out in the open, using military resources against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria while the biggest change of all, in Ukraine in 2014, was largely engineered by Victoria Nuland at the State Department. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was also active in Russia supporting opposition parties until the Kremlin forced them to leave the country.

  So, it is fair to say that the Deep State is not a function of either the CIA or the FBI, but at the same time the involvement of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey in the plot to destroy Donald Trump is disturbing, as the three men headed the Agency, the Office of National Intelligence and Bureau. They appear to have played critical leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own. Almost certainly what they may have done would have been either explicitly or implicitly authorized by the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, and others in his national security team.

  It is now known that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan created a secret interagency Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with Clapper, Brennan fabricated the narrative that “Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.” Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the “evidence” produced to support that claim is weak to nonexistent.

  I would, nevertheless, argue that their behavior, though it exploited intelligence resources, was not intrinsic to the organizations that they led, that the three of them were part and parcel of the real Deep State, which consists of a consensus view on running the country that is held by nearly all of the elements that together make up the American Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City. It should come as no surprise that those government officials who are complicit in the process are often personally rewarded with highly paid sinecure jobs in financial services, which they know nothing about, when they “retire.”

  The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. Even though it does not actually meet in secret, it does operate through relationships that are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity will be exposed. One notes that while the Deep State is mentioned frequently in the national media there has been little effort to identify its components and how it operates.

  Viewed in that fashion, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country and are even able to coopt those who are ostensibly dedicated to keeping the country safe becomes much more plausible without denigrating the many honest people who are employed by the national security agencies.

  The Deep State conspirators don’t have to meet to plot as they all understand very well what has to be done to maintain their supremacy.

  That is the real danger.

  The Biden Administration will surely demonstrate over the next several months that the Deep State is still with us and more powerful than ever as it operates both inside and outside the government itself.

  And the real danger comes from the Democrats now in charge, who are if anything more given to playing with consensus politics that involve phony threats than were the Republicans.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 21:00

• SecDef Austin Warns North Korea: US "Ready To Fight Tonight"
  SecDef Austin Warns North Korea: US “Ready To Fight Tonight”

  In an unusually blunt threat and warning even for the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that US forces are ready to “fight tonight” in comments aimed at North Korea after an angry Pyongyang denounced the resumption of joint military exercises between the US and South Korea. 

  “Our force remains ready to fight tonight, and we continue to make progress toward the eventual transition of wartime Operational Control to a [Republic of Korea]-commanded, future Combined Forces Command,” Austin said on Thursday.

  

  He issued the words from Seoul at the tail end of his Asia trip this week alongside Secretary of State Antony Blinken and South Korean leaders. Secretary Blinken had continued his denuclearization of the peninsula message, saying, “We are committed to the denuclearization of North Korea, reducing the broader threat the DPRK poses to the United States and our allies, and improving the lives of all Koreans, including the people of North Korea who continue to suffer widespread and systematic abuses at the hands of their repressive government.”

  Pyongyang on Thursday slammed what DPRK first vice foreign minister Choe Son Hui called a “lunatic” and “hostile” policy. The senior North Korean diplomat said of the question of denuclearization talks that there will be no contact with Washington “unless the US rolls back its hostile policy towards the DPRK.”

  She said further:

  “Therefore, we will disregard such an attempt of the US in the future, too.” The “new regime” in the US, she added, had only put forward a “lunatic theory of ‘threat from north Korea’ and groundless rhetoric about ‘complete denuclearisation'”.

  The Biden administration has reportedly been attempting to reach out to the North via various diplomatic channels since mid-February, but to no avail. 

  

  Meanwhile the resumption of joint military exercises with the South, which had been on pause for a year with the ostensible reason given being the coronavirus pandemic, certainly won’t help thaw the ongoing tensions anytime soon.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 20:40

• The 'Great Reset' – Animal Farm Version
  The ‘Great Reset’ – Animal Farm Version

  Authored by Brad Lena via AmericanThinker.com,

  Currently, transnational globalists are pushing for a “Great Reset.”  It helps to understand what’s coming at us if you remember that the globalist’s mindset is akin to a zookeeper’s.  Currently, the zookeepers have their animals safely confined, but there remains a modicum of hope that the animals can liberate themselves.

  First some context.  History is replete with ideologies that seek to save people either from themselves or a foreign contagion.  Until recently, this impulse, as the 20th century shows, has taken the form of political ideologies.

  For those espousing Marxism, the ideology sought to cleanse a people from the errors and machinations of the past.  When the new ideas prevailed, even if only briefly, the alleged salvation from historical, social, and economic maladies required a reset of just about everything.  More often than not, the reset was accompanied by a sea of blood and violence.  The objects of salvation (the people) often died or ended up in the same circumstances or were worse off.

  I’m referring to communism, fascism, and National Socialism.

  Some will say, what about capitalism?  Whatever the ills of capitalism, it behooves one to consider the alternatives offered during the 20th century.  Some have said history is just one damn thing after another.  Others say history is the same damn thing after another.

  In any case, the intellectuals of modernity (see Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society) decided that people left to their own devices will get in the way of humanity’s salvation.  Their solution is global governance that will closely manage all human activity.  Saving humanity is yesterday’s solution.  Saving Planet Earth from humanity is the ticket.  Enter the zookeeper.

  

  In a zoo, the animals are confined.  Their diet, reproduction, interaction with other species, consumption of resources, etc. are carefully managed, depending on the zookeeper’s management goals. 

   When the kept animals’ illness, infirmity, or age becomes a liability, they are eliminated.

  In the 21st century, COVID has given the intellectuals and their political and media lackeys the ability to turn modern life into a giant zoo.  Whatever the coronavirus’s root cause, the ruling elite have passionately embraced its usefulness as a tool to reorder societies and economies across the globe.

  I may be wrong, but I do not recall a time when the world’s governments acted in such remarkable uniformity.  The virus-instigated collapse of the extant infrastructure (i.e., jobs, income, mobility, access, distribution, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) has been blindingly swift.  The obvious question — “When will things return to normal?” — is regularly answered by the authorities: they won’t.  

  The ruling class intends to give the “new normal,” AKA “the reset,” its best shot.

  The future the ruling class contemplates is one in which “rights” and privileges will be granted only to those people who comply.  Global mobility has plummeted, enforced confinement is mandated, jobs have vanished, goods are becoming scarcer, surveillance is omnipresent, and noncompliance is punished.  We will be told that this is all for the greater good.  The elite have turned the world into a zoo, with themselves as keepers and the rest of us as the animals that must be trained or destroyed.

  The power to command and control human activity is off the charts.  The impulse toward totalitarian rule is as old as dirt.  Those with the power to attempt it have always done whatever it takes.  The good news is that the animals in this new zoo are the most innovative, creative, adaptive, and resilient creatures on the planet.  There’s still a chance they can bust out of the joint.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 20:20

• BofA: The Uber-Dovish Fed Backfired And Vigilantes Are Now Bullying Powell Into YCC – Three Ways To Trade This
  BofA: The Uber-Dovish Fed Backfired And Vigilantes Are Now Bullying Powell Into YCC – Three Ways To Trade This

  Anyone expecting a major bank to discuss a deflationary scenario will have to wait for at least a year; they certainly won’t get it here.

  In his latest Flow Show report, BofA CIO Michael Hartnett first looks at the biggest driver behind the ongoing reflationary wave, and writes that globally delivered covid vaccines (400 million) are already far outpacing covid cases (122 million)…

  

  … which is why clients are even talking about a vaccine “glut” by the autumn offsetting the spring shortage in Europe and Emerging Markets, and the resulting disorderly bond yield rise is negative for Q2 economic growth.

  Then there is the elephant in the room: the unprecedented fiscal excess unleashed by most DM countries and the US in particular. Having earlier touched on the Fed’s “Catch 21”, namely the soaring US budget & current account deficits, which will surpass $4TN in ’21, and $2TN in ’22 (with forecasts excluding a potential $1.5-2tn in additional infrastructure spend)… 

  

  … Hartnett notes that issuance YTD is Treasuries $861bn, IG/HY bonds $514bn, stocks $178bn (incl SPACs), all on pace for record highs, so bond & equity supply is annualizing a record $7.6TN. Also note that US Treasury issuance ($4.45tn) this year will easily exceed the GDP of Germany, so it’s “little wonder 30-year UST off to 2nd worst start in past 100 years.”

  The combination of the “end of covid” as noted in the latest BofA Fund Manager Survey, now that runaway inflation and taper tantrums are both bigger risks than the vaccine rollout…

  

  … with the relentless flood of fiscal stimulus leads Hartnett to make the stunning conclusion that “we are in midst of strongest macro data of our lives” as the boom phase currently is set to dominate the upcoming bust for a long time:

  Philly Fed survey manufacturing highest since Mar’73; Philly & NY price surveys show inflation pressures early March; US small businesses reporting ‘jobs hard to fill’ highest in 50 years; US house prices +19%, China exports up +60% Y/Y; Baltic shipping rates +95% YTD;

  And yet despite this record economic overheating, one where inflation is already out of control as  supply chains are broken and shortages of most goods are prevalent…

  

  … the Fed is convinced that this inferno of soaring prices will be transitory, and has remained uber-dovish, promising on Wednesday not to hike rates though 2023. However, according to Hartnett, this “uber-dovish Fed posture has backfired”, with the bond vigilantes “moving quickly to bully US central bank into Yield Curve Control” which the BofA CIO says is likely once the yield on the 5Y surpasses 1¼%.

  Meanwhile EM’s are already tightening to curb runaway inflation (Brazil & Turkey just hiked this week) resulting in 8 global rate hikes YTD (vs 5 cuts); And not just EMs – Norway was the 1st DM central bank to signal hike, and no matter how deep in the sand the Fed, ECB and BOE stick their heads, global financial conditions are starting to tighten – just look at spreads, vol and so on…

  Which brings us to three views from Hartnett: a short-term, a medium-term and a longer term:

  1) Short-term: Cyclicals have soared in anticipation of boom & “Goldilocks” plays e.g. tech, credit & EM on back foot; immediate risk is disorderly yield jump hurts cyclicals. Indeed, the oil price plunge may have been the first sign of potential regime shift to higher yields – lower growth. Here Hartnett says to watch HYG <$84…

  

  …  BKX <115, SOX <2800, and notes that the basket of rate sensitive assets (LQD, HYG, EEM, IAI, KRE, VBK, XHB, SOXX ) has started to roll. BofA's advice: utilities & staples are good defensive hedges.

  

  2. Medium-term: Ominously, the BofA CIO predicts low/volatile asset returns in ’21 driven by 3P’s of peak Positioning, Profits, Policy in H1, and 3R’s of rising Rates, Regulation, Redistribution in H2. His advice how to trade the medium-term: own volatility.

  3. Longer-term: 2020 marked the secular low point for inflation and interest rates; 40-year bull market in bonds is officially over…

  

  … with the following long-term asset allocation implications: bullish real assets, commodities, volatility, small cap, value & EAFE/EM stocks, bearish bonds, US dollar, large cap growth.

  To Hartnett’s reco we would just throw in bitcoin. Why? Because in the “longer-term” central banks will launch digital currencies to reflate at any cost even if it means the loss of the reserve currency to terminally debase fiat, and force billions into the parallel monetary system that is crypto. Incidentally, it was Hartnett who earlier today explained why bitcoin is 2021’s safe haven (read “The Fed’s “Catch 21”: BofA Explains Why Bitcoin Is 2021’s Safe Haven“). And yes, those who were long bitcoin heading into this year. are blowing out all other asset classes as Hartnett himself shows with his latest “Scores of the Doors: bitcoin 99.9%, oil 23.3%, global stocks 4.0%, US$ 2.1%, cash 0.0%, HY bonds -0.2%, IG bonds -4.8%, government bonds -5.2%, gold -8.9% YTD.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 20:00

• "It's Pretty Windy Outside" – White House Blames 'Climate' For Biden's Biff On Air Force One Steps
  “It’s Pretty Windy Outside” – White House Blames ‘Climate’ For Biden’s Biff On Air Force One Steps

  Update (1245ET): Phew! A White House official has confirmed that President Biden, after stumbling aboard Air Force One on his way to Georgia, “is fine.”

  Additionally, Steven Nelson reports that White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre seems to blame the wind for President Biden’s fall. She told reporters aboard Air Force One:

  “It’s pretty windy outside. It’s very windy. I almost fell coming up the steps myself. He is doing 100 percent.”

  May we humbly suggest this addition?

  Chair Force One: pic.twitter.com/arOW3kG6TK

  — Arbitrage Andy (@arbitrage_andy) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We hear they are free to install under Medicare-for-All.

  Elijah Schaffer made the following poignant comment:

  “The saddest part about Biden overall is that it isn’t actually funny watching him physically deteriorate on TV, It’s sad for him/his family, detrimental to our country, & makes us a laughing stock to the world, We are seen as weak because under a Biden administration we are“

  But in the interest of balance, can we please stop being mean to the president.

  Guys stop being so mean to Joe Biden saying he’s old, senile and unfit. He just sometimes breaks his foot in the shower because he pulls his dog’s tail, falls 3x times walking up stairs, calls Kamala the President and forgets the name of his defense secretary. No big deal. pic.twitter.com/7oimYMn5IL

  — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  *  *  *

  How is President Biden supposed to negotiate with China when he can’t even negotiate a set of stairs?

  After a brief tour through the South where he stopped in Georgia to meet with leaders of the Asian-American community in the wake of this week’s deadly shooting at a spa and massage parlor in Atlanta, Biden and his entourage returned to Air Force One.

  Kamala Harris realizing she’s about to be President: pic.twitter.com/7WtiPCy8nT

  — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Oh dear pic.twitter.com/xSv3mpd5rV

  — Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  From another angle:

  WATCH: US President Joe Biden falls over as he boards Air Force One pic.twitter.com/O8XysfH4n4

  — The National (@TheNationalNews) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The clip immediately went viral after finding its way to Twitter, as online wits joked about the timing (coinciding with the conclusion of a US-China summit where China’s aggressive posture made headlines).

  Biden just fell going up the steps to Air force One… pic.twitter.com/MT8kpX1huH

  — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  I added music to Joe Biden falling up the stairs to Air Force One. pic.twitter.com/3mHuaWUWh7

  — Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  👀 Biden cannot even negotiate a stair case, how is he going to negotiate with china?

  — PiQ (@PriapusIQ) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Biden takes a big fall climbing into Air Force One.

  pic.twitter.com/6jCzaWPi3i

  — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We know who is to blame for the fall of course…

  CNN “ Donald trump puts banana peels on the steps of air force one to try and purposely trip joe Biden. “

  — Daniel giordani (@Danielgiordani7) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Think that’s an exaggeration? Here’s CNN in 2017…

  CNN asks White House if Trump is “afraid of stairs” https://t.co/O959OG90eF pic.twitter.com/R4BxlAYWA3

  — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 22, 2017

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  It’s not exactly a vote of confidence, coming just hours after he mistakenly referred to his Veep as “President” Harris. Fortunately, an aide to the president confirmed that he was “doing fine” after the spill.

  He’s literally incapable of getting even the basics right. #PresidentHarris pic.twitter.com/FlempiyA22

  — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Oh and just one more thing. Remember when Biden mocked Trump’s ramp walk at West Point…

  FLASHBACK -> Biden mocks Trump’s ramp walk at West Point and claims he’s stronger: “Look at how he steps and look at how I step. Watch how I run up ramps and he stumbles down ramps. Come on.” pic.twitter.com/U7CL0dBSQA

  — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 19, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We’ll give the final word to Don Jr who, as usual, sums up the farce perfectly: “I remember the press bashing Trump for touching the rail once. Biden falls repeatedly but I’m sure he’s the picture of health. No wonder all our enemies are pouncing simultaneously and mocking him publicly. “

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 19:45

• FBI Director Says Atlanta Massage Parlor Murder Spree "Does Not Appear To Be Racially Motivated"
  FBI Director Says Atlanta Massage Parlor Murder Spree “Does Not Appear To Be Racially Motivated”

  Having successfully summited the stairs into Air Force One this afternoon, President Biden (and his administration full of desperate virtue-signaling panderers) are currently in Atlanta, Georgia, to speak with leaders of the Asian communities there, after a shooting spree targeting three massage parlors.

  The attack was horrific leaving eight people dead (six of whom were of Asian descent) because our society doesn’t value human life.

  

  Rather unsurprisingly, this was immediately turned into a race issue.

  

  The man pulling the trigger was white, and therefore, this must be a race-related hate crime committed by a white supremacist.

  (If this were race-related, one would expect all eight victims to be of the same race? Or was that part of his cunning plan to throw off investigators to his real racist motives?)

  The problem is, as much as the left wants it to be, it wasn’t ‘race’ that caused the man to commit these crimes.

  Specifically, as we previously noted, the man arrested for the murders reportedly said he committed the crime spree because “it’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.” 

  He admitted that he has a “sex addiction” and frequently used these “massage parlors” to feed his sex habit. Six of the eight victims were of Asian descent.

  Of course, that wasn’t good enough and “investigations” into his motives continued…

  But, in an interview with NPR last night, FBI Director Wray came clean:

  “So obviously, it’s a heartbreaking incident, and it hits particularly close to home for me since I consider Atlanta home…

  The FBI is supporting state and local law enforcement, specifically APD, the Atlanta Police Department, and the [Cherokee County] Sheriff’s Office. So we’re actively involved but in a support role.”

  Director Wray continued saying:

  “And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated.”

  Listen to the full interview here:

  Now, perhaps, the Biden administration will step up support for disadvantaged women? Or attempt to clamp down on the sex-trafficking epidemic (cough, border control, cough) that forces so many women into these desperate situations… instead of amplifying the “white supremacy” card, which the left and their compliant media are always so quick to use, exacerbating societal divides.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 19:40

• 'That Stinks!': Brooklyn Art Director Sells Audio Of A Fart As An NFT For $85
  ‘That Stinks!’: Brooklyn Art Director Sells Audio Of A Fart As An NFT For $85

  We’re not exactly sure if the non-fungible token craze has peaked, but this has got to be a surefire sign that we’re close.

  “NYC man sells fart for $85, cashing in on NFT craze,” was the exact headline the NY Post ran with on Thursday of this week whilst reporting on a Brooklyn-based art director in the midst of selling “a year’s worth of fart audio clips” as non-fungible tokens. 

  The artist, Alex Ramirez-Mallis, asked the Post: “If people are selling digital art and GIFs, why not sell farts?”

  In fact, he is selling a whole year of them. He has launched an NFT called “One Calendar Year of Recorded Farts,” which he started at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. He got the idea when him and his friends were sharing audio of farts via WhatsApp, the report notes. 

  And on the one year anniversary of his quarantine, he compiled the respective recordings into what the Post called a 52 minute “master collection” audio file. He is selling individual fart recordings for 0.05 Ether, or about $85 each. So far, one has sold. 

  

  He also seems to acknowledge the absurdity of the NFT craze. “If the value increases, they could have an extremely valuable fart on their hands,” Ramirez-Mallis commented. “The NFT craze is absurd — this idea of putting a value on something inherently intangible. These NFTs aren’t even farts, they’re just digital alphanumeric strings that represent ownership.” 

  “I’m hoping these NFT farts can at once critique [the absurdity], make people laugh and make me rich,” he said. Ah, yes, the American dream. Getting rich selling audio of your farts for a currency that wasn’t even around 10 years ago.

  He continued: “In many ways, this is a bubble, but it’s also been around forever. Buying and selling art purely as a commodity to store value in has been around for centuries, and NFTs are just a digital way of representing that transactional nature of art.” 

  “The art is just an avatar for value. There’s that old saying, ‘Why don’t they just frame the money?’, and this is really the embodiment of that.”

  The “artist’s” friend Grayson Earle commented: “By purchasing an NFT, you become part of the in-crowd of a technological novelty that masquerades as revolutionary but operates in the same tired old way of the existing art market.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 19:20

• Aaugh! A Brief List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus: Taibbi
  Aaugh! A Brief List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus: Taibbi

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News.

  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has released a much-hyped, much-cited new report on “Foreign Threats to the 2020 Elections.” The key conclusion:

  We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, [and] undermining public confidence in the electoral process…

  The report added Ukrainian legislator Andrey Derkach, described as having “ties” to “Russia’s intelligence services,” and Konstantin Kilimnik, a “Russian influence agent” (whatever that means), used “prominent U.S. persons” and “media conduits” to “launder their narratives” to American audiences. The “narratives” included “misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden” (note they didn’t use the word “false”). They added a small caveat at the end: “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

  As Glenn Greenwald already pointed out, the “launder their narratives” passage was wolfed down by our intelligence services’ own “media conduits” here at home, and regurgitated as proof that the “Hunter Biden laptop story came from the Kremlin,” even though the report didn’t mention the laptop story at all. Exactly one prominent reporter, Chris Hayes, had the decency to admit this after advancing the claim initially.

  With regard to the broader assessment: how many times are we going to do this? We’ve spent the last five years watching as anonymous officials make major Russia-related claims, only to have those evidence-free claims fizzle.

  From the much-ballyhooed “changed RNC platform” story (Robert Mueller found no evidence the changed Republican platform was “undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia”), to the notion that Julian Assange was engaged in a conspiracy with the Russians (Mueller found no evidence for this either), to Michael Cohen’s alleged secret meetings in Prague with Russian conspirators (“not true,” the FBI flatly concluded) to the story that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress (“not accurate,” said Mueller), to wild stories about Paul Manafort meeting Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, to a “bombshell” tale about Trump foreknowledge of Wikileaks releases that blew up in CNN’s face in spectacular fashion, reporters for years chased unsubstantiated claims instead of waiting to see what they were based upon.

  The latest report’s chief conclusions are assessments about Derkach and Kilimnik, information that the whole world knew before this report was released. Hell, even Rudy Giuliani, whose meeting with Derkach is supposedly the big scandal here, admitted there was a “50/50 chance” the guy was a Russian spy. Kilimnik meanwhile has now been characterized as having “ties” to Russian intelligence (Mueller), as a “Russian intelligence officer” (Senate Intelligence Committee), and is now back to being a mere “influence agent.” If he is Russian intelligence, then John McCain’s International Republican Institute (where Kilimnik worked), as well as embassies in Kiev and Moscow (where Kilimnik regularly gave information, according to the New York Times), have a lot of explaining to do.

  No matter what, the clear aim of this report is to cast certain stories about Joe or Hunter Biden as misinformation, when the evidence more likely shows that material like the Hunter Biden emails is real, just delivered from a disreputable source. That makes such stories just like, say, the Joe Biden-Petro Poroshenko tapes, which were also pushed by Derkach and reported on uncontroversially by major media outlets like the Washington Post, before it became fashionable to denounce outlets reporting such leaks as Russian “proxies” and “conduits.”

  I never thought the Hunter Biden laptop story was anywhere near as big of a deal as the efforts by platforms like Facebook and Twitter to block access to it, which seemed a historic and dangerous precedent. This new effort to cast the reporting of “allegations against President Biden” as participation in a foreign intelligence campaign is nearly as ominous. Even worse is the degree to which press figures are devouring the message. Will any bother to point out the huge quantity of recent official takes on the Russia story that went pear-shaped? A very, very brief sample:

  1. All 17 U.S. intelligence agencies backed an assessment that cyberattacks in 2016 came from the “highest levels of the Kremlin.” That was later corrected in congressional testimony to four (it was actually three):

  

  2. The Trump organization was communicating with Russia via a mysterious server tied to Russia’s Alfa Bank. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted the FBI concluded “by early February 2017 that there were no such links,” yet stories pegged to anonymous intel officials persisted for years after that.

  3. Russia “hacked a Vermont utility,” according to U.S. officials! Except, the next day:

     

  4. Four “current and former American officials,” citing a “trove of information the FBI is sifting through,” said the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials.” Months later:

  

  5. A “senior U.S. government official” characterized the ex-spy who claimed Russia had been cultivating Donald Trump for at least five years, and could “blackmail him,” was “a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.” But Christopher Steele was subsequently dismissed as an FBI source for his “completely untrustworthy” decision to talk to the media, and Horowitz not only discovered that both the FBI and the CIA (who dismissed his reports as “internet rumor”) had many reservations about his credibility, but that his famed “blackmail” claims about pee and prostitutes had been made in “jest,” over “beers.”

  6. Former Trump adviser Carter Page was a “catalyst” for the FBI investigation into connections between Donald Trump and Russia, according to “current and former law enforcement and counterintelligence officials.” Similarly, the New York Times cited court documents in describing George Papadopoulos: “Trump Campaign Adviser Met With Russian to Discuss ‘Dirt’ on Clinton.”

     But Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified that as early as August of 2016, Page became the focus of secret surveillance because Papadopoulos had been deemed a dead end. This scarcely reported detail only rendered the entire predicate for the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation absurd:

  

  7. Jeff Sessions did not disclose contacts with a Russian ambassador in a security clearance form, Justice Department sources told multiple outlets, in what became a major, front-page scandal. Except it came out later he didn’t have to make those disclosures, and as for the contacts themselves? “Brief, public, and non-substantive,” said Robert Mueller.

  8. “Senior FBI and national intelligence officials” told the White House and major news outlets that releasing the name of an “informant” in the Trump-Russia investigation could “risk lives,” one of many such stories (we heard similar warnings before the release of the name of Christopher Steele, his source Igor Danchenko, the “exfiltrated spy” Oleg Smolenkov, the “anonymous” New York Times editorialist, the Ukraine “whistleblower,” and others). The “informant” Haspel warned about, Stefan Halper, turned out to have been a professor outed by name as an intelligence source in the New York Times all the way back in 1983:

  

  9. “Current and former intelligence officers” told the New York Times that CIA director Gina Haspel showed Donald Trump pictures of British children sickened, as well as ducks killed, by a Russian assassination in England using the deadly nerve agent Novichok. It turns out there were no such sick children or dead ducks, and Haspel didn’t show such pictures, an error the Times chalked up to lack of research time:

  

  10. According to “officials briefed on the matter,” New York Times reported, and the Washington Post “confirmed,” that “a Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan.” Two months later, an on-the-record military official was less certain:

  

  One could go on and on with this list, from the bogus claims about Maria Butina that ended up as Times headlines (“Suspected Secret Agent Used Sex in Covert Plan”), to overhype of the Cambridge Analytica story (which turned out to have nothing to do with Brexit), to the bass-ackwards denunciations of the so-called “Nunes memo” (validated almost entirely by Horowitz), and on, and on.

  Does this mean the Russians don’t meddle? Of course not. But we have to learn to separate real stories about foreign intelligence operations with posturing used to target domestic actors while suppressing criticism of domestic politicians. It’s only happened about a hundred times in the last five years — maybe it’s time to start asking for proof in these episodes?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 19:00

• 'Nothing Can Help Them' – Trials Begin For Canadians Accused Of Spying In China
  ‘Nothing Can Help Them’ – Trials Begin For Canadians Accused Of Spying In China

  A long-awaited show trial for one of two Canadians accused of espionage in China started Friday, as family members of the men say they are prepared for the worst, according to media reports. According to Bloomberg, a hearing was held at a local court in Dandong city (situated in the northeastern province of Liaoning) in the trial of Michael Spavor on allegations of spying. Spavor ran a business organizing tours of North Korea for mostly western clients before he was picked up by Chinese law enforcement back in late 2018.

  Trials for both men are set to begin Friday (for Spavor) and Monday (for Michael Kovrig, a former Canadian diplomat who has also been accused of spying). The two Canadians have been detained since December 2018 and were charged in June last year with spying. In a Thursday statement, Marc Garneau, Canada’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, said the country’s embassy in Beijing “has been notified that court hearings for Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are scheduled to take place on March 19 and March 22, respectively.”

  

  Kovrig, a former Canadian diplomat who worked for the International Crisis Group at the time of his arrest, has been accused of “stealing sensitive information and intelligence through contacts in China since 2017.” Spavor has been accused of providing intelligence to Kovrig. It’s not clear whether the two men knew each other prior to their arrests.

  Chinese officials haven’t shared any of the “evidence” they have gathered against the two men, or information detailing their alleged crimes, though they insist that “the facts are clear and evidence is solid.”

  Both men were arrested shortly after Canadian authorities arrested Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou after she stepped off a plane in Vancouver. Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, a high-profile figure in China, was arrested at the behest of US authorities, who sought her extradition to the US to face charges that she violated US sanctions against Iran.

  The arrests were widely seen as political retribution against Ottawa for cooperating with the US. However, while Meng has been allowed out on bail (she’s currently under house arrest in her opulent home) while she awaits the results of her extradition proceedings – which are still ongoing – both men have been detained in Chinese prisons, will little contact with their families or the outside world.

  Family members and contacts of the two Canadian men have described them being held in poor conditions, and denied outside contact. Almost all in-person consular visits to foreign prisoners in China have been paused since last year due to the coronavirus pandemic. Since then, diplomats have only been allowed to speak to the men via phone.

  Teng Biao, a lawyer who practiced human rights law in China for 10 years, and now lives in exile in New Jersey, told Canada’s the Toronto Star that the two men have almost no chance of being found innocent. They will face a “show trial” driven by political considerations, before being handed potentially lengthy prison sentences, to be served in China.

  “In this kind of politically sensitive case the judges, the court, are not able to make the final decision,” Teng said. “We can say in these kinds of cases the court is only a political tool of the Chinese Communist Party.”

  Criminal trials in China are generally very short, often lasting only a day or two, said Teng, and won’t be open to the public.

  After Kovrig and Spavor were charged with espionage last year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denounced the “political” nature of their case, saying their detention was a “decision made by the Chinese government and we deplore it.” However, Beijing has held strong, continuing to insist that the charges against the men are legitimate, while denying Trudeau’s claims that the CCP is persecuting Canadian nationals for political purposes.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 18:40

• Buchanan: Do We Not Have Enough Enemies?
  Buchanan: Do We Not Have Enough Enemies?

  Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

  Asked bluntly by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos if he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a killer,” Joe Biden answered, “Uh, I do.”

  Biden added that he once told Putin to his face that he had “no soul.”

  Biden also indicated that new sanctions would be imposed on Russia for the poisoning of dissident Alexei Navalny and for meddling in the 2020 U.S. election to allegedly help Donald Trump. Russia also faces U.S. sanctions for building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic to deliver natural gas to Germany.

  With its president being called a “killer” by the U.S. president, Russia called Ambassador Anatoly Antonov home “for consultations.” In other times, such an exchange would bring the two nations to the brink of war.

  What is Biden doing? Do we not have enough enemies? Does he not have enough problems on his plate?

  

  The May 1 deadline for full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, negotiated a year ago with the Taliban, is just six weeks off. Do we stay and soldier on or depart? No decision has been announced.

  If we stay, our forces in Afghanistan could, again, come under fire. If we leave, the Kabul regime could be shaken to its foundation and fall.

  Leaving would be an admission that the U.S. failed, and the war is lost.

  After the recent U.S.-South Korea military exercises, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s sister issued this threat to the Biden administration:

  “We take this opportunity to warn the new U.S. administration trying hard to give off powdered smell in our land (that) if it wants to sleep in peace for the coming four years, it had better refrain from causing a stink at its first step.”

  There is talk of new North Korean tests of missiles and nuclear weapons.

  Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Tokyo this week that the U.S. goal remains “the complete denuclearization of North Korea” But Presidents Bush II, Obama and Trump all failed to achieve that goal.

  With national elections in June, the clock is also running on the Tehran regime that negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal. Does Biden intend to sign on again, as he indicated in the campaign he would, or walk away?

  Biden also faces a new crisis of his own making. His “compassionate” policy on illegal immigration has been rewarded with scores of thousands of children, teenagers and families crossing our Southern border to be granted temporary residence while their cases await hearings.

  With the border disintegrating, one would think the Biden administration would not be looking around for other crises.

  Yet, in Tokyo, on the eve of his meeting with the Chinese in Anchorage, Blinken was playing the hawk:

  “China uses coercion and aggression to systematically erode autonomy in Hong Kong, undercut democracy in Taiwan, abuse human rights in Xinjiang and Tibet, and assert maritime claims in the South China Sea that violate international law. … We will push back if necessary when China uses coercion or aggression to get its way.”

  China has enacted a new law that authorizes its coast guard to use force to defend Chinese sovereignty. And among China’s claims to sovereign control are the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, claimed and controlled by Japan.

  Blinken has warned the U.S. will fight to keep the Senkakus Japanese.

  While in Tokyo, Blinken also denounced the generals’ coup in Myanmar, accusing Myanmar’s army of “attempting to overturn the results of a democratic election and … brutally repressing peaceful protesters.”

  Former national security adviser to President Trump John Bolton has listed other areas where China is engaged in “unacceptable behavior.”

  “A by-no-means-comprehensive list of Beijing’s transgressions that require U.S. attention would include: meddling, blatant and subtle, with U.S. public opinion; building military bases in the disputed South China Sea; menacing Taiwan, Vietnam and India; increasing strategic nuclear forces and egregious global cyberwarfare; empowering North Korea’s nuclear weapons program; concealing the origins of covid-19; stealing intellectual property and forcing technology transfers; and genocide against Uyghurs and the repression of Hong Kong.”

  Perhaps the Anchorage talks can be extended to get all the items on Bolton’s agenda fully addressed.

  Again, does not America have enough on her plate already?

  Our national debt is now larger than our national economy. COVID-19 has killed half a million of us and is killing 1,000 a day more. We have a broken and bleeding Southern border being overrun with no end in sight.

  Politically, our nation is divided as deeply as it was on the eve of the Civil War. We are caught up in a culture war, at the root of which is an irreconcilable conflict over whether America is a good and great country, perhaps the greatest — or a nation of whose history and founding we ought to be eternally ashamed.

  If time is on America’s side in our cold wars with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, is not the wiser policy to maneuver to avoid any new hot wars?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 18:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Mapping The World's Youngest And Oldest Countries
  Mapping The World’s Youngest And Oldest Countries

  Country age demographics are determined by two key factors: fertility and mortality.

  Throughout history, it was typical to see both birth and death rates at higher levels. But today, as Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop details below, in most parts of the world, women are having fewer children, and innovations in healthcare and technology mean we are all living longer. The average person today lives to 72.6 years old, while the rate of births per woman has fallen to 2.5.

  These trends have drastically altered the demographics of mature economies, resulting in a much older population. In many developing countries, however, births still outweigh deaths, resulting in populations that skew younger.

  This visualization uses data from the World Bank to examine the countries with the highest shares of old and young people.

  

  The Fountain of Youth

  By 2030, the United Nations estimates there will be 1.3 billion people on the planet between the ages of 15-24. Proving to be a fountain of youth globally, the continent of Africa boasts the top 10 countries with the largest shares of young people in the world.

  Somalia, Zambia, and the DRC are just a few to crack the top 10 list. The youngest country in the world is Niger, where almost 50% of the population is below the age of 15.

  Here’s a full list of global countries, sorted by percentage of population under 15 years old:

  

  Young countries have significant opportunities ahead of them. A younger population means a larger upcoming workforce and more opportunities for innovation and economic growth.

  While domestic markets in Africa grow in terms of labor supply, innovation, and potential consumers, there are also challenges that arise in these countries. Corruption, political instability and unemployment, particularly in Africa, are all potential barriers to prosperity for the continent’s Gen Z population.

  Populations Skewing Older

  The world’s oldest country is Japan, where 28% of the population is older than 65. However, it’s an anomaly – the rest of the oldest countries in the top 10 are all in Europe.

  Globally, it’s the 65+ age group that is growing the fastest. According to the same UN estimates, it is predicted that by 2050 that one in six people will be over 65 years old.

  Here’s a full list of global countries, sorted by percentage of population over 65 years old:

  

  Fewer births, and a resulting older population, is a trend attributed to the changing lifestyles of women. For example, Japan’s fertility rate has fallen to less than 1.5 children per woman due to modern access to contraceptives and the prioritization of work over marriage and family life.

  However, fewer young people also means a smaller workforce on the horizon and a shrinking domestic market. There is also a rising social cost of caring for the elderly, as longer lifespans have resulted in a higher prevalence of chronic diseases and an increasing inability to care for oneself. This can result in an increased tax burden on the diminishing younger, working population.

  Another Perspective on the Data

  Looking at the data from the opposite angle also reveals information about our world. Here’s a look at the countries with the lowest proportions of younger or older people.

  

  Hong Kong and Singapore have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world (1.1), so it’s no surprise to see low numbers of children in their demographic data.

  In a country like the United Arab Emirates, the majority of the population is made up of foreign workers, so the number of people in the 65+ age group is extremely low. In the coming decades though, the situation is expected to shift dramatically with one in every five Emiratis residing that age group by 2050.

  The Big Picture

  While each country has its own unique demographic make up, one thing is clear. As education and wealth levels rise around the world, fertility rates are dropping almost everywhere.

  The trend of long life expectancies and fewer births is likely to continue, but young outliers will remain and they present immense economic potential.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 02:45

• Is Turkey Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Or Not?
  Is Turkey Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Or Not?

  Authored by ThomasSt exclusively for SouthFront,

  It is very likely that some analysts will answer in the negative to the above question.

  

  Their negative answer is mainly based on the following:

  1. Turkey is a NATO member, and there are 50 US B-61 nuclear bombs stored on its territory, at Incirlik Air Base.

  2. Turkey is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and has ratified the Treaty on the Complete Prohibition of Nuclear Testing.

  

  Photo Source: fas.org

  However, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is “very close” to nuclear Pakistan, which likes to share nuclear technology. Turkish environmentalists also point to the paradox that Erdogan’s nuclear program is wasteful and largely unnecessary.

  At the same time, there are four very important indications, which may lead us to the conclusion that Turkey is advancing day and night its ultimate goal of becoming a nuclear power. These are:

  President Erdogan openly says he wants the bomb.

  In the autumn of 2019, Turkey complained to the UN General Assembly that the NPT prohibits countries like Turkey from developing nuclear weapons, but is unaware that other states have. He went on to say that nuclear weapons are a huge source of strength for Israel.

  Earlier, he told members of the Justice and Development Party that “some countries have nuclear warheads, not one or two, but they tell us we can’t have them. I cannot accept that.”

  Turkey’s Nuclear Energy Program does not make its energy independent.

  Under the plan, along the Turkish Mediterranean coast, the Russians are building four large civilian nuclear reactors at the Akkuyu nuclear facility. Erdogan hopes the Russians will complete the first reactor by 2023, in time for the centennial celebration of modern Turkey foundation. Ankara says it needs nuclear energy to reduce its dependence on gas imports from unreliable partners – Russia and Iran – and to meet electricity demand. This demand has grown at the highest rate of all OECD countries since 2005.

  

  The following is an indication of Turkey’s energy demand:

  • Turkey’s daily electricity consumption rose 16% to record 908,395 megawatt-hours (MWh) in early July, according to official data from the Turkish Electricity Transmission Company (TEIAŞ).

  • The majority of production came from natural gas units at 216,331 MWh. Hydroelectric power stations and imported coal followed with 199,943 MWh and 188,980 MWh, respectively.

  • President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey has nearly tripled its installed capacity from about 31,000 MW to more than 91,000 MW by 2020.

  • The country has an annual increase in installed capacity of more than 6% among the OECD countries.

  • Turkey ranks first among all OECD countries with this increase in production capacity, according to Energy and Natural Resources Minister Fatih Dönmez.

  • In the first five months of 2020, Turkey increased electricity production from domestic and renewable sources to 66%. The country ranks second in Europe in the production of electricity based on renewable resources.

  

  Launch of construction of the third block of Akkuyu. Photo Source: Sputnik

  Nevertheless, the Akkuyu nuclear plant does not make Turkey any less dependent on external powers. Russia will own and operate the facility and, in fact, the Akkuyu plant is not a so good investment.

  While ROSATOM, Russia’s state-owned nuclear power plant, “pays the bill” for the first reactor, it will not do the same for the other three Akkuyu reactors. Despite many years of searching for private investors, no one was found for this project. To complete Akkuyu, the Turkish government will have to finance it through foreign investment which are constantly decreasing or through public debt.

  If President Erdogan had seen the energy market, he would have known that gas and renewable energy were hitting nuclear power. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Turkey imported gas for a fragment of the price of electricity of the Akkuyu plant – an unprofitable price of 12.35 cents per kilowatt hour.

  

  But Erdogan wants both. He also wants the natural gas, which he is trying to steal from Cyprus-Greece-Libya with the well-known accusations and completely illegal actions, such as the completely non-existent Turkish-Libyan pact, but also the foolish things he guesses in relation to International Law, that islands do not have an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). He also wants nuclear weapons, since an objective observer must wonder why the country’s poor economies did not weaken Erdogan’s nuclear ambitions.

  

  Acquiring more gas will allow Turkey to meet its electricity demand today, as it stands, 10% of Turkish electricity comes from solar and wind energy sources. One of Turkey’s leading universities recently stated that these sources could cover 30% of Turkey’s electricity demand by 2026, given the appropriate investment.

  The coverage of nuclear energy for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

  What is particularly worrying is that Turkey could use nuclear energy as a cover for the supply of technology and material related to the construction of nuclear weapons. The transfer of technology is already taking place.

  Since the Akkuyu project began, Turkish engineering students have become the second largest national nuclear science team in Russia. Let’s see something similar. As Russia builds an Iranian civilian power plant in Bushehr, side deals have led to the transfer of equipment and the exchange of scientists who helped Iran acquire its nuclear weapons program.

  Many experts argue that the case of Turkey is not the same as that of Iran, as the former has signed an additional protocol agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening the country to closer inspections than Iran to prevent military nuclear of fissile materials into weapons.

  However, we must point out that fuel is not the only problem, as UN inspectors cannot go into detail about “monitoring intangible technology and dual-use transport” that is critical to the development of nuclear weapons.

  Close cooperation between Turkey and Pakistan.

  Erdogan is militarily cooperating with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, a country not close to the Turkish border. For decades, Turkish-Pakistani relations have been warm but superficial.

  

  ANKARA, TURKEY – JANUARY 04: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (R) shakes hands with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan (L) as they pose for a photo following their joint press conference at the Presidential Complex in Ankara, Turkey on January 04, 2019. ( Halil Sağırkaya – Anadolu Agency )

  Since 2018, Erdogan has significantly strengthened these ties. Last year, he addressed a joint session of the Pakistani parliament for the fourth time, passionately supporting Pakistan’s position in the Kashmir dispute. Not only has Erdogan suddenly become keenly interested in Kashmir, but he is providing the Pakistani military with sophisticated weapons.

  Just two years ago, Turkey won its largest defense contract ever, a multi-billion dollar contract to build four large naval vessels for the Pakistan Navy. In addition, a Turkish company is building Pakistan’s largest domestic warship in Karachi.

  Turkey is also upgrading Pakistani Agosta 90B Class submarines, selling T129 attack helicopters and maintenance and modernization of the PAF’s F-16s. Overall, only China is Pakistan’s largest military supplier.

  Erdogan’s current influence in Islamabad exceeds that of North Korea, Iran and Libya, which have received nuclear aid from Pakistan.

  The Turkish plan.

  Turkey thirsts for energy. Its moves regarding the Cyprus-Greek and Libyan EEZ are aimed at embezzling the gas and oil it needs in order to meet its energy needs and its goal to become a major regional power.

  The acquisition of nuclear weapons is one of its goals and it is trying to achieve it day and night under the tolerance-weakness of the previous Trump administration, the always opportunistic Putin and the weak military and politically reluctant EU.

  The future of Greek-Turkish relations is one-way and leads to war, since the interests of Turkey, as I mentioned above, demand illegal actions on Greek and Cyprus’ EEZs and the natural gas and oil fields that are within it.

  The purpose of the exploratory contacts on the part of Turkey is to give it the time it needs to secure its backs militarily from Greece and in fact with the intervention of the EU, while claiming that it can gain through dialogue.

  At the same time, it will deploy a large part of its naval forces and a significant part of its air force in Libya in order to equip its air and naval base there, making it a protectorate and exploiting its oil and gas, but also conducting research for possible offshore deposits, within the Libyan and Greek EEZ, implementing the completely unacceptable Turkish-Libyan memorandum.

  One hopes that the US-EU will block Turkey’s path to acquiring nuclear weapons and the rest of its plans that were mentioned above.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 02:00

• The Inside Story Of How Pentagon Leaders Sabotaged Trump's Afghan Withdrawal
  The Inside Story Of How Pentagon Leaders Sabotaged Trump’s Afghan Withdrawal

  Authored by Gareth Porter via TheGrayZone.com,

  In an exclusive interview with The Grayzone Col. Douglas Macgregor, a former senior advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, revealed that President Donald Trump shocked the US military only days after the election last November by signing a presidential order calling for the withdrawal of all remaining US troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.

  As Macgregor explained to The Grayzone, the order to withdraw was met with intense pressure from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark M. Milley, which caused the president to capitulate. Trump agreed to withdraw only half of the 5,000 remaining troops in the country. Neither Trump’s order nor the pressure from the JCS Chairman was reported by the national media at the time.

  

  The president’s surrender represented the Pentagon’s latest victory in a year-long campaign to sabotage the US-Taliban peace agreement signed in February 2020. Military and DOD leaders thus extended the disastrous and unpopular 20-year US war in Afghanistan into the administration of President Joseph Biden. 

  A peace agreement the Pentagon was determined to subvert

  The subversion of the peace agreement with the Taliban initiated by the US military leadership in Washington and Afghanistan began almost as soon as Trump’s personal envoy Zalmay Khalilzad negotiated a tentative deal in November 2019. The campaign to undermine presidential authority was actively supported by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

  In February 2020, under heavy pressure to amend the agreement, Trump ordered Khalilzad to deliver the Taliban an ultimatum: agree to a full ceasefire as a prelude to a broader peace deal, including peace negotiations with the Afghan government, or the deal was off. The Taliban refused the immediate ceasefire with Kabul, however, offering instead a “reduction in violence” for seven days to establish a conducive atmosphere for implementing the peace agreement that had already been fleshed out in detail. It then gave the US its own ultimatum: if the US refused the offer, its negotiators would walk away from the table.

  To salvage the deal, Khalilzad agreed to the Taliban proposal for a one-week “reduction of violence” by both sides. The adversaries reached further understandings on what such a “reduction in violence” would mean: the Taliban agreed there would be no attacks on population centers and Afghan stationary military targets, but reserved the right to attack government convoys if they exploited the reduction to seize control of new areas.

  The US-Taliban peace agreement signed on February 29 called for a withdrawal of US troops from the country in two stages. First, the US agreed to reduce its troop levels to 8600 within 4.5 months and remove forces from five military bases ahead of a final withdrawal that would take place in May 2021. Second, the US and its allies pledged to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan or intervening in its domestic affairs.”

  The Taliban promised in turn that it would “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”

  Those two commitments obliged US and Taliban forces not to attack each other. The agreement also specified that the Taliban would enter into “intra-Afghan negotiations on March 10, 2020, after the two Afghan parties were to have exchanged prisoners.”

  They also required the Taliban to keep al-Qaeda personnel out of Afghanistan – a pledge the Taliban Military Commission appeared to implement last month when it issued an order to all commanders forbidding them from “bringing foreign nationals into their ranks or giving them shelter.”

  But the pact did not provide for the immediate ceasefire between Taliban and Afghan government forces which the U.S. military and Pentagon demanded. Instead “a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire” was to be negotiated between the two Afghan parties.

  With startling swiftness and determination, Pentagon officials and military leadership exploited the open-ended terms of the ceasefire to derail the implementation of the agreement.

  Secretary of Defense Esper claimed the peace deal allowed the US military to defend Afghan forces, blatantly contradicting the agreement’s text. He then pledged to come to the defense of the Afghan government if the Taliban began mounting attacks on its forces, setting the stage for American violations on the ground.

  Esper’s promise of continued US military support, made public in Congressional testimony days later, gave the Afghan government a clear incentive to refuse any concessions to the Taliban. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani promptly refused to go ahead with a promised prisoner exchange until formal negotiations with the Taliban had begun.

  The Taliban responded by initiating a series of attacks on government troops at checkpoints in contested areas. The US military command in Afghanistan responded with an airstrike against Taliban forces engaged in one of those operations in Helmand province. US officials said privately that the airstrike was “a message to the Taliban” to continue what they described as the “reduction in violence commitment they had agreed…”

  The combination of Esper’s assurance to the Afghan government and the US airstrike showed the hand of the Pentagon and military leadership. It was clear they had no intention of passively accepting a deal to withdraw the remaining US personnel from Afghanistan, and would do whatever they could to unravel it.

  Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of the Central Command, further highlighted the Pentagon’s opposition to the deal when he declared in congressional testimony that troop withdrawals would be determined by “conditions on the ground.” In other words, it was up to the judgment of military commanders, rather than the terms of the agreement, to determine when US troops would be withdrawn.

  Shaping a false narrative on the agreement

  The military’s plan to sabotage the agreement hinged on creating the false impression that the Taliban had reneged on its commitments. This ruse was advanced mostly publicly by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper.

  In an interview with CBS News, Pompeo mentioned “a detailed set of commitments that the Taliban have made about the levels of violence that can occur…” But that was a deliberate obfuscation. Though the Taliban had agreed to the seven-day “reduction in violence,” it did not apply to the peace agreement signed on February 29, 2020.

  On March 2, Esper told reporters, “This is a conditions-based agreement…. We’re watching the Taliban’s actions closely to assess whether they are upholding their commitments.” That same day, US commander in Afghanistan Gen. Scott Miller stated through a spokesman on Twitter, “The United States has been very clear about our expectations — the violence must remain low.”

  Once again, the Pentagon and the US command were dictating conditions to the Taliban outside the actual written terms of the peace agreement.

  Watch the US media start to do hit jobs on Trump’s new Pentagon hire Col. Douglas Macgregor – because he wants to withdraw US troops from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. Leave it to @CNN to get the ball rolling. https://t.co/GLA4ffaqJV

  — Sharmine Narwani (@snarwani) November 15, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Pentagon and military command’s ploy was advanced through a story leaked to the New York Times and published on March 8. Below the headline, “A Secret Accord With the Taliban: When and How the US Would Leave Afghanistan,” the story referred to two “secret annexes” to deceptively suggest that the agreements reached with the Taliban were not fully reflected in the publicly available text.

  The Times’ ploy recalled the national hysteria the paper triggered last summer when it legitimized an Afghan intelligence fraud by publishing a series of lengthy articles claiming Russia had paid Taliban fighters bounties for dead American service members. Indeed, the “secret annexes” story was simply the latest political deception deployed by the Pentagon to torpedo plans for a US withdrawal.

  Despite the article’s assertion that the two documents “lay out the specific understandings between the United States and the Taliban,” the only specific reference in the story to any such understanding mentioned “commitments from the Taliban not to attack American forces during a withdrawal.” However, that explicit commitment was missing from the actual terms of the published accord.

  As the Times acknowledged in its article, when Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley appeared before the House Armed Services Committee just three days before the agreement was signed, both were asked about any “side deals with the Taliban.” Neither said they were aware of any unpublished agreements. Pompeo, who also denied the existence of any “side deals” with the Taliban, referred to them as “military implementation documents.”

  The evidence clearly indicated that the so-called “secret annexes” were, in fact, internal US documents on US policy related to the agreement.

  In April 2020, the Taliban accused the United States of flagrantly violating the deal, citing 50 attacks by US and Afghan forces between March 9 and April 10, including 33 drone attacks and 8 night raids by Special Operations forces. By the summer, as the Taliban stepped up attacks on government checkpoints in areas bordering territory under their control, US forces in Afghanistan and the Defense Department informed the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) that the orders to Afghan government forces allowed them to preemptively strike Taliban positions.

  The war thus returned to the situation that prevailed before the agreement was signed and the peace deal was effectively shattered.

  Meanwhile, the US military continued to accuse the Taliban of failing to adhere to the agreement. In July, the US government-run Voice of America reported that McKenzie had “told VOA the Taliban has not kept up their commitments agreed to in the U.S.-Taliban peace deal, leading to one of the ‘most violent’ periods of the war in Afghanistan.”

  Reversing a presidential order for withdrawal

  Following Trump’s defeat in the November 2020 presidential election, and after fashioning the strategy to sabotage the Afghan peace agreement, Esper, McKenzie and Miller agreed on a memorandum from the “chain of command” warning Trump against further withdrawal from Afghanistan until “conditions” had been met. These terms included a “reduction in violence” and “progress at the negotiating table.”

  Trump reacted to the memo with outrage, swiftly firing Esper on November 9. He replaced him with Christopher Miller, the former head of the US counter-terrorism center who agreed with Trump on withdrawal from Afghanistan.

  That same day, Trump asked Col. Douglas Macgregor to serve as Miller’s “senior adviser.” Macgregor was an outspoken advocate of withdrawal from Afghanistan and a harsh critic of other US wars in the Middle East, from Iraq to Syria. During a January 2020 interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Macgregor blasted Pentagon leadership for its failure to find a path out of Afghanistan.

  Once inside the Pentagon, Macgregor immediately took on the task of enabling a rapid and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Just how close Trump came to withdrawing all US troops before leaving office had not been reported until now. Macgregor recounted the episode to The Grayzone.

  Tucker & Col. Macgregor Expose The Real Goal In Afghanistan

  Macgregor: “We have a globalist ruling elite in Washington D.C…& they’ve decided that wherever we can, we should always intervene. We’ve institutionalized interventionism & today’s interventions can never end.” pic.twitter.com/xd9yhNVHrS

  — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) March 6, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to Macgregor, he met Miller on November 10 and told him that a pullout from Afghanistan could only be accomplished by a formal presidential order. Later that day, Macgregor dictated the language of such an order to the White House by phone.

  The draft order stated that all uniformed military personnel would be withdrawn from Afghanistan no later than December 31, 2020. Macgregor told the staffer to get a National Security Presidential Memorandum from the White House files to ensure that it was published in the correct format.

  Macgregor’s White House contact informed him in the morning of November 11 that Trump had read the memorandum and immediately signed it. On November 12, however, he learned that Trump had met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, national security adviser Robert O’Brien and Acting Secretary Miller. Trump was told that the orders he placed in the memorandum could not be executed, according to Macgregor’s White House contact.

  Milley argued that a withdrawal would harm the chances of negotiating a final peace settlement and that continued US presence in Afghanistan had “bipartisan support,” Macgregor was informed. Later that night, Macgregor learned that Trump had agreed to withdraw only half the total, 2500 troops. Trump had once again given in to military pressure, as he did repeatedly on Syria.

  The maneuvering by the Pentagon to obstruct the Trump administration’s initiative to end an extremely unpopular war in Afghanistan was just one example in a long-established pattern of undermining presidential authority over matters of war and peace.

  When he was Vice-President, Joe Biden witnessed firsthand the pressures the Pentagon brass imposed on Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan. With the peace agreement’s May 1 deadline for final US withdrawal just weeks away, Biden is certain to face another round of maximum pressure to keep US troops in the quagmire of Afghanistan, supposedly as “leverage” on the Taliban.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 03/19/2021 – 00:00

• These Are The Most And Least Expensive Cities For American Homebuyers
  These Are The Most And Least Expensive Cities For American Homebuyers

  With interest rates expected to remain low for the foreseeable future (as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell re-affirmed Wednesday), and millions of people adjusting to the prospect of working from home permanently, Americans are eager to compare various housing markets, as ‘Zoom Towns’ pop up across the US, and prospective homebuyers reassess where they might consider settling down.

  

  In a recent study, AdvisorSmith used census data to create a weighted average housing price for each city, then adjusted it to relative to average local incomes to determine which cities are the most “affordable” in the US, or as AdvisorSmith explains: “This factor for each city provides insight into the ability of home buyers to earn income that will allow them to afford their homes.”

  Using data from more than 590 metropolitan statistical areas, AdvisorSmith ranked cities by affordability, then separated them by home size.

  They segmented the cities into small (population less than 100,000), midsize (population 100,000 to 350,000), and large (population above 350,000) cities to provide a comparison of cities with more similar characteristics.

  

  In addition to the most affordable cities, they also found the least affordable cities, and segmented those by size.

  

  Unsurprisingly, many of the most “affordable” cities were situated in the Midwest. Notably, Flint, Mich., which is still recovering from a deadly water crisis, was one of the highest on the list of most affordable.

  

  Meanwhile, California dominated the rankings for least-affordable cities.

  

  This raises some interesting questions, like: could the work-from-home boom help revive old rust-belt cities? As more businesses inform employees of their plans, it’s a trend that will be closely watched.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 23:40

• Making Sense Of China's Two Sessions
  Making Sense Of China’s Two Sessions

  By Raphie Hayat of Rabobank

  Summary:

  • The Two Sessions meetings in China have recently concluded and the outline of the 14th Five Year Plan has been approved. 

  • The overarching aim of China’s plans, in our view, is self-reliance.

  • Essentially, China wants to become less dependent on other countries, while keeping countries dependent on China (using its huge domestic market as leverage).

  • China sees that its previous credit and investment driven growth model is cracking and that the external environment is getting more hostile.

  • Technological advancement is viewed as a sort of master key that will unlock the door to sustained economic growth, as well as the door to being less dependent on foreign technologies in strategic areas, such as semiconductor production.

  • Unlocking both doors might prove to be quite challenging, however, as (i) achieving technological advancement is easier said than done and (ii) China’s policies to achieve economic growth that is less credit-driven and more technology-driven, while also reducing debt and maintaining financial and domestic stability, has inherent trade-offs.

  • China’s attempt to have it all could ultimately backfire, forcing the country to return to some of its old growth model, with even higher debt levels as a result.

  • When push comes to shove, we believe China will sacrifice growth for resilience and deleveraging for domestic stability.

  The Two Sessions conclude

  China’s annual Two Sessions meetings, during which the government budget and an outline of China’s 14th Five Year Plan (FYP) was approved, concluded on 12 March. In this report, we catch our readers up on what the main short and long-term goals of China are, whether we believe it will be able to achieve them and what practical ramifications this might have.

  The outline of the FYP indicates that China’s has a clear desire to become more self-reliant, in areas ranging from food to technology, albeit with a focus on the latter. It has defined various targets to increase spending on R&D and basic research. In addition, key manufacturing areas and technologies in which China wants to excel have been identified.

  Economic growth remains important, but high economic growth does not seem to be as important as it once was. An indication of this reduced importance is the observation that there is no explicit GDP growth target for the coming five years (although there is one for this year, namely “more than 6%”).

  Financial stability and reducing public and private debt have become more prominent goals, and monetary and fiscal stimulus look set to be scaled back somewhat. However, scaling back stimulus may not rhyme with maintaining financial stability. China’s corporate and real estate sector are very indebted, so there is a significant risk in our view of tightening too much, thereby initiating a debt crisis. Although this is not our base case, Chinese policy makers may have to tread a fine line.

  Reducing public debt also contrasts with China’s plans of investing in key manufacturing areas and “frontline technologies”, or its social plans. Of course, part of that is included in the fiscal budget, but given the modesty of the targeted budget (3.2% of GDP) we think the risk of exceeding it is high, especially since achieving the level of excellence required in the key technological areas is no easy feat. China has not been able to pull that off in, for example, semiconductors despite years of R&D expenditures of more than 2% of GDP. In addition, China’s plans to increase efficiency and productivity while also increasing domestic manufacturing in strategic areas will likely prove contradictory. Also, China ambitions to reduce CO2 output will likely contrast with economic growth in provinces dependent on coal production. Finally, China’s stance on sovereignty issues (Hong Kong and Taiwan) will not help China’s desire to maintaining cordial international trade relations.

  In short, like any other economy, China faces a number of trade-offs, although we believe some of these tangents can become quite pressing. In the next chapters, we delve more deeply into various aspects of China’s economy and how they relate to its short and long-term plans.

  

  Government debt

  The coronavirus has not let China off the hook in terms of increasing debt. Despite the headlines about China’s modest fiscal stimulus during the corona crisis, government debt in China has increased pretty much in line with the G10 since 2020 (figure 1), from 53% of GDP to 65% in 2020. To an extent, this could be because government stimulus was not branded as specific stimulus to fight the economic effects of the coronavirus while it likely was used for that purpose.

  Together with public, household, non-financial corporate and financial corporate debt, that brings China’s total debt load to 335% of GDP in 2020, up from 301% in 2019 (figure 2). Thus, China, just like other major economies in the world, is walking away from the corona crisis with a sizable increase in its debt-load, which was already high in comparison to other countries to start with.

  

  That means China’s economy is more vulnerable to downturns in future. For the government it also means that fewer of its revenues can be used to finance social expenditures and investments as the share of revenues taken up by interest payments has increased as well.

  Interest costs are not a big part of the government’s revenue, but they have doubled in the past five years, from 1.8% in 2015 to 4% in 2020, even though the yield on 10 year Chinese government bonds was (om average) higher in 2015 than in 2020 (3.4% vs 2.9%). Admittedly, this is not necessarily a big problem for China. However, the problem will more likely grow than it will shrink, unless Chinese government bond yields or debt decline over the coming years.

  

  Another important implication here is that the Chinese government might choose to finance public expenditure more via channels that are not officially counted as public debt, such as Local Government Financing Vehicles (see the next chapter for a discussion). The consequence could be that China’s meets its official fiscal deficit target of 3.2% of GDP, while its actual fiscal deficit (and with it public debt) might still increase.

  Moreover, foreign investors have significantly increased their purchases of Chinese government and corporate bonds in recent years. Although it is still modest in overall terms (15% of GDP), one can argue that it does make it more vulnerable to any swings in global market sentiment.

  Corporate debt

  The biggest contributor to China’s overall debt load is corporate debt. Corporate debt has jumped from an already staggering 149% of GDP in 2019 to 165% in 2020 (figure 6). Moreover, corporate defaults are on the rise. Chinese corporate bond defaults have almost doubled between January 2019 and February 2021, from 1.1% of their outstanding par value to 2%3.

  Unsurprisingly, the spread between AAA and BBB corporate bonds has risen as well and now stands at 14.9%, the highest level since our data goes back (figure 7). So clearly, financial markets are expecting more defaults for weakly rated corporates in China, a development we previously highlighted here.

  Rising default risks for the corporate sector have important implications for government debt as well. The distinction between corporate and government debt in China is much less clear cut than in most developed countries.

  Specifically, part of corporate debt could be considered public debt if implicit government guarantees are included. A big part of local government financing for example, is done via so called Local Government Financing Vehicles (LGFVs). LGFVs are used to issue bonds by local governments to finance specific projects (such as a real estate or infrastructure project). LGFVs are not counted as public debt, but are believed to have a strong implicit government backing, and as such should be counted as public debt according to the IMF.

  That means China’s public debt is potentially much higher (92% of GDP according the IMF) than the official figure. However, we note China’s the overall debt figure does not change despite the reclassification because overall debt figures (such as those compiled by the Institute of International Finance, IIF) include corporate as well as government debt. IIF currently includes LGFV financing as corporate debt, while the IMF counts it as government debt. Although financial markets know, to a certain extent, that China’s government debt might be higher than official figures suggest, an official reclassification of corporate debt as government debt could have implications for China’s perceived sovereign risk.

  

  More generally, China’s high overall debt load makes its corporates as well its government more vulnerable to economic shocks, government finances become less flexible as a larger part of the governments revenues are used for debt service. Moreover, the taxes that will have to be raised in the future to repay the government debt create inefficiencies (welfare losses).

  Finally, since capital is limited, government borrowing can crowd out private borrowing (they both compete for the same limited amount of capital), this can leave firms investing less. Given that private investments are more likely to be in productive assets than government investments, this would hurt productivity and economic growth. For the interested reader, here is an overview of studies that show how high debt levels negatively affect economic growth.

  Real estate

  Against the backdrop of high debt levels, the real estate sector warrants a special mention because of its importance to the Chinese economy. China’s top banking regulator (Guo Shuqing) has openly stated that he is worried about risk of a bubble in the Chinese property market. Moreover, the Work Report presented during the Two Sessions mentions that China wants to “keep the prices of land and housing as well as market expectations stable”. So it is clear that the government wants to do so something about excessive house price rises in China.

  However, reigning in house price rises without sparking a debt crisis will be a very delicate balance act. There is a decent chance that the government might be forced to ease constraints again further down the line. Because the real estate market in China is (i) very debt laden (figure 8) and (ii) very important for the Chinese economy. To corroborate the latter:

  • About 30% of bank loans are to the real estate sector (figure 9).

  • 11% of the disposable income of Urban residents is generated through property income

  • Real estate accounts for 70% of the wealth for Chinese people, according to some estimates.

  • Construction and Real Estate services are about 15% of the economy, which is higher than in many developed countries (the Eurozone average is 11.5% according to Eurostat). This is likely an underestimation given that large parts of the manufacturing sector (for example cement and steel production) are also closely related to the real estate sector.

  • Almost one in five people in China (18%) work in construction or real estate.

  Unusual house price rises tend to be followed by banking crises (Reinhardt and Rogoff, 2008) and two of China’s biggest real estate companies, Evergrande and China Fortune Land Development, have already ran into trouble with repaying high debt loads. The potential for such type of debt repayment problems to destabilize China’s economy should not be underestimated. Although a real estate crisis in China is not our base case assumption, we do see it as a major source of risk in the medium to long term future.

  

  With that in mind, we think a decline in the real estate sector is not something the Chinese government can or is willing to afford. Easing house price pressures without sparking a debt crisis in the real estate sector (and via that for the whole economy) will be one of the most delicate balancing acts China will have to do, and as such we think it will likely have to peddle back from this goal.

  Monetary policy

  Monetary policy in China looks set to tighten. Beijing’s target to let credit (Total Social Financing, TSF) grow in line with the economy is a clear indication of that. TSF growth is normally well above GDP growth (figure 10).

  We think monetary tightening will take place via targeted policies for specific sectors. For example restricted lending to the real estate sector. We have seen a glimpse of this in 2020, when the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission announced limits on property loans for Chinese banks in December last year. The regulator, for example, has capped this to 32.5% for mortgages and 40% to overall real estate for large commercial banks.

  We believe it is less likely that the PBoC will tighten via its interest rate toolkit given China’s higher debt load and since the PBoC has not used that instrument aggressively after the outbreak of the coronavirus. After an initial cut in the 1 and 5 year Loan Prime Rate (the benchmark rate against which new loans and floating rate loans are priced), the PBoC has not stimulated the economy via its interest rate tools, despite occasional spikes in interbank rates (figure 11).

  In any case, the risk of tightening too much, is very high, especially as it poses a great risk to the overheated and debt laden real estate sector in China (see chapter Real Estate). If reduced liquidity leads to unforeseen effects in China’s real estate or banking sector, the PBoC might have to reverse course and loosen monetary policy again. The outcomes would be that China’s debt load increases even further.

  

  Productivity and long term growth

  An ambitious, albeit implied, growth rate

  

  China’s 2021 growth target of “more than 6%” has been widely covered in the press, but it one of the less ambitious targets on the bigger scale of things. What is more interesting is that there is no explicitly defined growth target in the 14th Five Year Plan for the medium to long term future. That said, there seems to be an implicit one. President Xi Jingping has previously indicated that China’s GDP per capita will double by 2035. A doubling of the current real GDP per capita (CNY 65K) by 2035 implies an annual compounded growth rate of 4.7% (figure 12). We think that is optimistic, and we will explain why below.

  Raising productivity

  China’s economic growth has historically been driven to a large extent by capital deepening (adding more capital per worker), as exemplified by its large investment-to-GDP ratio (43% in 2019). In fact, as figure 13 shows, more than half of the economic growth of China has been driven by capital deepening, while a smaller (and declining) percentage (c. 40%) has been due to Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth. A big part of this was due to urbanisation. Much of urbanisation, however, has run its course, 61% of Chinese now live in cities, while this was 39% in 2002 (figure 14). And although there is potential for this to continue (the G7 average urbanization rate is 81%), the actual increase of people moving to cities might not be as high as it has been before. A part of China’s urbanization efforts will simply be a reclassification of migrant workers that live and work in urban areas but are not counted as being part of the urban population.

  

  More capital deepening will not likely add as much growth as it used to. Standard economic textbooks teach us that capital deepening improves labour productivity (since the capital per worker increases) but does generally not add to technological progress (so no growth in TFP).

  To keep using macroeconomic textbook terms, capital-deepening leads to a move on the production function of a country, not of the production function. For the latter, TFP has to increase, which in practice means either human capital or IT-capital has to increase. Figure 13 shows that China’s contribution from human and IT-capital have been much smaller and as a result, its TFP has steadily declined over the years.

  In order to increase TFP, therefore, China needs to invest more in IT-capital and human capital. Beijing’s focus seems to be more on IT-capital, given its R&D spending targets (see Table 1 in the Appendix). However, R&D investments take time to translate into innovations and simply spending more on R&D does not necessarily increase innovations (and thus technological progress). We have seen an example of the latter in China’s recent past in terms of TFP improvement.

  Figure 15 shows that R&D investments in China have already been quite decent in the past 10 years, compared to the OECD average. That has helped China move up the Global Innovation Index to the top 14th spot in 2020 (35 in 2013). However, despite years of relatively high R&D investments and efforts to innovate, TFP growth has still declined over the past 10 years (figure 16). This demonstrates that turning R&D and innovation efforts into actual TFP growth is easier said than done. One explanation for this issue is that the absorption of technology in an economy depends on institutional quality, a feature on which China does not score particularly high.

  Moreover, at least part of China’s technological progress until now has relied on mandatory technology transfers from foreign firms. This, however, looks set to become increasingly difficult for China given the recent tensions with for example the US, Australia and Japan. Even in the recent (CAI) investment deal with Europe, which we discussed here, there are provisions regarding this subject.

  

  Beijing’s plans to raise productivity focus relatively little on improving human capital, which arguably has the bigger potential to improve TFP. Human capital has contributed very little to economic growth in China, as we showed in figure 13.

  Education is key, but the government seems to be targeting quantity over quality here with an emphasis on years of education (11.3 years per person, see Table 1 in the Appendix), without combining this with improving the quality of schools. The latter is essential. Chinese children do well on PISA test scores, but that mainly reflects urban children in the richer cities, not the poor ones in rural areas. The children of rural migrants are not allowed to go to such schools since they are a public service to which people without Hukou have no access.

  We should also note that economic growth will not likely come from an increase in China’s labour force either. China’s population is projected to decline from 2030 onwards (figure 17) and its participation rate (the percentage of the working-age population that wants or has a job) is already relatively high (Figure 18).

  

  All in all, we think China will struggle to increase TFP growth, despite increased R&D investments. China has not been able to turn around its structural decline in TFP in the past years and its emphasis on physical rather than human capital suggests it may be missing out on low hanging fruit. Moreover, China’s strategy of increased self-reliance (which implies producing more goods domestically, especially in the technology sector) will likely hurt rather than help productivity, since it implies less trade and FDI, key factors that are known to benefit TFP growth. This is a good example where some of its goals become contradictory.

  SOE reform

  Another one is SOE reform. Beijing plans to maintain an important role for SOEs in its economy stating that it wants to “enhance the strength, quality, and size of SOEs”. There have been efforts to increase efficiency and reduce debt among SOEs. However, until now that has been done mostly through mergers rather than bankruptcies, which has led to fewer but larger SOEs, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Chinese SOEs are indeed notoriously inefficient, almost a quarter of them are loss-making (figure 19). Still, inviting more efficiency might prove tougher than Beijing imagines, for two main reasons.

  First, if further consolidation of SOEs were to occur via bankruptcies it could have a big impact on employment in China. About 14% of the Chinese urban labour force works for SOEs (figure 20) and SOEs make up about 20% of GDP. Given this difficulty, it seems likely that SOEs will continue to be drag on TFP given their weak productivity. Any consolidation, we think, will happen in non-strategic areas, so outside high-tech, biotech and the key manufacturing and technology areas targeted in the 14th Five Year Plan (see the last chapter for which these are).

  Second, one of the ways Beijing wants to improve efficiency is by increasing the share of private ownership in SOEs. However, having partial private ownership in an SOE (say 20%) does not mean you can influence decision-making. The decision-making still often rests with the SOE. That implies that market discipline (and thus efficiency gains) might not be as big as Beijing imagines.

  

  Geopolitics

  As we already touched upon in the previous paragraph, tensions between the China and the US and between China and India, Australia and Japan are here to stay. The US, from its side, is not backing down, despite its new leadership. Together with these other three countries it has formed a strategic alliance (the Quad) specifically to act as a counterweight to China.

  Beijing realizes very well that even if the US’ stance on China (or at least its way of communicating) changes every four years, the US structurally now sees China as a strategic rival and its population’s views toward China are becoming increasingly negative, as they have in other countries as well (figure 21). That corroborates what we have previously argued; being tough on China is one of the few things both Democrats and Republicans agree on, and US presidents will be mindful of that. Thus, the US will continue to keep pressure on China.

  

  Beijing is also well aware that China’s external environment is getting more hostile and unpredictable and it does not want to wait and see what the result of that environment will be. Becoming less dependent on the external environment in strategic areas is China’s answer to that problem. Indeed, one of the ideas behind its Dual Circulation strategy is that China wants to be less dependent on other countries, while keeping countries dependent on China (using its big domestic market as leverage). That strategy, by the way, has inherent-trade-offs as well since it implies more domestic consumption, which will likely require higher wages. Those could hurt China’s competitiveness, leading to lower exports.

  Beijing is likely to maintain its stance on Hong Kong. The Work Report, for example, mentions that China will “guard against and deter external forces’ interference in the affairs of Hong Kong and Macau”. Another example is that the Chinese government has recently passed a law that reduces the share of democratically elected lawmakers in Hong Kong. In essence, this means China has a growing direct influence on Hong Kong’s politics.

  Taiwan is likely to remain of key strategic importance to the mainland as well. The Work Report released during the Two Sessions mentions that China “will remain highly vigilant against and resolutely deter any separatist activity seeking Taiwan Independence”. Taiwan has become especially important because one of the three leading global semiconductor firms (TSCMC) is based there. Given the extreme concentration of top-of-the-line semi-conductor manufacturers, this sector (and Taiwan with it) will likely be caught between China and US tensions.

  More generally, China will not likely become less assertive globally. It plans to increase its military budget by 6.8% to 1.355 CNY trillion.

  Green ambitions

  As a final issue we would like to highlight that China’s target is to achieve a greener economy, but that it comes with higher costs. Especially the target to generate 20% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2025 could hurt GDP growth in regions that are dependent on coal production. Most notable are Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjian, which together account for 78% of China’s coal production (Figure 22). The economies of these provinces could be hit hard if coal production goes down substantially. Indeed, that might be the reason that the green energy target for the coming year is not that ambitious.

  

  After all, the target of 18% CO2 emission per unit of GDP is the same as the target of the previous Five Year Plan, and according to some calculations imply that CO2 emissions will actually increase by 1% per year until 2025. The more likely avenue through which China will try to cut its carbon footprint is reduced support for fossil fuel related projects in other countries, as it has done recently in Bangladesh. The question this raises is whether China can maintain its assertion of being at the forefront of global leadership in turning around climate change. Or would it be one of the first goals to be ditched at the expense of higher economic growth if needed?

  What will this mean in practice?

  China’s plans for the coming five to fifteen years are ambitious. We have argued in this report that some of these plans will be difficult to achieve and some contain inherent trade-offs. In our view, China cannot have its cake and eat it too. It will have to make some tough choices along the way and, if pressed, renege on some of its stated plans. That obviously has implications for businesses operating in China or for those who are otherwise dependent on its economy.

  First of all from a broad economic perspective. Despite high economic growth in the short term, the years of high growth in China are over, as are the years of high and consistent rises in house prices. That has implications for investors and firms dependent on the real estate sector. Debt levels in general will not likely decline in China, rather we believe there is a good chance that they will increase further, which implies higher credit risk, all else equal. Meanwhile, China seems to have shifted back from focussing on services to manufacturing, implied by its emphasis on eight key manufacturing areas (see Table 1 in the Appendix for a list). That could go against growth in the services sector and, as such, may also be at odds with its goal of nurturing domestic consumption. But also on a more detailed level will China’s plans and the issues that come with it have implications:

  • Although China is actually saying that it is opening up its economy and its financial system, how this operates in practice is something that still needs to be demonstrated. Foreign firms trying to access the Chinese market in key strategic areas might still find it difficult to gain a foothold, unless they are willing to share their knowledge with local parties.

  • In any case, multinational corporations might find themselves caught between geopolitical tensions between China and the US, Australia and Japan. The semiconductor industry specifically might be targeted because of such tensions as well.

  • There are upsides for Chinese firms operating in the manufacturing and technology areas Beijing has identified as key. Firms operating in these areas (e.g. semiconductors, electrics cars, 5G, AI and biotechnology) will likely benefit from one form of government support or another.

  • For fintech firms and e-commerce giants, there could be major downsides. The government’s recent crackdown on large internet companies suggest Beijing is serious about breaking the monopolies of internet giants in China. There is a another contradiction here with Beijing’s wish to raise the digital part of economy to 10% of GDP. The digital economy is dominated by a handful of big players. Tmall (owned by Alibaba), JD.com and Pinduodo for example, control 89% of retail e-commerce sales in China. If broken up, it remains to be seen how quickly they will be replaced by smaller firms. Moreover, aggressively cracking down on big internet companies could destabilize financial markets in China, which are also dominated (in terms of market capitalization) by the same firms.

  • Finally, China’s demand for coal might not decrease as much as news headlines suggest.

  As a final takeaway, we note that China’s implicit long-term growth goal remains ambitious (see the chart below with our medium and long-term growth projections) and that several policy goals contain inherent trade-offs. Achieving a reduction debt and maintaining financial and domestic stability could be at odds with its aim to become more technology-driven. When push comes to shove, we believe China will sacrifice growth for resilience and deleveraging for domestic stability.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 23:20

• Hundreds In Taiwan Change Name To "Salmon" As Restaurant Promotion Spirals Out Of Control
  Hundreds In Taiwan Change Name To “Salmon” As Restaurant Promotion Spirals Out Of Control

  As senior diplomats from Beijing and Washington meet in Alaska, the Taiwanese government is issuing an advisory urging its citizens to stop changing their names to “Salmon” after a sushi chain’s promotion reaffirmed just how far people will go for free stuff.

  

  It all started when Japanese sushi chain Sushiro launched a promotion offering a free meal to customers with names that included the traditional Chinese character for salmon “guiyu”. Customers with names that sounded similar to the word could also enjoy a meal for half price.

  The offer sparked what the local media characterized as “salmon madness”, per WaPo.

  Dory Wang, a Sushiro marketing manager, said about 200 customers with the name “Salmon” on their identity card had visited one of the chain’s restaurants on Wednesday, adding that the response of seafood-loving Taiwanese had exceeded expectations. “We appreciated those who are willing to change their names for our sushi,” Wang said.

  “Five people requested a name change today and another six yesterday,” said Ou Minxin, an official at a local household registration office in Kaohsiung, Taiwan’s second-largest city. “We have seen changed names such as ‘Hotness Salmon,’ ‘Dip Wasabi and Eat Salmon,’ and ‘Can’t Help but Want to Eat Free Salmon.'” Ou said most of them changed their names back after having a meal. “It has indeed added to our workload, but it is quite interesting,” he said.

  One resident decided to add 36 characters to his name, including seafood-themed emojis for “crab” and “lobster.”

  However, for the young people who changed their name for the promotion with the expectation of changing it back, the government has issued a reminder that Taiwanese citizens are only allowed to change their names three times during their lifetimes.

  But there’s a catch – and some diners may have bitten off more than they can chew.

  Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior posted a reminder on Facebook that a person can only change their name three times in a lifetime, explaining that two of those will be wasted if a person changed their name to “Salmon” and back.

  But some young people insist they have no regrets, and say they are planning to keep their “salmon” names as a sign of their adventurousness and creativity. One 19-year-old student said he changed his given name to “Salmon” and invited users to join him for a meal, with eight slots on offer. He said the name represents his courage to do “whatever he wants,” and hasn’t decided whether to change his name back yet.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 23:00

• Murders And Shootings Skyrocketed In Portland After George Floyd's Death & The Defunding Of Police
  Murders And Shootings Skyrocketed In Portland After George Floyd’s Death & The Defunding Of Police

  Authored by Jeff Reynolds via PJMedia.com,

  A staggering number of murders and shootings took place in Portland, Oregon, after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis touched off violent riots across America. Many of the most violent riots occurred in Portland, and with police resources stretched thin, lawlessness increased exponentially across the city. The correlation could not be more clear—after Floyd’s death, the “defund the police” movement sprung up under misplaced motivations of social justice, and many people died unnecessarily. Floyd’s death, over Memorial Day weekend in 2020, created a clear demarcation after which murders and shootings skyrocketed in Portland.

  

  Crime policy expert Sean Kennedy, a fellow at Maryland Public Policy Institute, crunched the numbers, based on Portland Police Bureau stats and media reports:

  • Since June 2020, there has been a 255% increase in murder in Portland through February 2021;

  • Shootings up 173% – by 551;

  • Shootings increased 126% in 2020, and Year to Date have increased 93%.

  The numbers are truly alarming. From January through April 2020, there were a total of three murders in Portland. Just in January and February 2021, we’ve already seen 20 murders. For the period of June 2020 through February 2021, 71 murders have occurred in Portland. That’s a staggering 255% increase over the same period one year prior.

  Shooting statistics tell another grim tale. In the period of June 2020 through February 2021, 870 shootings occurred in Portland. For the same period one year prior, Portland saw 319 shootings. That’s a 173% increase.

  This is a crisis that the city of Portland and Multnomah County are not taking seriously.

  Kennedy notes that 53 people were murdered through the end of 2020, after Floyd’s death and the subsequent push to defund the police. He told PJ Media, after compiling the numbers:

  The lawlessness that Portland experienced this summer directly contributed to the subsequent and dramatic increase in violence—especially homicides. Portland’s political leaders, including Mayor Wheeler and Multnomah County DA Mike Schmidt’s contempt for law and order, disempowered and demoralized the police. The result is chaos and death. Over 50 Portlanders did not have to die but for the rhetoric and actions of local officials caving to the mob and attacking the police.

  Law enforcement sources in Portland have repeatedly reported that they cannot respond to all violent crimes when the dual forces of defunding the police force and responding to nightly riots handcuff them. This crisis in police response times was highlighted in September when a home intruder locked a single father out of his home and held his 12-year old son hostage. The father called 911 and did not receive a response for over an hour and a half:

  Henry Kirim had ducked out of his Southeast Portland apartment to search his car for a missing bank card when a strange man rushed into his ground-floor unit, closed the door and locked it.

  Kirim’s 12-year-old son remained inside.

  Kirim fumbled for his house key, thankful he had it on the same ring as his car key, and raced to open his apartment door.

  “I was so scared,” he said.

  The next 10 minutes unfolded in a blur on Aug. 22. The stranger grabbed a kitchen knife. Kirim’s petrified son managed to dart out of the apartment. Kirim followed and started yelling for neighbors to help. When the man eventually fled, several residents gave chase and cornered him nearby.

  It took police more than 90 minutes to arrive. Just before an officer finally appeared, the suspect ran off. More than a half-dozen calls had come into 911 over the course of the bizarre ordeal. But that apparently didn’t speed the response.

  Maybe that has spurred Mayor Wheeler into action. He asked for a partial restoration of police funding last week, to the tune of $2 million:

  The mayor of Portland, Oregon, announced Thursday he would seek $2 million in one-time funding for police, other agencies and outreach programs to try to stem rampant gun violence in the city.

  The move by Mayor Ted Wheeler represents an about-face after city leaders in June voted to cut nearly $16 million from the police budget, reductions that included the elimination of a gun violence reduction unit. The cuts came amid racial justice protests following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

  It remains uncertain if the activists on the city council, such as Jo Ann Hardesty, will go along with the plan to try to rein in the violence in Portland.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 22:40

• Starbucks Founder Says China "Is An Adversary Not An Enemy" & US "Must Find A Way To Cooperate"
  Starbucks Founder Says China “Is An Adversary Not An Enemy” & US “Must Find A Way To Cooperate”

  Former Starbucks CEO and one-time Independent presidential wannabe Howard Schultz made an appearance at Bloomberg’s Equality Summit on Thursday to try and remind President Biden – whose administration has maintained many, but not all, of the tough on China policies adopted by his predecessor – that the US and China must cooperate.

  

  In a seemingly contradictory quote, Schultz told his audience that China is “an adversary but not an enemy” and that America and the Chinese “must figure out a way to cooperate.”

  Schultz added: with the “rhetoric of the last four years” being unhelpful to finding common ground, if relations aren’t improved, “there will be significant problems,” he said, though he is “confident that we will find a way to cooperate to benefit the rest of world”.

  “I have great respect for the Chinese people and the relationships we have built as a company there,” Schultz said. “China is not going to conform to everything America wants in the same context that America is not going to conform to everything China wants.”

  Switching topics to economic inequality, an issue that Starbucks has long claimed to lead on, regarding domestic US issues, Schultz said the “underbelly” of inequality in American society can be seen in broadband Internet access, which he said is lacking in more than half of low-income households.

  “That alone demonstrates the significant divide in America,” Schultz proclaimed.

  But to improve racial harmony, “we need to do better at teaching sensitivity and compassion,” he said. “We have to have a society with respect and dignity for all”. And finally, Schultz turned his attention to small business owners, whom he said have been among the hardest-hit during the pandemic.

  A “large majority” of those affected “have been Black- and brown- owned businesses” which threatens the “social fabric in neighborhoods and communities”.

  Whatever you might think of Schultz and his virtue-signaling, it’s important to remember that China has played an increasingly critical role to Starbucks’ bottom line over the last year (while he no longer runs the company, he’s still the founder, and a board member). Even though Chinese consumers haven’t taken to coffee like American executives had hoped (who can forget the demise of Starbucks’ domestic competitor Luckin Coffee?), Starbucks’ stores comprised a larger portion of its international revenue in 2020. What’s more, Starbucks’ stores in China were largely open for most of last year, unlike the company’s stores in the US.

  With senior diplomats from the US and China meeting in Alaska today and tomorrow, expect to hear more of this from American captains of industry as we head into the weekend.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 22:20

• Dan Bongino To Fill Rush Limbaugh's Airtime In Major Markets
  Dan Bongino To Fill Rush Limbaugh’s Airtime In Major Markets

  Conservative pundit Dan Bongino will take over the late Rush Limbaugh’s coveted three-hour airtime slot across several major markets, according to Cumulus Media Inc’s Westwood One.

  

  Following Limbaugh’s death last month, most stations have been filling the void by playing reruns of old episodes. Limbaugh, the most listened to radio host in the United States, reached over 20 million monthly listeners across over 650 affiliates, according to the Wall Street Journal.

  Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and NYPD officer who has his own popular podcast, has become a rising star in conservative media. He will fill the three-hour slot in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, while most other stations will continue to air old tapes of the show.

  Mr. Bongino lost three Congressional races—two in Maryland and one in Florida—running as a Republican, but his success in punditry has exploded. A vocal supporter of conservative candidates who once declared, “my entire life right now is about owning the libs,” his views often echo Mr. Limbaugh’s. He is also a man of many media: He has written several bestselling books, appeared regularly on Fox News, and commands a Facebook page with more than four million highly engaged followers.

  The move by Westwood One, which syndicated Mr. Limbaugh’s show across about 30 stations, signals that the revered and controversial host’s void may be filled piecemeal, instead of by a single successor. The radio network didn’t specify exactly how many stations Mr. Bongino’s show would appear on. Already some individual markets have chosen local hosts to take over the airwaves. –Wall Street Journal

  In other markets, different hosts such as right-wing Evangelical commentator Erick Erickson has taken over Limbaugh’s slot, while Jacksonville’s WOKV has given the slot to radio host Mark Kaye. In Baltimore, radio and podcast host Derek Hunter has taken over the slot.

  While iHeartMedia admits that “No one can replace Rush Limbaugh,” the company’s Premiere Networks have continued to air a hybrid of Rush reruns on topics currently being discussed, using guest hosts in between clips. So far it’s attracted roughly 75% to 80% of Rush’s regular audience, according to a person familiar with the matter.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 22:00

• New Document Exposes How This Company Tracks Car Locations In Real-Time
  New Document Exposes How This Company Tracks Car Locations In Real-Time

  According to a document obtained by Motherboard, a tiny surveillance contractor based in Charleston, South Carolina, can locate and track newer model cars in any country. This data is being packaged up into a new service and pitched to the US government as a powerful surveillance technology.

  “Ulysses can provide our clients with the ability to remotely geo-locate vehicles in nearly every country except for North Korea and Cuba on a near real-time basis,” the document written by The Ulysses Group, reads. “Currently, we can access over 15 billion vehicle locations around the world every month,” the document adds.

  In new automobiles, intelligent sensors transmit an array of data (even including location) to the automaker or third parties. Aggregator companies then take this data and integrate them into packages based on the needs of their clients. 

  “Vehicle telematics is data transmitted from the vehicle to the automaker or OEM through embedded communications systems in the car,” the Ulysses document continues. “Among the thousands of other data points, vehicle location data is transmitted on a constant and near real-time basis while the vehicle is operating.”

  The document suggests Ulysses’ tracking service could be used for military surveillance operations: 

  “We believe that this one attribute will dramatically enhance military intelligence and operational capabilities, as well as reduce the costs and risk footprint of ISR [intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance] assets currently used to search for and acquire mobile targets of interest.” 

   “Whether you want to geo-locate one vehicle or 25.000.000 as shown here. Currently, we can access over 15 billion vehicle locations around the world every month,” the document concludes. 

  

  Motherboard sent the document to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). Wyden spokesperson Keith Chu responded in an email statement:

  “Far too little is known about how private information is being bought and sold. Senator Wyden is conducting an ongoing investigation into the sale of personal data, particularly via data brokers, to put some sunlight on this shady industry. Our office is continuing to perform oversight into where data brokers are acquiring Americans’ information, and who they’re selling it to.”

  Motherboard noted Ulysses previously worked with US Special Operations Command on a different piece of technology to “analyze how peer and near-peer competitor countries were making economic and financial investments in Africa and Central and South America.” 

  President of The Ulysses Group, Andrew Lewis, told Motherboard in an email that “any proprietary promotional material we may have produced is aspirational and developed based on publicly available information about modern telematics equipment.”

  “We do not have any contracts with the government or any of its agencies related to our work in the field and we have never received any funding whatsoever from the government related to telematics,” Lewis added.

  Here’s the full document: 

  

  While the document does not specify how the surveillance firm procures its data, the luxuries of owning a modern car tied to the “internet of things” appear to have their downfalls as car companies or third parties, or even the government can track these vehicles in real-time. 

  In a world where COVID has accelerated the surveillance state, many people are wondering how to escape the Orwellian grid of surveillance and social control, well, first, own a car with limited technology embedded within – also we offer some simple steps to disappear from the surveillance matrix. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 21:40

• What Is The Shipping Container Shortage Telling Us About The Economy?
  What Is The Shipping Container Shortage Telling Us About The Economy?

  Via SchiffGold.com,

  As Peter Schiff pointed out during a recent interview with NTD News, America has never done worse on trade. He called it a sign that we don’t have a recovering economy. In fact, we have a phony economy in danger of collapse.

  The annual trade deficit for goods came in at an all-time high in January, increasing $3.4 billion to a record $221.1 billion. In another sign of the massive trade imbalance, there is a shortage of shipping containers to bring things into the US.

  In a nutshell, the Federal Reserve is printing money and the US government is giving it to unemployed people who aren’t producing anything. As Peter pointed out, “They’re buying the stuff that people in other countries are employed making.”

  So, it’s the productivity of the rest of the world that Americans are living off of, and the trade deficit evidences that and shows you that our whole economy, our whole recovery, is a fraud.”

  Economic research assistant Weimin Chen says stresses on the world’s shipping infrastructure uncover additional clues about the economic outlook in the US.

  

  The following article by Weimin Chen was originally published by the Austrian Economics Center and reprinted by the Mises Wire.

  Despite the record unemployment rate, widespread hardship to businesses, strains on the healthcare system, political turmoil, and general disruption to daily life in 2020, US consumers have managed to ramp up their habit of buying things. Demand for physical goods replaced some of the previous demand for in-person service-related experiences and much of that demand was met with a surge of imports from China as domestic production slowed down due to lockdown measures. Up until recently, global supply chains managed to find their footing and could meet demand, but news has emerged that reveals stresses on the world’s shipping infrastructure and uncovers clues about the economic outlook.

  Container Shortage and Chinese Exports

  Global logistical networks recently began to suffer from a shortage of shipping containers as demand has suddenly risen. Freight rates from China to the US have jumped by 300%. The container situation has become so extreme that hundreds of thousands of containers have been sent off empty from US ports, mostly to China as exporters demand empty containers with increasing urgency. An estimated 177,938 containers, were rejected from loading US export items at the ports of Los Angeles and New York/New Jersey alone and then sent across the Pacific.

  The recent imbalance of shipping containers illustrates the latest state of affairs surrounding the US and Chinese economies. As exports of consumer goods from Asia eclipse exports of mostly commodity and raw materials from the US—in this case, even blocking US agricultural exports from having shipping containers to reach foreign markets—the trade deficit between the two countries may become more important to these highly competitive economies.

  When Trade Deficits Matter

  The Austrian perspective on the US trade deficit has long been that given the continued relative productivity of the US economy, foreign desires to invest in the US, and demand for the dollar abroad, the trade deficit is a ‘pseudo-problem.’ The US competitive advantage vis-à-vis other countries in recent decades has made running a trade deficit highly probable and even favorable for Americans as they enjoy the consumption of cheaper imports.

  Thus far, the parties involved have been satisfied with this arrangement as US consumers bring in goods at favorable prices and producers receive a reliably stable world reserve currency: the US dollar. However, the underlying conditions particular to the US economy in relation to China may be changing. There are two aspects of the US-China trade deficit that merit attention. The first is the effect of net consumption by the US coupled with dovish monetary and fiscal policies whereas the second is what China plans to do with US dollars accumulated through exports.

  On the US side of the equation, easy money from the central bank coupled with fiscal stimulus extended to consumers has juiced buying activity as the lockdowns have forced people to stay home and spend. It’s no wonder that shipping containers are rushing to get back to China. With the US taking big hits to production and foreign investment in 2020, along with explosive increases in the money supply, critical questions arise regarding the nature of this trade deficit and how long the status quo can continue as the country pushes the boundaries of its exorbitant privilege. Indeed, the health of the dollar itself as it relates to trade deficits would be an indicator to watch in coming years.

  In running a trade surplus with the US, China has traditionally exchanged its US dollars for US Treasuries to add to its balance sheet and to maintain its export advantage. In recent years, however, China has reduced its holdings in Treasuries. This trend has also coincided with massive spending on the part of China in the last decade on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure and trade corridor project which involves 71 countries across Eurasia and Africa that encompass two-thirds of the global population and one-third of world GDP.

  Given the continued global dollar demand, it would be shrewd for China to use accumulated dollars to acquire foreign assets and invest in projects that have the potential to generate future income. The trade war with the US in recent years has driven China to deepen its flow of trade toward surpluses with other emerging markets and forge strategic global relations.

  As containers carry goods from China to the US and rush to return empty to bring more, the moment provides a glimpse into a potentially precarious arrangement between the two countries. While the US presently consumes itself into debt and liabilities, China has leveraged its productive surpluses from this relationship into increasingly influential assets that may strengthen its position and further challenge the US, and perhaps even the dollar itself.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 21:20

• Samsung Joins Chorus Of Companies Stung By Semi Shortage
  Samsung Joins Chorus Of Companies Stung By Semi Shortage

  By now, the world knows we are in the midst of a massive semiconductor shortage.

  We have written about how this has wreaked chaos on the auto industry and we have also noted how industry giants like Taiwan Semiconductor are making vast infrastructure investments to try and solve the current shortage and prevent it from happening again in the future. 

  Now, Samsung is the latest to confirm what we already know: that the current crisis is “very serious” and that it “poses a slight problem” for the electronics company heading into the second quarter. The company continues to try and address supply issues, Reuters reported that CEO and mobile chief Koh Dong-jin said at Samsung’s recent annual general meeting.

  

  In fact, there are also rumors that Samsung is considering skipping its usual Galaxy Note launch this year due to the ongoing chip shortage, according to 9 to 5 Google. Koh is quoted as saying:

  Note series is positioned as a high-end model in our business portfolio. It could be a burden to unveil two flagship models in a year so it might be difficult to release Note model in 2H. The timing of Note model launch can be changed but we seek to release a Note model next year.

  “Right now, it’s unclear if this would also affect Samsung’s other planned releases for 2021,” 9 to 5 Google adds. And regardless of whether or not Samsung does decide to delay its hardware, the point has already been made: the chip shortage remains dire for the time being, is having a profound effect on some of the world’s largest companies, and shows no signs of respite just yet. 

  Most recently, we wrote about how difficult it was becoming for U.S. companies to export chipmaking hardware to China due to trade restrictions. We also documented weeks ago how critical Taiwan would be in getting the semiconductor industry back up and running. We noted that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing was rushing to try and build new facilities through the Chinese New Year in order to meet demand. 

  

  TSMC is one of the biggest suppliers of chips to company like Apple, Google and Qualcomm. As a result of a worldwide shortage in chips that was brought on due to the pandemic, they are now rushing to try and get a new factory in the southern Taiwanese city of Tainan built. Construction the new facility will take place throughout 2021, with completion expected in 2022. 

  

  Earlier in 2021 we noted that the semi situation had been turning dire and was now being referred to as the “most serious shortage in years”. Qualcomm’s CEO said last month that there were now shortages “across the board”. 

  And it wasn’t just Qualcomm executives speaking out: other industry leaders warned in recent weeks that they are susceptible to the shortages. Apple said recently that its new high end iPhones were on hold due to a shortage of components. NXP Semiconductors has also warned that the problems are no longer just confined to the auto industry. Sony also said last week it may not be able to to fully meet demand for its new gaming console in 2021 due to the shortage. Companies like Lenovo have also been feeling the crunch.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 21:00

• "My University Said No To Cancel Culture And It Was the Right Call"
  “My University Said No To Cancel Culture And It Was the Right Call”

  By Daniel Samet, is a Ph.D. student in History at the University of Texas at Austin, submitted by the National Interest,

  Renaming schools, disinviting speakers, and canceling professors is all the rage on campus these days. At the University of Texas at Austin (UT), it seemed only a matter of time before our allegedly racist school song would be the next casualty of this woke crusade.

  

  An uplifting number written in 1903, “The Eyes of Texas,” is traditionally sung at Longhorn football games and other events. But following last summer’s social justice protests, many called for it to be expunged due to supposed associations with slavery. The pressure from students, faculty members, and the media on the UT administration was immense.    

  This time, though, sanity prevailed. According to a just-released report by The Eyes of Texas History Committee, archival research found no evidence of racism in the song’s intent. Its lyrics do not long for slavery. Nor were they inspired by something Robert E. Lee may have said. The message of the song is accountability, not racism. Though acknowledging that “The Eyes of Texas” was born at a time of racial prejudice, the committee noted in its key takeaways that “The History of the Song Reflects the History of America” and “Facts and Historical Context Matter.”   

  President Jay Hartzell agrees. In a March 9 email to the UT community announcing the report’s release, he said that the song will be kept in its current form while rejecting two of the arguments often trotted out in support of cancel culture. First, Hartzell challenged the uniformly negative view of American history peddled with growing regularity on college campuses. “But while the American story is imperfect, I believe it is positive overall,” he wrote. Second, Hartzell defended free speech, arguing that “no one should shout down those who wish to continue in the tradition of singing.”  

  Those statements would not have raised any eyebrows just a short while ago. Yet they are most controversial now. To assert that America’s past is commendable rather than contemptible runs counter to the woke narrative that now dominates academia. Liberal orthodoxy, which counsels reform, not revolution, as the remedy for America’s problems, has been cast aside for a progressive offshoot that sees in this country only irredeemable wrongs to be extirpated. The new dogma also equates speech one doesn’t like with violence.        

  In this illiberal climate, releasing the report took courage. The committee members, which include students, alumni, faculty, and staff, are mostly, if not entirely, on the Left. But they did not let ideological prejudgments blind them to the historical record. For being upfront about the evidence they deserve great credit.     

  Hartzell also deserves credit for deciding the song will stay. That won’t win him any plaudits with our woke betters in faculty lounges, newsrooms, or left-wing Twitter feeds. Yet it will win the respect of those who hope there is still a small measure of common sense left on campuses that seem to produce everything but it.

  At a time when our elite institutions capitulate left, right, and center to cancel-crazed mobs, it is encouraging to see that at least one still has backbone. May others follow UT’s example.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 20:40

• Prison Guards Across Country Refusing COVID Vaccine Despite Outbreaks
  Prison Guards Across Country Refusing COVID Vaccine Despite Outbreaks

  Correctional officers across the country are shunning the COVID-19 vaccine over fears of both short-term and long-term side effects of the most rapidly-developed immunization in US history.

  

  According to an investigation by the Associated Press and the Marshall Project, while over 106,000 prison employees across 29 systems have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, many won’t take it – joining countless health care workers, nursing home employees and police officers who refuse to become vaccinated despite regular exposure to the public.

  Prisons are coronavirus hot spots, so when staff move between the prisons and their home communities after work, they create a pathway for the virus to spread. More than 388,000 incarcerated people and 105,000 staff members have contracted the coronavirus over the last year. In states like Michigan, Kansas and Arizona, that’s meant 1 in 3 staff members have been infected. In Maine, the state with the lowest infection rate, 1 in 20 staff members tested positive for COVID-19. Nationwide, those infections proved fatal for 2,474 prisoners and at least 193 staff members. –AP via Komo News

  In one Florida federal prison, FCI Miami, “fewer than half of the facility’s 240 employees have been fully vaccinated as of March 11,” according to corrections officer union president Kareen Troitino, who said that many of the workers who refused were concerned over the vaccine’s efficacy and side effects.

  In January, Troitino and FCI Miami warden Sylvester Jenkins invited employees to join them in getting vaccinated “in an act of solidarity,” writing “Even though we recognize and respect that this motion is not mandatory; nevertheless, with the intent of promoting staff safety, we encourage all staff to join us.”

  Just 25 employees signed up despite the facility having had two major COVID-19 outbreaks; one last July, when 400 prisoners out of 852 were suspected of having the disease, and a second wave in December which struck approximately 100 people housed in the prison’s minimum-security camp.

  The trend is nationwide:

  In Massachusetts, more than half the people employed by the Department of Correction declined to be immunized. A statewide survey in California showed that half of all correction employees will wait to be vaccinated. In Rhode Island, prison staff have refused the vaccine at higher rates than the incarcerated, according to medical director Dr. Justin Berk. And in Iowa, early polling among employees showed a little more than half the staff said they’d get vaccinated.

  As states have begun COVID-19 inoculations at prisons across the country, corrections employees are refusing vaccines at alarming rates, causing some public health experts to worry about the prospect of controlling the pandemic both inside and outside. Infection rates in prisons are more than three times as high as in the general public. Prison staff helped accelerate outbreaks by refusing to wear masks, downplaying people’s symptoms, and haphazardly enforcing social distancing and hygiene protocols in confined, poorly ventilated spaces ripe for viral spread. -AP

  “Everybody is on edge” says Troitino, who’s worried that so many correctional officers and prisoners haven’t been vaccinated – adding that officers are “constantly shuttling sick and elderly prisoners to the hospital,” leaving a skeleton crew to operate the facility.

  Explanations for why prison employees are refusing the jab essentially revolve around ‘right wing misinformation’ and ‘debunked conspiracy theories,’ according to the report.

  Or, perhaps they’re leery of taking what is essentially still an experimental vaccine for a disease which kills mostly old, obese, and medically compromised people, and which doesn’t prevent one from contracting or transmitting it.

  Read the rest of the report here.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 20:20

• The Ghislaine Maxwell Case And The Ongoing(?) Investigations Of Epstein's Co-Conspirators
  The Ghislaine Maxwell Case And The Ongoing(?) Investigations Of Epstein’s Co-Conspirators

  Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary

  

  Background

  Ghislaine Maxwell remains in jail, awaiting trial for charges including (1) conspiracy to entice/transport minors to engage in illegal sexual acts; (2) transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts; and (3) perjury. She doesn’t yet have a trial date and sits (or, as Maxwell would say, suffers) in jail as the the case continues.

  The Ghislaine Maxwell indictment – charges include:

  1) Conspiracy to entice minors to engage in illegal sex acts

  2) Conspiracy to transport minors to engage in illegal sex acts

  3) Transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts

  4) Perjury pic.twitter.com/ec7HPEJUz9

  — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 2, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Maxwell is currently fighting this war on multiple fronts. The first has to do with dismissal. As we previously reported, she is trying to get the charges dropped. One of her best arguments (read her motion to dismiss on Scribd) is that the Epstein plea deal precludes her prosecution:

  

  The US has responded to this motion to dismiss. Per a March 16, 2021 letter to the court from Maxwell’s attorneys, it appears that the government’s motions and supporting exhibits are currently under seal.

  

  Second, Maxwell seeks more evidence. Here is where it gets interesting.

  On February 4, 2021, Maxwell filed her memorandum in support of her motion for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures. (Full document is available here.) In layman’s terms, this means she wants the immediate disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment material; a government witness/evidence list; and more general information of the alleged charges.

  Interestingly, Maxwell alleges the government still “has not disclosed” the identities of the victims. Maxwell was arrested on July 2, 2020. This puts her at 8 months from the date of arrest to the filing of the motion where she didn’t have this information.

  

  She further claims that she has been provided “almost no information” about the details of the her criminal conduct.

  

  What else wasn’t produced to Maxwell? The dates the criminal conduct occurred.

  

  Maxwell’s also seeks FBI 302 summaries of witness interviews. At least one interview is alleged to contain (details redacted) “exculpatory” material that must be produced to the defense.

  

  Accompanying the motion was a List of Particulars, which requests information on 29 different topics. You can read the List of Particulars here.

  More to Come: Motions (and Exhibits?) to be Unsealed

  In the next few weeks we expect the unsealing of the government’s response to Maxwell’s motion to dismiss and their response to her request for more information on her charges and accusers. We should also be seeing the following motions from Maxwell – which includes the issues of dismissal, breach of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, and her request for more documents and information relating to her charges – put on the public docket. (We’ll provide updates as soon as the court provides public access.)

  

  Also pending: Maxwell’s third try to get out on bail.

  In July 2020, the court concluded she was a serious flight risk. On December 28, 2020, Maxwell proposed to the court a more significant bail package, which included armed guards and a $28.5 million bond. This was again denied, with the court noting Maxwell “plainly poses a risk of flight.” In February 2021, Maxwell proposed two additional conditions to her prior bail package: (1) renunciation of her French and British citizenship; and (2) placement of some of her and her husband’s assets in a new account overseen by an asset monitor. The court has yet to rule on Maxwell’s latest bail proposal.

  Finally, one important question is still unanswered. Will any more of Epstein’s co-conspirator’s be prosecuted?

  We can understand (but can’t fully answer) this question by looking to Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement.

  This agreement, or plea deal, was unique. Not just because it was favorable and done in secret and kept secret from his victims and the public, but because it released Epstein’s known and unknown co-conspirators. From the non-prosecution agreement:

  [T]he United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.

  Last August, the government informed the court that their investigation into Epstein’s possible co-conspirators “remains active” and was before the grand jury.

  

  

  The identity of Epstein’s unknown co-conspirators has always been intriguing. He ran in powerful circles. One name that always comes up is Bill Clinton. This summer, unsealed records from Maxwell’s civil case implicated Bill Clinton being around “2 young girls” at Epstein’s island.

  Witness interview:

  Bill Clinton was at Epstein’s island with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and “2 young girls.” pic.twitter.com/NG8PbaZLNt

  — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) July 31, 2020

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This allegation was denied by Bill Clinton’s spokesman.

  I’m pretty certain that Maxwell’s lawyers know much more than we do. Maxwell’s February 2021 motion to dismiss also included this redacted passage that identifies the unnamed “co-conspirators.”

  

  To close, and to address our final question – “Will any more of Epstein’s co-conspirator’s be prosecuted?” – we suspect that passage above might have the answer. With the DOJ’s potentially ongoing investigation of the co-conspirators, and pursuant to DOJ policy, don’t expect the passage to be unredacted anytime soon.

  Your support makes this possible. You can contribute- and help offset our expenses of obtaining court records and transcripts – by sharing and subscribing.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 20:00

• "Don't Lecture Us": Alaska Summit Opens With Dueling Barbs & Epic Anti-US Tirade
  “Don’t Lecture Us”: Alaska Summit Opens With Dueling Barbs & Epic Anti-US Tirade

  As predicted things are icier than ever by the end of day one of the Alaska summit in which for the first time in the Biden administration high-level in-person talks were held between China and the US, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, as well as State Councilor Wang Yi. By the close tomorrow it promises to border on comic shitshow levels given the public haranguing that’s already taken place.

  US national security adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly began the talks by telling his Chinese counterparts that “We do not seek conflict, but we welcome stiff competition, and we will always stand up for our principles, for our people, and for our friends” — noting that on the agenda for the summit is China’s crackdowns in Xinjiang province, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as state-sponsored cyber attacks and “economic coercion” of allies. “Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability,” Sullivan underscored. He added that the “alternative” is a winner-take-all world that would be inevitably more “violent and unstable”. 

  As many commentators have been pointing out given the increased obviousness, there’s no daylight whatsoever between Trump’s prior China policies so heavily criticized by the Democrats and the hard-line on Beijing now clearly being pursued by Biden. For example, Bloomberg writes, “Coming into the meeting, it was increasingly clear that despite Biden’s criticism of former President Donald Trump, he’s unlikely to make major changes to his predecessor’s hard-line approach to China. On human rights in Xinjiang , on Hong Kong’s and even on tariffs, Trump-era policies remain in place.”

  In #Alaska meeting, @SecBlinken tells Chinese he’s hearing deep concern from other countries about actions #China is taking. pic.twitter.com/NDQNnX5kz9

  — Steve Herman (@W7VOA) March 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Chinese Communist Party foreign affairs chief Yang Jiechi wasn’t impressed, going on an epic tirade filled with a litany of American “abuses” meant to answer every one of Washington’s recent criticisms of Beijing and then some. He ran with Blinken and Sullivan’s “human rights” theme and turned it around, seeking to call out Washington ‘hypocrisy’ on every point, even down to treatment of Black Americans (which presumably was Yang’s intended parallel to ethnic Uighurs).

  Here’s a recap of his introductory remarks:

  …Yang hit back, accusing the United States of using its military might and financial supremacy to pressure countries and of abusing national security to threaten the future of international trade.

  He said Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan were all inseparable parts of Chinese territory and China firmly opposed US interference in its internal affairs.

  Yang said human rights in the United States were at a low point with Black Americans being “slaughtered” and added that the United States should handle its own affairs and China its own.

  Yang said it was necessary to abandon a “Cold War mentality,” and confrontation and added:

  “The way we see the relationship with the United States is as President Xi Jinping has said, that is we hope to see no confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect and win-win cooperation with the United States.”

  So there was at least a brief positive included by the end of his intro. Yang had further fired back at Washington’s charges that in reality “the US is the champion of cyberattacks”.

  New sanctions are not the way to welcome guests, says #China Foreign Minister Wang Yi in #Alaska. pic.twitter.com/Vahsq3D2z3

  — Steve Herman (@W7VOA) March 18, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And as predicted it was the Biden administration’s last minute sanctions a mere hours before the Chinese delegation was due to touch down in Anchorage which ensured there would be sparks from the very start. Wednesday evening new sanctions were slapped on 24 Chinese and Hong Kong officials over the anti-democratic crackdown and election overhaul of last week. State Councilor Wang Yi had lashed out in remarks from Alaska saying the new sanctions are “not the way to welcome guests”. 

  Unfazed, Secretary of State Antony Blinken batted down the litany of Chinese counter-complaints, quipping that US-China talks “should be filled with lecture”. Yang, however, asserted that the United States “doesn’t speak to China from a position of strength” while also somewhat dramatically positing that it’s “impossible to strangle the Chinese people”.

  Ultimately, no one expected too much to come out of these talks, with China’s ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai earlier posting a statement to the web saying as much: “Naturally, we don’t expect one round of dialogue will resolve all the issues between China and the U.S. and we don’t hold overly high hopes,” according to the Chinese embassy in Washington’s website.

  “My wish is that this can be a start and that the two sides can begin a dialogue process that is candid, constructive and realistic,” Cui said. “If we can achieve that, I think this exchange will be successful.”

  But at this point on day-one… “constructive” is looking like it already went out the window.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 19:39

• Greenwald: Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Spread A Significant Lie All Over Twitter
  Greenwald: Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Spread A Significant Lie All Over Twitter

  Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com

  

  Journalists with the largest and most influential media outlets disseminated an outright and quite significant lie on Tuesday to hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, on Twitter. While some of them were shamed into acknowledging the falsity of their claim, many refused to, causing it to continue to spread up until this very moment. It is well worth examining how they function because this is how they deceive the public again and again, and it is why public trust in their pronouncements has justifiably plummeted.

  The lie they told involved claims of Russian involvement in the procurement of Hunter Biden’s laptop. In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, The New York Post obtained that laptop and published a series of articles about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere. In response, Twitter banned the posting of any links to that reporting and locked The Post out of its Twitter account for close to two weeks, while Facebook, through a long-time Democratic operative, announced that it would algorithmically suppress the reporting.

  The excuse used by those social media companies for censoring this reporting was the same invoked by media outlets to justify their refusal to report the contents of these documents: namely, that the materials were “Russian disinformation.” That claim of “Russian disinformation” was concocted by a group of several dozen former CIA officials and other operatives of the intelligence community devoted to defeating Trump. Immediately after The Post published its first story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine that traded on his influence with his father, these career spies and propagandists, led by Obama CIA Director and serial liar John Brennan, published a letter asserting that the appearance of these Biden documents “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

  News outlets uncritically hyped this claim as fact even though these security state operatives themselves admitted: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails…are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” Even though this claim came from trained liars who, with uncharacteristic candor, acknowledged that they did not “have evidence” for their claim, media outlets uncritically ratified this assertion.

  This was a topic I discussed extensively in October when I announced my resignation from The Intercept after senior editors — for the first time in seven years — violated the contractual prohibition on editorial interference in my journalism by demanding I significantly alter my reporting about these documents by removing the sections that reflected negatively on Biden. What I found particularly galling about their pretense that they have such high-level and rigorous editorial standards — standards they claimed, for the first time ever, that my article failed to meet — was that a mere week prior to their censorship of my article, they published an article by a different journalist which, at a media outlet we created with the explicit purpose of treating government claims with skepticism, instead treated the CIA’s claims of “Russian disinformation” as fact. Even worse, when they quoted the CIA’s letter, they omitted the part where even those intelligence agents acknowledged that they had no evidence for their assertion. From The Intercept on October 21:

  Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani….. The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.

  Oh my, marvel at those extremely rigorous editorial standards: regurgitating serious accusations from ex-CIA operatives without bothering to note that they were unaccompanied by evidence and that even those agents admitted they had none. But, as they usually do these days, The Intercept had plenty of company in the corporate media.

  That those materials were “Russian disinformation” became so reflexively accepted by the U.S. media that it became the principal excuse to ignore and even censor the reporting, and it also helpfully handed the Biden campaign an easy excuse to avoid answering any questions about what the documents revealed. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the prospect that Trump would raise the Biden emails at the debate. From the CIA’s lips to the mouths of corporate journalists into the hands of the Biden campaign.

  As the U.S. media disseminated this “disinformation” tale, nobody — including the Bidens — has ever claimed let alone demonstrated that a single document was anything other than genuine — something that would be exceedingly easy to do if the documents were fraudulent. “The Biden team has rejected some of the claims made in the NY Post articles, but has not disputed the authenticity of the [laptop] files upon which they were based,” acknowledged The New York Times. Ample evidence corroborates that the documents are genuine.

  As for the claims of Russian involvement in the laptop story, there was never any evidence for it: none. The CIA operatives who invented that storyline acknowledged that. The week that tale emerged, The New York Times reported that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.” The Washington Post published an op-ed by Russia fanatic Thomas Rid who candidly pronounced: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.” And the only time the U.S. Government has ever spoken on this question was when the Director of National Intelligence stated: “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”

  These documents raised important questions about the presidential frontrunner’s knowledge of or participation in his family members’ attempt to profit off of their association with him, questions implicating his integrity, ethics and honesty. Yet those documents were suppressed by a gigantic fraud, perpetrated by the CIA and their media allies, which claimed that the documents were forged and that they came from Russia.

  ---

  That is the critical context for the lie spread yesterday by numerous mainstream journalists. On Tuesday morning, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified a short 12-page report entitled “Foreign Threats to the U.S. 2020 Elections.”

  It reviewed the actions of numerous countries with regard to the 2020 election. The intelligence community claimed — without presenting any evidence whatsoever — that “Russian President Putin authorized…influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the U.S.” The New York Times’ largely credulous article about this report contained this admission, one you would think (or, rather, hope) would matter to journalists: “The declassified report did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election.”

  Despite that glaring omission, media outlets predictably treated the evidence-free assertions from the security state as fact. “Vladimir Putin did it again,” trumpeted Mother Jones’ David Corn without an iota of skepticism. CNN’s Marshall Cohen actually said this:

  The report confirms what was largely assumed, and barely hidden, last year: Trump and his allies publicly embraced Russia’s disinformation campaign against Biden, met with Kremlin-tied figures who were part of the effort, and promoted their conspiracies https://t.co/Wjhss5U6Nk

  — Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Think about that: to a CNN reporter, evidence-free assertions from the U.S. security state are tantamount to “confirmation.” That they really do think this way is nothing short of chilling. But that is the standard liberal media posture of harboring reverence for the U.S. intelligence community and treating its every utterance as Truth without the need for any corroborating evidence. It is one of their defining attributes.

  But in this case, many of them went far beyond mere regurgitation of CIA claims. Well beyond it: here, they fabricated a claim that report also demonstrated that the Hunter Biden laptop materials were — as they claimed before the election — engineered by Russia. In reality, the report did not even mention the Hunter Biden laptop materials or allude to it, let alone claim that it was produced by the Kremlin, let alone supply evidence that it constituted “Russian disinformation.” But no matter: numerous journalists united to spread the false claim far and wide that the report confirmed this storyline.

  The first journalist to publish the falsehood was Patrick Tucker, an editor at the journal Defense One. The tweet quickly went viral as liberals clicked “retweet” and “like” so fast that at least several of them likely suffered digital cartilage damage or at least a mild sprain:

  

  The claim that this report corroborated Russian involvement in the Hunter laptop story picked up significant steam when MSNBC host Chris Hayes endorsed it to his 2.3 million followers:

  

  From there, the claim was further spread by Hayes’ NBC News colleague Ben Collins, who — ironically — works in what the network calls the “disinformation unit,” combatting the spread of disinformation (by which Collins means tattling on 4Chan teenagers and Facebook boomers, while never challenging the lies of real power centers such as those from the intelligence community; those lies are ones he amplifies):

  

  With this MSNBC host and the NBC disinformation agent on board, it was off to the races. Journalists from across the corporate media sphere spread this lie over and over. Here was CNN’s Asha Rangappa:

  

  Perhaps the most embarrassing example was from S.V. Daté, the White House correspondent of HuffPost which, just last week, had dozens of its reporters laid off perhaps because, while they have numerous talented reporters, this is the sort of thing they routinely do, causing them to lose trust among the public. Daté did not just repeat the lie but used it to mock those who actually did the reporting on these documents (note that the section he underlined in red says nothing about the Hunter Biden documents, nor does it say anything about Russia other than it “amplified” various news stories):

  Hey, New York Post and everyone else who got suckered into the ridiculous Hunter Biden Laptop story.

  Take a bow. pic.twitter.com/H8mHZs1ij6

  — S.V. Dáte (@svdate) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As this false claim went massively viral, conservative journalists — and only they — began vocally objecting that the report made no mention whatsoever of the Hunter Biden laptop, let alone supplied proof for this claim. That is because, with a few noble exceptions (such as The Washington Post’s media critic Erik Wemple), liberal journalists at corporate outlets will eagerly endorse but never denounce or correct each other’s falsehoods. For that reason, if you confine yourself to the liberal corporate media bubble, and refuse to follow conservative journalists as well, you will be propagandized and deceived.

  Hayes, to his credit, was one of the only journalists who helped spread this falsehood and then quickly retracted it. He first acknowledged that, upon reading the report, it did not appear that it actually made any reference to the Hunter laptop, and then announced he would delete his original tweet, conceding that the original claim was false. Note how the original false claims go mega-viral, while the tweets which subsequently acknowledge their falsity are seen by very few people:

  

  With one of his earliest boosters having jumped ship, Tucker himself, the originator of this lie, first began backtracking while vowing he would never delete the tweet, only to then relent and delete it, acknowledging its falsity. Again compare the meager audience that learns of the backtracking and acknowledgment of falsity compared to the huge number exposed to the original false claim:

  

  I’ve deleted a tweet that suggested that a recent ODNI report made explicit reference to the Hunter Biden laptop story. It makes reference to Andrii Derkach, a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who was trafficking information remarkably similar to what showed up in the Post report

  — Patrick Tucker (@DefTechPat) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Thanks to multiple journalists with large platforms spreading Tucker’s original false tweet, it received thousands upon thousands of likes and re-tweets. So, too, did the tweets of other journalists promoting that false claim, such as the one from HuffPost’s White House Correspondent, and this one from one of David Brock’s goons specifically claiming that the security state’s evidence-free report somehow proves that my pre-election reporting on it was wrong. Yet Tucker’s announcement that he was deleting his tweet on the ground that the report does not make “explicit reference to the Hunter Biden laptop story” has a grand total of three retweets.

  Indeed, other than Hayes, it is difficult to find a journalist who acknowledged that what they spread was a lie. Both CNN’s Rangappa and NBC News’ Collins simply allowed the tweet to quietly disappear from their timeline when Tucker finally deleted his, saying nothing to the thousands or tens of thousands of people they misled. Meanwhile, the tweet from HuffPost’s Daté is still up a full twenty-four hours after the key journalists who spread this have acknowledged it was false.

  ---

  Do you see how they behave? Take a look. Prior to the election, out of desperation to ensure that Biden won, they censored and maligned this reporting by mindlessly endorsing an assertion from life-long CIA operatives that never had any evidence: ignore these documents; they are Russian disinformation. They not only invoked that claim to justify ignoring the story but also to successfully agitate for its censorship by Twitter and Facebook. So they spent weeks spreading an utter lie in order to help the candidate that they favored win the election. Remember, these are journalists doing that.

  Then, yesterday, the intelligence community issued a report that does not even purport to contain any evidence: just assertions. And they all jumped to treat it as gospel: no questioning of it, no skepticism, no demands to see evidence for it, not even any notation that no evidence was provided. They just instantly enshrined claims from the CIA and NSA as Truth. How can you possibly be a journalist with even minimal knowledge of what these agencies do and look in the mirror as you do this?

  But so much worse, in this case, they just outright lied about what the report said — just fabricated assertions that the report did not even allude to, in order to declare their lies from last October to be vindicated. Even if this report had asserted that the Hunter Biden laptop materials were manufactured by the Kremlin, that would prove nothing. Evidence-free assertions from the U.S. intelligence community merit skepticism, not blind faith — especially from people calling themselves journalists.

  But the report did not even claim that. And when some of them realized this, they did virtually nothing to rectify the severe disinformation they had spent the day spreading. These are the people who claim to be so profoundly opposed to conspiracy theories and devoted to combating “disinformation”; as usual, they are the ones who spread disinformation most recklessly and frequently.

  The fact that the false tweet from HuffPost’s White House correspondent is still up is quite revealing, given that that outlet just had to lay off a significant portion of its staff. As newly arrived Substack writer Michael Tracey wrote in his first article on this platform (headlined: “Why Journalists Hate Substack”), journalists are very good at lamenting when their outlets are forced to lay off journalists but very poor at examining whether the content their outlet is producing may be part of why it is failing:

  So when you see another round of layoffs, followed by another round of exasperated Twitter lamentation about how horrible the industry is, you have to wonder if these rituals ultimately function as an excuse for journalists to forgo any kind of real self-examination. For instance, why it is that the media organizations they inhabit always seem to be in a constant state of free-fall? Sure, there are economic factors at play that the journalists themselves cannot control. But it would seem to behoove these journalists to maybe spend a little bit less time complaining in the abstract about the depredations of “the industry”—as though they are its hapless, beleaguered casualties—and a little bit more time analyzing whether they have contributed to the indisputable reality that huge cross-sections of the public distrust and despise the media.

  There are multiple potential explanations for this dynamic worth considering. Maybe it’s the tedious hyper-partisanship and weirdly outdated content aggregation tactics that much of the online media still employs. Maybe it’s the constant five-alarm-fire tone and incessant hyping of overblown threats that was characteristic of the Trump years. Maybe it’s some combination of all these and more—but you won’t see many axed journalists offering up any kind of critical introspection, because when the layoffs arrive it can never have anything to do with their own ideological myopia or other shortcomings.

  Indeed, when anyone, including journalists, loses their job, it is lamentable. But when one witnesses behavior like what these journalists did yesterday, the only confounding part of the collapse of this part of the media industry is that it is not happening even more quickly and severely.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 19:20

• These US Cities Have The Most (And Fewest) Homes For Sale
  These US Cities Have The Most (And Fewest) Homes For Sale

  2020 was a wild year for the American real-estate market. Markets like NYC and San Francisco, which had formerly been among the hottest in the world, saw valuations crater as millions fled to the suburbs, or otherwise left urban markets, seeking space and solitude during a pandemic that made people anxious about their neighbors.

  An initial halt in transactions during the first week or two of the lockdown last March gave way to a frenzied market, as stimulus money and the Fed’s decision to slash rates to zero while increasing its purchases of MBS and Treasury bonds drove prices higher in smaller cities and towns across the country.

  

  But despite strong demand from buyers, the market hasn’t seen supply keep pace. The ripple effect of the pandemic has made many would-be sellers wary. This decline in inventories just as demand appears to peak is helping to drive prices even higher.

  In a study, the Inspection Support Network has published a study of which metropolitan markets have the most homes for sale.

  

  Another symptom of this dynamic is that homes sell faster, often within days of hitting the market.

  

  Unsurprisingly given the never-ending development boom in the Sunshine State, Florida has more available inventory than any other state in the union. That will come in handy as tax hikes in deep-blue states send more snowbirds scurrying for the sunny weather and low tax rates.

  

  In fact, many of the metropolitan areas with the most homes for sale are spread across Florida, and elsewhere in the Southeastern US. Panama City, a popular spring-break destination, ranked No. 1 on ISN’s list of small metros with the most and least homes for sale.

  

  Naples, situated on Florida’s southern Gulf Coast, ranked No. 1 for medium-sized cities.

   

  

  Miami and Atlanta topped the list for large metros, followed by

  • NYC
  • Las Vegas
  • Jacksonville
  • Houston
  • San Antonio
  • Orlando
  • Virginia Beach
  • Tampa

  With all this inventory, states like South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Las Vegas and Florida are beckoning to Midwesterners and New Englanders who are tired of high taxes and lingering COVID restrictions.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 19:00

• A "Vicious, Brutal Day": Four Traders Respond To Today's Market Chaos
  A “Vicious, Brutal Day”: Four Traders Respond To Today’s Market Chaos

  It wasn’t supposed to be like this.

  One day after Powell basically told markets that the Fed will not get in the way of the biggest asset bubble every blown for the next two years, stocks initially opened higher near all time highs only to drift all day as hapless traders watched as the SPX shed 1.5% – its worst drop in three weeks and the Nasdaq 100 fell 3.1%, erasing its gain for the year. 

  This, as SpotGamma writes, was a very atypical high gamma day, and as we have repeatedly cautioned, the negative gamma QQQ trade and weakness in tech is really dragging the S&P.

  Making matters worse, tomorrow’s quad-witch will only lead to an even more volatile market: on one hand, the S&P was on the zero gamma threshold which still implies a 3900-3950 pin is in play, but the larger issue is that due to the QQQs closing in negative gamma territory again, the Nasdaq is “poised for a lot of volatility tomorrow due to that large negative gamma position. Because tech is such a large piece of the S&P there is a lot of overlap here and we need to mentally “blend” these crosscurrents” according to SpotGamma.

  Finally, as shown in spotgamma’s QQQ vanna chart below, the “slope” of hedging is quite high, which suggests that dealers have a lot to sell if markets drop, and a lot to buy back if markets rip.

  

  Today’s bloodbath wasn’t contained to stocks however, and the violent drop came as bond yields rose – leading to even more risk parity pain – while oil prices plunged on concern about the impact of European lockdowns on demand. In short, as Bloomberg summarizes, it was a “brutal day”:

  

  So as traders prepare for what may be another painful quad-witching, one where the amount of expirations will be lower than usual…

  

  but where liquidity will be dismal…

  

  … here is what four of them are saying, courtesy of Bloomberg:

  Larry Weiss, head of equity trading at Instinet LLC in New York:

  It’s a bit of everything, rotation continues out of the crowded tech sector and small caps giving up some recent gains. Ahead of major index rebalance activity tomorrow, volumes are a bit light, exacerbating the moves. Oil is a factor, and inflation fears — despite the Fed Chair’s calls for rate stability through 2023 — remain a concern.

  Adam Phillips, director of portfolio strategy at EP Wealth Advisors:

  This appears to be a delayed response to yesterday’s FOMC meeting. Jay Powell has made it clear that investors are on their own for now when it comes to higher yields, so even if bonds appear oversold, yields may still have further to go. That being said, the pressure on the Fed will only grow as economic data strengthens in the months ahead.

  Chris Grisanti, chief equity strategist at MAI Capital Management:

  The market is voting right now that we are out of tech and into cyclical, energy and financials.The viciousness and the rapidity of it surprises me but the direction of it doesn’t. It really did seem to grow on itself today. Bonds yields just kind of leaped. Inflation is spooking the market. Companies that would do well with higher rates are clearly out-performing. Powell is saying, take me at face value, we’re going to keep rates low — that’s terrific for economic growth but it scares the bond vigilantes that there will be too much and it will turn into inflation.

  Mike Bailey, director of research at FBB Capital Partners:

  It’s as simple as yields up, growth bad. We’re seeing a pattern where an uncomfortable spike in the 10-year Treasury reminds equity investors that their tech stocks are trading well above average, with cyclicals looking more attractive. This spurt in Treasury yields will settle down and equity investors will come back to tech and growth, but it may take a few trading days.

  Finally, for those who missed it, here is our preview of Quad-Witch: Here Are The Stocks With The Biggest Call And Put Gamma Imbalance

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• EU To Sanction China For First Time in 3 Decades Over Uighur 'Genocide'
  EU To Sanction China For First Time in 3 Decades Over Uighur ‘Genocide’

  US pressure and spiraling relations with Beijing, lately focused heavily on human rights-related complaints and the crackdown particularly on China’s ethnic Muslim community which the Trump administration had previously dubbed “genocide”, are now for the first time manifesting in a very definitive way in Europe. 

  “The European Union agreed on Wednesday to blacklist Chinese officials for human rights abuses, two diplomats said, the first sanctions against Beijing since an EU arms embargo in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square crackdown,” Reuters reports.

  These first EU sanctions in over three decades stem from widespread reports of ‘systematic’ human rights abuses in the northwest Xinjiang region, where millions of Muslim Uighurs are said to be confined to Communist ‘reeducation’ and labor camps.

  

  It’s to include travel bans and asset freezes on at least four Chinese individuals and one entity, Reuters notes; however, the names aren’t expected to be made public until formal approval by EU foreign ministers on March 22.

  EU diplomats have confirmed the sanctions preparations to Reuters, which writes further:

  The 1989 EU arms embargo on China, its second-largest trade partner, is still in place.

  “Restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses adopted,” one EU diplomat said.

  Shortly after the report, the Chinese mission to the EU posted a statement expressing anger over the move, calling it “confrontational”. 

  “Sanctions are confrontational,” the Twitter statement said. “We want dialogue, not confrontation. We ask the EU side to think twice. If some insist on confrontation, we will not back down, as we have no options other than fulfilling our responsibilities to the people.”

  Amb. Zhang on EU’s possible sanctions: Sanctions are confrontational. We want dialogue, not confrontation. We ask the EU side to think twice. If some insist on confrontation, we will not back down, as we have no options other than fulfilling our responsibilities to the people. pic.twitter.com/durTRjhXQj

  — Mission of China (@ChinaEUMission) March 17, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Canada meanwhile has been most vocal and out front on the Uighur issue, with many MPs attempting to urge EU countries and others to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.

  This dramatic proposal to sit out the games as a human rights “message” to China has been met with coolness in Europe. Thus this sanctions measure appears an attempt at ‘doing something’ but without going as far as some Canadian and British lawmakers are pushing for.

  All of this further comes as EU officials are refusing China’s invitations to investigate the Uighur camps first hand: “China denies any human rights abuses in Xinjiang and says its camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism,” Reuters writes. 

  “Beijing has on numerous occasions invited EU ambassadors to Xinjiang but envoys say they cannot visit under the strict conditions and monitoring set by Chinese authorities.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 02:45

• Israel Is Back With Airstrikes As Turkey Scrambles To Salvage Some Oil In Syria
  Israel Is Back With Airstrikes As Turkey Scrambles To Salvage Some Oil In Syria

  Submitted by SouthFront

  As has become customary in recent weeks, after the relative success of the Axis of Resistance on battlefields across the Middle East, Israel delivered a reminder of its interest in Syria. On March 16th, Damascus’ air defense repelled a missile barrage, which was heading towards targets surrounding the Syrian capital.

  A statement by the Syrian Arab Army said that the missiles had been launched from the direction of the occupied Golan Heights and targeted undisclosed positions around Damascus. Most of the missiles were reportedly intercepted and no casualties were observed. There was minimal damage.

  Strikes such as these are commonplace and happen somewhat regularly, especially now in 2021, when Tel Aviv considers its interests under even more threat than usual due to the Biden Administration’s relative passivity towards Iran.

  The Israeli strike was not the only attack on Damascus in recent days. On March 15th, Syrian security forces foiled a terrorist attack intended to target unspecified areas in Damascus. As a result, three terrorists were killed and three were arrested. All six were wearing explosive belts.

  Separately, in what is likely a positive development for Damascus, Russian forces moved into an oil field and gas field in the northeast Raqqah governorate.

  Russian military reinforcements alongside units from the Russian-backed Fifth Armored Division arrived at al-Thawra oil facility which produces around 2,000 bpd.

  Earlier, on March 12th, Russian forces entered the Toueinane gas field, also in the same area.

  This is a small, but notable shift highlighting a change in the balance of power in northern Syria. Since Russia is allied with Damascus, prior to that most of Syria’s oil went to the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces or various Turkish proxies.  Most of the oil still goes out of Syria, but this is a movement in another direction.

  In addition, Russia’s Defense Ministry said that Turkish forces are carry out military movements and acts in Raqqa countryside in violation of a Memorandum of Understanding that Ankara signed with Moscow.

  According to a statement, the Russian side is extremely worried about transporting military equipment affiliated to the Turkish armed forces and establishing fortifications and support points in the suburbs of Ain Issa.

  This is an attempt at a Turkish response to recent shelling by the Syrian Arab Army in the area surrounding Aleppo, and other positions where Turkish proxies operate. Ankara can’t afford to lose access to all of its cheap oil, and as such needs to provide some semblance of resistance before losing access to it.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 03/18/2021 – 02:00

• Daniel Ellsberg Talks About Whistleblowing, The Pervasiveness Of Official Lies, And The Dangers Of The Espionage Act
  Daniel Ellsberg Talks About Whistleblowing, The Pervasiveness Of Official Lies, And The Dangers Of The Espionage Act

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

  “On Tuesday morning, August 4th, 1964,” writes Daniel Ellsberg in Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, “a courier came in my out office with an urgent cable for my boss. He had been running.”

  A former Marine with a PhD from Harvard in Decision Theory, Ellsberg had joined the Pentagon as special assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton, who himself was perhaps the closest advisor to Secretary Robert McNamara. Ellsberg, in other words, was the right hand of the right hand, of the man who would become known as the chief architect of the Vietnam War.

  Ellsberg’s first day on August 4th, 1964 proved to be a historic one. His boss McNaughton was down the hall with McNamara, so the panting courier handed Ellsberg the note and left. He opened it and found it was from Captain John J. Herrick, the commodore of a two-destroyer flotilla in the Gulf of Tonkin, off North Vietnam in the South China sea. Officially, the United States was not yet engaged in full-fledged military operations in Indochina.

  

  Herrick said he was under attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats, and had opened fire in return. He was 60 miles from the coast, in international waters. The sonar operators on the Destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy, Maddox said, each heard torpedoes in the water. Ten minutes later, the courier returned with a new note. “Am under continuous torpedo attack,” he wrote, about an encounter that was taking place in total darkness.

  For some time after, cables came in quick succession, as Ellsberg guessed Herrick was dictating from the bridge in between trying to maneuver his ships. “Torpedoes missed. Another fired at us,” read one. “Four torpedoes in water,” read a second. “Five torpedoes in water… Have successfully avoided at least six torpedoes…” According to Herrick, at least one attacking boat had been sunk. The action went on for two long hours, before suddenly the stream of messages cut short.

  “Then, suddenly, an hour later,” Ellberg wrote, “a message arrived that took back, not quite all of it, but enough to put the rest of it in question.” The courier came in running again, handing him a cable with the highest clearance and urgency [emphasis mine]:

  Review of action makes any reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonar men may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken…

  It was a little after 2 p.m., Washington time. Ellsberg was dumbfounded by the latest communications. “In my mind, these messages erased the impact of the two-hour-long live drama that we had been following. This new information was a cold bath.”

  Herrick later sent another cable: “Details of action present a confusing picture, although certain original ambush bona fide.” Ellsberg was now unsure of how Herrick was so sure, given that he hadn’t seen anything and was acknowledging, among other things, that one sonar man was hearing his own ship’s propeller. “It seemed almost certain there had been no attack,” Ellsberg wrote, certain the proper course was to wait to see what actually happened before acting.

  Things didn’t go that way. Senior military officials scrambled to put together an immediate retaliatory airstrike. President Lyndon Johnson was so anxious not only to strike back, but to brief the public about doing it, that he asked the Pentagon’s permission to go on TV with details before the planes even reached Vietnam.

  LBJ was on the air by 11:37 p.m. that night, telling the American people that “hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes” constituted “open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America.” McNamara gave subsequent pressers in which he described “unprovoked” attacks of U.S. vessels on “routine patrols” in “international waters.” They described the evidence for Vietnamese aggression as “unequivocal.”

  By the end of Ellsberg’s first day, he knew every single one of these claims was a lie. The two destroyers were on a special mission, penetrating deep into North Vietnamese waters and engaging in sabotage raids. In top-secret testimony to congress in the two days after the August 4th incident, McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk told congressional leaders the U.S. had nothing to do with the raids, which were entirely South Vietnamese operations.

  Ellsberg soon learned this was a lie, too, that the personnel on the ships had been chosen by the CIA and that the operations were run jointly by the agency and the Navy. “Each of these assertions,” Ellsberg would later write, “was false.” You can still go back and look to see how these lies were reported with complete credulity and never corrected:

  

  Ellsberg became famous years later for shepherding to the public a wealth of secret documents about the ugly history of failure, brutality, and ignorance in the Vietnam War, collectively known as the Pentagon Papers. He is America’s most famous whistleblower, a figure who single-handedly triggered a major constitutional crisis when the government of Richard Nixon tried to block publication of his material.

  However, Ellsberg has remained an important figure in American culture and politics precisely because so little has changed since the events of the fifties, sixties, and seventies he described in such vivid detail.

  In the Useful Idiots interview below, Ellsberg points out the similarities between Vietnam and our current policies in various countries around the world. He says our leaders are worried about “regime change in Washington,” which they believe would occur if they left other countries’ oil in the ground, or “stopped killing Afghans.”

  More than anything, however, Ellsberg is an expert on the role of secrecy in American life. Both in his books and in his interview with Useful Idiots, he describes military and executive branch officials who don’t even figure “truth” as a variable in their calculations, since it’s irrelevant to what they tell the world.

  He arrived in Washington believing the commonly held notion that nothing in the capital stays secret for long. Soon he learned that it’s actually quite easy to keep secrets. Ellsberg described a vicious cycle, in which leaders lie pervasively, then learn to have so much contempt for the public that swallows those lies, that they feel justified in lying more.

  “My awareness of how easily Congress, the public, and journalists were fooled and misled contributed to a lack of respect for them,” he wrote. “That, in turn, made it easier to accept practices of deception,” and “their resulting ignorance made it all the more obvious that they must leave these problems to us.”

  Ellsberg is adamant that our military and intelligence services don’t learn from even the bloodiest failures. However, when asked in the Useful Idiots if they’d at least learned something in a negative sense — like how to deal with whistleblowers and shut off pictures of war deaths — he concurred, explaining that he himself had been used as propaganda.

  “It is now accepted that somebody can be a good whistleblower, and that’s Daniel Ellsberg,” he says, “in contrast with Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden. The appreciation that I’ve been getting since 2010, I can date very simply to the need to denigrate Chelsea Manning.”

  He went on to describe a New Yorker piece written by Malcolm Gladwell that ripped Ed Snowden in comparison to him, Ellsberg, among other things quoting an analyst who wondered if Snowden “may have been the dupe of a foreign-intelligence service.” Ellsberg wrote a letter to the New Yorker calling the contrast ridiculous, and, he tells us, “They never published it.”

  Overall, Ellsberg’s takes on nuclear safety, the implications of the use of the Espionage Act in the Julian Assange case, and continued misuse of secrecy and hyper-aggressive foreign policy in places like Afghanistan and Syria, still resonate. The most powerful part of his interview regarded the power of the secret state in modern America.

  “They know where we are, they know our names, they know from our iPhones if we’re on our way to the grocery store or not,” he said. “We could be East Germany in weeks. In a month.”

  The last portion of the Useful Idiots episode:

  Excerpt from the interview:

  Matt Taibbi: What you saw in Vietnam is similar to what people saw in Iraq, and then Afghanistan. What’s the mentality that continues to think that these same kinds of policies will work, and why can’t they get out of that mentality?

  Ellsberg: You have to ask, who is it who actually bears the cost of these and who doesn’t? Any of these wars were not bad for the people making weapons, and it’s not only them. It’s the banks that finance them and it’s the congresspeople who benefit, as I keep saying, from the donations and the jobs and so forth. They did fine…

  Are we actually going to get out of Afghanistan? It’s scheduled, by Trump of all people, for May. Okay, that’s very close. Is that going to happen? Let’s see. Certainly not for sure… If we don’t get out now, there is no reason why it will look different two years from now, five years from now, 10 years from now. We’ll still be killing Afghans and losing very few Americans, because it’s all in the air and some special forces going to unarmed villages and whatnot. So very few American casualties, air power, a lot of things. The American public can live with that for a long time. They have lived for 20 years with that. Could be another 20 years.

  Katie Halper: Can you talk about the role of the media in America’s aggressive foreign policy?

  Ellsberg: With the Gulf of Tonkin, the Times did not say, “Here’s what we said at the time.” The Times did not go back and say, “Here’s who lied to us. Here’s how we were lied to. Here’s how gullible we were. Here’s the pattern of deception.” No, that would blame themselves. They didn’t need that, so they didn’t do it…

  In short, I think nations and institutions, we talk about why don’t they learn, learning is not what they do, because learning involves seeing prior errors that you haven’t met. Errors are an occasion for blame, for losing jobs, for being criticized, and they don’t do that.

  Matt Taibbi: Well, sometimes they learn in a negative way though, don’t they? Do you ever think that the way they dealt with Snowden, and to a lesser extent Julian Assange and some other whistleblowers, was about making sure that there was never going to be a Daniel Ellsberg again who would live on and be a hero in the public consciousness?

  Ellsberg: I misspoke when I say they don’t do any learning… Definitely, they do learn.

  Katie Halper: They don’t become more moral, though.

  Ellsberg: It’s not as though they learn how to meet human values or improve human welfare in the world. That’s not what they’re into… But in terms of how can we get away with it better, they do learn….

  They’ve learned to wield the Espionage Act, to criminalize whistleblowing much more than before. You said they didn’t want any more Ellsbergs. Well, obviously, they did get Chelsea Manning, they did get Snowden. Chelsea was 39 years after the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers did have an effect, as you say, on people’s understanding of the war. It didn’t end the war, but it did affect people’s attitudes. And really, it kept us out of more Vietnams for a couple of decades…

  The NSA did not do surveillance on American citizens without a warrant for about 25 years or so after, so that was a change. But then 9/11 comes along, and it’s Constitution be damned. Since then, this is 20 years ago, we’ve had total surveillance of everybody, totally unconstitutionally.

  It’s created a situation where we’re not a police state, but we could be a police state almost from one day to the next, if they act on all the information they have now about people who give them any trouble or people who protest. They know where we are, they know our names, they know from our iPhones if we’re on our way to the grocery store or not. But they haven’t acted on that to put people in camps yet. They could do it.

  We could be East Germany in weeks, in a month. Huge concentration camps and so forth.

  Matt Taibbi: Why aren’t more journalists worried about the use of the Espionage Act in the Julian Assange case?

  Ellsberg: Because they have never been tried before. This is a first, so they thought they were immune… I’ve been saying for 40 years now, 50 years, I’ve been saying to journalists and judges, the wording of that law applies to you as well as your sources…

  It is now accepted that somebody can be a good whistleblower, and that’s Daniel Ellsberg, in contrast to Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden. The appreciation I’ve been getting since 2010, I can date very simply to the need to denigrate Chelsea Manning… This contrast is used all the time. So I’m appreciated in order to say, “Ah, but there were bad whistleblowers like Snowden or Assange.” And a lot of people do that.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 23:40

• Tinder Will Soon Allow Users To Run Background Checks On Would-Be Dates
  Tinder Will Soon Allow Users To Run Background Checks On Would-Be Dates

  Online dating is on the verge of becoming a whole lot safer. Tinder, along with its parent company Match Group, partnered with a non-profit background check platform, called Garbo, to help customers determine if their blind date is hiding a criminal record. 

  “Match Group will begin testing and building out capabilities for Garbo on Tinder in the coming months,” according to a news release. Once Garbo is integrated on Tinder, other Match Group brands (Match, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, OurTime, among others) will follow. 

  

  When it comes to Tinder and Hinge, and other online dating apps, very little is known about the other person before the blind date. Garbo transforms online dating experience to become a safer environment. 

  “For far too long, women and marginalized groups in all corners of the world have faced many barriers to resources and safety,” said Tracey Breeden, Head of Safety and Social Advocacy for Match Group.

  “We recognize corporations can play a key role in helping remove those barriers with technology and true collaboration rooted in action. In partnership with Match Group, Garbo’s thoughtful and groundbreaking consumer background check will enable and empower users with information, helping create equitable pathways to safer connections and online communities across tech.”

  Once Tinder fully integrates Garbo, users can check public records and reports of violence or abuse before the first date. 

  “Before Garbo, abusers were able to hide behind expensive, hard-to-find public records and reports of their violence; now that’s much harder,” Garbo CEO Kathryn Kosmides said. “Being able to reach historically underserved populations is fundamental to Garbo’s mission and the partnership with Match will help us connect with these communities.”

  The move by Match comes as Tinder murders have been reported over the years. Here are some recent news stories: 

  

  Rethinking safety appears to be Match’s biggest push this year across all dating platforms. It would not surprise us if COVID health passports were also an additional option for Tinder dates. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 23:20

• Iran's Defense Ministry Warns Citizens To Prepare For Nuclear & Chemical Attacks
  Iran’s Defense Ministry Warns Citizens To Prepare For Nuclear & Chemical Attacks

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  On Tuesday, Iran’s defense minister said the country must be prepared to face nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.

  “We should be prepared to defend our nation against all threats and whatever the enemy may one day use as an offensive tool, including chemical, nuclear and biological weapons,” said Gen. Amir Hatami, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

  

  Hatami made his comments on the 33rd anniversary of a chemical weapons attack by Saddam Hussein on Iraqi Kurds in Halabja, Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war that raged from 1980 to 1988, Hussein frequently used chemical weapons against Iran, sometimes with US support.

  Declassified CIA documents revealed that in 1988, the US shared intelligence with Hussein to show the location of Iranian troops, knowing he would use lethal gas against them.

  The documents revealed the US had firm evidence Hussein was using chemical weapons as early as 1983. 

  The US and other Western countries provided Hussein with materials to make chemical weapons at the time. A 1994 congressional inquiry found that US companies shipped anthrax and dozens of other biological agents that could be used to make chemical weapons to Iraq during the war. 

  Today is the 33rd anniversary of the Halabja chemical massacre, part of Saddam Hussein’s genocide against Kurds.

  The Reagan admin knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, but continued to supply targeting data and blamed Halabja on Iran. https://t.co/xB29S4MPg0

  — Matthew Petti (@matthew_petti) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Besides Iran’s history of being targeted by chemical weapons, Iran is also constantly threatened by Israel, the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East.

  While Israel frequently takes covert action against Iran, Israeli officials have been hinting at a larger attack on Tehran’s civilian nuclear program if the US returns to the Iran nuclear deal.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 23:00

• America's Small Businesses On Gov't Life Support As Debt Apocalypse Can Kicked
  America’s Small Businesses On Gov’t Life Support As Debt Apocalypse Can Kicked

  No matter if it’s Republicans under former President Trump or Democrats under President Biden, the one commonality between these two political parties is that they are in massive support of government relief programs and lender forbearance programs to keep small and medium-sized enterprises from defaulting on their debt as revenue collapsed during the virus pandemic. 

  Washington, DC-based think tank Urban Institute analyzed data from commercial data and analytics firm Dun & Bradstreet of one million businesses between September 2019 and January 2021 to examine trends before and after the federal government closed the economy to mitigate the virus spread. What they found was despite small businesses sustaining massive revenue declines, many of them remained in solid credit standings. 

  Among small firms nationwide, past-due payments or debts owed by them as a share of each firm’s total trade activity increased nationwide, from 17.7% in February 2020 to 18.3% in January 2021. The most significant jump in past-due payments was in San Francisco, where they increased from 13.5% in February 2020 to 17.8% in January 2021. New York City had delinquencies rise quicker than the national average, from 25.1% in February 2020 to 27.6% in January 2021.

  San Francisco

  

  New York 

  

  Many small businesses were transformed into zombie companies, kept alive by the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other stimulus programs. These businesses have slashed costs and payrolls; landlords and creditors have allowed them flexibility in rent payments or servicing debts. 

  “It’s a good sign that small businesses are maintaining strong credit and increasing their cash on hand, but their ultimate standing will depend on future supports and the pace of the economic recovery,” said Urban Institute. At the moment, some ten million jobs are missing from the economy since the virus pandemic began. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, accounting for more than 50% of all jobs. 

  The combined result of PPP support, cost reductions, and forbearances has favored some small businesses whose cash holdings are significantly higher. 

  “Shrinking payroll, reducing physical space, and other accommodations are painful for small businesses and may constrain their ability to grow,” said Urban Institute. “It’s also unclear what will happen when creditors cease to offer flexibility for businesses on repayment of their built-up amounts owed.”

  When government relief programs and forbearances expire (maybe not until later this year considering Biden’s new stimulus program) – there comes a time when small businesses are taken off life support and will face the consequences of servicing debt and paying rent in an economy that is entirely dependent on massive fiscal packages. 

  Despite the relatively strong credit metrics, small businesses are on government life support – any removal of the support will create a fiscal cliff. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 22:40

• Would You Buy An Automobile Designed By A Woke Engineer?
  Would You Buy An Automobile Designed By A Woke Engineer?

  Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the leftwing cancel cult now running amok through the unguarded halls of academia is that highly intelligent people, with absolutely no racial or political ax to grind, are being forced to defend themselves and their respective fields from the most outrageous accusations, time that would be much better spent on valuable research.

  

  While mathematicians over the millennia have successfully solved some of the most perplexing problems, like the Poincaré Conjecture and Fermat’s Last Theorom, they will probably have more difficulty arriving at a solution for appeasing the woke mob now banging on their door.

  Difficult as it may be to fathom, the radical progressive inquisition has a beef with the cloistered community of number crunchers, made up as it is, according to the woke crowd, of closet racists and white supremacists. Needless to say, this latest accusation has sent shockwaves through the academic community.

  This month, Sergiu Klainerman, professor of mathematics at Princeton University, explained to the journalist Bari Weiss how he has personally witnessed “the decline of universities and cultural institutions as they have embraced political ideology at the expense of rigorous scholarship.” Klainerman admitted that he had “naively thought” that the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) would be not be touched by this “ideological takeover.” Much to his chagrin, he was mistaken.

  “I was wrong,” he admitted. “Attempts to ‘deconstruct’ mathematics, deny its objectivity, accuse it of racial bias, and infuse it with political ideology have become more and more common — perhaps, even, at your child’s elementary school.”

  The story gets better. As an émigré of the formerly communist regime of Romania, Klainerman makes an observation that should give any freedom-loving American tremendous pause. The former denizens of the totalitarian Soviet state, he explained, viewed the field of mathematics as “a great equalizer: those from socioeconomically disadvantaged families had a chance to compete on equal footing with those from privileged ones.”

  “Mathematics also granted me an escape from the intoxicating daily drum of party propaganda — a refuge from the crushing atmosphere of political and ideological conformity [italics added].”

  Today, Klainerman’s dramatic life has come full circle as he finds himself struggling against a different sort of oppression, that is, the cancel cult – what some have called ‘Cultural Marxism’ – that has descended on college campuses around the country like a brain fog. It’s not communist theory, however, which is promulgating the lie of racism inside of the mathematic disciplines, but rather one of the wealthiest capitalists of our time, Bill Gates.

  Klainerman takes issue with a shocking document financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and endorsed by various State of California educational entities, entitled, ‘A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.’ The very first paragraph gives away the entire scheming plot:

  “This tool provides teachers an opportunity to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.”

  [This opening paragraph provides a citation to a 2001 paper entitled, ‘White Supremacy Culture,’ yet that document fails to mention either the study of mathematics, or the university setting where such implied racism is said to occur. In other words, “racism in mathematics” is a priori accepted as fact].

  Political correctness. pic.twitter.com/9scWze34uD

  — James Lindsay, top expert in sexiness (@ConceptualJames) March 10, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  How do you know if your classroom is – wittingly or unwittingly – promoting a white supremacy culture? According to the document that happens when “[T]he focus is on getting the “right” answer,” apparently an anal retentive trait of the fastidious Caucasian tribe. The quotation marks around “right,” incidentally, appear in the original, suggesting that there really is no “right” answer in the field of mathematics.

  That sort of thinking was tossed around back in August when James Lindsay, of New Discourses, posted a memorable meme that quipped: “2+2=4: A perspective in white, Western mathematics that marginalizes other possible values.” This blew up the Internet when enraged wokesters, who have made it their life mission to rage against every sort of scientific, biological and mathematical fact, responded that sometimes 2+2 could equal 5. You know, just like a born male can sometimes suffer menstrual cramps. It is worth considering how these same people would respond at their local grocer if the cashier tried to charge them for five apples instead of four. But I digress.

  To take the observation a bit further, Klainerman was not really going out on a limb when he said that without the precision of mathematical certainty, “bridges would collapse, planes would fall from the sky, and bank transactions would be impossible.”

  Other clues that your math class is a hotbed of white supremacist ideology is when your teacher requires students to “show their work in only one way;” math is taught in a “linear fashion” and skills are taught sequentially; expectations are “not met.” The reader is not informed as to what those expectations are.

  The irony is that in this effort to root out “racism” in the classroom, the authors of this document are themselves guilty of the very same sin as they attempt to assign attributes and stereotypes to an entire race of people. It requires little imagination to guess what the response would be if such “racial profiling” were turned around and applied to other races of people. Meanwhile, the notion that mathematics could be rooted in racism is simply absurd. The beauty of mathematics is that there can only be one correct answer to every problem, and talented students – regardless of skin color – all have the freedom to pursue this discipline.

  Indeed, mathematics is the most straightforward of all disciplines, which means that the final result is not determined by any subjective feelings of the teacher. Although there may be isolated cases where a particular educator may give preferential treatment to some students at the expense of others, that cannot be a logical reason to forward the preposterous charge that the world of mathematics is brimming with white supremacists.

  In fact, the field of mathematics, which has been built on the work of the ancients, like the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Egyptians, is in reality the very least segregated, the least racist, of disciplines. It is open to anyone who is willing and able to excel at number crunching, which may make it an easy target to be tarred as an exclusive white man’s club.

  Academics must begin confronting this unfounded criticism head on, lest the radical progressives succeed in convincing the world through aggressive bully tactics that 2+2 really does equal 5, and that math teachers are imbued with innate racism. Otherwise, the very foundation of Western civilization, dependent as it is on mathematical precision, will simply collapse from within.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 22:20

• SUV-Sized Battery Was Just Jettisoned From The ISS
  SUV-Sized Battery Was Just Jettisoned From The ISS

  With space junk becoming a significant problem that could wreak havoc on working satellites, the International Space Station (ISS) decided to dump an SUV-sized pallet of batteries into low Earth orbit.  

  The ISS discharged a 2.9-ton pallet of used batteries last Thursday, the most massive object it has ever ejected, NASA spokesperson Leah Cheshier told Gizmodo.

  

  “The External Pallet was the largest object—mass-wise—ever jettisoned from the International Space Station at 2.9 tons, more than twice the mass of the Early Ammonia Servicing System tank jettisoned by spacewalker Clay Anderson during the STS-118 mission in 2007,” Cheshier said. 

  The pallet is made of nickel-hydrogen batteries and will orbit the Earth for the next two to four years “before burning up harmlessly in the atmosphere,” according to NASA.

  Today’s ROBO team (@ROBO_Seagram @ROBO_Birchnall in @csa_asc & @LeVayNathan in @NASA_Johnson) released the HTV-9 Exposed Pallet with old @Space_Station batteries using #Canadarm2 & magic of orbital mechanics! EP been on ISS for a while. Will burn up in atmosphere in 2-4 yrs! pic.twitter.com/9QhB6jJhVs

  — Kam Bahrami (@ROBO_Kam) March 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  She said the object is “no threat” to working satellites and will be closely monitored by U.S. Space Command.

  However, Phil Plait, whose “Bad Astronomy” blog runs on Syfy Wire, tweeted: “This strikes me (haha, a pun given the circumstances) as dangerous. It seems big and dense so unlikely to burn up completely.” 

  The ejection of the 2.9-ton object comes as the European Space Agency (ESA) recently warned that millions of objects are orbiting Earth, and there’s bound to be a collision between space junk and working satellites. 

  If readers are curious about just how much space junk is orbiting above, ESA’s animation shows an incredible view of all the debris:  

  

  The volume of both function and non-function objects in orbit has been steadily increasing since the start of the space age in 1957. Now there’s so much junk orbiting around the planet that collision risks are rising. 

  To solve this problem, ESA recently awarded the Swiss startup company Clearpace, a $117 million contract to remove space debris from orbit.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 22:00

• Bitcoin Bros Rediscovering Our Monetary Past
  Bitcoin Bros Rediscovering Our Monetary Past

  Authored by Joakim Book via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  All eyes on bitcoin, it seems, as the price hits new all-time-highs, its proponents celebrate, and the economists who have long pronounced it dead and useless scratch their head in confusion (any “bubble” pronouncements as of late?)

  “The discomforting reality for the early idealists,” wrote Izabella Kaminska, a long-time critic of cryptocurrencies, before the price explosion in recent months, “is that 12 years on, the bitcoin ecosystem has more in common with the incumbent one it was hoping to displace than that original utopian vision.” 

  

  She’s more right than she knows. In one sense, we should probably celebrate this as it means that bitcoin is approaching the monetary commodity dream it always harbored: it is running into some eternal troubles common to all monetary systems. Even better, we should take the opportunity to teach some monetary history, as those in the crypto world have never been particularly well-versed in our monetary past. The audience they cater to is even less informed and so the “bitcoin heroes” – Saifedean Ammous, Robert Breedlove etc – are celebrated for their wisdom, no matter how rudimentary or inaccurate. 

  It’s easy to discard an entire field of centuries-long academic inquiries, especially if you’ve never been exposed to it, or only investigated a caricature. Some humility is recommended since, as Denis Patrick O’Brien writes in his collection of scholarly articles The Development of Monetary Economics, “Monetary economics has attracted some of the very best people to have written about economic problems.” 

  In contrast to Bitcoin’s money supply mechanism, set in stone since its origin, many of bitcoin’s rivals – “alt-coins” or “sh**coins” – want to set their own monetary policy, laid down arcane rules in fancy white papers that only the insiders have the discretion to change. This dispute over rules and discretion about who runs the printing press is about three centuries old if not more, and was thoroughly investigated by the likes of Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Tooke, Horsley Palmer, Walter Bagehot, John Clapham and others. 

  Some of the seemingly novel features of many cryptocurrency innovations are not so novel, and quickly run into precisely the problems that plagued past economies; these were promptly examined and argued over by monetary economists long since dead and forgotten. 

  When Bitcoin was small and insignificant, the dollar-cost of sending value across the network was minuscule. For the first few years of the cryptocurrency’s existence, this was among the best reasons to use it: you could send any amount, to anyone in the world, much cheaper and much faster than the legacy banking system of the 2000s. That was roughly correct. Legacy systems were slow and expensive, and doing international banking only 15-20 years ago caused headaches to plenty more people than money launderers.

  The Internet, effective competition, and the rise of fintechs changed all that – but the most vocal bitcoiners remained in the past that the legacy system had long left behind, thinking that their magnificent invention still trumped the system against which bitcoin was created. For most uses it doesn’t: unless you’re living under authoritarian regimes or are trying to do business in the legal grey (two very important, yet comparatively small, market segments), using bitcoin for its initial transactional purposes isn’t that great. 

  How our monetary past informs Bitcoin’s current troubles

  Exhibit A: Second Layers. After 2017 – the bull-run, the congestion, the forks and battle over block sizes – the winning faction found an enticing solution to their crowded-mempool problems: second layers like the “Lightning network” or similar services like Liquid (with plenty of others in the works). Instead of settling on Bitcoin’s main blockchain, most minor transactions would take place on a second layer that only occasionally settled on the main network. That way, every on-chain transaction could include many more underlying transactions, netted against each other. Second layers make perfect sense against bitcoin’s inherent supply-schedule problem. 

  Except that for anyone who looked, this was just old commercial banking systems reinvented, trust sneaking in through the back door. A commercial banking system (with or without a central bank) that freely issues notes and deposits redeemable in some outside currency was also a second layer on top of the main currency layer of the realm (which in our monetary past was often gold or silver). The second-layer solutions sketched right now are supposedly full-reserve and don’t have maturity mismatch, but so started early banking before they developed into the (safe!) fractional reserve banks that bitcoiners detest so much. 

  Just like you must put trust in your commercial bank not to risk your deposits or excessively inflate the notes they issued, with bitcoin you must place faith in second-layer networks you join not to run off with your bitcoin or revert your transactions. Not your keys, not your… em, transactions.

  Why would anybody in the past take paper money, the value of which could be inflated away and had counterparty risk on the bank that issued it, over “hard currency” like gold? Easy, noted Ray Perman in his superb financial history of Edinburgh: “The first paper notes were seen as holding their value better than coin because they could not be debased and clipping them did not affect their worth.” There’s no risk-free baseline; you pick your poison. And sometimes, to the fury of bitcoin maximalists, that poison isn’t the technical hurdles of bitcoin but the sweet insecurity of political governments and central banks and our well-established systems of international commercial banking. 

  Exhibit B: Speed and Cost of Payment. Making a high-priority transfer on the Bitcoin network, i.e. having a great chance for your transaction to be included in the next few blocks, requires you to pay something like 30 cents during low-traffic times, and closer to $20 or $30 in high-traffic times. Many bitcoin wallets allow you to send transactions with “Low Priority” settings meaning that they will clear on the network perhaps a day or two later. This usually inches the price closer to that 30 cents than the 30 dollars I mentioned. 

  But hang on, wasn’t the beauty of Bitcoin that transactions were cheap and fast compared to the banking system it supplants? It seems this brilliant piece of tech ran into precisely the trade-off between speed, cost, and finality with which our legacy systems have struggled for centuries. Surprise, surprise, the revolutionary bitcoin network went full circle. You can have efficient and thus cheap payments, fast payments, or secure payments – but not all three. When Satoshi Nakamoto programmed finality into the bitcoin protocol, users could not compromise on that dimension; instead, they were left with choosing between fast or cheap payments. Just like the regular banking system. 

  Exhibit C: Black Boxes Moving Around. Another version of this is bitcoin on side-chains, like the tBTC project or Wrapped BTC, where trusted custodians hold your bitcoins in exchange for a token claim to that bitcoin, a token that itself lives on a different cryptocurrency chain (say Ethereum). Ideally, users could then move bitcoin around at much lower cost than on the Bitcoin main chain; instead of moving actual bitcoin, the user moves a digital box that contains said bitcoin. 

  In many places of our financial past, we used the shiny metal gold as base money. Moving it, especially in large shipments, was clunky and expensive. In the high seas, ships carrying it could founder and sink; in the woods of Europe lurked thieves. So far, that gold-bitcoin analogy should be clear and obvious. 

  Financial systems in Britain or the Dutch republic solved this expensive transportation problem by using paper claims to deposited gold. For centuries of international trade Bills of Exchange moved across the world, and only rarely did the underlying base money move. These “Wrapped BTCs” of the past let the expensive underlying asset lay still while paper claims to it moved instead. The financial system in different locations of international trade used bills of exchange – papers of credit – to net out transactions between them, supporting the real economy with a sophisticated and efficient banking system running in the background. In past times that made gold easier to use as money; in crypto times that makes bitcoin, with its highly variable transaction fees, easier to move around. 

  For all the revolutionary creed that surrounds the emerging monetary commodity that is bitcoin, it seems that its future more and more resembles the past it tried to escape. Happy times for us monetary nerds.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 21:40

• Netflix Purges Password Moochers In Bid To Boost Paying Subscribers
  Netflix Purges Password Moochers In Bid To Boost Paying Subscribers

  After years of burning cash with heedless abandon, and with an ever-growing field of new low-priced competitors nipping at its heels, Netflix is understandably facing pressure to squeeze more profits out of its users. And user growth is still a critical metric for Wall Street.

  Readers may remember Netflix shares’ reaction to the company’s Q4 global paying subs number released back in January with the rest of the streaming giant’s Q4 earnings, when the company projected that it might become free cash flow positive for the year 2021.

  

  Well, as it turns out, that promise was accompanied by a gamble that could risk Netflix finally losing its dominant position in the streaming race, especially as new platforms are seemingly launched every few months, while more established competitors like HBO Max and Disney+ add millions of subscribers a month. Netflix is testing a new feature to try and force some of its non-paying users off the platform, according to Bloomberg.

  

  Sharing of Netflix passwords and account access has been rampant since the early days, back when a monthly subscription was roughly half the price it is now.

  And as Netflix shares lag the broader Nasdaq index (during a period that has seen high-flying tech shares underperform vs. “real economy” stocks like the members of the DJIA), the company is apparently betting that finally confronting its deadbeat users might convert more of them into subscribers (notably, it’s timing this initiative with the latest round of stimulus checks and renewed unemployment benefits).

  The big fear, according to Benchmark Co’s Matthew Harrigan, is that the crackdown could hurt NFLX’s pricing power. Last week, Needham called user churn the top risk for Netflix.

  But Wired has a different take: NFLX’s purge could have a silver lining, since it could help push users toward 2-factor authentication, which makes their accounts more secure.

  The limited test that Netflix introduced this week is basically a form of two-factor authentication, the kind you hopefully already have on most of your online accounts. Some users have begun to see the following prompt when settling in for a binge: “If you don’t live with the owner of this account, you need your own account to keep watching.”

  Below that, there’s an option to get a code emailed or texted to the account owner, which you can enter to continue watching.

  A source familiar with Netflix’s trial says that the company is still in the very early stages, and sees the effort as a way both to verify who’s using what accounts and to minimize the security issues inherent in unauthorized sharing.

  Netflix’s terms of service specify that accounts must not be shared with people living outside the user’s household. But one Wired editor reportedly found 90 authorized devices linked to the Hulu account she herself was mooching off of.

  Estimates from Bloomberg and others seem to put the percentage of Netflix users who are mooches at roughly 30%. While excising the mooches will help improve the quality of auto-generated recommendation lists for its paying users, Netflix could see a drop in hours consumed exacerbated by the fact that customers around the world are about to finally get up off the couch.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 21:20

• The Gradual Return Of Good Sense
  The Gradual Return Of Good Sense

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  President Biden made a statement last week that Americans might be able to gather in small groups by July 4, to celebrate Independence Day. One wonders who is protecting him from the reality: most of the country is almost entirely back to normal.

  

  Outside of California and some Northeast states, the lockdowns have largely ended, with ever more states repealing restrictions and mandates. Reimposing them for any reason seems almost unthinkable at this point. Anthony Fauci’s constant prattle about the dangers of opening up are falling on deaf ears. 

  The few states that are still locked down are rapidly losing residents and businesses. States that are entirely open are gaining them. As for the travel against which the CDC warns, the nation’s airports and highways are back to pre-lockdown levels of normal. The slogan “land of the free” is starting to mean something again. 

  Even the New York Times, which has led the lockdown effort for longer than a year, is starting to back peddle, finally. An article called “I Would Much Rather Be in Florida” points out:

  [M]uch of the state has a boomtown feel, a sense of making up for months of lost time.

  Realtors cold-knock on doors looking to recruit sellers to the sizzling housing market, in part because New Yorkers and Californians keep moving in. The unemployment rate is 5.1 percent, compared to 9.3 percent in California, 8.7 percent in New York and 6.9 percent in Texas. That debate about opening schools? It came and went months ago. Children have been in classrooms since the fall….

  Florida’s death rate is no worse than the national average, and better than that of some other states that imposed more restrictions, despite its large numbers of retirees, young partyers and tourists. Caseloads and hospitalizations across most of the state are down….

  Try to buy a home and the experience is frustrating for a different reason: an open house will have 30 cars parked outside. Though Florida’s population growth has slowed during the pandemic, documentary stamps, an excise tax on real estate sales, were 15 percent higher in January than they were a year ago. Filing fees for new corporations were 14 percent higher.

  Also notable is that the heavily curated comment section of the article is packed with people saying that we never should have locked down – a point of view practically banned for the better part of a year. 

  Meanwhile, the “science” behind accepted postulates such as the 6-feet-of-distance rule are unraveling by the day. A study from Massachusetts found essentially no differences in rates of infection in students whether they are standing 6 feet or 3 feet apart. This prompted even Fauci to walk back his long-standing demand that students be 6 feet apart – just the latest of many flip flops. The study didn’t examine what would happen if everyone just behaved normally, as they do in Florida. In fact, one of the missing pieces of research for a whole year would have compared a normal-behaving maskless community with one that complied with all the extreme lockdown strictures. The closest we have to this are all the very many studies showing no correlation at all between lockdowns and disease control. 

  Remember that the whole notion of managing people’s lives to control a virus stemmed from untested models. That people should be compelled to stand apart is related to what Edward Stringham calls “Sim City Thinking” – the belief that society can be operated the way people play with computer games. It might have been wiser to have looked more critically at those models before adopting them the whole world over in the midst of a disease panic. 

  It’s a huge relief, to be sure, but it comes far too late, not only in the US but all around the world. The terrible damage of the lockdowns has become palpably obvious. UNICEF reports:

  • As of March 2021, 13 percent of 71 million COVID-19 infections in 107 countries (62 per cent of the total global infections) with data by age are among children and adolescents under 20 years of age.

  • In developing countries, child poverty is expected to increase by around 15 per cent. An additional 140 million children in these countries are also already projected to be in households living below the poverty line.

  • Schools for more than 168 million schoolchildren globally have been closed for almost a year. Two-thirds of countries with full or partial closures are in Latin America and the Caribbean.

  • At least 1 in 3 schoolchildren has been unable to access remote learning while their schools were closed.

  • Around 10 million additional child marriages may occur before the end of the decade, threatening years of progress in reducing the practice.

  • At least 1 in 7 children and young people has lived under stay-at-home policies for most of the last year, leading to feelings of anxiety, depression and isolation.

  • As of November 2020, an additional 6 to 7 million children under age 5 may have suffered from wasting or acute malnutrition in 2020, resulting in almost 54 million wasted children, a 14 per cent rise that could translate into more than 10,000 additional child deaths per month – mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. With a 40 per cent decline in nutrition services for children and women, many other nutrition outcomes can worsen.

  • As of November 2020, more than 94 million people were at risk of missing vaccines due to paused measles campaigns in 26 countries.

  The toll on civil liberties at home and around the world is extremely grim, and especially disturbing when you consider that all of this was preventable. As Florida governor Ron DeSantis says now with some frequency, lockdowns do not work and they cause immense harm. More opinion pages are admitting, as the Las Vegas Review Journal has said: “Virus lockdowns don’t appear to have worked as advertised.”

  Don’t hold your breath waiting for the New York Times editorial page to admit that. Perhaps someday but it won’t come soon.

  The lockdowners committed themselves to something previously unthinkable. To admit error at this point is too intellectually and psychologically upsetting. Regardless, we can be confident that as the years roll on, there will be a growing consensus that, as Jay Bhattacharya has said, lockdowns are the worst policy error of our lifetimes and many generations. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 21:00

• "The FOMC Packed A Huge Surprise" – Fed Now Comfortable With "Slightly" Negative Rates
  “The FOMC Packed A Huge Surprise” – Fed Now Comfortable With “Slightly” Negative Rates

  While markets were focused on headline hot takes from today’s FOMC statement, those reading between the lines and focusing on the market plumbing – such as Curvature Securities’ Scott Skyrm – found “a huge surprise”: an increase in the RRP counterparty limit from $30 billion to $80 billion per counterparty.

  While at first look, it seems quite benign, Skyrm notes that “this implies the Fed is very comfortable with zero percent rates and maybe even negative rates.”

  Let’s rewind a little:

  This week, Repo GC averaged at .01% and few RRP counterparties showed up at the RRP window. Remember, RRP counterparties invest cash at the Fed in exchange for Treasury securities at a rate of 0.0%. If the cash investors can’t get collateral from the Repo market, they go to the Fed. Surprisingly, there was no RRP activity on Monday and today, and only $702 million on Tuesday. Rates are close to zero and the market isn’t even using the RRP window.

  Here’s the implication. As Skyrm explains, “if the Fed wanted overnight rates higher, they would have raised the IOER and/or RRP. Instead, they raised the RRP counterparty limit meaning they are very comfortable with rates here at zero, but don’t want them to drop into the negatives“… although they now seem to be ok with rates dipping occasionally into the red as they have done recently in GC repo…

  

  … and 1 month bills.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 20:52

• Detroit's Westin Book Cadillac Hotel Heading For Foreclosure
  Detroit’s Westin Book Cadillac Hotel Heading For Foreclosure

  Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse for Detroit, the city’s iconic Westin Book Cadillac hotel looks like it’s heading for foreclosure.

  The 33 story hotel had undergone a $180 million renovation in 2008, but has suffered mightily as a result of the pandemic. The hotel’s owner owes $77 million in commercial mortgage backed securities debt which has been delinquent since last May, Deadline Detroit writes. 

  Owner John Ferchill said he hasn’t been able to come to an agreement with his lender: “We are not unique. We have tried everything to work with a lender who won’t work with us, which quite frankly is a testament to how good of a property we created. They would rather take it for themselves than work it out with the borrower. We have not received one concession.”

  Ferchill said “the state’s ‘draconian COVID rules'” also contributed to the decline in revenue. 

  The loan’s special servicer, CWC Capital Asset Management LLC, didn’t comment. 

  Justin Winslow, president of the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association, told Yahoo News: “This is a flagship hotel in the city of Detroit, and I think the frustrating reality is we’re only a couple months away it feels like at this point from demand coming back in very large numbers. To get this close to what feels like a finish line and to not be able to see it through is unfortunately, and to me, an avoidable outcome for the Book Cadillac.”

  

  Detroit was experiencing a boom in downtown hotels prior to the pandemic. Names like the Shinola Hotel on Woodward, the Element Detroit in the old Metropolitan Building on John R and the Detroit Foundation Hotel on Larned St. were all experiencing success prior to Covid provisions kicking in. 

  The Westin Book Cadillac was valued at $136 million in late 2019, but as of December 2021 is being valued at $74.6 million, slightly below the loan balance owed on the property. 

  Winslow blames the “inflexible nature” of commercial mortgage-backed securities loans: “This was a hotel that was very profitable many years in a row and can be again once the general public feels the immediate threat is gone. I think that with (the) vaccine that is a short-term horizon before that willingness comes.”

  Meanwhile, despite petitioning local government to help, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed recent legislation that Winslow said would have helped the industry in Michigan. 

  Winslow concluded: “That is not something I put exclusively or only at the governor’s feet because I think this is a process that requires the legislature to engage in honest negotiation to get something to the finish line that can actual help the industry. But vetoing legislation that would have had $300 million in property tax relief would have been direct relief to hotels and restaurants.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 20:40

• "The Endpoint Of Critical Race Theory": Columbia University Faces Backlash For Segregated Graduations
  “The Endpoint Of Critical Race Theory”: Columbia University Faces Backlash For Segregated Graduations

  Authored by Benjamin Zeisloft via Campus Reform,

  Columbia University in New York City will host virtual graduation ceremonies segregated by race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, in addition to its main commencement ceremonies for all students.

  In order to “provide a more intimate setting for students who self-identify in a variety of ways,” the Ivy League school said these programs are a way to “complement” the main ceremonies.

  The additional virtual ceremonies include the “Native Graduation Celebration,” “Lavender Graduation Celebration” for LGBTQ students, “Asian Graduation Celebration,” “First-generation and Low-Income student Graduation Celebration,” “Latinx Graduation Celebration,” and “Black Graduation Celebration.”

  The university faced swift backlash for promoting segregated graduation programming.

  “Congratulations are in order for liberals and @Columbia University for successfully bringing segregation back by packaging it as ‘diversity inclusion,’” wrote conservative commentator Candace Owens.

  “Just one question: which ceremony do bi-racial children attend?”

  Congratulations are in order for liberals and @Columbia University for successfully bringing segregation back by packaging it as “diversity inclusion”.
  Just one question: which ceremony do bi-racial children attend? https://t.co/WQL6aAXbmV

  — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “The endpoint of critical race theory: segregation,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) reacted.

  The endpoint of critical race theory: segregation. https://t.co/KhmKwuXEK3

  — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As previously reported by Campus Reform, Cotton sent a letter to then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2020 asking that the Department of Justice investigate the rising trend of segregation on the nation’s college campuses.

  Columbia issued a statement in response to the backlash.

  “Reports today and previous tweets misrepresent our multicultural graduation celebrations, which exist in addition to, not instead of, University-wide commencement and individual school Class Days,” wrote the school on Twitter.

  Reports today and previous tweets misrepresent our multicultural graduation celebrations, which exist in addition to, not instead of, University-wide commencement and individual school Class Days. 1/

  — Columbia University (@Columbia) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “These events are important, intimate and welcoming spaces for students aligned with these groups to come together to celebrate their achievements if they wish,” said the university. “They are organized in tandem with students and student groups. In most instances, these celebrations evolved from ceremonies originally created by students and alumni.”

  “They are open to every student. They are voluntary. And they have become a highly anticipated and valuable part of the Columbia graduation experience,” added the university.

  Campus Reform reached out to Columbia University on Tuesday for additional comment. A university spokesperson provided the same statement as was issued on Twitter.  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 20:20

• Washington, Beijing Reportedly Far Apart On Key Issues Ahead Of Alaska Summit
  Washington, Beijing Reportedly Far Apart On Key Issues Ahead Of Alaska Summit

  In the span of just a few days, a high-level summit between Washington and Beijing in far-flung Anchorage, Alaska is about to kick off Thursday and continue through Friday. And as the world waits to see whether the fate of Taiwan will factor into the discussions, the Wall Street Journal has returned with some more details about Beijing’s agenda.

  Per the report, the two lead Chinese delegates (Yang Jiechi, a member of the Communist Party ruling body, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, China’s top-ranking diplomat) plan to urge Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan to drop sanctions and restrictions on Chinese entities and individuals put in place by the Trump administration. Ransquawk described the meeting as “the first significant engagement” between the world’s two largest economies, and arguably, the world’s only two contemporary superpowers since President Trump left office. Depending on the outcome, the meeting could set the tone for bilateral relations for years to come.

  So far, Biden and his team have tried to maintain a tough-on-China stance, pledging to leave Trump’s tariffs and other punitive measures, like keeping Huawei on the Entities List, in place.

  US officials reportedly told WSJ that hot-potato topics like Beijing’s move to crush democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, and its aggressive policing of the South China Seat will factor in to the discussion. However, every time the US has expressed concerns about China’s increasingly aggressive military posture toward Taiwan, Beijing has replied by sharply insisting that Washington not meddle in China’s domestic affairs.

  Blinken used a trip to Japan and South Korea this past week to blast Beijing’s aggressive stance toward Taiwan. Politico mused in a headline that the two sides appeared headed for a “frosty” summit.

  Beijing has gone so far as to obliquely threaten the US with military retaliation if it continues to back Taiwan’s domestic pro-independence politics.

  

  WSJ noted that China is coming to the meeting with a different agenda that bears little overlap with the Biden Administration’s preferred talking points. Though the Chinese officials are reportedly planning to propose that high-level meetings between the two governments be re-established.

  Chinese officials reportedly started laying the groundwork for the summit late last year. Chinese sources reportedly told WSJ that “the US side proposed to hold this high-level strategic dialogue, which we think is meaningful…and…”we hope that the two sides can have a candid dialogue on issues of mutual concern.”

  Beijing is expected to propose a virtual climate summit set for April 22 to schedule a meeting between President Biden and President Xi. The two leaders, who have known each other for years, have spoken only once by phone since Biden took office.

  In summary, few expect the two sides to accomplish much more than an initial sizing up of the competition. Biden is preparing to convene a “quad” summit with several of China’s other recent adversaries like Japan and Australia. With all this in mind, Ransquawk speculated the focus will be on the tone of the meeting and how diverged /converged each other’s views are, as the focus shifts toward what might be accomplished during future rounds of talks.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 20:00

• American Airlines "Looking Into It" After John Kerry Busted Flying Without Mask
  American Airlines “Looking Into It” After John Kerry Busted Flying Without Mask

  As ‘elites’ such as Gavin Newsom, Anthony Fauci and President Biden continue to make a mockery of their own pandemic guidelines, Americans are getting arrested at banks, tossed from restaurants and ejected from Costco for not wearing masks. Most recently, ‘Climate Envoy’ and former Secretary of State John Kerry was busted maskless on an American Airlines flight in violation of airline policy and a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) mandate requiring them on flights.

  First reported by the Tennessee Star, Kerry can be seen reading a book in first class while letting his mask hang down from his ear.

  @TheTNStar Exclusive: Biden’s @ClimateEnvoy John Kerry, took off his mask as he settled into a book in his first-class seat just before takeoff today on an @AmericanAir flight Boston to DC. He was not eating, nor drinking. He was simply flaunting Biden’s mandatory mask policy. pic.twitter.com/t1wDq9OtxD

  — ReporterMcCabe (@NeilWMcCabe2) March 17, 2021

  In a statement to Fox News, the passenger that took the photo – who wished to remain anonymous –  said that the president’s climate convoy was wearing his mask at the boarding gate, only to ditch it after getting on the plane before other passengers.

  “I salute our Very Special Presidential Envoy for Climate for not flying private, but instead flying first class commercial with the rest of us common folk,” said the passenger, adding “And while he can’t bring himself to follow his own party’s mask restrictions, we should cut him some slack.”

  “Being an elite hypocrite is hard work!” the passenger then quipped.

  When asked to clarify their mask policy, American Airlines tweeted that “Masks are required on board our aircraft, and we are looking into this.”

  @AmericanAir can you clarify your policy please? https://t.co/E6ktlI5MmO

  — A Man in Full (@A_Man_in_Full) March 17, 2021

  In January, the CDC issued a mandate which kicked in last month requiring individuals to “wear masks that cover both the mouth and nose” while taking public transportation or at a “transportation hub.”

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 19:40

• Russia Recalls Its Ambassador After Biden Vows Putin Will "Pay A Price" For Meddling
  Russia Recalls Its Ambassador After Biden Vows Putin Will “Pay A Price” For Meddling

  Just a day after the public release of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s report alleging that Vladimir Putin ordered Russian agencies to conduct ‘influence operations’ during the 2020 election in order to ‘boost’ Trump at the expense of Joe Biden, an angry Kremlin has summoned its ambassador to the US back to Moscow for “consultations”.

  “The Russian ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Antonov, has been invited to come to Moscow for consultations conducted with the aim of analyzing what should be done and where to go in the context of ties with the United States,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday.

  

  Of note is that the statement emphasized Moscow hoped to prevent an “irreversible deterioration” in relations – something that appears to be increasingly difficult given President Biden’s interview also published Wednesday morning wherein the president vowed Russia will “pay a price” for “meddling” in US elections. Biden further agreed with ABC interview host George Stephanopoulos that Putin is a “killer”.

  Here’s the most controversial part of the interview which aired early Wednesday:

  Asked whether he believes Mr Putin is a “killer” in a pre-taped interview that aired on Wednesday, the president responded: “I do.”

  “The price he’s going to pay, you’ll see shortly,” he said.

  Mr Biden recalled meeting Mr Putin, during which he reportedly told him that he “doesn’t have a soul”: “I wasn’t being a wise guy.”

  “He looked back at me and said, ‘We understand each other’,” Mr Biden said.

  CNN is also reporting sanctions are likely coming as soon as next week, which will specifically target “people close to Russia President Vladimir Putin.”

  Biden during this latest bombshell interview had claimed he know’s Putin “relatively well”.

  Biden does not know Putin well at all. If he did, he would know that the last thing that would give the Russian leader pause were the fanciful tough-guy posturing of a geriatric president. https://t.co/bYQD3bzMQS

  — Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) March 17, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Biden recounted to Stephanopoulos that during a “long talk” with the Russian leader, he informed his Russian counterpart, “I know you and you know me. If I establish this occurred, then be prepared” — speaking of the election meddling allegations and the potential for sanctions.

  As for how Russia might reciprocate, it has very limited options – given especially the Kremlin no doubt senses that the Democratic administration is in large part playing to its base – the same which hyped and bought into the now long deflated ‘Russiagate’ narrative which persisted through the Trump years. This means Washington seems ready and willing with finger on the sanctions trigger to escalate things in a tit-for-tat fashion. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 19:20

• Markets Relieved By Fed's Dovish Message… But For How Long?
  Markets Relieved By Fed’s Dovish Message… But For How Long?

  Authored by Steve Englander via Standard Chartered,

  The FOMC made few changes in the statement, but increased the ceiling for per counter-party overnight reverse repos from USD 30bn to USD 80bn.

  The Fed’s economic projections did not include an increase in the fed funds target rate through 2023, although 7 of 18 participants did project a fed funds increase.    

  

  Dovish message a relief to asset markets, but for how long?

  Investors were very focused on this FOMC meeting to see how projections and the policy stance would be affected by the March (and to some degree the December) fiscal stimulus. We had expected the Fed projections to show two 25bps hikes in 2023; we reckoned markets were anticipating one or somewhat less than one 2023 hike and the FOMC delivered none. This was a dovish surprise – the AUD, NZD, MXN, ZAR, NOK and BRL rallied more than 1% in the first hour after the announcement. Most major currencies appreciated within a range of 0.5% to 1.0%; 10Y UST yields, which had jumped 6bps in the run-up to the meeting, came back to their opening level of c.1.62%. Inflation breakevens moved somewhat higher, while real yields fell. The combined real and breakeven moves were supportive particularly for EM FX, but also G10 FX.

  

  Fed Chair Powell repeated that there was no discomfort with the current level of yields.

  Powell also made an effort to downplay the projections embedded in the dots, while emphasizing the importance of achieving (rather than forecasting) their inflation and unemployment targets under the Average Inflation Targeting framework.

  For now, investors are absorbing a message that the Fed intends to be dovish until data indicates otherwise. This might change if we get a run of strong data in the coming weeks as the US economy reopens and fiscal stimulus hits.

  In the short term, the fears that the market (as well as we) had of a Fed acknowledgment of a more optimistic landscape have dissipated. But we think these could be renewed if the pace of recovery suggests that full employment may be reached faster than shown in the dots.

  

  We expect US yields to keep grinding higher, but we also think that any USD-positive effect will be temporary, with the yield increases not enough to offset long-term USD negatives from a wider current account deficit and increased debt.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 19:00

• Watch: California Neighborhood Leveled In Powerful Commercial-Grade Fireworks Explosion
  Watch: California Neighborhood Leveled In Powerful Commercial-Grade Fireworks Explosion

  “They are commercial grade,” Ontario Fire Department Chief Ray Gayk said in a news conference after a massive blast rocked a suburb of San Bernadino, California on Tuesday. He described further they were “like you would normally see in the fireworks show,” according to the the Los Angeles Times.

  Two people died when what appears to have been a private stockpile of commercial-grade fireworks ignited inside a suburban residence, erupting into a fireball and huge plume of smoke which prompted an immediate evacuation of the whole area, further causing several structures to catch fire. 

  My mom got it on tape 😳 pic.twitter.com/6QWgCPrMKz

  — damian_1027 (@damian_r24) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to local KABC-TV, “Officials later put crime scene tape around the house and covered two bodies at the scene, confirming there were two fatalities in addition to some injuries.”

  And further, police say they are investigating the matter as a potential felony due to the large ‘illegal’ fireworks cache that possibly included other explosives.

  #BREAKING: Explosion reported in #Ontario https://t.co/wyCENDzAHy pic.twitter.com/MeWYAzEkKc

  — FOX 11 Los Angeles (@FOXLA) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Residents across a vast area reported hearing the blast and feeling the ground shake shortly before 1 p.m.,” LA Times noted further. 

  Local reports additionally cited area residents and neighbors who said the house which allegedly contained the fireworks stockpile had been source of many prior complaints related to explosive detonations and frequent fireworks-related noise. 

  “Someone’s in trouble…” one eyewitness exclaimed.

  Firework show in Ontario, about three blocks from the explosion pic.twitter.com/mC4qrJqJse

  — Kristya (@k_th1ll) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Likely an investigation will also focus on whether local authorities ignored or failed to respond to the prior complaints of neighbors. Area residents said police were somewhat routinely called about blasts and noise at the property, but that the homeowners were “never caught in the act”.

  Surreal footage of the initial blast from multiple angles showed a small mushroom cloud plume of smoke extending far into the sky over the southern California residential area. 

  Someone’s firework stack went off in Ontario shook our whole neighborhood pic.twitter.com/LmUrtgl0oK

  — pms♑️ (@Prudencepms) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “The boom pushed me back, and the window shattered,” one nearby eyewitness and area resident was cited as saying. “I got hit with the after-blast when I opened the door.”

  “Fireworks always go off over here. It shook the whole apartment from left to right,” she added.

  This is the terrifying moment when according to officials w/City of #Ontario explosions from a home filled with illegal fireworks sent debris flying through the surrounding area, shattered windows & threw people several ft. @ABC7 🎥 ARLENE FIERO pic.twitter.com/Xb8M9lLORH

  — Jessica De Nova (@abc7jessica) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Police and firefighters later said they had to cordon off a larger area than expected, preventing people from returning to their homes in the neighborhood, due to the vastness of the debris field.

  ONTARIO EXPLOSION: Videos from eyewitnesses show fireworks igniting and massive smoke plume as frightened residents flee from the scene https://t.co/pwh9Wf0fxw

  — ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Fires had continued to smolder into the evening, with reports of smaller, random follow-up blasts involving fireworks still going off. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank On The Hook For 500M Euros In Greensill Collapse
  Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank On The Hook For 500M Euros In Greensill Collapse

  Just months after Germany’s financial regulator was exposed for being asleep at the wheel during the Wirecard scandal, both Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank are reportedly about to be on the hook for millions of euros of losses tied to Europe’s latest financial disaster, the collapse of Greensill Capital, and its Bremen, Germany-based banking arm, Greensill Bank.

  

  Germany’s regulator, BaFin, which was slammed for dropping the ball on Wirecard (at one point, the regulator accused a reporter for the FT of conspiring with short-sellers to discredit Wirecard; in the end, the paper was vindicated), warned Tuesday that a handful of German banks that backed Greensill will examine depositors claims and pay out anything that might be owed under a national deposit-insurance scheme. A German court in Bremen opened insolvency proceedings into Greensill earlier on Tuesday at the agency’s request.

  The Bremen Local Court appointed Michael Frege as the insolvency administrator. Frege, an attorney at law firm CMS, is one of Germany’s best known administrators, having gained notoriety from handling the insolvency of a Lehman Brothers unit and the dissolution of Maple Bank in 2016. 

  While dozens of German municipalities are at risk at losing some or all of the money they have deposited with Greensill, DB and Commerzbank will be left holding the bag because they’re two of the biggest members of a voluntary deposit-insurance scheme run collectively by Germany’s commercial banks.

  Although it’s too early to say how much they might owe, a payout from the fund would force the surviving members of the scheme to cough up more cash.

  One German media outlet, Manager Magazin, reported that Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank will each have to contribute €200MM to €300MM to cover deposits at the collapsed bank, sums that encapsulate their share of the damages from the deposit insurance scheme. Neither bank was willing to comment about their prospective liabilities.

  Bremen-based Greensill Bank had about €3 billion of insured deposits and an additional €500MM euros which aren’t covered, the latter include funds placed in the bank by German municipalities, which, as we have reported, expect to be wiped out.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 02:45

• War Erupts Inside NATO's Atlantic Council Over "Pro-Russia" Article
  War Erupts Inside NATO’s Atlantic Council Over “Pro-Russia” Article

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  An article written by two Atlantic Council employees that argues Washington should consider a more realistic approach to Russia caused quite the stir within the think tank. The article, written by Emma Ashford and Mathew Burrows, says the US should “avoid a human-rights-first approach to Russia.” The authors suggest that the Biden administration should instead “seek to build a less aspirational policy toward Russia, minimize the use of sanctions, and look for incentives that might induce Moscow to take steps in line with US interests.”

  Ashford and Burrows make an argument grounded in reality. The US does not have the power to control what happens inside Russia through sanctions and other unilateral means. The authors are not at all sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin and don’t even suggest lifting sanctions that are currently in place. But at the hyper-interventionist Atlantic Council, the idea of taking a less hostile approach to Russia is out of the question to many of its employees.

  

  Twenty-two Atlantic Council fellows signed a statement denouncing the article. “Their article is premised on a false assumption that human rights and national interests are wholly separate,” the statement reads. The statement ignores the fact that Washington cooperates with many countries with questionable human rights records, including some of the Atlantic Council’s top donors.

  In the 2019 fiscal year, the embassy of the United Arab Emirates contributed over $1 million to the Atlantic Council. The UAE’s state oil company also chipped in over $250,000 for the think tank. Abu Dhabi is not the only Gulf monarchy that funds the Atlantic Council, the embassy of Bahrain donated somewhere between $100,000 and $249,000.

  While the Atlantic Council’s Gulf funding is rarely questioned, the article from Ashford and Burrows caused some of its employees to complain about recent donations from Charles Koch, who funds the libertarian Cato Institute that advocates for a less interventionist foreign policy.

  The Atlantic Council received a $4.5 million donation over five years from Koch that set up the New American Engagement Initiative (NAEI) and brought over some experts from the Cato Institute, including Ashford. According to its website, the NAEI aims to question the “prevailing assumptions governing US foreign policy, in particular with respect to the efficacy of military intervention and the lost potential of diplomacy.”

  Atlantic Council fellows that signed the statement denouncing Ashford and Burrow’s article made it clear that to them, questioning US aggression is akin to spreading Russian propaganda. “The Koch industry operates as a Trojan horse operation trying to destroy good institutions and they have pretty much the same views as the Russians,” one person that signed the letter told Politico.

  “The general view at the Atlantic Council is to send them back to the Cato Institute where they came from,” another person that signed the statement said. While they all had harsh words for Ashford and Burrow’s article, the people that spoke with Politico who signed the statement refused to go on the record and spoke anonymously.

  One signatory to the statement did go on record in his criticism and published an article responding to Ashford and Burrow’s argument. Dylan Myles-Primakoff, who heads the Free Russia Foundation at the Atlantic Council, wrote a piece titled America’s Russia policy must not ignore human rights.

  Myles-Primakoff argued that “Russia’s domestic politics and its foreign policy are inextricably linked.” His main example for this was what he described as the 2014 “invasion” of Ukraine that resulted in Russia annexing Crimea. Myles-Primakoff said the annexation of Crimea had a purpose in “Russia’s domestic politics.” He said the Russian government “sought to convince Russians that the inevitable result of a popular reform movement like Ukraine’s Euromaidan was not dignity and democracy, but violence and chaos.”

  Myles-Primakoff is right that the Euromaidan protests that led to the ouster of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was democratically elected, caused Russia to annex Crimea, but he ignores crucial context. First, referendum after referendum shows the largely ethnic Russian population of Crimea favored joining the Russian Federation. This is also demonstrated by the fact that what Myles-Primakoff called an “invasion” was met with no violent resistance.

  Second, Myles-Primakoff makes no mention of Washington’s role in the ouster of Yanukovych. The US threw its full weight behind the opposition in Ukraine during demonstrations in 2013 and 2014, an opposition that even had a neo-nazi element. A few weeks before Yanukovych was forced out, a recording of a phone call between then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, who was working in the State Department at the time, was leaked and released on YouTube.  In the now-infamous phone call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of Yanukovych.

  Atlantic Council neocons who openly shilled for Burisma after raking in donations from its oligarch owner are outraged over the “reputational risk” of publishing an op-ed calling for a moderately less warlike approach to Russia https://t.co/jWdJ9LCChf

  — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Like the ethnic Russians in Crimea, the ethnic Russians in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region also rejected the post-coup government in Kyiv, sparking the war that has killed tens of thousands. The context of US involvement in the coup that sparked these events is crucial, especially when discussing what US foreign policy should look like in that part of the world. There’s an argument to be made that neither the annexation of Crimea nor the war in the Donbas would have happened the way it did if not for US intervention.

  Myles-Primakoff took issue with Ashford and Burrows pointing out that US-Russia relations began rapidly declining around the 2011 and 2012 protests in Russia. Ashford and Burrows write: “US-Russia relations declined markedly in 2011-12 after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced support for protests in Moscow.” Myles-Primakoff says this line ignores the context of what was happening in Russia at the time and blames Putin’s decision to run for a third term and alleged fraud in the 2011 parliamentary elections for the damage that was done to the US-Russia relationship at the time.

  But Myles-Primakoff again misses the mark with his argument. In 2011, Clinton voiced support for protesters in Russia and voiced concern over claims of fraud in the parliamentary elections. Putin responded by accusing Clinton of inciting protests. “They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began active work,” Putin said.

  Myles-Primakoff described Putin’s comments as a “wild conspiratorial response.” While Putin may have been overstating it, he had real reasons to fear that the US was funding protesters and opposition groups in Russia. Clinton based her claims of election fraud on a report from an election monitoring organization known as Golos, which was accusing the Russian government of violating election laws before votes were cast in the 2011 parliamentary election.

  At the time, Golos was funded by the US government through the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Golos was also receiving money from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization that presents itself as a private company but is funded almost entirely by the US government.

  The US government was also funding political parties inside Russia at the time. “We had been offering political training to every political party in Russia, to Putin’s own party, to the Communists, but also to Putin’s opponents,” Victoria Nuland told PBS in 2017 when discussing the 2011 elections. Although Nuland said the US was training Putin’s United Russia party through the NED and similar organizations, the party had rejected earlier claims from Nuland that they got funding from USAID.

  With the US so deeply entrenched in Russia’s politics in 2011, Washington certainly had ways to influence Putin’s opposition, and these facts make the Russian president seem less paranoid than Myles-Primakoff would like readers to believe. Russia’s Central Electoral Commission eventually issued a report on the 2011 elections and found out of the 1686 reports on irregularities they investigated, 11.5 percent were confirmed to be true. Only 60 of the complaints were claims that voting results were falsified. In 2012, Putin kicked USAID out of Russia.

  Myles-Primakoff also addresses jailed Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny, who Ashford and Burrows described as “an open nationalist who is widely known to agree with Putin on many foreign policy questions; he backed the Russian seizure of Crimea and has made racist and Islamophobic remarks.”

  Myles-Primakoff rebuked the claim that Navalny “backed” the annexation of Crimea by using a quote from Navalny in 2014. The opposition figure said, “Crimea was seized with egregious violations of all international regulations.” While this is a real quote from Navalny, Myles-Primakoff presented it out of context. Navalny made the comment while explaining that if he were president of Russia, he would not return Crimea to Ukraine.

  Here’s what Navalny said in October 2014: “Crimea, of course, now de facto belongs to Russia. I think that despite the fact that Crimea was seized with egregious violations of all international regulations, the reality is that Crimea is now part of Russia. Let’s not deceive ourselves. And I would also strongly advise Ukrainians not to deceive themselves.”

  Myles-Primakoff did not challenge the assertion that Navalny is a nationalist who has made racist and Islamophobic remarks. Due to past comments Navalny made, Amnesty International revoked his status as a prisoner of conscience, which is being spun by Western media as the result of a Russian government-backed smear campaign, but Amnesty denies that claim. “”Reports that Amnesty’s decision was influenced by the Russian state’s smear campaign against Navalny are untrue,” the rights group said in a statement.

  Ashford and Burrows also touch on what is perhaps the most important aspect of the US-Russia relationship: arms control. They argue that focusing on human rights inside Russia interferes with progress on arms control. Myles-Primakoff says this argument is irrelevant because Russia decided to extend New START, the vital nuclear treaty that would have expired in February, amid threats of sanctions from the new Biden administration. But extending New START is the bare minimum Washington and Russia could do.

  As the two largest nuclear powers, the US and Russia have an obligation to the world to negotiate new treaties to dismantle their enormous arsenals. With the Biden administration slapping new sanctions on Russia over Navalny, it makes it much harder for Moscow and Washington to negotiate a new treaty. New START had a built-in five-year extension, so renewing the treaty took little more than a phone call. A brand new treaty would require good faith.

  But most funders of the Atlantic Council have no interest in nuclear treaties or easing tensions with Moscow. The think tank receives contributions from the top US weapons makers, including Raytheon, General Atomics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. The Atlantic Council is also funded by NATO, an alliance that has an interest in keeping tensions high and presenting Russia’s annexation of Crimea as an unprovoked “invasion.”

  With these facts in mind, it’s no surprise that Ashford and Burrows’ article caused such a stir within the Atlantic Council. By making such a fuss over a mild criticism of Washington’s hostile approach to Russia, the Atlantic Council fellows showed their hand.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 02:00

• The Great American Delusion: 'Just That One Guy'
  The Great American Delusion: ‘Just That One Guy’

  Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  There is an objective reality: and the most powerful and strong-willed individual can only shape the future within the existing possibilities.

  

  In my career I used to participate in regular meetings with an American intelligence agency. I – we – were always fascinated by their obsession with individuals. One time they proudly presented each of our group with a chart showing the Boss’ associates distributed into three groups. I’m sure creating this had cost a lot of time and money, but what use was it? Did it allow us to predict better, understand better? Of course it didn’t. Quite apart from the absurdity of thinking that an individual was 100% in one group and 0% in the other two – least one fitted two groups equally well – the truth was that they were a team which made decisions and outsiders had no idea what went on inside the process. The three-group division just led to more ungrounded speculation – if some decision were imagined to be to the benefit of one group, then a flurry of speculation about who was up and who was down would erupt. Theorising in the absence of data: a labour of crackpots. Lots of money, time and promotions but very little understanding. On another occasion their predictions at a leadership change were entirely personal – if X, then this, if Y, then that. (And the person who actually did succeed wasn’t on their list.) My group’s approach was to try and describe what constraints the as-yet-unknown successor would have to deal with. We were trying to work out the context; they were talking personalities. But there is an objective reality: and the most powerful and strong-willed individual can only shape the future within the existing possibilities. The American assumption seemed to be that the boss had unconstrained choices. Now it’s true that they thought of the country as a “dictatorship” but never even in the greatest tyranny has the ruler been able to do anything he wanted to. No wonder they have, over the ensuing twenty years, been invariably wrong. The simple-minded and ignorant obsession with personalities leads nowhere.

  Did it begin with the Calvinists of Plymouth Rock and their division of humanity into the saved and the damned? Was it reinforced a century and a half later by the conviction that King George single-handedly caused “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” and urged on “the merciless Indian Savages”? Or is it of more recent origin? Hollywood’s rugged individuals saving the day at the end of the movie? Who can say, but it seems to be hard-wired into the American view of the world – or at least their view of the rest of the world. And the news media play along every time: the problem is Leader X, if we replace him, all will be better.

  I have just finished a book about the CIA which mentions the Kennedy Administration’s obsession about Fidel Castro. “‘We were hysterical about Castro,’ Defense Secretary Robert McNamara acknowledged”; there were innumerable assassination plots. The missile crisis seems to have brought Kennedy to his senses and, a couple of months before his assassination, the CIA principal had to tell the mobster he had picked to organise it that the plot to kill Castro had been terminated. None of it amounted to anything and, in the words of one player “so much of the goddamn stuff was really juvenile.” Sixty years later, Fidel Castro is gone but Cuba remains – still defiant.

  Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran was a problem; after he was overthrown Iran was not a problem for a while but today it’s an even bigger problem; and they still resent his overthrow. Ngô Đình Diệm in Vietnam was a problem; but his death just led to more war. Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia was another who had to go, but after the Battle Of Mogadishu it was the Americans and NATO who went; Somalia, much now as it was then, has faded from the news. Slobodan Milošević was the Butcher of the Balkans until a court found that he wasn’t so guilty after all. Saddam Hussein was a pretty comprehensive problem, the NYT informed us; now he’s gone and Iraq is still a problem – can’t win it, can’t leave it. Kims in North Korea come and go; it remains the same. And so on and on – Assad, Maduro, Qaddafi, Arafat, Daniel Ortega and Yanukovych; all individuals who were imagined to be the single roadblock in the path of… The Better, Progress, Democracy and all other Good Things.

  But the two biggest are Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. I have written enough about the crazy American obsession with Putin: five years ago I wrote A Brief Compendium of Nonsense About Putin. Since then he has grown in monstrosity: election rigger, computer hacker, serial poisoner, “Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of the West, Russia’s neighbors, and his own people” is a typical effusion. Note the personalism: the “existential threat” is “Russia under Putin”, not “Russia”. If only Putin could be got rid of…

  The author of this piece goes on: “China will be at the top of the to-do list”. And the Atlantic Council has emitted The Longer Telegram: Toward A New American China Strategy written by Anonymous. Clearly it is supposed to echo Mr X’s (George Kennan’s) Long Telegram. But some differences: this is longer – much longer, grinding on for seven times the length of Kennan’s essay. Secondly, Kennan himself didn’t think that his recommendations had been well followed and was utterly opposed to NATO expansion and Western triumphantasies. I will certainly not waste my time reading this midden of prolixity (one wishes an ex-PFC Wintergreen had binned it), the summary is more than enough – and it’s longer than Kennan’s essay. The very first sentence puts us on familiar ground

  The single most important challenge facing the United States in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian China under President and General Secretary Xi Jinping.

  “China under President and General Secretary Xi Jinping”, “Russia under Putin”. Back to personalities.

  …Xi has returned China… quasi-Maoist personality cult… systematic elimination of his political opponents…. Xi has used ethnonationalism… Xi’s China… Xi has demonstrated… China under… Xi is no longer just a problem for U.S. primacy. He now presents a serious problem for the whole of the democratic world…

  He is the problem and “All U.S. political and policy responses to China therefore should be focused through the principal lens of Xi himself.” No Xi, no problem; no Putin, no problem; no Saddam, no problem; no Qaddafi, no problem. Away we go again.

  Better informed people point out that Xi Jinping’s policies have a context: we start with Deng Xiaoping’s strategic guideline “hide capabilities and bide time”. Once capabilities could no longer be hidden, they moved to Hu Jintao’s “Actively Accomplish Something”. That something – or rather, those many somethings – are being actively accomplished by Xi Jinping. Far from a polity captured by a personality, China has a collective leadership focussed on a long-term strategy.

  But that is only one voice in the background and the personality-obsessed (Very Much) Longer Telegram comes from the Atlantic Council which has a far greater influence on U.S. and NATO activities. As it is engummed in personalism, so are they.

  What do the personality-obsessed suggest be done to get rid of Xi? Well, this is a little more difficult than other cases: bombing got rid of Saddam and Qaddafi but China is too strong. Economic measures, as even someone as dim as Anonymous realises, might hurt the USA more than China. Stripped of nostalgianism (the U.S. must “retain collective economic and technological superiority”), delusion (“Dividing Russia from China in the future is equally [critical]”) and degraded touchstones (“current rules-based liberal international order and, critically, its ideological underpinnings, including core democratic values”), the strategy offered is pitiful.

  We are invited to be “laser focused” on the assumption that Xi’s so-called one man rule is resented by many in China; if a wedge can be driven into the leadership, Beijing will return to the happy pre-Xi state when

  China, under all five of its post-Mao leaders prior to Xi, was able to work with the United States. Under them, China aimed to join the existing international order, not to remake it in China’s own image. Now, however, the mission for U.S. China strategy should be to see China return to its pre-2013 path—i.e., the pre-Xi strategic status quo.

  One is reminded of Napoleon’s delusion that Russia’s nobles could be wedged away from Alexander and the undying conviction that one more targetted sanction will make Putin’s henchmen kick him out. But, enough of Anonymous’ fancies – they have no base in reality: the USA out-sourced its manufacturing to China long ago and won’t be getting it back, wokeism is killing its education system, its politics are broken, its military is losing everywhere and doesn’t realise it, a tsunami of debt has built up. Most absurd of all, after years of needless hostility to Russia, Washington has no hope of separating Moscow from Beijing. And Xi Jinping is not some rogue who seized control – he is the top of a robust pyramid.

  The only significance of this paltry effort is that it gives us another – and depressingly influential – example of the curious American obsession with personalities – everything in Chinese-U.S. relations was going along swimmingly until Xi. But actually, as anyone capable of seeing reality knows, China is much, much more than one man.

  China/Russia/Iran/Iraq/insert-name-of-country was happy to accept its place in the Rules-Based International Order until that nasty Xi/Putin/Ayatollah/Saddam/insert-name changed everything; get rid of him and it will all fix itself.

  When are they going to understand that it’s a whole country, not just one guy?

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 03/17/2021 – 00:05

• US Admits Waging InfoWar Against Russia's Sputnik Vaccine To "Combat Malign Influence"
  US Admits Waging InfoWar Against Russia’s Sputnik Vaccine To “Combat Malign Influence”

  The Kremlin on Tuesday called out what’s it’s dubbed the “unprecedented” propaganda war against Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The words were issued by spokesman Dmitry Peskov in response to widespread allegations that the Untied States is actively trying to dissuade its allies from purchasing the Russian-produced vaccine. This despite the emerging scientific consensus that’s found it to be at least 91% effective while further preventing inoculated persons from becoming severely ill.

  The Kremlin is responding to newly emerged proof that the US intervened with the largest country in South America, Brazil. The Washington Post details that “Buried deep in the dry, 72-page annual report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lay a startling admission: U.S. health officials under President Donald Trump worked to convince Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine.”

  US Dep. of Health publicly confirmed that it pressured Brazil against Sputnik V.
  We believe countries should work together to save lives. Efforts to undermine the vaccines are unethical and are costing lives.
  👇https://t.co/Ga5i4zvbCt P.48 pic.twitter.com/A6wyKOkc8t

  — Sputnik V (@sputnikvaccine) March 15, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Brazil has long stood as the second highest COVID-19 infected country in the world behind the US, with over 11.5 confirmed infections so far (with the US now approaching the 30 million mark).

  Here’s the key controversial section from the 71-page document. The section is entitled “Combatting malignant influence in the Americas”…

  

  “Examples include using OGA’s Health Attache office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine,” the government report spelled out explicitly.

  Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since claimed it never received directives or “consultations” such as are described in the report from the US, with a statement saying, “the Embassy of Brazil in Washington has not received consultations or actions from United States authorities or companies regarding the possible purchase, by Brazil, of the Russian vaccine against Covid-19.”

  Kremlin spokesman Peskov in his comments didn’t name the allegations specifically but only denounced generally that “In many countries the scale of pressure is quite unprecedented… such selfish attempts to force countries to abandon any vaccines have no prospects.”

  “We believe that there should be as many doses of vaccines as possible so that all countries, including the poorest, have the opportunity to stop the pandemic,” Peskov added.

  

  Thus far neither the US Embassy in Moscow nor the US Department of State have responded, according to Reuters.

  However, the annual HHS report clearly constitutes a “smoking gun” admission which details that Washington does indeed have a covert policy of blocking the Sputnik V vaccine’s spread. This is ironic given one would think Washington would be more focused on combatting the spread of the pandemic itself, regardless of politics or geopolitical maneuvering.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:45

• Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties To 'Right-Wing' Groups
  Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties To ‘Right-Wing’ Groups

  Authored by Victoria Taft via PJ Media (emphasis ours),

  A survey by the University of Chicago finds that most Capitol Hill rioters had no ties to any fringe right-wing groups and were merely engaged people outraged by what they believed was a rigged election.

  

  While colorful weirdos with names such as QAnon Shaman and Baked Alaska stole the headlines, people who were arrested by federal officials during and after the riot were a “broader core of people” with a healthy skepticism about the veracity of the November 2020 election, according to the study.

  QAnon Shaman: ‘I regret entering that building with every fibre of my body’ https://t.co/YpLx4dhw57

  — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 5, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  There was plenty of reason for the skepticism, considering the collusion between Big Tech, unions, lawfare, and Democrats’ combined efforts to sway the election. Those efforts were at the very least unethical.

  As Time Magazine enthused in an article entitled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” “there was a conspiracy unfolding behind the [election] scenes” of an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans” to “save” the election from Donald Trump.

  The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President.

  […]Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.

  Rather than being ill-informed, it appears that the Capitol Building rioters may have been better informed than most on these moves to sway the election.

  In a “working paper” that is considered to be a “novel approach” to “estimating community-level participation in mass protest events,” Asst. Prof. Austin Wright of the Harris School of Public Policy and David Van Dijcke of the University of Michigan found a surprising number of the people arrested at the Capitol Hill riot who were business owners and other professionals obviously upset over election fraud.

  The paper found that those arrested were “more likely to have traveled to the Capitol from Trump-voting “islands,” where residents are surrounded by neighborhoods with higher numbers of Biden supporters.” More than half came from counties that Joe Biden carried.

  Though the researchers include the fact that the overwhelming number of people live in Democrat areas, they also highlighted the fact “that proximity to Proud Boy chapters and local levels of engagement with misinformation posted on Parler, the exiled social media platform popular with the far right, are robustly linked to participation in the Capitol rally.”

  However, researcher Austin Wright said living in those leftist areas “played a significant role.”

  Social isolation and the perception of being threatened by neighboring areas that largely hold opposing political views also played a significant role in who was there.

  The researchers also looked at cell phone data such as where in the country Capitol rioters called. Most were in the eastern, central, and southern parts of the country.

  

  Could the cancel culture and being surrounded by people with Trump Derangement Syndrome and other anti-conservatives have helped trigger the attack?

  They claimed some of the rioters were on the social media app Parler, though efforts to discover other social media apps used by the people arrested were not noted. 

  The survey found that approximately 10% percent of the Capitol rioters had a connection with Proud Boys, which they describe as a “hate group,” and Oath Keepers.

  Nearly 90% had no ties or right-wing affiliations whatsoever.

  And they found out that 85% of the people arrested were business owners or held down white-collar jobs.

  WTTW TV reported that researchers hadn’t even needed a “business owner” category before when looking into protest groups. Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, oversaw the study and said the caliber of people at the riot was surprising.

  “Normally, we don’t even have a category for ‘business owner’ when we study political violence, so this is a very big sign that we’re dealing with a new political movement with violence at its core that can’t be reduced to the usual suspects.”

  

  Perhaps they should consider that the 2020 election was seen by half the country as rigged. Election integrity efforts, not name-calling, lawfare, and canceling others who hold politically opposing views, will be key in winning back confidence in the elections process. If Democrats pass HR 1, all bets will be off.

  Victoria Taft is the host of “The Adult in the Room Podcast With Victoria Taft” where you can hear her series on “Antifa Versus Mike Strickland.” Find it here.Follow her on Facebook,  Twitter, Parler, MeWe, Minds @VictoriaTaft 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:25

• 8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested
  8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested

  After an hours long manhunt, a 21-year-old man has been captured in southwest Georgia, hours after eight people were killed in shootings at three Atlanta-area massage parlors…

  

  Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said the suspect, Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, was taken into custody in Crisp County, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) south of Atlanta.

  The eight women were shot dead in three separate incidents at two spas and a massage parlor in and around Atlanta.

  

  Around 5 p.m., five people were shot (4 dead, 1 wounded) at Young’s Asian Massage Parlor in Acworth, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Atlanta, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said.

  

  From there, The Daily Mail reports that it’s believed Long drove more than 30 miles where a further two shootings occurred in northeast of the city in the suburb of Woodland Hills.

  Atlanta police officers responding to a call of a robbery in progress at Gold Spa around 5:50 p.m. found three women dead from apparent gunshot wounds, police said.

  

  While on the scene at Gold Spa, cops reportedly received a second call from the Aromatherapy Spa directly across the street and found one woman had been shot and killed there as well.

  

  While authorities were not immediately releasing the gender or race of the victims, Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant said all victims were female and “it appears that they may be Asian.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:05

• Russia Reveals Total Number Of Soldiers Killed In Syria, Blasts "Morally Bankrupt" US Policies
  Russia Reveals Total Number Of Soldiers Killed In Syria, Blasts “Morally Bankrupt” US Policies

  Via AlMasdarNews.com,

  The First Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee of the State Duma, Andrei Krasov, announced that 112 Russian soldiers were killed during the entirety of the armed conflict in Syria, according to Sputnik Arabic.

  The deputy’s statements came during a meeting with the State Duma Committee for Health Affairs, during which he said:

  “According to recent military data provided by the Russian Ministry of Defense, about 112 soldiers have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the armed conflict.”

  

  This figure is far lower than the over 260 Russian armed forces deaths put forth by non-state monitoring groups like the anti-Assad Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

  The Russian military officially entered the war in Syira on September 30, 2015 and have since established a number of bases across the country, including its main installation at the Hmemim Airport in Latakia.

  Among the most prominent field achievements made by the Syrian forces, with the support of Russia, was the lifting of the three-year-long siege on the city of Deir Ezzor, which was imposed on the administrative capital by the Islamic State (ISIS/Daesh).

  Furthermore, the Syrian Arab Army was able to retake a large amount of territory in the central part of the country that was occupied by the Islamic State since 2015; this included the ancient city of Palmyra (Tadmur) and the strategic Al-Sha’er Gas Fields. While the Syrian conflict has witnessed a significant decrease in violence since 2015, clashes are still ongoing in the central part of the country, where the Islamic State has reemerged.

  “We need to make the Russians pay a price in Syria…” the former Deputy Director of the CIA said in a 2016 interview.

  Meanwhile a top Russian diplomat blasted the US continuing ‘dirty war’ on Syria on Tuesday. 

  Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin attacked the “morally bankrupt and unacceptable” US and UK sanctions meant to choke Damascus into submission.

  My latest: China joins Russia in blasting “illegal” strategy backed by U.S. in Syria war

  “In the past 10 years, Syria has been injured by illegal invasion and foreign occupation and maimed by terrorism and unilateral sanctions,” @zlj517 saidhttps://t.co/ZJbYD67Qxo pic.twitter.com/uSyc2zMvA4

  — 𝕋om 𝕆’ℂonnor (@ShaolinTom) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Development in Syria is being hindered not only by the consequences of conflict and COVID pandemic, but also by the illegal unilateral sanctions imposed on Syria by the US, the UK and some of their allies,” Amb. Kelin said. 

  “These restrictive measures not only put obstacles to the economic recovery, but also prevent essential purchases of pharmaceuticals, medical and construction equipment. This is morally corrupt and unacceptable.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:45

• Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges
  Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges

  A new report from Bloomberg reveals that up to two-thirds of entry-level tech jobs go to foreign guest workers from low-ranked colleges who don’t dare complain about long work long hours and low wages lest they destroy their chances of a green card – as opposed to hiring debt-laden American graduates willing to grind just as hard, yet have no such immigration leverage to exploit.

  

  According to the report, the United States in 2018 had “between 96,000 and 143,000 openings in IT occupa­tions that typically went to candidates with a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or engineering.”

  Meanwhile, the government grants annual “Occupational Practical Training” (OPT) work permits to hundreds of thousands of foreigners attending American universities – while also inviting roughly 85,000 foreign graduates to reside and work in the United States on H-1B work visas.

  In total, “OPT participants accounted for anywhere from one-third to one-half of new hires. If you add H-1B candidates, up to two-thirds of openings went to guest workers,” reads the report, which Breitbart News‘ Neil Munro notes relies heavily on Rutgers University high-tech employment expert, Hal Salzman.

  Setting the bar low

  When it comes to education, few OPT workers attended ranked colleges. “More than 70% of nonresident computer science master’s degrees awarded in 2018 came from unranked programs, or those ranked 50 and lower by U.S. News and World Report. Just 17% came from schools ranked in the top 25. [universities].”

  Breitbart News has extensively reported on the fraud-ridden OPT program — and its sister program, the Curricular Practical Training program — which provides Fortune 500 companies with roughly 400,000 cheap foreign workers each year.

  The OPTs — and the many similar H-1B, L-12, J-1, and TN visa workers — fill many starter-jobs and mid-career white-collar jobs in a wide variety of industry sectors, including tech, healthcare, academia, accounting, and design.

  Few of the OPT workers complain about their lower-wage jobs because their CEOs can fire them at will. –Breitbart

  At least one million foreign workers are working in low-wage white collar jobs, according to the report, which says that the “Green Card Workforce” contributes to suppressed salaries and a lack of American innovation.

  Biden’s DHS opens the ‘OPT’ door wider for many foreign college graduates to take starter jobs & careers from new US graduates.
  That’s a reversal from Trump, when his deputies quietly tried to help American grads get the jobs. #H1B, #OPThttps://t.co/Y3o9PIgpTj

  — Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) March 4, 2021

  Read the rest of the report here.

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:25

• Who And What Killed George Floyd?
  Who And What Killed George Floyd?

  Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

  Friday, as the jury was being empaneled for the trial of fired police officer Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis City Council voted 13-0 to approve a record $27 million civil settlement with the family of George Floyd over his death in police custody.

  The jury will not likely miss this message sent by the city fathers:

  I.e., an atrocity was perpetrated by our police, and we are admitting our responsibility and doing our duty by offering these reparations for Floyd’s cruel and unjustified death and the suffering visited on his family.

  Most Americans who saw the nine-minute tape of Chauvin with his knee on the neck of George Floyd as he pleaded, “I can’t breathe,” will probably concur with the charge of criminal culpability of Chauvin.

  Yet, over the months, new facts and factors have emerged.

  George Floyd was not choked to death. He was not asphyxiated. He was not killed by Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. An autopsy showed Floyd’s neck muscles were not even bruised.

  Floyd died when his heart stopped. Yet, he was already suffering from an enlarged heart with constricted arteries, one of five of which was 90% blocked and two others were 75% blocked.

  An autopsy found heavy concentrations of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and traces of methamphetamines. If Floyd had collapsed and died in the street while being wrested into the squad car, his death would have been attributed to a drug overdose and a bad heart.

  Also, a videotape of the minutes prior to Floyd’s being put on the pavement, his neck under Chauvin’s knee, shows Floyd crying, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe,” while resisting the two rookie cops trying to put him in the patrol car.

  Moreover, there is testimony from those with Floyd when he was stopped for passing an allegedly phony $20 bill, that he had passed out in the car before the cops arrived.

  And the arresting cops claim he was foaming at the mouth before being restrained.

  

  In short, Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely make a credible case, backed by evidence, that Floyd’s death was not caused by the knee on his neck but by the battered condition of his heart, the near-lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and his anxiety and panic at being arrested and fearing, as he wailed, that he was going to be shot.

  The prosecution will counter-claim that Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, and the two other cops sitting on him, precipitated the stopping of his heart.

  But the prosecution faces other questions.

  How could Chauvin, who arrived late to the scene, know Floyd was a drug addict with a serious heart condition and a large amount of fentanyl in his system, before using the restraint technique of sitting on him and putting a knee on the side of his neck?

  What was Chauvin trying to do when he arrived to see two rookie cops trying to cope with a powerfully built, six-foot-four-inch, 220-pound man violently resisting arrest?

  Did Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck to kill him? To torture or injure him? Or did he use the technique to restrain him?

  Prosecutors will contend that the knee on the neck was criminal assault, a felony that caused Floyd to black out and his heart to stop?

  But that raises another question:

  Is placing a knee on the side of the neck an outlawed or a prohibited procedure for police to use to restrain a suspect violently resisting arrest, as a chokehold is in some precincts?

  Or is it a procedure some police use legally at times?

  Chauvin was clearly familiar with the technique. Had he used it before without injury to a suspect?

  In a motion to dismiss the charges he himself faces in the death of Floyd, former police officer Thomas Lane included 30 pages of Minneapolis PD training materials including information on the “maximal restraint technique.” Lane included a photo of an officer with a knee on a suspect’s neck, similar to the hold used by Chauvin.

  In preparing for the trial of Chauvin, Minneapolis has fortified, with concrete barriers, fences and razor wire, the courthouse where it will be held. Understandably, for any acquittal of Chauvin, or conviction on a lesser charge than murder, could trigger a riot like those that plagued the city through the summer of 2020.

  And if a mob does take to the streets in Minneapolis, as it did all last summer, the national reaction will be telling.

  How does one accurately describe a crowd that gathers outside a courthouse to demand, on the threat of a riot, a verdict of guilty?

  And should a riot occur — and violent protests in Louisville, Seattle and Portland over the weekend seem to point to another such long hot summer – may we expect our new national leaders (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer) to denounce the mob and stand up unequivocally for the rule of law?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:05

• Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women
  Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women

  After doing everything he could to avoid getting dragged into Cuomogate (some still recall the name Tara Reid) and making an official statement on the record, late on Tuesday Joe Biden said that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo should resign if an investigation confirms the sexual harassment allegations against him.

  In what Bloomberg has dubbed “his most extensive comments about accusations made by several women against his longtime Democratic ally”, Biden reiterated his support for seeing the inquiry carried out but said that its findings could force the three-term governor from office.

  Asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos if Cuomo should step down if the investigation confirms the allegations, Biden replied, “Yes” adding that “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.” At another point in the conversation, Biden repeated the expectation, saying “there  could be a criminal prosecution that is attached to it.”

  EXCLUSIVE: @GStephanopoulos on Gov. Andrew Cuomo: “If the investigation confirms the claims of the women, should he resign?”

  “Yes,” Pres. Biden says. “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.” https://t.co/a6qfOJ9Byp pic.twitter.com/EiC63wtnUo

  — ABC News (@ABC) March 17, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Well of course he will say that if the allegations are confirmed. The real question is whether Biden – a staunch believer that women never lie, especially #metoo women who are taking down republican opponents except when one of those women turns her attention on Biden himself – will challenge the recollections and veracity of the increasingly more numerous accusers who are now almost in the double digits… when it involves a close political ally.

  So caught in a bit of a bind, Biden said that “a woman should be presumed telling the truth and should not be scapegoated and become victimized by her coming forward.” 

  Well, then Cuomo should quit right? Not exactly, because while the presumption that a woman is telling the truth is equivalent to the presumption of guilt for the target of her allegations if that someone is republican, when it comes to fellow democrats it gets… complicated. 

  Which is why Biden once again refused to make any definitive statements, instead falling back to what he told reporters on Sunday that he was waiting for the probe to be carried out. ”I think the investigation is underway and we should see what it brings us,” BIden said in response to a question about whether the New York governor should resign; he echoed as much on Tuesday when he said that “the presumption” is that allegations should be taken seriously and investigated “and that’s what’s underway now.”

  Asked if Cuomo can continue to serve effectively even as New York elected officials including both of the state’s U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, have said he should step down, Biden responded: “Well, that’s a judgment for them to make.”

  According to CNN, the comments mark the President’s most explicit repudiation of Cuomo since multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment or unwanted advances against the New York governor. They came in an interview with Stephanopoulos in which Biden encouraged migrants not to come to the US as a crisis unfolds at the country’s southwestern border — with thousands of unaccompanied children now in federal custody — and he expressed openness to changing the Senate’s filibuster rule for the first time.

  Seven women have accused Cuomo of sexual misconduct and inappropriate workplace behavior. Cuomo, however, has repeatedly refused to step down and denied the allegations. The governor is also in deep trouble for his mishandling of the covid fiasco in New York; he could be criminally liable for dozens of nursing home deaths due to his catastrophic mishandling of the crisis… for which he won an Emmy and received constant praise from the “bluecheck” brigade.

  WATCH: Media pundits praised New York Governor Cuomo unquestioningly for a year before the scandals caught up with him pic.twitter.com/qH9z0wSdVu

  — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 9, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  State Attorney General Letitia James has appointed an outside attorney to investigate the claims made against Cuomo. State Assembly members last week initiated an impeachment investigation into the misconduct claims that could lead to his removal.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:48

• Alibaba Browser Pulled From China's App Stores As Xi Warns Tech Giants Pose "Risks" To CCP Control
  Alibaba Browser Pulled From China’s App Stores As Xi Warns Tech Giants Pose “Risks” To CCP Control

  Months after Beijing’s crackdown on China’s tech behemoths like Alibaba and Tencent unofficially commenced with the scuttling of Ant Group’s domestic IPO (what would have been the biggest corporate debut yet on the officially Communist nation’s public markets), President Xi finally spoke out about the campaign, suggesting that it’s only just getting started.

  And as if to underline his point, western media outlets reported Tuesday morning that Alibaba’s popular web browser had been removed from Chinese app stores. While removing apps is a common punishment in China for companies that have transgressed in the eyes of the CCP, the decision to suspend the Alibaba browser (known as the UC Browser) follows reports about the CCP leaning on Alibaba to divest its media holdings. The CCP reportedly fears that Alibaba’s vast news media properties represent an unwelcome rival to Beijing’s own propaganda machine.

  The decision to remove the popular UC Browser is the latest hit to the empire of Jack Ma, China’s most famous entrepreneur, after regulators scuppered the record $37bn initial public offering of Ant Group, Alibaba’s financial technology affiliate. Ma has barely been seen in public since the listing was pulled last November, as Xi tightens Beijing’s grip on the economy.

  According to minutes from a meeting of senior CCP leaders, President Xi warned that tech giants are growing “in an inappropriate manner” that creates risks for the Chinese system.

  “Some platform companies are growing in an inappropriate manner and therefore bear risks. It is a considerable problem that the current regulatory regime has failed to adjust” to the rise of these groups,” the minutes of the meeting said. Regulators will “step up” efforts to improve the regulation of China’s big internet companies, the minutes added.

  Xi added that the development of China’s platform economy is currently at a crucial stage, and it’s necessary to focus on the long term, strengthen weaknesses and create an innovative environment to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the platform economy. In the past, Xi has spoken about the importance of limiting monopolies, but this is the first time he has specifically addressed the problems posed by “platform” companies like Tencent, Alibaba, JD.co and others.

  

  Jack Ma

  Circling back to Alibaba, the decision to pull its browser from the app store followed the airing of a lengthy feature report slamming China’s tech industry during a prime time slot on China’s consumer rights day.

  The effort against UC Browser came after a programme on state-owned broadcaster CCTV targeted the tech industry on China’s consumer rights day, an annual event when the channel investigates alleged malpractice and documents the findings on a primetime show.

  This year’s programme included a segment on misleading online medical advertising. UC Browser was shown to allow private hospitals to bid for the names of China’s large well-known hospitals in keyword searches, leading potential patients to their websites instead of the public hospitals they intended to visit.

  But taking on Alibaba might be only the beginning. While Tencent founder Pony Ma has been more circumspect than Alibaba’s Jack Ma, whose errant comments at a tech conference in October were blamed for initially provoking the CCP, there’s no question that Tencent’s WeChat is the uber-app in China’s highly technological economy, where people routinely pay for goods via their smartphones thanks t the app. Tencent shares have plunged on the crackdown news as the company has also been targeted by China’s anti-trust regulators – even though so far Alibaba has faced most of the heat.

  As Rabobank’s Michael Every pointed out in a recent note to clients, the authorities seem to be sending the message that data and media must be state and not private-owned. That’s terrible news for Tencent, which is already being pushed to form a financial holding company to house its banking, insurance and payments businesses. Warburg Pincus slashed its estimated range for Ant Group’s valuation, calling for a range of between $200BN and $250BN, down from $280BN before the IPO unraveled, yet another sign that western investors are growing wary of the CCP’s intentions. Alibaba and Tencent shares have tumbled on the crackdown as well.

  China of course has massive tech ambitions, and these necessarily involve data and media. And while there’s no question that China has benefited from the astronomical economic growth afforded by these firms, a threat to the CCP’s dominance is still a threat no matter what.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:45

• "It's Gone Parabolic": Canadian Housing In One Shocking Chart
  “It’s Gone Parabolic”: Canadian Housing In One Shocking Chart

  It probably does not need much commentary, but as BMO Senior Economist Robert Kavcic writes in his morning charts, “if it’s not fully apparent to all parties that the Canadian housing market is boiling, this picture might convey the message…”

  

  Kavcic urges readers to note the acceleration: “that is, the 1-month change is faster than 3-month; which is faster than the 6-month; which is faster than the 12-month. In all cases but the 12-month (and that won’t be long either), price growth has accelerated through the rates seen in 2017, when policymakers were working on multiple fronts to tame the market.”

  * * *

  Curious for more: here are some facts on the state of Canada’s overheating housing market courtesy of BMO:

  Canadian Existing Home Sales (Feb.) — The Wild North

  Canadian existing home sales rose 6.6% in seasonally-adjusted terms in February, setting yet another record level. From a year ago, sales were up a hefty 39.2%, and the gains are about to look even more gawdy once we see comparisons to March, April and May (recall that the market was locked down last year). We’ve discussed at great length the factors that are driving record demand, but in case you’re new to the scene, here’s a quick refresher:

  • Employment in higher-paying industries recovered swiftly, supporting incomes among potential homebuyers.
  • Mortgage rates plumbed record lows and, while they’re backing up now, they’re still below pre-COVID levels, while many buyers are likely still on pre-approvals with rates locked in.
  • There’s has been a dramatic shift in preferences toward more space, further outside major urban centres (commuting requirements are down, and probably assumed to remain down).
  • Limited travel has created historic demand for second (recreational) properties, and households have equity in existing properties to tap.
  • Younger households are likely pulling forward moves that would have otherwise happened in the years ahead.
  • There has to be some FOMO and speculative activity in the market at this point (which is, unfortunately, tough to show with hard data until after the fact).

  On the flip side, there is precious little supply to meet that demand, at least in segments that the market wants. New listings actually jumped 15.8% (seasonally adjusted) in February, but the 11% gain from a year ago still trails well behind sales. More importantly, the standing inventory on the market remains almost non-existent by historical standards. The months’ supply of homes for sale across the country hit a record low of 1.8 in the month (the norm is about 5). Even if we re-set the sales pace to pre-COVID norms, we’d still only have about the half the normal supply on the market. Why? Here’s another quick refresher:

  • Mobility is down, so it stands to reason that listings (i.e., movement) are down, particularly for those in desirable locations to ride out the pandemic.
  • The past 15 years or so have been characterized by intensification, with new condo development running at twice the rate of that for single-detached homes – that’s not what the market wants right now.

  This leaves us with a perfect storm for higher home prices outside the major-city condo sector. The MLS benchmark price jumped 17.3% y/y in February, within reaching distance of the 2017 high (when policymakers were working on multiple fronts to cool the market). Annualized growth over the past six months was even stronger at 24%; and month-over-month, price growth in February alone was the strongest on record (dating back to 2000). In other words, parabolic.

  Regionally, almost all of the country is participating, with sales up by double-digits or more in all markets outside Quebec (that market is not weak by any means). Meantime, 22 of 26 major markets have seen the average transactions price rise by double-digits, with 20%-to-40% gains common. Markets that entered the pandemic in a position of strength (e.g., Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) have strengthened further, while markets that were in the doldrums (e.g., Calgary, Edmonton, to a lesser extent Vancouver) have re-emerged. And, the strongest momentum is in what we can loosely call “cottage country”, with average price gains in some locations running around 50% y/y.

  In a separate release, Canadian housing starts pulled back to 245,900 annualized units in February, a still-high level following a near-record print in the prior month. Just so we’re clear that this is not a winter wonder, starts on a twelve-month average basis are running at 227k annualized, the strongest such pace since 2008; and over the past six months, starts are averaging 242k, the highest since at least 1990. Both single- and multi-unit starts declined in the month, as did all provinces but British Columbia.

  The Bottom Line: It should be fully apparent to all parties that the Canadian housing market is boiling, with strength across most markets, and extreme conditions in some.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:05

• The Consent Of The Governed
  The Consent Of The Governed

  Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

  In Holland Sunday, a protest demonstration against government Covid policies provoked a emergency order from that same government against thousands of people gathering in a place to … protest. The police and government had only “allowed” 200 demonstrators. So the government “allowed” a protest against itself, but demanded the right to determine where, how, and with how many people it could take place. But that’s not really a protest, is it? The police deployed dogs, horses and water cannons to disperse the crowd.

  In Greece, a video appeared last Sunday of a policeman severely beating a man. Protests against that have occurred daily since. The prime minister spoke out against the protests, not the policeman. That made people even angrier. And then he proposed a “police reform” law. Yeah. And everybody lived happily ever after. But under heavy restrictions.

  In the UK, a peaceful vigil for a woman kidnapped and murdered -by a policeman!- was broken up by police Saturday because there was “no permission” given for it. Several women were handcuffed and dragged across the pavement. Meanwhile, the government is introducing a “police reform” law (they’re popular these days!) that would impose conditions even on one-person protests. And protesters can’t make noise. And so much police will be deployed that it may become too costly to “allow” the protest.

  In Canberra, capital of Australia, 10s of 1000s protested because of a rape scandal inside government buildings. Good thing the restrictions were recently eased, or the same government that’s so busy trying to hide the scandal would have not “allowed” the protest.

  

  It’s perfectly safe to call this extremism. It all takes place against the background of one year of failed Covid measures and restrictions. Though of course governments will always claim the pandemic would have been much worse without them. But after a year, what right do they still have to impose restrictions? What right did they ever have in the first place to tell people they cannot travel, assemble, see their family or go to work? And how has that right, if they ever had it, changed after a year-long “emergency”?

  I’ve talked about legal issues before, but I still don’t see them discussed. I see no supreme courts testing laws or calling governments back. People in democracies are told they have basic and inalienable rights. But not anymore. Joe Biden talked about how Americans could, if they were good and obedient, maybe invite a few friends over for the Fourth of July. How many inalienable rights does that trample on in one go?

  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

  Where did these governments all go wrong? Well, here:

  

  And here:

  

  They’re not benign public servants, they’re drug pushers -in this case vaccines- with armies and bodyguards. They protect corporations and institutions, not the rights of their people. They’re not democrats, they’re authoritarians. We are ruled by ideologies, not principles. The only rights we have are those that they “allow” us to have. There are no basic or inalienable rights left. Our politicians represent, and serve, long established parties and systems that have ruled for at least decades, in a symbiosis with corporations.

  If there’s one lesson to learn from the sordid never-ending Covid episode it must be that: your human rights are just a thin veneer that serves to make your reality look nice and shiny, but may be scraped off at any moment. What does that say about our forefathers and -mothers who fought, and died, in order to provide us with inalienable rights? Do we really owe those people less than we owe our current ruling classes?

  I read yesterday that the health minister of Jordan has resigned because 6 Covid patients died due to a failing oxygen supply in a hospital. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen a politician being held to account for Covid failure. And even he is probably just a scapegoat.

  I’ve seen a few reports on the damage the lockdowns and other measures do to children’s minds. They mostly talk about schools being closed, as if schools are every child’s happy place. Of course not. Children simply need other children, so they can find their place in the world, it has nothing to do with a school. But this goes far beyond children, untold millions of adults also will come away with mental traumas. People need people.

  We have a few questions we should ask ourselves. History teaches us that rights being taken away are awfully hard to regain. That the Constitution talks about the Consent of the Governed also means that the governed were considered to be able to make proper, just decisions about their own lives, and had the right to do that, without goverment intervention.

  But you are not.

  *  *  *

  We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support. Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:45

• "All Hell Could Break Loose": The Fate Of The Market Is In The Median 2023 Dot
  “All Hell Could Break Loose”: The Fate Of The Market Is In The Median 2023 Dot

  With less than 24 hours to go until one of the most closely watch Fed announcements in a long time, the VIX finds itself hanging just below 20, the gamma gravity in the S&P is at 4,000 while dealers remains short Nasdaq/QQQ gamma (which however is shrinking by the day). In short, depending on what Powell says (we previewed how market would respond to a hawkish… and dovish Fed), markets could tumble or surge.

  A quick rundown of the key technical factors ahead of tomorrow’s 2pm announcement:

  As our friends at SpotGamma note, the 400/4000 Call Wall in SPY/SPX has grown in size to over $5BN from yesterday – 10k 4000 strike calls were added yesterday, along with 100k SPY calls (to 400) – which increases its “pull” and yet total gamma is little changed in the S&P500 (that said, due to the FOMC tomorrow SG does not expect much movement today a forecast which has so far proven accurate).

  

  On the other hand, Nasdaq/QQQ gamma remains negative, but that continues to shrink and SG notes that the upcoming March op-ex should flush out the remainder of that negative gamma position.

  Meanwhile, the VIX continues to slide which is rather curious ahead of a major event-risk day such as the FOMC.

  Putting it all together, Nomura’s Charlie McElligott notes predicts “massive days ahead for markets”, between heavy central bank information and options flows around quarterly expiration, particularly noting

  1. the release of the Fed dots, featuring what Charlie calls the “credibility conundrum” of the market anticipating and pricing a ’23 rate liftoff along with Nomura/GS/JPM all calling for +25bps in 2023, yet with Bloomberg “consensus” of Street economists expecting that the Fed will not likely reflect this in their median forecast in order to strengthen their own forward guidance and avoid further tantrums (something we expanded on earlier), and…
  2. US serial Op-Ex in VIX Wed (ahead of the Fed) and Quad Witch Equities on Friday, which has the potential to unlock new ranges and see a heavy reduction of risk and Delta.

  Echoing SpotGamma’s forecast, McElligott notes that the quarterly equities expiration is likely to see “very substantial dealer gamma unclenching thereafter”, which following Op-Ex “exposes markets to larger price ranges with the inherent reduction of dealer hedging flows as that risk goes away, while the market is long a ton of Delta in SPX and IWM, and also set to be sharply de-risked, (SPX net Delta +$308.8B (85th %ile), with front-month +$209.4B and front-week +$139.2B of that).

  Next, the Nomura quant quantifies the impact of the expiration, writing that he sees a post Op-Ex reduction of the aggregate Gamma of -44.7% SPX / SPY, while the QQQ change is even greater at -60.0% (IWM is -50.5%; EEM is -62.7%), so as thresholds expire, CME warns that “we are open to big moves in both directions next week”

  Going back to the Fed, McElligott says that he believes that if we do get a “soft-surprise” of +25bps on median ’23 dot, that the Rates market will just keep feeding that status quo, grinding bear-steepener, but the immediate flow through is that stocks would knee-jerk trade lower (at least short-term), “as it would be higher yields for “tightening” and not “higher growth- / inflation- expectations”; ultimately though, the Nomura strategist views this is a much “healthier” outcome for both Rates and Equities markets. As a reminder, earlier we showed Goldman’s projections for the Fed’s latest set of dots, with the bank expecting 11 participants to show at least one hike in 2023 versus 7 showing no hikes (Of those showing at least one hike, most will show just one, but a handful will show two or more, in line with market expectations of 3 rate hikes)

  

  Alternatively, McElligott writes that if that ’23 median dot doesn’t move, the Equities party may likely gap-higher with the largest Gamma strike at Spooz 4000 being easily in-play and beyond (Charlie’s summary of the Greeks is charted below), while the previously discussed standoff in rates market-pricing vs the Fed “will only grow wider and force an eventually dangerous reckoning at a future point – market pricing QE Taper in ’22, first hike in late ’22, 3 or more hikes in ’23…..vs Fed “kicking the can” until a later date – but not now, with stocks staging a furious relief rally in response.

  

  Finally, as a reminder, the x-factor for rates or spreads – not to mention stocks – is the Fed’s “deafening silence” on SLR relief—with nothing still yet to be addressed there (more on that in a post latter today) leading to the “reflation” bear-steepener getting further pressed by traders until the narrative is altered either by data, some risk-off catalyst or the Fed/politicians finally concede on extending the SLR as the alternative could spark a full-blown bond (and stock) market crash.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:44

• U.S. Joins India And China In Ramping Coal Usage To Pre-Pandemic Levels
  U.S. Joins India And China In Ramping Coal Usage To Pre-Pandemic Levels

  Major users of coal across the world are set to ramp up their usage of the fossil fuel in coming months.

  Power plants in the U.S. are expected to consume 16% more coal this year than in 2020 and another 3% on top of that in 2022. China and India also have “no plans to cut back” their use of burning the fossil fueld. In fact, “it’ll almost be as if the pandemic-induced drop in emissions never happened,” Bloomberg reports. 

  Inevitably, this will result in higher emissions, which stands at stark odds with the climate initiatives that President Joe Biden ran on. Amanda Levin, policy analyst at the New York-based National Resources Defense Council said: “We’re going to see a really marked increase in emissions with coal consumption at U.S. power plants returning almost to 2019 levels.”

  

  She says that changes to mitigate usage could happen quickly if Biden implements his planned green-energy policies. 

  In the U.S., the ramp comes as a result of both costlier natural gas, and a broad re-opening from the pandemic. For India and China, the steady use is indicative of growing demand, despite the fact that both countries are trying to use wind and solar, as well. China’s power consumption, for example, has grown, despite the country reducing coal’s share in the nation’s energy makeup. 

  President Biden’s upcoming infrastructure bill is expected to include plans to “fulfill his campaign pledges on climate change, making the U.S. best poised to salvage progress in reducing global emissions,” Bloomberg reports.

  In China, President Xi Jinping has committed to net-zero emissions by 2060.

  India has not memorialized such an agreement yet and remains a “very long way” from a clean grid. The country said it is ahead of schedule to meet the initial carbon reduction pledged under the Paris Agreement. Coal still accounts for about 70% of the country’s electricity generation and consumption at plants will rise 10% this year. In fact, the climb is expected to continue every year through “at least 2027”. 

  

  Binay Dayal, technical director of Coal India, said: “There are climate-change issues about coal, but India’s energy needs won’t allow it to dump the fuel instantly.”

  In the U.S., demand for the fuel was cut by 19% due to the pandemic last year. That, coupled with roaring natural gas prices, make for a tailwind in coal usages throughout 2021 and into 2022. 

  Dennis Wamsted, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, still thinks the longer-term trend for coal is lower, especially as emerging markets have started to favor gas and renewables. He concluded that for the long-term: “The trend is down, down and continuing to go down.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:25

• Former BlackRock ESG Chief: American Public Is Being Duped By "Greenwashing"-Wall-Streeters
  Former BlackRock ESG Chief: American Public Is Being Duped By “Greenwashing”-Wall-Streeters

  Over a month ago we first exposed the “Green Scam”. ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance, has become the virtue-signaling tour de force for asset mangers to skim even greater margins off retail dupes under pressure from their liberal peers. And since the green movement was here to stay, so was the wave of pro-ESG investing which every single bank has been pitching to its clients because, well you know, it’s the socially, environmentally and financially responsible thing.

  There is just one problem. Instead of finding companies that, well, care for the environment, for society or are for a progressive governance movement, it turns out that the most popular holdings of all those virtue signaling ESG funds are companies such as…. Microsoft, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon, which one would be hard pressed to explain how their actions do anything that is of benefit for the environment, or whatever the S and G stand for. It gets better: among the other most popular ESG companies are consulting company Accenture (?), Procter & Gamble (??), and… drumroll, JPMorgan (!!?!!!?!).

  Yes, for all those who are speechless by the fact that the latest virtue-signaling investing farce is nothing more than the pure cristalized hypocrisy of Wall Street and America’s most valuable corporations, who have all risen above the $1 trillion market cap bogey because they found a brilliant hook with which to attract the world’s most gullible, bleeding-heart liberals and frankly everybody else into believing they are fixing the world by investing in “ESG” when instead they are just making Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon richer beyond their wildest dreams, here is Credit Suisse’s summary of the 108 most popular ESG funds. Please try hard not to laugh when reading what “socially responsible, environmentally safe, aggressively progressive” companies that one buys when one investing into the “Green”, aka ESG scam.

  

  And today we get confirmation from ex-insider. Tariq Fancy, former chief investment officer for Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, wrote an op-ed in USAToday admitting that Wall Street is greenwashing the financial world, making sustainable investing merely PR, which is a distraction from the problem of climate change.

  

  The financial services industry is duping the American public with its pro-environment, sustainable investing practices. This multitrillion dollar arena of socially conscious investing is being presented as something it’s not. In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system and, in the process, creating a deadly distraction. I should know; I was at the heart of it.

  As the former chief investment officer of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world with $8.7 trillion in assets, I led the charge to incorporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) into our global investments. In fact, our messaging helped mainstream the concept that pursuing social good was also good for the bottom line. Sadly, that’s all it is, a hopeful idea. In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.

  SEC looking to ‘proactively identify ESG-related misconduct’

  In many instances across the industry, existing mutual funds are cynically rebranded as “green” — with no discernible change to the fund itself or its underlying strategies — simply for the sake of appearances and marketing purposes. In other cases, ESG products contain irresponsible companies such as petroleum majors and other large polluters like “fast fashion” manufacturing to boost the fund’s performance. There are even portfolio managers who actively mine ESG data to bet against environmentally responsible companies in the name of profit, a short-selling strategy. Risk managers are focused on protecting their investment portfolios from potential damages done by a worsening climate rather than helping prevent that damage from occurring in the first place.

  As disheartening as this reality is, claiming to be environmentally responsible is profitable. Last year alone, ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds nearly doubled. The investment community understandably reacted to this with cheers. But those cheers were only for fund managers and their bottom lines. No matter what they tout as green investing, portfolio managers are legally bound (as well as financially incentivized) to do nothing that compromises profits. To advance real change in the environment simply doesn’t yield the same return.

  In early March, my sentiments were echoed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which announced it was creating a Climate and ESG Task Force to “proactively identify ESG-related misconduct” such as inaccurate or incomplete disclosures by funds and companies — an unprecedented move that suggests there might be abuses that have gone unaddressed. 

  Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to learn some painful lessons. The initial response of rosy forecasts, loose half-measures and group denial boosted morale, but it also lulled the public into a false sense of security that prolonged and worsened the crisis.

  We need to fix the system before disaster strikes

  While how we fight a pandemic and climate change are very different, one aspect is clear. Both threats can only be won through the combined efforts of science and policy. In response to the pandemic, we’ve learned that only top-down government action, such as forcing the closure of high-risk venues and mandating masks indoors, makes a real difference. A “free market” will not correct itself or fix the problem by its own accord.

  Imagine the planet is a cancer patient, and climate change is the cancer. Wall Street is prescribing wheatgrass: A well-marketed, profitable idea that has no chance of curing or even slowing down the cancer. In this scenario, wheatgrass is the deadly distraction, misleading the public and delaying lifesaving measures like chemotherapy. But like giving false hope to unproven cures in the midst of a pandemic, the consequences of such irresponsibility are all too obvious. And motivation for why the industry continues to greenwash is all too obvious.

  When I left the industry in late 2019, due to family business obligations following the passing of my father-in-law, I was frustrated by the lack of any real change. But I took some comfort in believing that if we weren’t doing as much as we could, at least we weren’t doing any harm. Since my departure, I have had a lot of time to think about this issue, and I’ve reassessed my opinion. I believe we are doing irreversible harm by stalling and greenwashing. And all in the name of profits.

  We’re running out of time and need to accept the truth: To fix our system and curb a growing disaster, we need government to fix the rules.

  Fancy appeared later in the day on CNBC and stunned the always-ready-to-virtue-signal anchor by telling her that that “the financial services industry is duping the American public with pro-environment, sustainable investing practices.”

  He added that there is no evidence ESG investing has any social impact.

  Watch the full interview here:

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 20:05

• Chinese Tech Giants Build Tools To Bypass Apple's New Privacy Controls
  Chinese Tech Giants Build Tools To Bypass Apple’s New Privacy Controls

  As Beijing works to bring China’s powerful tech giants to heel, the FT has published a report detailing how Chinese tech giants are working to override new privacy controls being introduced by Apple to help protect the privacy of iPhone users from ruthless digital advertisers.

  

  Of course, the new privacy controls being introduced by Apple will make it harder to track iPhone users without their consent, something that both Facebook and the Chinese state see as a major problem. Pretty soon, America’s biggest social media giant might be lobbying to compare notes with the state-backed China Advertising Association.

  Some of China’s biggest technology companies, including ByteDance and Tencent, are testing a tool to bypass Apple’s new privacy rules and continue tracking iPhone users without their consent to serve them targeted mobile advertisements. Apple is expected in the coming weeks to roll out changes it announced last June to iPhones that it says will give users more privacy.

  Until now, apps have been able to rely on Apple’s IDFA system to see who clicks on ads and which apps are downloaded. In future, they will have to ask permission to gather tracking data, a change which is expected to deal a multibillion-dollar bombshell to the online advertising industry, and has been fought by Facebook, since most users are expected to decline to be tracked.

  In response, the state-backed China Advertising Association, which has 2,000 members, has launched a new way to track and identify iPhone users called CAID, which is being widely tested by tech companies and advertisers in the country.

  Per the FT, TikTok-owner ByteDance published a new 11-page guide for Chinese app developers suggesting that advertisers can use this new CAID system to track iPhone users, assuming the CAID technology has been embedded in the app. The FT managed to confirm that ByteDance and Tencent (which is also seeking to leverage CAID) are already testing the technology. While several parties are working to circumvent Apple’s new privacy controls (which, remember, threaten to hammer the digital advertising businesses of Facebook, Google and other US tech giants), Apple says it won’t grant any exemptions, potentially placing the company on the path toward a confrontation with Beijing.

  “The App Store terms and guidelines apply equally to all developers around the world, including Apple,” the company said. “We believe strongly that users should be asked for their permission before being tracked. Apps that are found to disregard the user’s choice will be rejected.”

  One person familiar with the situation said Apple would be able to detect which apps use the new tracking tool, but even so, it will need to tread carefully. Starting to ban apps backed by state-linked businesses could see Apple kicked out of China.

  But Zach Edwards, founder of Victory Medium, a tech consultancy, said: “They can’t ban every app in China. If they did it would effectively trigger a series of actions that would get Apple kicked out of China.” Three people with knowledge of briefings between Apple and developers also said the Cupertino, California-based company would be wary of taking strong action, despite a clear violation of its stated rules, if CAID has the support of China’s tech giants as well as its government agencies. Rich Bishop, chief executive of AppInChina, a leading publisher of international software in China, suggested that Apple might “make an exception for China” because tech companies and the government are “so closely aligned”.

  Fortunately, it looks like Apple has allowed for some wiggle room for Chinese apps…and others as well, since, according to the CAA, there is already demand for its workaround from European companies and advertising firms.

  Meanwhile, Yang Congan, chief executive of Digital Union, a Beijing-based data privacy company, suggested that CAID had been designed to get around Apple’s rules because its tracking methods might not “uniquely” identify the user. “This is the room that the industry has left to explore,” said Yang, who suggested this grey area was intentional.

  The CAA said the CAID solution “does not stand in opposition to Apple’s privacy policy” and that the association “is currently actively communicating with Apple, and the [CAID] solution has not yet been formally implemented”. CAID has been in a free demo phase for select companies in recent months. Two people briefed on the issue say Apple is aware of the tool and seems to have so far turned a blind eye to its use.

  The system is intended for use by local app developers in China, but at least one French gaming group has been encouraged to apply to use it and several foreign advertising companies have already applied on behalf of their Chinese divisions, two people familiar with the matter said. CAID is scheduled to be publicly released as soon as this week, according to a person briefed on the plan.

  Dina Srinivasan, a US-based antitrust scholar, said the issue highlighted how Apple’s policies alone could not solve glaring privacy issues. “The big picture is that there is simply too much money at stake,” she said. “There will always be an arms race to track consumers. Only legislation can make it stop.”

  In other words, it looks like Apple’s new rules are just another exercise in pro-privacy box-checking, because actually protecting consumers’ privacy simply isn’t financially feasible anymore.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:45

• Alaska Republican Party Censures Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Vows To Primary Her
  Alaska Republican Party Censures Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Vows To Primary Her

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The Alaska Republican Party voted to censure Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and vowed to issue a primary challenge to her in 2022—coming after she voted to convict former President Donald Trump during February’s impeachment trial.

  

  The state Republican Party said (pdf) it passed a resolution to censure—another term for a strong condemnation—Murkowski not only for her vote to convict Trump last month, but because she voted in favor of Democratic-led initiatives such as not placing limits on abortions, against the GOP-led repeal of Obamacare, and voted in favor of President Joe Biden’s pick for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, among others.

  The aforementioned votes, the state Republican Party said, were “in conflict with the Alaska Republican Party platform.”

  The Alaska Republican Party said it will now “recruit a Republican primary challenger to oppose and prohibit Senator Murkowski from being a candidate in any Republican primary to the extent legally permissible.”

  According to the GOP’s resolution, Murkowski also voted “present” rather than in support of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and “repeatedly spoken critically of President Trump throughout his term in office.”

  NRSC chair Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) has attempted to quell in-party fighting and said his committee will support incumbent senators for reelection in the 2022 midterms. That goes against what Trump proclaimed in his speech to conservative activists in Florida last month, where he promised to primary Murkowski, the six other Republican senators who convicted him, and all of the House members who voted with Democrats to impeach him.

  Last week, Trump issued a statement saying he would pledge to campaign against her next year.

  “She represents her state badly and her country even worse. I do not know where other people will be next year, but I know where I will be—in Alaska campaigning against a disloyal and very bad senator,” the former president said.

  The Epoch Times has contacted Murkowski’s office for comment.

  In February, the Alaska senator said she would “vote again” to convict Trump if she were asked to do so.

  “If the party is to censure me because they felt that I needed to support the party, they can make that statement, but I will make the statement again that my obligation is to support the Constitution that I have pledged to uphold, and I will do that, even if it means I have to oppose the direction of my state party,” Murkowski said, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

  Murkowski hasn’t said whether she would seek another term in office. Murkowski won her reelection with 44 percent of the vote in 2016 against Libertarian candidate Joe Miller, who netted 29 percent.

  Other than Murkowski, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) have been censured by Republicans in their home states following the impeachment vote. The Utah GOP said it will not censure Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), while Maine’s Republican Party has yet to meet on how to handle Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Both Collins and Romney also voted to convict.

  *  *  *

  It seems Murkowski may pay the price for her loyalty to the Democrats…

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:25

• US Intelligence "On Alert" As North Korea Poised For First Weapons Test Of Biden Era
  US Intelligence “On Alert” As North Korea Poised For First Weapons Test Of Biden Era

  At a sensitive moment that both US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are traveling in Asia where they are discussing both China and North Korea policies with allied leaders in Tokyo and Seoul on Tuesday and Wednesday, CNN has cited US intelligence officials who say Pyongyang is likely preparing to conduct its first weapons test since Biden entered the White House.

  CNN’s Barabara Starr reports that American intelligence agencies “are on alert as the US and South Korea conduct scaled-down, simulated military exercises” and further that “North Korea might decide whether to go through with a test after seeing what comes out of Blinken and Austin’s meetings in Asia.”

  

  The White House is reported to be mulling a response should North Korea actually go through with a test.

  Also on Tuesday, as CNN details, a top US general who heads up US Northern Command (which overseas defense of the continental United States), Gen. Glen Van Herck, issued the following warning:

  “The Kim Jong Un regime has achieved alarming success in its quest to demonstrate the capability to threaten the U.S. homeland with nuclear-armed ICBMs, believing such weapons are necessary to deter US military action and ensure his regime’s survival.”

  Meanwhile, on the same day the powerful sister of Kim Jong Un, Kim Yo Jong, warned the United States it must “refrain from causing a stink” if it desires to “sleep in peace” over the next four years.

  “We take this opportunity to warn the new U.S. administration trying hard to give off gun powder smell in our land,” she said. “If it wants to sleep in peace for coming four years, it had better refrain from causing a stink at its first step,” she added. It marked the first time the ‘rogue regime’ directly addressed the new Biden administration. 

  “I don’t have a direct comment or response to the comments made from North Korea,” replies @PressSec on Air Force One when asked about Kim Jong Un’s sister’s remark that the US shouldn’t “cause a stink” with the #DPRK.

  — Steve Herman (@W7VOA) March 16, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  However, one prominent regional affairs expert, Tom Fowdy, called attention to the timing of all this sudden bluster out of Pyongyang, noting that “North Korea are masters at getting America’s attention and forcing themselves on the agenda. By making a series of threats now, Pyongyang are unintendedly distracting the US from the anti-China dynamic of Blinken’s visits too.”

  “North Korea plays what is essentially a small hand, to the absolute best of their ability every time. The two countries’ situations are very different, but it has to be said they are far more tactful, strategic, prudent and outright Machiavellian negotiators than China,” he added.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 03/16/2021 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Heathrow Passenger Numbers Remain Grounded
  Heathrow Passenger Numbers Remain Grounded

  When Heathrow reported its 2020 traffic volume figures In January, the airport’s CEO, John Holland-Kaye, reflected on an “incredibly challenging” year for aviation. 

  Holland-Kaye added:

  “The aviation industry is the cornerstone of the UK economy but is fighting for survival.”

  As lockdowns continue to be enforced around the globe, the latest figures show no let up in this crisis. Compared to the same period last year, February 2021 saw a fall of 91 percent in passengers passing through its terminals.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Reacting to this further development, Holland-Kaye struck a defiantly positive tone:

  “Aviation has always led the UK economy out of recession, and we will do so again. The PM’s Global Travel Taskforce can lead the way on reopening international travel and trade safely – but ministers must get a grip of Border Force’s performance so that visitors get a warm welcome to Britain, not a 6 hour queue.”

  We wish him luck…”normal” seems a long way off and vaccine passports may not help people feel ‘free’ enough to travel.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 03/15/2021 – 02:45

• What's The Plan In Europe – Blame UK & AstraZeneca?
  What’s The Plan In Europe – Blame UK & AstraZeneca?

  Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

  What is going on in Europe? The political and economic options are limited, the outcomes predictable, and none of them are good. But don’t worry – Europe can always blame the UK and AstraZeneca.

  

  On the back of news of collapsing trade between Europe and the UK due to Brexit, I wish I could work out what’s going through the collective mindset of the European Commission and the European Central Bank regarding how they now intend to turn Europe into a major growth economy of economies, create jobs and wealth, foster social cohesion, and become a third force for moderation in geopolitics. What’s the plan I wonder… do they care to share it?

  To give Europe some credit, it’s done remarkably well holding together these last 12 years, creating an increasingly connected European state without the tedious need of anyone actually voting for it.  Political and Economic compromises have been made, but the whole thing has muddled through rather well – give or take suboptimal growth being hamstrung by the construct of the Euro.

  Since 2012, when Europe’s central bank finally cottoned on to the crisis then enveloping European bond markets, the ECB has have had but one policy: keep Interest Rates at zero and below, and wait, hope, and pray for recovery and inflation to discount down the debt. They are still waiting. As far as I can work out…. that’s about the sum of the economic side of the plan. Hope is never a strategy, and monetary mismanagement without some fiscal common sense to back it up looks an unlikely route to success.

  On the political side of the equation, for years the EC bumbled along as a rest home for “shunky retreads”. (I just love that description by the Australian Ambassador of the qualities required to become one of Europe’s unelected leaders.) Its’ main purpose was to ensure everyone got a fair chance to milk the teats of Brussels tax-free salaries and ensure the Germans didn’t cotton on the fact they were paying for much of it.

  Meanwhile, the big dogs of European politics: Merkel and various Frenchmen and occasional Italian got on with the real business of Europe, which was broadly the Germans making quite clear they weren’t going to pay for it – while everyone else tried to ensure they did. The poor Brits really didn’t get it – their role was to pay and keep paying.

  But things are gradually changing. Brexit has got the EC retreads all excited. They are very keen to show they have powers and are not afraid to use them…. They intend to keep punishing the Brits to dissuade any other nations in the Euro gulag from any thoughts of a similar exit. And, they are doing a damn fine job of it too…. Europe must be terribly pleased as Brussels announces its latest quotas of not letting in British fish, meat, or anything else… and sets new levels of Beastliness to Brits – B2B as its known in the Kommission.

  Everyone thinks it was the sainted Mario Draghi saying he would magically “do whatever it takes” that was the trick that saved Europe and the Euro. In reality it was a far more complex game of financial card sharping and a masterclass in political distraction as he persuaded the Germans to support it.

  Back in the early 2010s Yoorp was in deep crisis. The markets confidently expected the Euro to implode. Greece was a basket case. Italian bond yields were heading stratospheric and utterly unsustainable. Ireland was going to default. Portugal was on the verge of bankruptcy. Spain, and even France looked wobbly. We talked about the impossibility of the Germans ever agreeing to a bailout of Club Med.

  Then came the first genius moment: the ECB announced it was making unlimited repo facilities available to banks.

  I was on a Bloomberg, (or maybe it was CNBC?), show as it happened. I immediately opined it was a buy signal for European government bonds. The German bank analyst sitting next to me demurred and told the audience that was rubbish, “this is a carefully considered ECB plan to stabilise and assist banks” he sagely pronounced. After all, that’s exactly what the German politician being interviewed had just said.

  I shook my head and smiled in that way that clearly conveyed he was a simpleton. I  explained: “Bollchocks…. Here’s how it plays from here: banks will use the repo to use their government bonds as collateral to buy more government bonds, which they will use as collateral to borrow even more more money to buy more government bonds to use as more more collateral. Simples. This is the moment to buy European govt bonds.”

  The analysts flustered and fluffed and came out with some line about the direct funding of European sovereign debt was not something the ECB would do. I shrugged and said.. sure… but watch bond yields and Bund spreads vs France, Spain and Italy. We did, and we’ve been watching them ever since and making lots of money off the ECB’s magic money tree.

  Well done Draghi. It largely worked, but the one thing the magic money tree has most definitely not done is drive any European recovery, jobs, yoof employment or social stability.. But hey-ho, the ECB says it will happen… if we just unlock some inflation.. and don’t tell the Germans.

  We are now into an era of ECB never-ending QE Infinity. Yesterday Christine Lagarde, ECB head girl, continued in the same vein as her predecessor and now Italian prime minister Draghi, pulling the wool over the Germans eyes. She is accelerating purchases under the €1.85 bazillion Pandemic/Permanent emergency purchase programme – buying back bonds at a “significantly higher pace” in coming months/years/centuries to limit any rise in European bond yields.

  Yep. It’s really, really important the ECB keeps European bond yields low. Because low bond yields have done so much to generate zero growth, create zero jobs, and done nothing to solve Club Med yoof unemployment. As Europe’s collective growth rate has limped along for the past 10-years, zero interest rates, ECB limits on spending and ECB policies have achieved the grand sum of a word that sounds like duck all. But it has held the Euro together and keep the ECB biggies in tax-free jobs.

  Almost as an apparent after-thought the EBC has effectively seized financial sovereignty from European states. Keeping interest rates unfeasibly low has kept the Euro nice and cheap for German exporters, while crushing the hopes of other European nations to adjust their economies to catch up Germany. The ECB also controls the disbursement (through the European Commission, so un-ably led by VDL) of the €750 bln recovery funds.

  450 million happy smiling flag-waving Yooropeans are eternally grateful to the ECB for its dedication to keep doing the same thing in the vain hope it might finally work. Just like they are delighted with the success of the EC in managing Yoorp’s vaccine rollout.

  Facts is facts… but Europe is not about to knock the socks off with the kind of Economic recovery we are now seeing in the US. Even in Brexit Britain recovery took a 3% dunt from the Christmas lockdown, but we’re on course for effective economy-wide vaccination and reopening this half of 2021.

  Of course, we won’t be going on holiday in Europe, because they will be into a fourth wave and banning us from their beaches, even calling it the British variant, to make quite clear it is not the EC’s fault for its vaccine rollout or the ECB’s ongoing monetary hopes.

  Meanwhile… Back in Covid land…

  I was surprised when a headline flashed across the screens: “Denmark Suspends AstraZeneca Vaccine Over Blood Clot Concerns”. Wow. That must be serious. Something must be well awry for the Danes to be concerned. Europe’s most laid-back nation doesn’t get het up about nothing – or so I thought.

  The Danes are sensible people. I doubted they would be given to slavishly following the dictates of the EU Brusselocracy to talk down the UK’s successful vaccination programme. I immediately called one of my sailing chums, who in addition to being a top vascular surgeon, recently manged to get together the 26 separate pieces of paper required to evidence his qualifications to stick needles in people’s arms as a Covid Vaccinator.

  He was equally surprised, commenting how unlikely it would be if Denmark’s tiny population revealed a serious blood issue which hadn’t been evidenced in the over 15 million dozes of the vaccine administered in the UK. Then he called back to say there had been 2 cases and death of an Austrian with multiple thrombosis 10 days after getting the AstraZeneca jab.

  The fact is a 60-year old Dane has died after getting the shot from a blood clot. 5 million Europeans have been vaccinated with the AstraZeneca drug. There have been a shocking, staggering 30 cases of obstructive blood clots among these 5 million. Which is a statistically incoherent connection – it’s absolutely in line with what you would expect to see in the general population said the European Medicines Agency, adding the benefits outweigh any risk.

  But with all the fake news surrounding the efficacy of AstraZeneca, the drug company’s difficulties in delivering doses, and Europe’s bumbling vaccine rollout… Give a good dog a bad name and it sticks – would seem to be the European policy. The Danes have banned it for at least 14 days – to be on the safe side.

  For the record, I recently got the AstraZeneca jab and had no side effects. This weekend, in protest at the Danish decision, I shall be cooking vitamin Pig from this Island for breakfast, and not doing anything with lego… and to show just how concerned I am I won’t watch anything with Sandi Toksvig in it. (The delightful and very funny Danish TV presenter is a national treasure here in the UK.. but she’s on the wrong side now…)

  Meanwhile, there are over 10 million doses of the AstraZenaca vaccine sitting in the US because the US has not approved it. The American’s have declined to let the drug maker deliver them to Europe. European Commission Kommissars say that is clear evidence of the UK deliberately stopping the export of the vaccine to Yoorp… apparently.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 03/15/2021 – 02:00

• The US Keeps Losing In Every Simulated War-Game Against China
  The US Keeps Losing In Every Simulated War-Game Against China

  Via SouthFront.org,

  In the autumn of 2020, the US Air Force held a simulated war game against China, set approximately 10 years in the future.

  It began with a biological weapon that quickly dealt with America’s military bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific region.

  Then, China staged a massive military exercise to veil a gigantic deployment of an invasion force.

  The simulation culminated with Chinese missile strikes raining down on U.S. bases and warships in the region, and a lightning air and amphibious assault on the island of Taiwan.

  China won, within a very short timeframe.

  

  This was reportedly part of the classified war game and details are being revealed now.

  Around the same time, in real life, in September 2020, actual Chinese combat aircraft intentionally flew over the rarely crossed median line in the Taiwan Strait in the direction of Taipei an “unprecedented 40 times and conducted simulated attacks on the island” that Taiwan’s premier called “disturbing.”

  China’s air force released a video showing a bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons carrying out a simulated attack on Andersen Air Force Base on the U.S. Pacific island of Guam.

  The title of the Hollywood-like propaganda video was “The god of war H-6K [bomber] goes on the attack!”

  The trend of China getting ahead and the US falling back was accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  This month the Council on Foreign Relations released a special report, “The United States, China, and Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War.”

  It concluded that Taiwan “is becoming the most dangerous flash point in the world for a possible war” between the United States and China.

  In Senate testimony, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Phil Davidson, warned that he believes China might try and annex Taiwan “in this decade, in fact within the next six years.”

  Separately, a Chinese think tank recently described tensions in U.S.-China relations as the worst since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, and it advised Communist Party leaders to prepare for war with the United States.

  Apparently, many Americans don’t realize is that years of classified Pentagon war games strongly suggest that the U.S. military would lose that war.

  “More than a decade ago, our war games indicated that the Chinese were doing a good job of investing in military capabilities that would make our preferred model of expeditionary warfare, where we push forces forward and operate out of relatively safe bases and sanctuaries, increasingly difficult,” Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview.

  “At that point the trend in our war games was not just that we were losing, but we were losing faster,” Hinote said. “After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen. The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli.”

  The Biden administration recently announced a new Pentagon task force to review U.S. defense policy toward China, to be headed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

  The deteriorating security of Taiwan will be a major focus of the new task force.

  “By the way, three of China’s standing war plans are built around a Taiwan scenario,” Hinote said.

  “They’re planning for this. Taiwan is what they think about all the time.”

  No matter what, every war game scenario featuring Taiwan ends in the US losing.

  “Whenever we war-gamed a Taiwan scenario over the years, our Blue Team routinely got its ass handed to it, because in that scenario time is a precious commodity and it plays to China’s strength in terms of proximity and capabilities,” said David Ochmanek, a senior RAND Corporation analyst and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development. “That kind of lopsided defeat is a visceral experience for U.S. officers on the Blue Team, and as such the war games have been a great consciousness-raising device. But the U.S. military is still not keeping pace with Chinese advances. For that reason, I don’t think we’re much better off than a decade ago when we started taking this challenge more seriously.”

  Part of the problem is that China advanced its A2/AD strategy while the Pentagon was largely distracted fighting counterterrorism and counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two decades.

  Beijing is also laser-focused on Taiwan and regional hegemony, while the U.S. military must project power and prepare for potential conflict scenarios all around the globe, giving the Pentagon what Ochmanek calls an “attention deficit disorder.”

  Finally, there is the complacency of the perennial winner that makes it hard for senior U.S. military officers to believe that another nation would dare to take them on.

  “My response is that China’s growing military confidence is manifesting itself in an increasingly belligerent approach to its neighbors, the growing frequency of the PLA’s violation of the airspace of Taiwan and Japan, and the bullying of other neighbors in the South China Sea,” said Ochmanek. “Under Xi Jinping there has been a dramatic increase in such provocations compared to a decade ago, and I think it’s grounded in his belief that militarily, China is strong enough now to credibly challenge us.”

  In the most recent war game, the Pentagon tested the impact of potential capabilities and military concepts that are still on the drawing board in many cases.

  The Blue Team, which represented U.S. forces, adopted a more defensive and dispersed posture less reliant on large, vulnerable bases, ports and aircraft carriers in a conflict with the Red Team, which represented China.

  The strategy strongly favored large numbers of long-range, mobile strike systems, to include anti-ship cruise missile batteries, mobile rocket artillery systems, unmanned mini-submarines, mines and robust surface-to-air missile batteries for air defense. A premium was put on surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities for both early warning and accurate intelligence to enable quicker decisions by U.S. policymakers, and a more capable command-and-control system to coordinate the actions of more dispersed forces.

  “We created a force that had resiliency at its core, and the Red Team looked at that force and knew that it would take a tremendous amount of firepower to knock it out,” said Hinote. The biggest insight of the war game, he said, was revealed when he talked afterward with the Red Team leader, who played the role of the PLA’s top general.

  “The Red Team leader is the most experienced and aggressive officer in these war games across the Defense Department, and when he initially looked at the resiliency of our defensive posture both in Taiwan and the region, he said, ‘No, I’m not going to attack,’” recalled Hinote. “If we can design a force that creates that level of uncertainty and causes Chinese leaders to question whether they can accomplish their goals militarily, I think that’s what deterrence looks like in the future.”

  On a sober note, Hinote pointed out that the Blue Team force posture tested in the recent war game is still not the one reflected in current Defense Department spending plans.

  “We’re beginning to understand what kind of U.S. military force it’s going to take to achieve the National Defense Strategy’s goals,” he said. “But that’s not the force we’re planning and building today.”

  Maybe one day the US will win in a simulation against China.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 23:30

• Welcome To The 'Upside-Down'
  Welcome To The ‘Upside-Down’

  Presented without comment… “welcome to the upside-down”

  Good evening, and welcome to the upside-down.

  Where what you see, can never be,
  and what you know, just isn’t so.
  Where bad is good and wrong is right.
  Where truth went down without a fight.

  Where you might just say, every day is opposite day.

  Can I offer you a mask or an anal swab?
  Rape is the law, if its for a good cause.
  Oh no, it isn’t mandatory, that would be cruel,
  but you have no choice, that’s our only rule.

  Before you enter I must tell you about the world’s deadliest disease.
  It can take you out with a single sneeze.
  It’s a clever bugger too, it can’t take out a violent mob
  it only thrives in those with jobs.

  But luckily, we have the only cure,
  it won’t stop it from spreading but that’s all we know for sure.
  So “What does it do?”, you may ask.
  No one knows, so please be sure to double mask.

  “It’s super safe” the doctor said.
  Even if you end up dead,
  because the antidote can’t kill you since
  it’s the leading cause of coincidence.

  Now roll up your sleeve and let’s go,
  I’ll take you through the backwards show.
  Where doctors kill and science shills
  for our lord and saviour, a man named Bill.

  To your left you will find our grand display
  of courageous men with nothing to say.
  They don’t provide, or lead, or slay.
  They smile, nod, and let you have your way.

  To your right you’ll see our exhibition of empathy.
  Where the rich stay home,
  and through their phone,
  demand that old folks die alone.

  Follow along the yellow dotted line,
  to our memorial of dissent, our evil shrine.
  The thought criminals and sense seekers and those who disrupt,
  the ones who tried to turn us right side up.

  They did not shrink to double think,
  so all of them died from “suicide”.

  Thank you very much for visiting THE UPSIDE DOWN!
  Now please return to the circus with the rest of the clowns.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 23:00

• Towards "One" World Currency
  Towards “One” World Currency

  Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

  Expect Government Crackdowns In A “Global Depression”

  For those professing a preference for one type of government over another, an ugly reality is they all cut from the same cloth. Whether we are talking about Democracy, Communism, Socialism, or Fascism the strong link they share is one of dominance and a desire to control. While seen as vastly different systems with distinct goals, each is rooted in the promise people should sacrifice as needed for “the greater good.” The main flaw in a democracy is that it allows a simple majority to force their desires upon others. This is why our forefathers set checks and balances in the Constitution, however, even these do not guarantee freedom will remain. 

  

  Today, the burden of risk and the amount of “skin in the game” is not equally shared by all of society. Over time our financial system and institutions have been corrupted by crony capitalism and a political system that panders to the masses by exchanging favors for baubles. It could be argued that those in power don’t have to take away our freedom by force if we are willing to surrender it or trade it for a few paid weeks off work. Nor do they have to be fair in how they go about this if they simply get a majority of the populace to go along with their plan.

  The suspicion governments are self-serving creatures is apparent in the old school British imperial definition of “commerce” which used free trade as a cover for the military dominance of weak nations. Those put in a position of being exploited often saw this as simply a ruse promoted by those wishing to abuse them. In short, opening borders and turning off protectionism simply makes it easier to rob countries of their wealth. America, a wayward child of England, has been accused of following this same path.

  

  Economic Hardship Takes Many Forms

  In my last article titled, “The first Global Inflationary Depression Is Possible” a case was made that the world was headed towards an economic crisis due to several factors. The problem is that such a scenario encompasses all aspects of life, from food and energy, to supply chains, geopolitics, and possibly even war. This article is an effort to offer up some ideas on how governments might respond to such an event based on current trends and some of the events that have occurred during the covid-19 pandemic. If we accept the idea that governments are self-serving and that a huge majority of the people suffer during an economic depression, we should expect frictions to develop as the populace seeks solutions to ease their pain.

  Sadly, governments across the world have overreached and crushed the rights of individuals during the pandemic. People have been denied the ability to travel, locked in their homes, followed by drones, and even been jailed. This may have been just a taste of what we might expect if governments are put under pressure to perform. Many people have pointed to the fact that in the past “war has been the go-to answer” often used to take our eyes off of problems. Hopefully, that will not be the case, however, many of the other options possible in the age of almost total surveillance do not seem much better. 

  It is wise to remember that when all is said and done, those in power will not be kind to us but they will rapidly throw us under the bus without a thought. Silencing dissidents or those that protest or disagree by limiting free speech is only a start. Lock-downs and curfews take on a whole new meaning when harshly enforced. They can include things like house arrest, cutting power, links to the internet and communication, and even water to areas where unrest gets out of hand. You can expect governments to remove anything that gives us the power to control our fate.

  

  Robots Could Be Used For Crowd Control

  The topic of our future and culture always circles back to and is directly linked to the issue of jobs vanishing as automation and an army of robots march into our workplace. This can result in a future that takes on a very grim dystopian appearance. The fear of being replaced by a robot or seeing your job being outsourced or eliminated is on the rise. Do not be surprised if in the end those displaced from the job market are only given enough to ensure they remain docile and behave. If and when this becomes an issue conflict and violence will arise.

  While some people credit Rahm Emanuel with the saying, Winston Churchill was the first to say, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He said it in the mid-1940s as we were approaching the end of World War II, and history indicates those in government have taken heed. The one thing we can count on is that when things crumble, the old, “we should have done more” or the “it would have been far worse” lines always flow forth from those in charge. Under this logic, we should be prepared to be subjected to massive abuse by those with strong agendas.  

  Possibly, one of the most dire threats we face flows from the combination of big tech and those in pursuit of the highly touted one-world agenda. This brings together a slew of organizations, governments, companies, wealthy, individuals, and bankers with the goal of expanding their power. The gathering in Davos of the World Economic Forum is not for our benefit but more for plutocrats like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos that desire to “break the world” with their ruthless agendas to bring more political power into their hands. Recently a great deal of attention has been given to some of the ideas and vision the WEF has floated. One of the most powerful became visible when WEF public relations released a video entitled: “8 Predictions for the World in 2030. Its 2030 agenda offers a telling glimpse into what the technocratic elite has in store for the rest of us. It promotes the idea that  by 2030 “You will own nothing. And you’ll be happy. 

  How do you begin to fight or turn back a force that has even incorporated and leveraged the ever-present smartphone as an ultra-powerful surveillance device? By developing programs to organize phone data so that it provides real-time intelligence on every citizen, and using it to guide and influence our actions the power of the state has been deeply enhanced. The digital age has made it far easier for government to seize our computers and records to shape a case against anyone by massaging the data as they see fit. The reason we hear so little criticism of these actions from our government may be that we are next in line to have our freedom culled. Governments are not the friend of the average man. Orwell wrote about how governments could take on a life of their own and criticized totalitarianism throughout his writings.

  

  Totalitarianism, the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism is a political concept that defines a mode of government, which prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. Political power in totalitarian states is generally pushed by those on the far left or right with strong agendas and an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through mass media. Signs of its growth are often marked by political repression, growing control over the economy, restriction of speech, and mass surveillance.

  Of course, a huge step in individuals losing control over their lives would be the adoption of a single world currency. Those in charge of our financial machinery have indicated to the public their desire for more power. This means creating a truly global centralized economic system and a highly controlled world currency framework dominated by a select cult of banking oligarchs. This would, in effect makes the rest of the human race their slaves. The banking elites are positioning themselves to avoid blame for a disaster in which all fiat currencies fall in value by selling us on an elaborate recovery con-game which includes converting to a new worldwide currency. Remember, this is conceived and perpetuated by those with the most to gain.

  

  Magazine Cover From 1988

  For years the IMF has been discussing replacing the dollar with the SDR as the world reserve currency. It would require governments to borrow from the world central banking authority, rather than printing currency to finance their infrastructure programs. With governments floating the idea of going cashless and to digital currencies, this would give them even greater control over our lives. To be clear, the elites are positioned and merely waiting for a geopolitical disaster or catastrophe so overwhelming that when the time arrives they can portray themselves as our saviors by carrying out this plan. 

  This is all part of the New World Order and globalization idea pushed by many of the rich elite and world leaders. It contends that larger, more cooperative governments under one financial unit will benefit us all. The fact is Americans have a great deal to lose if the dollar is dethroned and declines in value. Those who will be crucified are the middle-class Americans whose wealth is locked into or are holding long-term USD bonds thinking they are a safe investment.  To Americans, the fate of dollar-dominated assets and their value when the dust finally settles should be a huge concern but most Americans fail to grasp the implications. 

  The transition to a world currency would take a far greater toll on paper assets than tangible goods. While recognizing the flaws of the dollar and our current system I have come to believe the other fiat currencies such as the euro and yen hold even less merit. This includes cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. Regardless, in the end, we should expect to be told and not given an option as to what is coming. If events unfold in the way those promoting a one-world currency hope, they will be able to portray cleaning up a financial mess as a blessing. The truth is, they will benefit greatly from putting a dagger in the heart of freedom. This is not written to frighten or as a prediction of doom but to dampen any illusions those at the top value those below them.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 22:30

• Anti-2nd Amendment Groups Swarm Senate Amid Push To Restrict Gun Rights
  Anti-2nd Amendment Groups Swarm Senate Amid Push To Restrict Gun Rights

  As Congressional Democrats turn their attention from stimulus to gun control, anti-2nd Amendment groups are focusing their lobbying efforts on the Senate after two major bills cleared the House last week.

  

  The bills – one of which could indefinitely delay background checks (H.R. 1446), and the other which would require a federal background check for private gun sales (H.R. 8) – made it through the House last week and are on to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has promised to take quick action as Democrats hope to garner enough GOP support for them to pass, according to The Hill.

  Eight House Republicans voted for the background check legislation which would affect private transfers, however it would take at least 60 votes for the bills to make it through the Senate.

  “No more hopes and prayers, thoughts and prayers—a vote is what we need,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says as Democrats introduce gun reform legislation. https://t.co/IqC5YhwUE1 pic.twitter.com/MwwpRjDVDj

  — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “We have a slim gun violence prevention majority, but we have the majority, which we know includes eight Republicans,” said Brian Lemek, executive director at the Brady PAC.

  Also supporting the legislation are Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center.

  Some Senate Democrats say they’re already holding conversations with Republicans.

  “I’m talking to senators across the aisle, but the real difference-makers in this debate are the survivors, students, and family members who have made this issue a movement,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told The Hill about his plan for getting Republican support.

  “The most powerful advocates for change are the people who have personal stories to share about how a background check could have saved someone they love — that’s who my Republican colleagues have to answer to,” he added.

  –The Hill

  Gun rights advocates say the bills are a stupid idea.

  “The idea that this is going to make us safer is laughable,” said Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL). “Criminals looking to get their hands on firearms to use in crimes are not going to submit to background checks. Only law-abiding citizens will follow the law. This is a back door means of setting up a national registry of firearms – something I completely oppose.”

  Meanwhile North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson (R) ripped Democrats for ‘capitalizing on half-truths to rob Americans of their Second Amendment rights,” according to The Truth About Guns.

  “Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress are not serious about ending gun violence,” said Hudson. “And it’s obvious by the bills – they’re bringing up four this week – which would do nothing to have stopped a single mass shooting in this country, yet, they threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

  “The Democrats have rushed two bills to the floor, no regular order, no hearing time,” Hudson continued. “They have allowed no meaningful input from Republicans and – and these bills, again, would have not stopped a single mass shooting, not Newtown, not Charleston, not Parkland, not Las Vegas, not Sutherland Springs, would not have stopped the shooting of our former colleague, Gabrielle Giffords because her shooter passed a background check.”

  “H.R. 8 fails to recognize the fact that every commercial gun sale in America requires a background check today,” Rep. Hudson explained. “And H.R. 1446 creates delays for law-abiding citizens, could be indefinite to acquire a weapon and would have not closed the Charleston loophole.”

  Rep. Hudson explained that the failure that led to the murders in Charleston, South Carolina’s Emmanuel AME Church was a matter of law enforcement not sharing disqualifying criminal information with the FBI. He said that a fix would be Rep. Tom Rice’s H.R. 1518, a bill which codifies current NICS practices. The Truth About Guns

  These surely law abiding citizens are going to be super bummed about the private sale background check thing:

  

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 22:00

• The New New Deal Has Already Arrived. Thank The COVID Panic
  The New New Deal Has Already Arrived. Thank The COVID Panic

  Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

  We’ve entered a new era of politics and government in America, and the Left is pretty happy about it. This week, for example, The Guardian announced “Biden’s $1.9tn Covid relief bill marks an end to four decades of Reaganism.”

  

  From this point of view, “Reaganism” is code for extreme free-market libertarian public policy. Or as some call it: “neoliberalism.”

  The idea that this sort of  Reaganism took over the country contradicts reality, of course. By virtually every metric—from tax revenues and federal spending per capita, and in to the size of the regulatory state—the size of the American state has expanded relentlessly for more than 40 years. 

  But in many respects the headline is correct. The new Covid relief bill signals that whatever restraint on public spending existed before 2020 is now all but gone. And the bill represents the beginning of a new era: an era that can be likened to the New Deal. This has long been part of the plan according to social democrats and progressives. After all, there’s been a lot of talk from the Left for years about the need for a “new new deal.” Whether it centered on environmentalism or on health care, everyone in these circles agrees on one thing: we needed a new surge in the size and scope of the government sector.

  And now it’s happened. We’re in a new era when an ongoing crisis justifies any number of drastic new measures enacted by governments. To question this, the media and the pundits insist, constitutes “denying science” or “wanting grandma to die.” The only question now is how long this new era of enbridled government expansion will last. 

  Moreover, just as the New Deal turned an ordinary downturn into a decade-long depression—and did nothing to “end” the Depression—this new new deal will only ensure that any real recovery is years away. 

  A Great Leap Forward in Government Spending

  The most visible aspect of this all are the immense increases in government spending that have occurred over the past year.

  While it’s true the Biden administration is signing off on an immense $1.9 trillion “relief” package, the fact is the Trump administration already approved $4 trillion in new spending for covid-19 stimulus and relief bills. The Biden addition will be on top of that. To put this into perspective, keep in mind that during most of the Obama years, total federal outlays ranged from $3.5 to $3.9 trillion. Trump pushed those numbers up even further, topping $4.4 trillion in the 2019 fiscal year. In the 2020 fiscal year (which ended in September) outlays skyrocketed to 6.5 trillion. This doesn’t even capture all of Trump’s stimulus spending. Some of it will count under the 2021 fiscal year, and we still have a long way to go.

  Now Biden has added nearly $2 trillion to that total, and there’s likely to be more “relief” and “stimulus” going forward.

  Meanwhile, the one-year deficit exploded to $3.3 trillion in 2020, more than doubling the $1.4 trillion deficit that piled up in 2009. 

  To make this all possible, of course, the central bank has furiously created newly “printed” money, showering Washington and Wall Street with dollars as the Fed bought up US debt on the secondary market and even began buying corporate debt. Naturally, the Fed’s balance sheet is now well above seven trillion.

  The overall money supply has increased by nearly one-third since last March.

  Both of the US major parties have signed off on this. Political dissent in Congress is absent beyond a tiny handful of Republicans like Thomas Massie. The victory for the New New Dealers has been nearly total. 

  A New Surge in the Executive State and the Regulatory State

  A second major change that has taken place has been the surge in executive and regulatory power across the nation. This also reflects what happened during the original New Deal. As noted by Garet Garret at the time, the transformation of the US into an executive-dominated regime is one of the primary characteristics of the New Deal. What had once been three separate branches, with a dominant legislative branch, the new regime was something else. Now, he pointed out, laws are routinely created within the executive branch itself, and interpreted by administrative law judged within the same branch. The old checks and balances had disappeared. 

  It’s a little different this time, though, as this has perhaps been most noticeable at the state level. In nearly every US state, state governors granted themselves vast new regulatory powers, and ruled by decree.

  Every few weeks—or even every few days in some case—governors announced new regulations on a level of micromanagement that would have been considered unthinkable prior to 2020. Governors continually issued new regulations about how many people were allowed to enter a grocery store or a restaurant. They issued edicts on what sorts of masks employees and customers must wear. They dictated operating hours for all sorts of firms. During March and April, these governors even placed millions of their citizens under house arrest, threatening arrest of peaceful residents who stepped outside for “nonessential” reasons.

  At the federal level, President Trump issued new edicts on federal spending, health care, and international travel. In September, the White House unilaterally declared that landlords were no longer permitted to evict tenants who missed rent. Millions of rental contracts were rendered null and void by a stroke of the president’s pen.

  This was all done in most cases without the passage of any laws through the “traditional” methods of public debate, and legislative processes. Chief executives across the nation simply did as they pleased. 

  Corporatism Ascendant

  Like the original New Deal, much of our New New Deal is built around cushy partnerships between the central government and immense corporate interests.

  Wall Street, for example, has already become accustomed to being bailed out repeatedly by outright cash transfers to big banks and other corporate players—as happened in 2008. But Wall Street also benefits perennially from the so-called Greenspan Put which is a wink-and-nod arrangement between the central bank and the upper echelons of Wall Street.

  Thanks to the Greenspan Put, Wall Street knows that if the stock markets and the financial sector face any substantial losses due to market “instability,” the Fed will intervene with injections of easy money, and asset purchase programs.

  The Fed is still sitting on trillions in junk assets it bought up during the Great Recession to prop up Wall Street’s portfolios.

  With the Covid Panic came a new round of bailouts. Sure, these bailouts weren’t like the 2008 bailouts. Things were more hidden this time around. The asset purchases from the central bank continued and were expanded. Moreover, this time the free money and the cheap loans were ostensibly geared toward medium-sized and small businesses. But, Big Business reaped the greatest rewards.

  For example, the Paycheck Protection Programs (PPP) was supposed to prop up the “little guy.” But as Alana Abramson at Time notes, the reality was something different:

  The implementation of the program, says John Arensmeyer, the CEO of the Small Business Majority, an advocacy group that represents more than 65,000 independent companies, was structurally flawed. Because PPP required banks to act as intermediaries, it created a dynamic wherein larger, more established companies—often with existing relationships and lines of credit with banks—received funds before smaller operations, who feared their collapse was imminent.

  The law’s definitions were also problematic. While PPP defined “small businesses” as entities with up to 500 employees, the law included a provision pertaining to the food and hospitality sectors wherein companies with individual locations of fewer than 500 people were still eligible. That meant that large, multi-million dollar chains, like Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and Shake Shack were able to apply, often edging out the smaller mom-and-pop enterprises that the law was touted as propping up. 

  This should surprise no one. Since 2008, and with a wave of new regulations imposed on the financial sector, Wall Street and the banks have become all the more geared toward working with large, established firms while smaller businesses, farmers, and other small enterprises find it increasingly difficult to secure loans, and take advantage of the ultra-low interest rates that favor large established firms.

  Don’t expect this to end with Covid. The first New Deal paved the way for the economic regimentation and rationing of the Second World War.  It also set the stage for the war on free speech and the prosecution of “sedition” during the war. Dissent cannot be tolerated during the “crisis,” and once the regime has control of the levers of the economy, it doesn’t let go easily. 

  On there other hand, there are signs of hope. Americans of the 1930s meekly did as they were told. When FDR told American to hand over all their gold via executive order, for instance, the overwhelming majority did so without complaint.  The naive Americans of that age generally believed what their politicians told them. Much of America today appears less primed for compliance. Public trust in government institutions, the media, and public health officials has gone into steep decline.

  This is why Biden complained last week that  confidence in the regime “has been plummeting since the late 60s to what it is now.” So, he’s now, “on a mission to restore faith in government.” The good news is he’s likely to fail. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 21:30

• "How I Got Rich On Tesla Stock"
  “How I Got Rich On Tesla Stock”

  Satire? Maybe. Truth, definitely.

  “Tesla stock is the new bitcoin… decentralized from ever going down.”

  “…according to my calculations, it’s pretty safe to assume Tesla stock is going to keep ’10x-ing’ every year…”

  “dude, the only thing that can stop Tesla stock from ’10x-ing’ every year, is if it starts ’20x-ing’ every year.”

  

  “It’s easy to start a profitable car company, you just buy a bunch of bitcoin, which increases in value, which helps you cover all your losses from making cars.”

  “There’s no problem that Elon can’t fix.”

  “…how the f**k is Tesla stock down 35% in the last month?!”

  “…do you think I should sell?”

  Enjoy…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 21:05

• Freelancers Punished In New IRS Rule Under COVID Stimulus
  Freelancers Punished In New IRS Rule Under COVID Stimulus

  By Sovereign Man Blueprint

  A few hundred pages into the latest $1.9 trillion Covid relief law, the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,” you’ll find Section 9674. It says that a “third party settlement organization” does not have to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) any payments to contract workers under $600.

  These third parties include Uber, Airbnb, Etsy, eBay, Freelancer, and other platforms which facilitate payments to gig workers. The problem is that this little amendment lowers the reporting threshold from $20,000 to $600. Previously, a gig worker could earn up to $20,000 on these platforms without the IRS being informed of their income.

  What this means:

  From this rule change the IRS expects to collect an additional $1 billion annually, presumably from the poorest gig workers who previously earned under $20,000 per year. These low earners previously flew under the radar.

  But now they could be met with surprise bills from the tax man when it comes time to file. And as many of these contractors are living paycheck to paycheck, they may incur additional IRS penalties if they are unable to pay what the IRS says they owe.

  Of course, the same politicians who snuck this into the bill are the ones who declared over and over that their tax policies would only affect millionaires and the ultra wealthy. But now, one of the first things they do is shake down the lowest tax bracket.

  We hope these gig workers enjoy their stimulus checks. They are soon going to learn that nothing is free when it comes to the government. There are always strings attached.

  What you can do about it:

  The good news is that freelancers, gig workers, self-employed individuals, and contractors have a number of tools at their disposal to legally minimize their tax bill.

  Solo 401(k)

  Solo 401(k)s are retirement accounts for business owners and contractors with no full-time employees – only you, part-time and contract labor (those filing an IRS 1099, which signals that they are NOT employees). For the self-employed and those with side hustles, the structure, flexibility, investment options, and annual contribution limits make a Solo 401(k) a potential go-to retirement option.

  In 2021, Solo 401(k) owners can put away $58,000 tax free each year. If you’re 50 or older, that amount goes up to $64,500. The taxes on this income will be paid when you are retired and collect the money, presumably in a lower tax bracket. A Solo 401(k) allows you to take out a loan against your balance, and invest in more asset categories like precious metals, international real estate, and cryptocurrency.

  Plus there are no reporting requirements until the account reaches $250,000. Click here to read a September 2018 Monthly Letter on Solo 401(k)’s (although certain numbers may be out of date, the general information is still accurate).

  Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

  The US is one of only two countries in the world that taxes its citizens no matter where they live. (The other country is Eritrea in east Africa, but they don’t have the resources to enforce their tax policy. So that leaves the US as the sole global enforcer of citizenship-based taxation.)

  But, by moving overseas, US citizens can take advantage of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), a special provision in the US tax code that allows US citizens living abroad who file Form 2555 along with their tax return to earn up to $108,700 per year (and growing) tax-free.

  “Earned income” means that investment income and dividends do not apply for the exclusion. But self-employed, freelancers, and digital nomads can absolutely take advantage of the rule.

  You can even use the Housing Deduction or Exclusion to save even more.

  Puerto Rico Act 60, Chapter 3 (previously Act 20) Tax Incentive

  Contract workers, freelancers, consultants, and the self-employed can also reduce their tax burden significantly by moving to Puerto Rico and establishing a corporation. This used to be called the Act 20 Export Services Act, now reorganized under Chapter 3 of Act 60. If your company provides services to clients outside of Puerto Rico, the corporate tax rate is just 4% and dividends to the owner are tax free.  You will still have to pay yourself a reasonable salary, subject to federal payroll taxes and Puerto Rico’s income tax. However what is considered “reasonable” in Puerto Rico is often much lower than the mainland.

  Since Puerto Rico is a US territory and can set its own tax policies, it’s one of the only options for US citizens to legally escape most federal taxation.

  Of course this probably won’t help many Uber drivers and Airbnb hosts. But a broad swath of services do work, for example:

  • Research and development
  • Advertising and public relations
  • Any kind of consulting (economic, scientific, environmental, technological, managerial, marketing, human resources, computer, auditing…)
  • Creative industries (design, art, architecture, creative education, etc.)
  • Commercial art and graphics services
  • Professional services (legal, tax, accounting…)
  • Data processing centers
  • Computer programming
  • Blockchain-related businesses
  • Remote medical services (telemedicine)
  • Educational and training services

  Just keep in mind that the clock is ticking on the Puerto Rico incentives. They have already come under attack by certain lawmakers and could be eliminated or altered.

  However, when you are granted these tax incentives, you sign a contract with the Puerto Rican government. Based on past court cases, new rule changes do not alter the agreement you signed. In other words, you are grandfathered in under the rules in effect when you sign the tax decree.

  There is another risk to consider, however— these tax benefits to US citizens would be eliminated if Puerto Rico became a state.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 20:40

• Next All Time High: "1 Day Or 25 Years?"
  Next All Time High: “1 Day Or 25 Years?”

  As DB’s Jim Reid wrote in his latest Friday Thematic Research recap from the last day of the week, Thursday saw the first all-time high in the S&P 500 for a whole month.

  

  It was nevertheless the 11th ATH in 2021 to date, and if anyone (spuriously) decides to annualize this, it would mean 57 in total for the year which would be the fourth largest behind 1995 (77), 1964 (62) and 2017 (62).

  

  As Reid observes, such clusters of all-time highs are unsurprisingly focused around secular market valuation highs with the late 1920s, mid 1960s, late 1990s and the current period the obvious points. However, there have also been long periods where we’ve been devoid of ATHs, usually after one of these market peaks. The longest was the 6490 business days between September 1929 and September 1955.

  Between March 2000 and May 2007 we went 1803 business days and between October 2007 and March 2013 we went 1376 business days.

  After the 1960s peak, inflation meant we did see all a few ATHs in the 1970s but in real terms it took well into the late 1980s to hit fresh ATHs. Indeed on a nominal basis we didn’t pass the peak reached in 1968 for the last time until 1982 even as inflation climbed around 280% over the period.

  More recently we seen a much more brisk ascent, if only in nominal terms, thanks to the Fed’s relentless injections of liquidity. AS a result, since 2013 the longest we’ve gone without an ATH was the 286 business days between May 2015 and July 2016.

  And while Friday’s action saw a continuation of the upward momentum in stocks as well as the 12th ATH of the year, Reid is concerned that history suggests that “there might be a point where we have to wait a decade or two for a new one”… however with a new round of stimulus checks now arriving and with US GDP set to grow at near double digits rates – and faster than China – Reid concludes that “perhaps that period will wait for a while yet.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 20:15

• Small Business Guarantees Are A Bucket Of Moral Fraud
  Small Business Guarantees Are A Bucket Of Moral Fraud

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

  The coronavirus Small Business Relief program is a bucket of first come first serve moral fraud.

  

  The New York Times says Small-Business Relief Effort ‘a Mess’

  The Hill says Small businesses still struggling for loans even as $100B is approved

  The Trump administration has approved roughly $100 billion of the $350 billion allocated for emergency loans to small businesses devastated by the coronavirus outbreak, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told lawmakers on Wednesday.

  But the figure has done little to ease the rising fears of smaller businesses still struggling to access the funds — and growing ever-more concerned that the program is tilted in favor of larger enterprises with existing relationships with banks.

  The concern from small businesses is simple: they fear the money will run out before they can access it.

  “A lot of money [is] first-come, first-serve, and many unbanked people who are underbanked or unserved … don’t have banking relationships, sophisticated in a way that others do,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday in an interview with NPR.

  Money Might Run Out

  Let’s tap into that idea that money might run out with an investigation of the Small Business Loan Rules.

  ​The program offers loans of up to $10 million to cover eight weeks of payroll plus some additional expenses, like rent and utilities.

  The loan can effectively turn into a grant. Most, and in some cases all, of the loan will be forgiven if a company uses the money to retain workers or hire back positions it had to cut. The S.B.A. has waived many of its usual requirements for these loans and will not require collateral for them.

  Businesses can have their loans forgiven in full if they maintain their full-time equivalent head count (based on a 40-hour workweek) and wages for eight weeks after the loan is disbursed, the Treasury Department said. The agency said that “not more than 25 percent” of the forgiven amount may be used for nonpayroll costs, like rent.

  Companies can borrow up to two months of their average monthly payroll costs for the past year, plus an additional 25 percent, up to $10 million. “Payroll costs” include salary, wages, tips, commissions, paid leave benefits, employer-paid health insurance premiums, and state and local payroll taxes.

  The CARES Act text says that you can claim your “wage, commission, income, net earnings from self-employment or similar compensation,” up to $100,000 a year.

  You’ll have two years to pay off the balance, at a 1 percent interest rate. No payments are due for the first six months after you get the loan.

  Hooray I am Qualified!

  Check this out.

  • Self-employed people are eligible for benefits.

  • Benefits will be based on previous income, using a formula from the disaster unemployment assistance program.

  • Self-employed workers are also eligible for the additional $600 weekly benefit provided by the federal government as part of the CARES Act.

  Moreover, one does not even have to request an amount.

  The S.B.A. will determine how much someone like me can borrow using a formula intended to approximate six months of my operating expenses.

  This is despite the fact that I have not lost a penny in earnings.

  Let that sink in.

  I cannot find any requirement anywhere that prevents someone like me from making an outright bundle.

  Hooray! Six Months Double Income

  Nowhere does the application (that I am aware of) ask me if I have lost any income.

  Even if it did, all I would have to do is stop paying myself salary, let the profits accumulate, and use the loan to cover my previous income.

  Since the loan is used to pay salary, (my own), it would be forgiven. Heck, I could even hire my wife and kids except for the fact I have no kids.

  On top of that, and despite the fact I have not lost a dime, I will receive an automatic check because the government is sending out blanket $1,000 checks to everyone.

  Moral Hazard?

  You bet. I will not take advantage but under the rules I easily could.

  Some will.

  From the Bank Perspective

  Assume the banks are getting flooded with loan requests.

  Who do they want to lend to?

  1. Someone who does not need the money at all and is no credit risk OR

  2. Someone who might go out of business

  Any reasonable credit scoring algorithm would direct these loans to the safest place, category number one.

  Lesson of the Day

  When government fires money out of cannons, it generally does not get into the hands that government intended.

  The more cynical will believe it actually does get to the intended people, just not the alleged beneficiaries.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 19:50

• The "Most Important Question" For Investors: Where Will Biden's Trillions In Stimmys End Up?
  The “Most Important Question” For Investors: Where Will Biden’s Trillions In Stimmys End Up?

  Now that the $1.85 trillion Biden stimulus is officially being deployed with tens of millions of stimmy checks being sent out this weekend to household across the nation, BofA’s Jared Woodard writes that the “most important question” in for investors in 2021 is “what will US households do with their extra money as the economy fully reopens?” or in other words, where will all those stimmy checks go. And while the consensus is that the record “savings glut” will be spent, will the consensus be wrong again? Here, BofA sees two possible outcomes:

  • Big Spending: a sustained real-economy consumption boom, higher wages & services inflation; bullish for GDP, but bearish for stocks because of 1. Fear of Fed tightening and 2. “Mere Rotation”…recent market action shows it’s a zero-sum environment where pro-inflation trades are financed by selling down deflation assets (growth stocks, bonds, EM) as institutional cash levels are low;
  • Big Saving: after an initial surge of leisure & services spending, consumption reverts to trend as structural forces of stagnation reassert themselves; households keep cash directed to saving (cash, debt payments, financial assets), Fed fears subside; net bearish GDP given supreme expectations, but more bullish for markets.

  For what it’s worth, Woodward notes that he previously already expressed some hesitation about the “Big Spending” view last month. To explore this further he looked at the distribution of cash among US households.

  As of Q3 2020 (latest distributional data), the top 20% of households had $10.2tn in liquid assets. The next 20% had $2.3tn, and the bottom 0-60% combined had just $2.7tn. That includes checking accounts, CDs, and money market funds; it doesn’t include equities or bonds.

  

  What about all o f the post-COVID stimulus, where did that go? From the end of 2019 through September 2020, liquid household assets rose $2.2tn. This number is what monetarists and inflation hedgers are so excited about. Clearly, spending $2tn rapidly into a $21tn economy would be a recipe for a big boom.

  But again, and as we have shown every quarter when we discuss the household balance sheet (which just last week was reported to hit a record $130 trillion as of Dec 31, 2020) the data shows a very skewed situation. The top 20% saw their cash increase by $1.5tn since Covid hit vs. just $0.7tn for everyone else. The top 1% alone saw cash assets rise by nearly as much as the bottom 80% of the country combined. Updated through today, these numbers would reflect even more inequality, as many low-income households had to use their cash during the difficult winter to cover urgent spending needs.

  

  As Woodard then politely puts in, “In a consumption-based economy like the US (70% of GDP), inequality isn’t just a topic for political debate, it’s a mathematical problem.”

  Whether a given dollar gets spent or saved depends on who’s holding it. One Boston Fed study found that in normal circumstances the bottom 20% of households were likely to spend $0.97 of every dollar earned, while the top 20% spent just $0.48 of every extra dollar. In other words, if the goal is to boost economic activity, sending money to people who will just sit on it may not be very effective.

  That’s why BofA believes that a glut of cash on the balance sheets of already-wealthy households is unlikely to boost inflation in a sustained way.

  How they’ll spend it

  So much for the theory, what about reality? Here, too, there is a problem as recent data confirms that households are still saving much more than usual, even as vaccine distribution accelerates:

  • Consumer credit use in January was a sharp disappointment, falling $1.6bn vs. expectations of a +$12bn rise. Census Bureau data showed that, of households that received a stimulus check in the 1st half of February, 73% saved or paid down debt.

  

  • BofA aggregated credit and debit card data shows that, among people ages 73-92 (many of whom presumably are already vaccinated), spending on air travel jumped, but not on lodging (visiting family?), with only a small uptick in restaurant spending and no increase in brick-and-mortar retail.

  

  To get a clearer picture, at the end of February Bank of America surveyed more than 3000 people about how they would use another stimulus check.

  • 30% said they would mostly pay off debts, 25% said they would save it, and 9% said they would invest it. The bank groups all three of these as “saving” in a broad sense, since the payments stay within the financial system and don’t create demand for goods & services in the real economy. Only 36% of respondents said they would spend the money.
  • “Saving” plans were much higher than what history would suggest, in every category. Even among people making less than $30,000/year, 53% of people said they wouldn’t be spending the next round of stimulus.

  

  When the BofA team then compared consumer plans for 2021 stimulus money with 2020 uses they reported, the financial category saw the largest increase (+1.7% to investing, +0.8% to debt payoffs, and just -0.2% to cash saving).

   

  Needless to say, a rebound in spending (even dramatic in its scope) among high-income households won’t suffice. Why? Because leisure, restaurant, and related travel spending only accounted for 4% of GDP pre-COVID. And work-from-home lockdowns could mark a peak in higher-end consumer spending, as workers returning to offices have less time to shop online.

  Sure, there are some caveats to this survey: maybe people don’t know their own spending patterns that well, or maybe plans will change as springtime hopes yield a mask-ripping summer. Even then, however, BofA’s Woodard notes that after a one-time surge of enthusiasm, if most savings are stuck with wealthy households unlikely to spend, and the bottom 80% devote their excess cash to debts, savings, and stocks anyway, it’s not clear who will be doing all the sustained, voracious consumption markets now are pricing in.

  

  Why is all of this important?

  Because as BofA explains, having priced in a dramatic rebound in inflation in coming months on the back of anticipated surges in spending, the market may be disappointed as the “fiscal liquidity trap” proves to have a far stronger gravity than most pundits and politicians expect. It would also mean that inflation – after an initial burst higher in mid-2021 – will collapse, and is why BofA expects that year-end core CPI will be just 1.7% as the upcoming June CPI spike fades. Here are some other reasons why Woodard believes that the market is in for a major disinflationary shock in the second half of 2021.

  1. Supply disruptions are temporary. Supply-chain bottlenecks, semiconductor shortages, and manufacturing delays today are likely to be relieved as the labor force returns to work. High prints in manufacturing price indexes (e.g. ISM) largely reflect high commodity prices and therefore headline, not core inflation;

  2. Structural job losses. Post-pandemic work-from-home could mean smaller rebounds in restaurants, in-person retail, and business travel. Progress on AI & automation could mean fewer industrial jobs to return to, especially at the low end. Before the pandemic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected the number of low-wage jobs to grow >5% over the next decade; now, there may be a net decline of 0.5%, bad news for 13% of low-wage workers still unemployed;

  

  3. Union membership is near record lows, just 11% of the workforce today vs. 26% in 1953. Unions are politically almost homeless, with modern Democrats relying less on union votes and more on big tech donors; within the GOP, even “populist” senators haven’t endorsed the unionization vote at Amazon in Alabama.

  

  4. Capex is coming. In the unlikely event wage growth does accelerate sharply at the low end, companies can accelerate R&D to prevent labor from gaining bargaining power. BofA expects corporate capex to rise 13% in 2021. Note that deflationary tech capex now accounts for nearly 30% of the S&P 500 total, a record high (Exhibit 13);

  

  5. The baby bust. Already-plunging global birth rates accelerated lower: e.g. the Brookings Institution estimates 300,000 fewer babies born in the US this year because of the pandemic. Global central banks have called this one of the single greatest causes of lower GDP growth and falling interest rates.

  * * *

  Let’s assume BofA is right and spending on goods and services disappoints overwhelmingly. One potential implication is that there would be far more in stimmy checks going into the stock market. But how much?

  Recall that one week ago DB’s Jim Reid asked just this, i.e., “How Much Money Will Biden’s New Stimulus Inject Into The Market“, and wrote that while rising yields are a threat to all risk assets, “it’s worth highlighting that a large amount of the upcoming US stimulus checks will probably find their way into equities.”

  Then, like BofA, he referred to a survey conducted by DB’s chief equity strategist Binky Chadha polling online brokerage account users which suggested they would invest around 37% of future stimulus checks in the stock market (this is well above the 9% response from the similar BofA poll). This is a material force because as Reid notes, “behind the recent surge in retail investing is a younger, often new-to-investing and aggressive cohort not afraid to employ leverage.”

  

  What does this mean quantitatively? Here is Reid’s math:

  “Given stimulus checks are currently penciled in at c.$405bn in Biden’s plan, that gives us a maximum of around $150bn that could go into US equities based on our survey. Obviously only a proportion of recipients have trading accounts, though. If we estimate this at around 20% (based on some historical assumptions), that would still provide around c.$30bn of firepower – and that’s before we talk about any possible boosts to 401k plans outside of trading accounts.”

  Reid’s conclusion: “stimulus checks could accelerate the large inflows into US equities seen in recent months after many years of weak flow data. Will this be enough to offset any impact of higher yields? Expect this push/pull to continue for some time.”

  Now add to this assessment, BofA’s skepticism which, if correct, would likely mean even more money being allocated toward risk assets, whether blue chips, meme stocks, cryptos or – the latest get rich quick rage – NFTs. This take is bolstered by a recent report from Bloomberg which similarly notes that while many cash-strapped families will use funds from the $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief bill to cover rent or past-due accounts, “another cohort may use the $1,400 payments to ignite the stock market’s next retail frenzy.”

  “I probably will take about half of it to invest into stocks,” said Iyana Halley, a 28-year-old actor who recently appeared in NBC’s television drama “This Is Us.” The Los Angeles resident remains on the fence about which equities to buy, but has been keeping a close watch on social media and seeking guidance from a friend she trusts.

  

  “I want to see what will make the most sense, where I can get the most out of my money,” Halley said in an interview. “I’m still new to the stock-market world, so trying to figure stuff out.”

  Traders are also hoping to figure it out as soon as possible, because the retail buying may come as soon as Monday once the stimulus checks received over the weekend are invested, giving the Nasdaq 100 Index new wind after it fell into a correction earlier this month amid a crash for some of the market’s most speculative names.

  The checks “could offer a short-term ‘shot in the arm’ to a market that was otherwise looking run-down and vulnerable to a sell-off,” said Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at CFRA Research.

  “Stimulus checks will almost certainly drive more retail buying,” said Eric Liu, co-founder of Vanda Research, a firm that tracks retail flows in the U.S. “The social media attention has remained strong.”

  Tyler Hopkins, a 26-year-old computer technician for a school district an hour east of Los Angeles, spent about half of his two previous pandemic stimulus payments on stocks including GameStop Corp. and non-fungible tokens. He plans to buy more shares of retail favorites when the latest payment hits his bank account.

  “I’ve been buying crypto and stocks for a while now, but the stimmys helped pay some bills and I put the rest of them into investing,” Hopkins said.

  So while one can debate about the precision, one thing is clear: tens if not hundreds of billions from the latest Biden Bonanza will end up in the market. Yet for all the excitement that the stimulus payments are stirring up among younger traders looking to make a killing, some investment professionals have been wringing their hands. They worry that unsophisticated newbies buying stocks they heard about from memes or online forums like WallStreetBets could take already stretched valuations even higher.

  “You could say it’s like gasoline on a fire,” said Kimberly Woody, a senior portfolio manager at GLOBALT Investments. It’s “participation from a lot of folks that really just don’t know what they’re doing.”

  To be sure, the latest investing spree will merely cap off a retail mania that has been raging for almost a year now. The gamification of investing and consumers seeking entertainment during pandemic lockdowns led to massive surges in stocks generally shunned by the long-term investor community, from companies like Gamestop, AMC Entertainment Holdings and headphone maker Koss Corp. Those bets helped spark massive rallies that featured dizzying bouts of volatility.

  * * *

  Not everyone will spend their stimmy chasing momentum in the latest meme stock however: Halley, the Los Angeles actor, is aware of how dicey it is taking a flyer on the fringes of the stock market, so she’s hedging her bets. She plans to spend the other half of her stimulus on acting classes.

  “I think with stocks or any kind of investment, it’s always going to be a risk,” she said, much to the amazement of financial professionals many of whom realize something Halley does not: the stock market is the final bubble, the one that is now “too big to fail”, and whatever happens the Fed can never let it burst…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 19:25

• Greenwald: The Leading Activists For Online Censorship Are Corporate Journalists
  Greenwald: The Leading Activists For Online Censorship Are Corporate Journalists

  Authored by Glenn Greenwald via Substack,

  There are not many Congressional committees regularly engaged in substantive and serious work — most are performative — but the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law is an exception. Led by its chairman Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and ranking member Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), it is, with a few exceptions, composed of lawmakers whose knowledge of tech monopolies and anti-trust law is impressive.

  

  In October, the Committee, after a sixteen-month investigation, produced one of those most comprehensive and informative reports by any government body anywhere in the world about the multi-pronged threats to democracy posed by four Silicon Valley monopolies: Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The 450-page report also proposed sweeping solutions, including ways to break up these companies and/or constrain them from controlling our political discourse and political life. That report merits much greater attention and consideration than it has thus far received.

  The Subcommittee held a hearing on Friday and I was invited to testify along with Microsoft President Brad Smith; President of the News Guild-Communications Workers of America Jonathan Schleuss, the Outkick’s Clay Travis, CEO of the Graham Media Group Emily Barr, and CEO of the News Media Alliance David Chavern. The ostensible purpose the hearing was a narrow one: to consider a bill that would vest media outlets with an exemption from anti-trust laws to collectively bargain with tech companies such as Facebook and Google so that they can obtain a greater share of the ad revenue. The representatives of the news industry and Microsoft who testified were naturally in favor of this bill (they have been heavily lobbying for it) because it would benefit them commercially in numerous way (the Microsoft President maintained the conceit that the Bill-Gates-founded company was engaging in self-sacrifice for the good of Democracy by supporting the bill but the reality is the Bing search engine owners are in favor of anything that weakens Google).

  While I share the ostensible motive behind the bill — to stem the serious crisis of bankruptcies and closings of local news outlets — I do not believe that this bill will end up doing that, particularly because it empowers the largest media outlets such as The New York Times and MSNBC to dominate the process and because it does not even acknowledge, let alone address, the broader problems plaguing the news industry, including collapsing trust by the public (a bill that limited this anti-trust exemption to small local news outlets so as to allow them to bargain collectively with tech companies in their own interest would seem to me to serve the claimed purpose much better than one which empowers media giants to form a negotiating cartel).

  But the broader context for the bill is the one most interesting and the one on which I focused in my opening statement and testimony: namely, the relationship between social media and tech giants on the one hand, and the news media industry on the other. Contrary to the popular narrative propagated by news outlets — in which they are cast as the victims of the supremely powerful Silicon Valley giants — that narrative is sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the opposite of reality: much if not most Silicon Valley censorship of political speech emanates from pressure campaigns led by corporate media outlets and their journalists, demanding that more and more of their competitors and ideological adversaries be silenced. Big media, in other words, is coopting the power of Big Tech for their own purposes.

  My written opening testimony, which is on the Committee’s site, is also printed below. The video of the full hearing can be seen here. Here is the video of my opening five-minute statement:

  My full written statement, which focused on the key role played by corporate news outlets in agitating for online censorship against their competitors and ideological adversaries and the threat that poses to democracy, is printed below:

  Opening Statement of Glenn Greenwald

  March 12, 2021

  Before the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law

  Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:

  Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

  I am a constitutional lawyer, a journalist, and the author of six books on civil liberties, media and politics. After graduating New York University School of Law in 1994, I worked as a constitutional and media law litigator for more than a decade, first at the firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and then at a firm I co-founded in 1997. During my work as a lawyer, I represented numerous clients in First Amendment free speech and press freedom cases, including individuals with highly controversial views who were targeted for punishment by state and non-state actors alike, as well as media outlets subjected to repressive state limitations on their rights of expression and reporting. 

  Since 2005, I have worked primarily as a journalist and author, reporting extensively on civil liberties debates, assaults on free speech and a free press, the value of a free and open internet, the implications of growing Silicon Valley monopolistic power, and the complex relationship between corporate media outlets and social media companies. That reporting has received the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service and the George Polk Award for National Security Reporting. In 2013, I co-founded the online news outlet The Intercept, and in 2016 co-founded its Brazilian branch, The Intercept Brazil. 

  Over the last several years, my journalistic interest in and concern about the dangers of Silicon Valley’s monopoly power has greatly intensified — particularly as wielded by Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The dangers posed by their growing power manifest in multiple ways. But I am principally alarmed by the repressive effect on free discourse, a free press, and a free internet, all culminating in increasingly intrusive effects on the flow of information and ideas and an increasingly intolerable strain on a healthy democracy.

  Three specific incidents over the last four months represent a serious escalation in the willingness of tech monopolies to intrude into and exert control over our domestic politics through censorship and other forms of information manipulation: 

  1. In the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election, The New York Post, the nation’s oldest newspaper, broke a major story based on documents and emails obtained from the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the front-running presidential candidate Joe Biden. Those documents shed substantial light not only on the efforts of Hunter and other family members of President Biden to trade on his name and their influence on him for lucrative business deals around the world, but also raised serious questions about the extent to which President Biden himself was aware of and involved in those efforts.

  But Americans were barred from discussing that reporting on Twitter, and were actively impeded from reading about it by Facebook. 

  That is because Twitter imposed a full ban on its users’ ability to link to the story: not just on their public Twitter pages but even in private Twitter chats. Twitter even locked the account of The New York Post, preventing the newspaper from using that platform for almost two weeks unless they agreed to voluntarily delete any references to their reporting about the Hunter Biden materials (the paper, rightfully, refused).

  Facebook’s censorship of this reporting was more subtle and therefore more insidious: a life-long Democratic Party operative who is now a Facebook official, Andy Stone, announced (on Twitter) that Facebook would be “reducing [the article’s] distribution on our platform” pending a review “by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners.” In other words, Facebook tinkered with its algorithms to prevent the dissemination of this reporting about a long-time politician who was leading the political party for which this Facebook official spent years working (See The Intercept, “Facebook and Twitter Cross a Far More Dangerous Line Than What They Censor,” Oct. 15, 2020).

  This “fact-check” promised by Facebook never came. That is likely because it was not the New York Post’s reporting which turned out to be false but rather the claims made by these two social media giants to justify its suppression. The censorship justification was that the documents on which the reporting was based constituted either “hacked materials” and/or “Russian disinformation.” 

  Neither of those claims is true. Even the FBI has acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever of any involvement by the Russian government in the procurement of that laptop, and not even the Biden family, to this very day, has claimed that a single word contained in the published documents is fabricated or otherwise inauthentic. Ample evidence — including the testimony of others involved in the original creation and circulation of those documents — demonstrates that they were fully genuine.

  This means that two of the largest and most powerful Silicon Valley giants suppressed crucial information about a leading presidential candidate — the one which employees at their companies overwhelmingly supported — shortly before voting commenced. While Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for this banning and acknowledged that it may have been wrong, Facebook has never done so. 

  While we will never know whether this censorship altered the outcome of the election, it is clear that this was one of the most direct acts of information repression about an American presidential election in decades. That was possible only because of the vast power wielded by these platforms over our political discourse and our political lives.

  2. In the wake of the January 6 riot at the Capitol, Facebook, Google, Twitter and numerous other Silicon Valley giants united to remove the democratically elected sitting President of the United States from their platforms.

  While many defenders of this corporate censorship tried to minimize it by claiming the President could still be heard by giving speeches and holding press conferences, several leading news outlets followed suit by announcing that they would not carry his speeches live and would only allow to be heard the excerpts they deemed to be safe and responsible.

  In response, numerous world leaders — including several who had clashed in the past with President Trump — expressed grave concerns about the dangers posed to democracy by the ability of tech monopolies to effectively remove even democratically elected leaders from the internet.

  German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued through her spokesperson that “it is problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended,” adding that “the right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance.” Attempts to regulate speech, the Chancellor said, “can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature — not according to a corporate decision.”

  The European Union’s Commissioner for Internal Markets Thierry Breton warned: “The fact that a CEO can pull the plug on POTUS’s loudspeaker without any checks and balances is perplexing.” Commissioner Breton noted that this collective Silicon Valley ban “is not only confirmation of the power of these platforms, but it also displays deep weaknesses in the way our society is organized in the digital space.” (CNBC, “Germany’s Merkel hits out at Twitter over ‘problematic’ Trump ban,” Jan. 21, 2021).

  The Health Secretary for the United Kingdom, Matt Hanckock, sounded similar alarms. Speaking to the BBC, he said “‘tech giants are ‘taking editorial decisions’ that raise a ‘very big question’ about how social media is regulated,” adding: “That’s clear because they’re choosing who should and shouldn’t have a voice on their platform” (CNBC, “Trump’s social media bans are raising new questions on tech regulation,” Jan. 11, 2021). 

  Objections to Silicon Valley’s removal of President Trump from their platforms were even more severe from officials with the government of French President Emmanuel Macron. The French Minister for European Union Affairs Clement Beaune pronounced himself “shocked” by the news of President Trump’s banning, arguing: “This should be decided by citizens, not by a CEO.” And France’s Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said: “There needs to be public regulation of big online platforms,” calling big tech “one of the threats” to democracy (Bloomberg News, “Germany and France Oppose Trump’s Twitter Exile,” Jan. 11, 2021).

  Perhaps the most fervent and eloquent warnings about the dangers posed by this episode came from Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. In a press conference held the day after the announcement, he said:

  It’s a bad omen that private companies decide to silence, to censor. That is an attack on freedom. Let’s not be creating a world government with the power to control social networks, a world media power. And also a censorship court, like the Holy Inquisition, but in order to shape public opinion. This is really serious.

  The Associated Press further quoted President López Obrador as asking: “How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?.” And AP confirmed that “ Mexico’s president vowed to lead an international effort to combat what he considers censorship by social media companies that have blocked or suspended the accounts of U.S. President Donald Trump,” and is “reaching out to other governments to form a common front on the issue” (Associated Press, “Mexican President Mounts Campaign Against Social Media Bans,” Jan. 14, 2021).

  Please listen to the Mexican President’s warnings about Silicon Valley censorship when asked about the Trump ban. Following the center-right Chancellor Merkel, the leftist AMLO said they were becoming “a world media power” anointing themselves “judges of the Holy Inquisition”: pic.twitter.com/5cL5vqq3Ug

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  These world leaders are expressing the same grave concern: that Silicon Valley giants wield power that is, in many instances, greater than that of any sovereign nation-state. But unlike the governments which govern those countries, tech monopolies apply these powers arbitrarily, without checks and without transparency. When doing so, they threaten not only American democracy but democracies around the world.

  3. Critics of Silicon Valley power over political discourse for years have heard the same refrain: if you don’t like how they are moderating content and policing discourse, you can go start your own social media platform that is more permissive. Leaving aside the centuries-old recognition that it is impossible, by definition, to effectively compete with monopolies, we now have an incident vividly proving how inadequate that alternative is. 

  Several individuals who primarily identify as libertarians heard this argument from Silicon Valley’s defenders and took it seriously. They set out to create a social media competitor to Twitter and Facebook — one which would provide far broader free expression rights for users and, more importantly, would offer greater privacy protections than other Silicon Valley giants by refusing to track those users and commoditize them for advertisers. They called it Parler, and in early January, 2021, it was the single most-downloaded app in the Apple Play Store. This success story seemed to be a vindication for the claim that it was possible to create competitors to existing social media monopolies.

  But now, a mere two months after it ascended to the top of the charts, Parler barely exists. That is because several members of Congress with the largest and most influential social media platforms demanded that Apple and Google remove Parler from their stores and ban any further downloading of the app, and further demanded that Amazon, the dominant provider of web hosting services, cease hosting the site. Within forty-eight hours, those three Silicon Valley monopolies complied with those demands, rendering Parler inoperable and effectively removing it from the internet (See “How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler,” Glenn Greenwald, Jan. 12, 2021).

  The justification of this collective banning was that Parler had hosted numerous advocates of and participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. But even if that were a justification for removing an entire platform from the internet, subsequent reporting demonstrated that far more planning and advocacy of that riot was done on other platforms, including Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, Instagram and Twitter (See The Washington Post, “Facebook’s Sandberg deflected blame for Capitol riot, but new evidence shows how platform played role,“ Jan. 13, 2021; Forbes, “Sheryl Sandberg Downplayed Facebook’s Role In The Capitol Hill Siege—Justice Department Files Tell A Very Different Story,” Feb. 7, 2021).

  Whatever else one might want to say about the destruction of Parler, it was a stark illustration of how these Silicon Valley giants could obliterate even a highly successful competitor overnight, with little effort, by uniting to do so. And it laid bare how inadequate is the claim that Silicon Valley’s monopolies can be challenged through competition.

  How Congress sets out to address Silicon Valley’s immense and undemocratic power is a complicated question, posing complex challenges. The proposal to vest media companies with an antitrust exemption in order to allow them to negotiate as a consortium or cartel seeks to rectify a real and serious problem — the vacuuming up of advertising revenue by Google and Facebook at the expense of the journalistic outlets which create the news content being monetized — but empowering large media companies could easily end up creating more problems than it solves.

  That is particularly so given that it is often media companies that are the cause of Silicon Valley censorship of and interference in political speech of the kind outlined above. When these social media companies were first created and in the years after, they wanted to avoid being in the business of content moderation and political censorship. This was an obligation foisted upon them, often by the most powerful media outlets using their large platforms to shame these companies and their executives for failing to censor robustly enough. 

  Sometimes this pressure was politically motivated — demanding the banning of people whose ideologies sharply differs from those who own and control these media outlets — but more often it was motivated by competitive objectives: a desire to prevent others from creating independent platforms and thus diluting the monopolistic stranglehold that corporate media outlets exert over our political discourse. Further empowering this already-powerful media industry — which has demonstrated it will use its force to silence competitors under the guise of “quality control” — runs the real risk of transferring the abusive monopoly power from Silicon Valley to corporate media companies or, even worse, encouraging some sort of de facto merger in which these two industries pool their power to the mutual benefit of each.

  This Subcommittee produced one of the most impressive and comprehensive reports last October detailing the dangers of the classic monopoly power wielded by Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. That report set forth numerous legislative and regulatory solutions to comply with the law and a consensus of economic and political science experts about the need to break up monopolies wherever they arise. 

  Until that is done, none of these problems can be addressed in ways other than the most superficial, piecemeal and marginal. Virtually every concern that Americans across the political spectrum express about the dangers of Silicon Valley power emanates from the fact that they have been permitted to flout antitrust laws and acquire monopoly power. None of those problems — including their ability to police and control our political discourse and the flow of information — can be addressed until that core problem is resolved. 

  What is most striking is that while Silicon Valley censorship of online speech and interference in political discourse is recognized as a grave menace to a healthy democracy around the democratic world, it is often dismissed in the U.S. — especially by journalists — as some sort of trivial “culture war” question when they are not actively cheering and even demanding more of it. Even more bizarre is that opposition to oligarchical censorship and monopoly power is often depicted by the liberal-left as a right-wing cause, largely because they perceive (inaccurately) that such oligarchical discourse policing will operate in their favor.

  Whatever labels one wants to apply to it, it should not require much work to recognize that vesting this magnitude of power in the hands of unaccountable billionaires, who operate outside the democratic process yet are highly influenced by public media-led pressure campaigns, is unsustainable.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 19:00

• Marines Admit 'Messing Up' For Attacking Tucker Carlson Over 'Pregnant Soldiers' Commentary
  Marines Admit ‘Messing Up’ For Attacking Tucker Carlson Over ‘Pregnant Soldiers’ Commentary

  The US Marines admitted to ‘messing up’ after ganging up on Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who mocked the military’s shift from defense to social justice issues – after remarks by President Biden on International Women’s Day on how he’d nominated two women for four-star command positions in the armed forces.

  

  “So we’ve got new hairstyles, maternity flight suits. Pregnant women are going to fight our wars,” Carlson said on Wednesday night, adding “It’s a mockery of the US military” before he compared the US military to China’s – which is “becoming more masculine.”

  Tucker Carlson is being called a sexist for

  *checks notes*

  saying that pregnant women shouldn’t fight wars… pic.twitter.com/2nfyRecTp3

  — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Following Carlson’s segment, the official Twitter account for the II Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group joined a pile-on by several woke military officials – tweeting a picture of a female soldier carrying a male soldier, tagging Carlson with the caption “what it looks like in today’s armed forces,” adding “Get right before you get left, boomer.”

  What it looks like in today’s armed forces @TuckerCarlson

  Get right before you get left, boomer
  ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀#Women #WeAreMarines #TuckerCarlson #FoxNews #marines #currentlyserving #USMCWomen https://t.co/eAi3pMCKyc pic.twitter.com/3ISzaZxLJa

  — II MEF Information Group (@iimigofficial) March 12, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  After the Marines were called out for using their official platform to further a SJW agenda, they admitted “We are human and we messed up.”

  We are human and we messed up. What was intended as a tweet in support of our female Marines and sisters serving in uniform was clearly not aligned with our standard practices or an appropriate representation of the Marine Corps. We will do better and serve the people.

  — II MEF Information Group (@iimigofficial) March 13, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We’ve strayed away from our brand and realize that. Our standard practices will be in effect and you can count on us to correct our mistake going forward.

  — II MEF Information Group (@iimigofficial) March 13, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Also slamming Carlson was Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, who said “What we absolutely don’t do is take personnel advice from a talk show host.”

  Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby dismisses Tucker Carlson, who on Wednesday demeaned pregnant women serving in the military: “What we absolutely won’t do is take personnel advice from a talk show host.” pic.twitter.com/I4hraRSU6z

  — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 11, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tucker responded to the Defense Department’s criticism, saying “If the Pentagon can show that pregnant pilots are the best, we will be the first to demand an entire air force of them,” adding “The US military is not a vehicle for achieving equity.”

  Full Tucker Carlson segment responding to the DOD’s criticisms of his show:

  “If the Pentagon can show that pregnant pilots are the best, we will be the first to demand an entire air force of them.”

  “The U.S. military is not a vehicle for achieving equity.” pic.twitter.com/kK2mZBWrOr

  — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 12, 2021

  Responses have not been kind to the woke Marines.  

  This is what an official military account said to an American who asked them to “Please focus on China instead of Tucker Carlson”. This is the start of Democrats openly politicizing the military as a wing of their party. This is disgraceful. https://t.co/LcPk2JGoVS

  — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  It’s a replay of SUPERPATRIOT anti-Trump national security hacks, wrapping themselves in the flag and screaming about RUSSIA. They gamed out exactly how it would work to stage a battle on what they believe is our ground.

  — David Reaboi (@davereaboi) March 13, 2021

  BREAKING: US Army official threatens violence on a US member of the press for exercising his First Amendment rights https://t.co/GXGPxgjcLY

  — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Our adversaries are watching every move you’re (@iimigofficial) making right now, and they’re laughing their asses off at the clowns behind this official US Military account, targeting and harassing a private citizen. What’s next? Drones? Get your shit together—it’s embarrassing! https://t.co/2VfnCjvwbM

  — Dan Scavino🇺🇸🦅 (@DanScavino) March 14, 2021 

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Thank you, Senator. The military has no authority over political decisions and any official who violates this sovereign right must be reprimanded swiftly.

  — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 18:35

• Hedge Fund CIO: "Ethereum Now Races Toward Becoming The Foundation Of A New Global Financial System"
  Hedge Fund CIO: “Ethereum Now Races Toward Becoming The Foundation Of A New Global Financial System”

  From Eric Peter, CIO Of One River Asset Management, who in November executed a $600 million purchase of bitcoin, then the largest public transaction to date, with the blessing of Brevan Howard’s Alan Howard. He has called bitcoin the most interesting macro trade he’s seen in thirty years in the business.

  “Okay, so now please explain how these things are going to change the world,” asked the CIO.

  He was not referring to the global transition to monetary/fiscal policy coordination which will interact with political, social and geopolitical forces to create a future quite unlike our recent past. We had already discussed that. He was asking about digital assets, blockchain, tokenization.

  Virtualization. It is no longer possible to understand what is happening in markets, let alone what is to come, without developing a deep understanding of these things.

  “It is not that they are going to change the world,” I said. “It is that they are already quietly changing the world, markets, and beneath the surface the process is accelerating faster than you can imagine.”

  * * *

  “I feel super lucky,” said an artist who calls himself Beeple, in an online forum, upon learning that bidders lifted his digital collage to $20mm in Christie’s virtual auction. “Everydays – The First 5000 Days” ultimately sold for $69.3mm to an investor who calls himself Metakovan, the founder of Metapurse, a fund that collects non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

  

  Metakovan paid in ether, which for the 7.70bln of earth’s 7.75bln people who do not yet know, is the digital currency of the Ethereum network. That network resides in the cloud, which virtually no one can quite comprehend even as it becomes integral to nearly all our activities.

  And Ethereum, despite almost no one understanding what it is, now races toward becoming the foundation of a rearchitected global financial system.

  “I didn’t see this coming,” remarked Beeple, now the world’s 3rd most expensive living artist. Such is the pace of change, that not even our artists can see beyond the horizon. We now live in a world where a Beeple can produce a virtual image, tokenized into an NFT, and purchased in a virtual auction by a Metakovan for 38,382 ether, settled on the Ethereum network, instantly, securely, all in the cloud, without the need for a legacy bank, or a single dollar.

  Every aspect of the transaction, from Beeple’s creation of something from nothing to Metakovan’s acquisition of something in exchange for nothing, is high performance art. Sublime. A testament to human imagination, ingenuity, evolution. A glimpse of a wild, unrecognizable future.

  “I feel like I got a steal,” said Metakovan, transmitting his ether to Christie’s. Naturally, unimaginative skeptics remain stuck in the past, seeking reckless safety in yesteryear’s risk-free assets, or else hedging fears of monetary debasement with investments that will work if the virtual future resembles the industrialized 1970s.

  The hostile pundits, of course, see manias in all things digital. But throughout human history, not a single bubble ever burst when virtually no one understood what was going on. Rather, that was when the fun had only just begun.

  * * *

  Wait What? Everything you will ever own or have ever traded will be tokenized someday in some way. Take art. A token will be generated by a smart contract and permanently linked to the work. Both ownership and authenticity of the art is verifiable. That token can be traded. Ownership can be split, allowing fractional tokenized ownership. When the piece is sold in the future, the artist can earn a portion of the proceeds if that was built into the contract. Anything can be built into these new contracts, embedded into the code, instantly processed, in perpetuity.

  Since NFTs are potentially the biggest securitization scheme in history (every asset is eligible, that’s $500 trillion), how long until Goldman launches Collateralized NFT Obligations

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  One Hand: At the 2000 peak, how many friends owned loads of internet stocks? How many explained why those companies would change the world? How many traded dotcom stocks actively? In 2007, how many were highly levered to housing? How many believed real estate never goes down? Or believed they were experts? How many flipped a house? And how many do you now know who are highly leveraged to digital assets? Or understand how they work? Or could explain the $69.3mm Beeple NFT transaction? Could you count them on just one hand?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 18:10

• Merkel's Party Suffers Stunning Defeats In 2 German States Amid Bungled Pandemic Response
  Merkel’s Party Suffers Stunning Defeats In 2 German States Amid Bungled Pandemic Response

  Projections show that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union party just got rocked by clear defeats in two German state elections Sunday. Significantly it’s being widely interpreted as a severe setback and sign of things to come just six months ahead national voting to determine who will lead the country. Though Merkel – who has been in power since 2005 – is not running, the CDU hoped to capitalize off her past four consecutive national election victories. 

  It appears Sunday’s resounding message is the bloc’s dominance is coming to a swift end. Two governors seen as further to the left are the projected winners in the southwestern states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, riding a wave of popular discontent over Merkel’s perceived bungling of the pandemic crisis and the government response. 

  SPD-led traffic light coalition (SPD-Green-FDP) just about feasible in Rheinland-Pfalz on current seats projection. In Baden-Württemberg, Green-Red coalition two seats short now, but both continuation of Green-Black or traffic light coalitions would have comfortable majorities. pic.twitter.com/EHLuWKnjXT

  — Leonardo Carella (@leonardocarella) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As The Associated Press comments, “Amid discontent over a sluggish start to Germany’s vaccination drive, with coronavirus restrictions easing only gradually and infections rising again…”

  And additionally Merkel’s bloc was “hit over the past two weeks by allegations that two lawmakers profited from deals to procure masks early in the coronavirus pandemic.”

  Based on current polling data it stands to be the CDU’s worst post-World War II defeat in both states. Here’s a breakdown of the projections based on exit polls:

  Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) already faced a challenging task against two popular state governors from rival parties. Exit polls for ARD and ZDF television indicated that those governors’ parties – the environmentalist Greens in Baden-Wuerttemberg and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) in Rhineland-Palatinate – were set to finish first, some 8 percentage points ahead of the CDU.

  The Greens won 31.5 percent of the vote in Baden-Wuerttemberg and the CDU 23 percent, down from the 27 percent it polled at the last state election in 2016, according to the ZDF polls.

  In neighboring Rhineland-Palatinate, the SPD came first again with 33.5 percent of the vote ahead of the CDU, which led there in opinion polls until last month but was projected to have secured only 25.5 percent support in Sunday’s election.

  

  Christian Democratic Union general secretary, Paul Ziemiak, said as the results were being tallied, “To say it very clearly, this isn’t a good election evening for the CDU.” He added, “We would have liked different, better results.”

  “The CDU has seen its national popularity wane from 40% last June, when Germany was widely praised for its response to the coronavirus pandemic, to around 33% this month,” Reuters noted in its prior analysis. 

  Angela Merkel‘s CDU gets dressing down at the ballot box in two regional elections.
  The previously unthinkable no longer sounds crazy:
  Could the post Merkel period start without her CDU party in government?
  Thread https://t.co/IgvyjIZuzZ

  — Michaela Kuefner (@MKuefner) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Various German and other European media are predicting this marks the beginning of a glimpse of life after Angela Merkel. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 17:45

• Stockman: Free Lunches For All?
  Stockman: Free Lunches For All?

  Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,

  In light of Sleepy Joe’s new $1.9 trillion package of free stuff, it’s time to get out our magnifying glasses. The purpose is to compute the size of the hole in America’s collective paycheck that purportedly requires such continued, beneficence from our not-so-rich Uncle Sam.

  

  There is no reason in the world why the February (pre-Covid) level of wage and salary disbursements is not an appropriate benchmark for measuring the pocketbook hit from the Covid-lockdowns that have wreaked havoc on the US economy since March. This happened after Dr. Fauci convinced President Donald to pull the plug on MAGA and his own tenure in office, too. (Of course, 80-year-old Dr. Fauci is still there, preparing to bamboozle yet another “elected” president.)

  Last February, The Donald was boasting that he had delivered the greatest economy the world had ever seen, and Wall Street agreed, pushing stocks high into the nosebleed section of history.

  As it happened, the February run rate (annualized) of wage and salary disbursements was $9.659 trillion, which comes to about $805 billion per month. So we would suggest that if $805 billion in monthly wages was enough to justify celebration of the Greatest Economy Ever, then the shortfall from that benchmark is a solid measure of the hit to US worker earnings that has occurred since February.

  The Covid wage and salary loss is as follows:

  • March: −$25b;

  • April: –$76b;

  • May: –$61b;

  • June: –$43b;

  • July: –$31b;

  • August: –$19b;

  • September: –$12b;

  • October: –$6b;

  • November: –$3b;

  • December est: $0b;

  • 10-month total: –$276b

  The total of $276 billion in lost paychecks compares to $8.05 trillion in wages and salaries that would have been earned during that period at the February rate ($805 billion). Therefore, the cumulative shortfall through year-end amounted to just 3.4%.

  More importantly, the $0-$6 billion monthly shortfall since September has been so small as to constitute a rounding error in the scheme of things, as suggested by the fact that American households spend far more—about $8 billion per month—on pet food and pet care alone.

  Yet Sleepy Joe has teed up another $850 billion of direct aid to households, which, in the aggregate, are no longer suffering any material paycheck shortfall. And what is especially egregious about filling a nonexistent income hole in this manner is that 53% of this amount goes to “stimmy” checks and child tax credits, which are not means-tested except at the top of the income scale ($200,000 for a married couple):

  Sleepy Joe’s $850 Billion of Direct Handouts to Households:

  • Stimmy checks and child tax credits: $450b;

  • Unemployment benefits: $200b;

  • Health insurance aid: $100b;

  • Rental assistance: $35b;

  • Child care aid: $40b

  • Safety net: $20b

  Still, to paraphrase Walter Mondale’s famous campaign slogan from 1984: Another $850 billion for income replacement but “Where’s the Hole?”

  Of course, there are other ways to measure the hit to the national economy from the Covid lockdown, which we will amplify below. But first, it would be well to summarize the “solution” that Washington’s fiscally incontinent politicians have thrown at the “problem” during the last 12 months—a “problem” that they have never bothered to quantify.

  With the new Biden package, new spending authorized by the five major Covid relief measures can be summarized as follows (IN billions):

  • Families First act: $192b;

  • CARES act: $2,200b;

  • Paycheck Protection program: $733b;

  • Response and Relief Act: $935b;

  • Biden Jan. 14th plan: $1,900b;

  • Five-package total: $5,960b.

  The Washington politicians are preparing to throw nigh onto $6 trillion at a $274 billion hole in the nation’s wage bucket. That’s a solution 22X bigger than the putative problem!

  The overwhelming share of the economic harm occurring since March is due to the misguided (and unconstitutional) lockdown policies of the government and the public hysteria fanned by Dr. Fauci, and not the disease itself. But if the state gets into the business of fully compensating the public for the endless harm wrought by its policies, insolvency will be guaranteed.

  Why does Washington have the right to burden future taxpayers with permanent debt service payments in order to make whole a $276 billion loss of income and 3.4% inconvenience among taxpayers today?

  The simple fact is that the overwhelming share of this $276 billion of wage losses has fallen on low-wage and part-time workers in the social–congregation sectors of the economy (bars, restaurants, gyms, hotels, cinemas, ballparks, etc.) that the Virus Patrol has shut down. The right solution is to send the Virus Patrol packing and let these unfairly penalized employees go back to work.

  Even if you think that the total wage and salary loss above understates the economic damage caused by the lockdowns, the massive fiscal overkill by way of bailouts cannot be denied.

  For instance, GDP is the most comprehensive measure of economic activity that we have (despite its flaws), but the loss of GDP after February has also been only about 3.6%. In fact, based on the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast, we project that nominal GDP during Q4 will post at about $21.650 trillion, a figure only 0.46% below the Greatest Economy Ever level of Q4 2019.

  If we assume that Q4 2019 is a reasonable pre-Covid benchmark for the level of total economic activity in the USA, we get the following shortfall, including an estimate for Q4 based on the Atlanta Fed’s latest outlook.

  Quarterly GDP Change From Q42019 Benchmark:

  • Q1 2020: -$47b;

  • Q2 2020: -$557b;

  • Q3 2020: -$144b;

  • Q4 2020E: -$25b;

  • 4-quarter total: -$775b

  Even if you want to count everything, including losses from the $2.5 trillion of imputed activity in the GDP, the pending $6 trillion of Everything Bailouts is 7.7X the size of the problem!

  By contrast, it is well worth looking at the other side of the coin: namely, the surge in transfer payments since last February stemming from a combination of the built-in safety net (principally unemployment insurance, food stamps and Medicaid) and disbursements of stimmy checks, enhanced Federal UI benefits as authorized by the Everything Bailouts.

  At the pre-covid level in February, total government transfer payments (including state and local) were running at a $3.165 trillion annual rate or about $265 billion per month. As shown in the chart below, however, that monthly figure skyrocketed by 107% to $546 billion in the month of April alone.

  And, no, that latter figure is not the annualized rate: In their infinite generosity, government programs pumped more than one-half trillion dollars into the household sector during April alone. That’s $18.2 billion per day!

  Thereafter, the tsunami of transfer payments began to abate but was still running at a level of $400 billion monthly in July and $306 billion in November. Overall, the 10-month total of incremental transfer payments above the February level totaled $1.05 trillion.

  You can’t make this up… Transfer payments to households during the past 10 months have exceeded the loss of household wages and salaries ($276 billion) by nearly four times.

  So the question recurs: Why does Sleepy Joe think we need another $850 billion of transfer payments to households on top of the immense generosity already dispensed per the chart below?

  Total Government Transfer Payments, Annualized

  

  He’s doing it because he can—because the nation-wreckers in the Eccles Building have determined to purchase $120 billion of government debt and GSE securities per month for the indefinite future. As Fed Chair Powell rattled on recently, they are not even thinking about tapering this tsunami of fake money created from thin air by the Fed’s digital printing presses.

  When it comes to the rampant fiscal incontinence in Washington DC enabled by the Fed, did the election outcome make any difference?

  It did not. Sleepy Joe is about to give the once and former King of Debt a run for his money when it comes to the annals of fiscal infamy in America.

  As we said, free lunches for one and all… except the debt is never going away, and future generations will surely rue the day.

  *  *  *

  The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. And most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive an economic collapse. Click here to download the PDF now.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 17:20

• "Out Of Control" Brush Fire Sweeps Through New Jersey Town 
  “Out Of Control” Brush Fire Sweeps Through New Jersey Town 

  Several Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states are under “Red Flag Warning” on Sunday afternoon, which means critical fire weather conditions are underway. With that being said, reports are pouring in on social media of a dangerous brush fire sweeping through Lakewood, New Jersey. 

  

  The Lakewood Police Department said the brush fire was initially reported on Airport Road around 1300 ET. Video posted to Twitter by The Lakewood Scoop showed the inferno. 

  BREAKING: Requesting backup from State FFS. https://t.co/f4iREClCsf pic.twitter.com/AqWzVoRP0O

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The fire has engulfed multiple building structures. 

  BREAKING: Structures now on fire. Additional backup requested. Upgraded to 2nd Alarm. https://t.co/7XjxeWfzk8 pic.twitter.com/0ugiQ1CjQL

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Dozens of firefighters from surrounding towns have arrived on the scene. 

  UPDATE: Dozens of firefighters from all surrounding towns assisting. https://t.co/dT4EBej4bc pic.twitter.com/dJgB8bLlhT

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The brush fire appears to be expanding. 

  BREAKING: Getting reports of a 3rd structure now on fire. pic.twitter.com/mDEP2JfDGB

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Firefighters are battling the blaze as it rips through a residential community. 

  BREAKING: Firefighters still battling blaze ripping through structures.

  MORE ON STATUS -> https://t.co/lJ3ClHEEnm pic.twitter.com/62jFLZPVld

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Highways and roads around the incident area are closed as the fire continues to spread. Reports now show one firefighter has been injured. 

  BREAKING: Reports of a firefight injured. pic.twitter.com/6JbhOFX52i

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  More views of the large brush fire in Jersey. 

  MORE FOOTAGE ON STATUS -> https://t.co/lJ3ClHEEnm pic.twitter.com/pTWnVj1GEU

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Route 70 has been shut down. 

  BREAKING: Parts of GSP, Cedarbridge and Route 70 shut in Lakewood. pic.twitter.com/zlzIKypPCy

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  A helicopter with a specialized bucket suspended on a cable is now combating the fire. 

  UPDATE: Chopper dropping water. pic.twitter.com/JSGqlwZ5oF

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Firefighters are at a Lowe’s on Route 70.

  UPDATE: At Lowe’s on Route 70. pic.twitter.com/PhHtGSc1EH

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Possible commercial zone ablaze. 

  BREAKING: Fire near Lowe’s.

  Firefighters are battling this blaze on multiple fronts. pic.twitter.com/DdupotpUr3

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Blaze is currently out of control,” The Lakewood Scoop tweeted.

  BREAKING: Fire near Costco on Route 70.

  Blaze is currently out of control.

  Getting reports of burn victims as well. pic.twitter.com/sstzc4RdZb

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This situation appears to be deteriorating: “Business-owners attempting to extinguish fires near their shops,” the local paper said.

  BREAKING: Business-owners attempting to extinguish fires near their shops. pic.twitter.com/xDXFhgr2KN

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  A brush fire has developed near Costco on Route 70.

  #BREAKING: Aircrafts attempting to contain blaze near Costco. pic.twitter.com/Wp9tIzbdrQ

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The smoke plume from Lakewood is showing up on the radar. 

  The smoke plume from the fire near #Lakewood showing up on radar. https://t.co/k0O0Epal3R pic.twitter.com/VVxIWsi7l1

  — Maria LaRosa (@TheMariaLaRosa) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  More businesses are in the path of the fire. 

  BREAKING: Another Lakewood business in the track of the wildfire. pic.twitter.com/LNS5zUc6GD

  — The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) March 14, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Hilton hotel in Lakewood was evacuated as the wildfire dangerously approaches the structure. 

  

  Air quality has rapidly deteriorated in the area. 

  

  “This story is developing… 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 16:55

• Backlash As Rich Countries Vaccinate A Person Per Second With Poor Nations Alleging "Vaccine Apartheid"
  Backlash As Rich Countries Vaccinate A Person Per Second With Poor Nations Alleging “Vaccine Apartheid”

  Authored by Jake Johnson via CommonDreams.org,

  The governments of the world’s wealthiest countries—including the US, Canada, and the United Kingdom—are facing growing backlash for continuing to block an India and South Africa-led proposal to temporarily waive a restrictive global intellectual property rights agreement, an effort aimed at spurring broad-based production of coronavirus vaccines and getting the shots to poor nations struggling to administer a single dose.

  According to Oxfam International, a member of the People’s Vaccine Alliance, “rich countries are vaccinating at a rate of one person per second yet are siding with a handful of pharmaceutical corporations in protecting their monopolies against the needs of the majority of developing countries.”

  

  On Thursday—the one-year anniversary of the WHO’s official global pandemic declaration—representatives from the U.S. and other wealthy nations teamed up to thwart, once again, the push by more than 100 member nations of the World Trade Organization to suspend certain provisions of the so-called TRIPS Agreement, an intellectual property rights arrangement.

  “The proposal was co-sponsored by 57 countries in the trade group and on Thursday support split largely along the lines of the WTO’s self-identified developed and developing countries,” Law360 reported. “The only developing country to oppose the waiver was Brazil.”

  Supporters of the waiver argue the prohibitive patent rights that governments have granted to private pharmaceutical companies are standing in the way of the kind of global vaccination campaign needed to stop the spread of a virus that does not respect borders. Fearing the emergence and normalization of “vaccine apartheid,” the head of the WHO and others have raised alarm over the fact that more than 100 poor nations have not yet been able to start inoculating their populations.

  “It is unforgivable that while people are literally fighting for breath, rich country governments continue to block what could be a vital breakthrough in ending this pandemic for everyone in rich and poor countries alike,” Anna Marriott, Oxfam’s health policy manager, said in a statement.

  “During a pandemic that is devastating lives across the planet,” added Marriott, “governments should be using their powers now, not tomorrow, to remove intellectual property rules and ensure pharmaceutical companies work together to share technology and fix raw material shortages, all of which are standing in the way of a massive scale-up in production.”

  SHOCKING: Rich countries are vaccinating 1 person every second while the majority of the poorest nations are yet to give a single #COVID19 dose.

  Suspend patents to stop Big Pharma monopolies.

  Support #TRIPSwaiver

  We need a #PeoplesVaccine https://t.co/bq48Xs42yb pic.twitter.com/fvnW033Wfe

  — The People’s Vaccine (@peoplesvaccine) March 10, 2021

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Despite a fierce lobbying campaign by the pharmaceutical industry in the US and elsewhere, support for the India-South Africa proposal has grown since the effort was first tabled in October, with dozens of U.S. members of Congress and more than 100 members of the European Parliament joining a supermajority of WTO member nations in backing the idea. Voicing support for the proposal, one commentator recently called it “an existential threat to the continuing practice of treating medicines as a commodity.”

  “There is no reason we have to prioritize the profits of pharmaceutical companies over the dignity of people in other countries,” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) told the New York Times last week.

  In a video released on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged President Joe Biden to support the TRIPS waiver, arguing that “ending this pandemic requires collaboration, solidarity, and empathy.”

  “It is unconscionable,” said Sanders, “that amid a global health crisis, huge multibillion dollar pharmaceutical companies continue to prioritize profits by protecting their monopolies and driving up prices rather than prioritizing the lives of people everywhere, including in the Global South.”

  As the Corporate Europe Observatory reported, “If know-how and vaccine recipes are shared, generic manufacturers could start supplying the countries in the back of the queue, for instance the 85 nations set to receive vaccines only in two years time.”

  “Had it not been for the stiff resistance by the US, Switzerland, Norway, and not least the E.U., that vision could have become a reality,” the organization noted. “But the European Commission has shown no sign of budging at the WTO negotiations. At a meeting in Geneva on 11 March the EU’s rejection was reiterated.”

  With the U.S. facing accusations of vaccine hoarding as it buys up enough supply to inoculate the eligible population twice over—and refuses to donate excess doses to countries pleading for them—Biden on Friday announced an agreement with Japan, India, and Australia to bolster global vaccine production with the stated goal of remedying shortages in Southeast Asia.

  As the Times reported, “the Biden administration committed to providing financial support to help Biological E, a major vaccine manufacturer in India, produce at least one billion doses of coronavirus vaccines by the end of 2022.”

  While viewed as a welcome addition to lagging global vaccination efforts, the deal falls well short of the sweeping recipe-sharing that experts and activists say is required to ensure that no one is denied access to a life-saving shot.

  Calling the new agreement a “step in the right direction,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said Saturday that Biden must now “take the next step and endorse the TRIPS waiver.”

  “The waiver is supported by over 100 countries and being opposed by only a handful of rich countries,” Schakowsky noted. “The world needs as much vaccine manufacturing capacity as it can get. Time is of the essence.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 03/14/2021 – 16:30