Mar 01

Today’s News 1st March 2021

  • The Great Reset, Part V: Woke Ideology
    The Great Reset, Part V: Woke Ideology

    Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

    Read Part I: Reduced Expectations And Bio-Techno-Feudalism here…

    Read Part II: Corporate Socialism here…

    Read Part III: Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics here…

    Read Part IV: “Stakeholder Capitalism” Vs. “Noeliberalism” here…

    In previous articles, I’ve discussed the Great Reset and introduced several ways of understanding the economics of it. The Great Reset can be thought of as neofeudalism, as “corporate socialism,” as “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” and in terms of “stakeholder capitalism” versus “neoliberalism.” In future installments, I intend to treat the technological (transhumanist) and monetary (centralized banking and digital currency) aspects that Klaus Schwab and others anticipate and prescribe.

    But in this essay, I wish to consider the ideological aspect of the Great Reset. Just how do the planners mean to establish the reset ideologically? That is, how would a reset of the mass mind come to pass that would allow for the many elements of the Great Reset to be put into place—without mass rebellion, that is? After all, if the Great Reset is to take hold, some degree of conformity on the part of the population will be necessary—despite the enhanced, extended, and more precise control over the population that transhumanist technology and a centralized digital currency would afford.

    This is the function of ideology. Ideology, as the Marxist historian of science Richard Lewontin has argued, works “by convincing people that the society in which they live is just and fair, or if not just and fair then inevitable, and that it is quite useless to resort to violence.” Ideology establishes the “social legitimation” that Lewontin sees as necessary for gaining the assent of the ruled. “The battleground is in people’s heads, and if the battle is won on that ground then the peace and tranquility of society are guaranteed.” Ideology on this account is not the same as world view. It is rather the mental programming necessary for domination and control short of the use of force. Ideological indoctrination is easier, less messy, and less expensive than state and state-supported violence.

    Some may argue that the ideology of the Great Reset is simply socialist-communist ideology. After all, in many respects, socialist-communist ideology supports what the Great Reset promises to deliver. And this may work for some. There are those who would welcome, on socialist grounds, the “fairness,” “equality,” or “equity” that the Great Reset promises. Socialists might overlook or excuse the oligarchical control of society on the basis of the supposed fairness, equality, or equity among the mass of the population, and on the presumption that the oligarchy will be overthrown in the not-so-distant future. Socialism embeds a levelling predisposition that puts a premium on “equality” among the visible majority, even when that equality comes as a great loss for many otherwise “middle-class” subjects. In fact, when I briefly entertained the rantings of members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, including its leader, Bob Avakian, they admitted to me that worldwide socialism would mean reduced standards of living for much of the world, especially in the United States. They had no problem with this; in fact, they seemed to relish the prospect. No doubt, as Friedrich Nietzsche suggested, socialism is fueled, at least in part, by ressentiment—by resentment and envy for the property owner. Much could be said about socialists’ apparent approval, or at least conditional and temporary acceptance, of big monopolistic oligarchical corporatists and their preference for big business over small. Socialists see monopolization under capitalism as inevitable, as necessary for producing a more consolidated target to be overthrown, and as a sign of the imminent collapse of capitalism and the coming socialist-communist apocalypse.

    Likewise, many socialists will be amenable to the Great Reset on principle—especially those who accept its rhetoric at face value. But for all its newfound popularity, socialism-communism still doesn’t represent the majority. While popular among Millennials and other millennialists, socialism-communism remains unsavory for many.

    It is regarded as alien, obscure, and loosely connotes something negative.

    But more importantly, for reasons that I’ll give below, socialist-communist ideology is not the ideology that best fits the goals of the Great Reset. This is where wokeness comes in.

    What exactly is wokeness? As I write in Beyond Woke,

    According to the social justice creed, being “woke” is the political awakening that stems from the emergence of consciousness and conscientiousness regarding social and political injustice. Wokeness is the indelible inscription of the awareness of social injustice on the conscious mind, eliciting the sting of conscience, which compels the newly woke to change their be­liefs and behaviors.

    This is as close to a definition of wokeness as I can manage, gleaning it as I have from the assertions of those who embrace it. Of course, the etymology of the word “woke,” and how it became an adjective describing those who are thus awakened into consciousness of social and political injustice, is another matter. I discuss the etymology in Google Archipelago:

    “Woke” began in English as a past tense and past participle of “wake.” It suggested “having become awake.” But, by the 1960s, woke began to function as an adjective as well, gaining the figurative meaning in the African American community of “well-informed” or “up-to-date.” By 1972, the once modest verbal past tense began to describe an elevated political consciousness. In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) recognized the social-conscious awareness of woke and added the definition: “alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice.”

    Yet there are as many definitions of wokeness as people who’ve heard of it, as is the case with most anything the least bit controversial. I’m sure that others can and will add to the definition or suggest that wokeness should be defined altogether differently. But the above definition and historical-semantical renderings are sufficient for our purposes. According to adherents, then, wokeness is enhanced awareness of social and political injustice and the determination to eradicate it.

    But what could wokeness have to do with the Great Reset? As a corrective, wokeness is not aimed at the sufferers whose complaints, or imagined complaints, it means to redress. Wokeness works on the majority, the supposed beneficiaries of injustice. It does so by making the majority understand that it has benefited from “privilege” and preference—based on skin color (whiteness), gender (patriarchy), sexual proclivity (heteronormativity), birthplace (colonialism, imperialism, and first worldism), gender identity (cis gender privilege), and the domination of nature (speciesism)—to name some of the major culprits. The list could go on and is emended, seemingly by the day. This majority must be rehabilitated, as it were. The masses must understand that they have gained whatever advantages they have hitherto enjoyed on the basis of the unfair treatment of others, either directly or indirectly, and this unfair treatment is predicated on the circumstances of birth. The “privilege” of the majority has come at the expense of those minorities designated as the beneficiaries of wokeness, and wokeness is the means for rectifying these many injustices.

    And what are the effects of being repeatedly reprimanded as such, of being told that one has been the beneficiary of unmerited “privilege,” that one’s relative wealth and well-being have come at the expense of oppressed, marginalized, and misused Others? Shame, guilt, remorse, unworthiness. And what are the expected attitudinal and behavioral adjustments to be taken by the majority? They are to expect less. Under woke ideology, one will be expected to forfeit one’s rights, because even these rights, nay, especially these rights, have come at the expense of others.

    Thus, wokeness works by habituating the majority to the reduced expectations that I introduced in my first installment on the Great Reset. It does this by instilling a belief in the unworthiness of the majority to thrive, prosper, and enjoy their lives. Wokeness indoctrinates the majority into the propertyless future (for them, at least) of the Great Reset, while gratifying the Left, its main ideological propagators, with a sense of moral superiority, even as they too are scheduled to become bereft of prospects.

    One question remains. Why is wokeness more suited to the objectives of the Great Reset than socialist-communist ideology? To answer this question, we must recall the selling points of socialism-communism. Despite the levelling down that I mentioned above, socialism-communism is promissory. It promises benefits, not deficits. It does not operate by promising the majority that they will lose upon its establishment. Quite to the contrary, socialism-communism promises vastly improved conditions—yes, fairness, equality, or equity but also prosperity for the mass of humanity, prosperity that has been denied it under capitalism. The workers of the world are called to unite, not under the prospect of reduced expectations, but on the basis of great expectations—not, according to Marx, to establish utopia, but at least to destroy and replace the current dystopia with a shared cornucopia. We know, of course, how this promise is kept. But it is nevertheless still proffered and believed by all too many in our midst.

    We have seen, on the other hand, the subtractive character of woke ideology. Wokeness demands the forfeiture of advantages on moral grounds. Unlike socialism-communism, it does not offer empowerment or advocate the takeover of the means of production and the state by political means. Wokeness is a form of recrimination that compels the abdication, not the acquisition, of goods.

    Woke ideology, I contend, has tilled the soil and planted the seeds for the harvest that the Great Reset represents to the ruling elite. Was wokeness intentionally crafted for this purpose? I don’t think so, but it nevertheless can and is being adopted for these ends, just as other ideological formations have been used for other ends. The ruling elite appropriates the available means at its disposal to effect its plans, including available ideologies. Woke ideology was available and ready for appropriation and application. Wokeness serves the Great Reset best, and thus we see the language of wokeness in the books and other literature devoted to its establishment: fairness, inclusion, etc.

    Naturally, wokeness will not work on everyone. But the demand has been made so universal that unapologetic, noncompliant dissenters are figured as regressive, reactionary, racist, white supremacist, and more, and are dismissed, if not punished, on those grounds. Wokeness has thus attained dominance. Countering it will be a major requirement for challenging the Great Reset.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 23:25

  • Seattle Homeless Shelter Gives "Booty Injection" Kits To Addicts
    Seattle Homeless Shelter Gives “Booty Injection” Kits To Addicts

    America’s most liberal cities have transformed into ground-zero for what has become an all-out drug and homelessness crisis. Cities like Seattle, Washington, and others, are using taxpayer dollars to fund various types of programs such as needle exchanges and safe spaces to do drugs. 

    A Seattle-backed homeless shelter called the Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) uses taxpayer dollars to get addicts high. DESC employees hand out heroin and crack pipes, syringes, and even “booty bumping” kits. 

    Local AM radio station KTTH reports DESC plastered flyers at their Navigation Center location on 12th Avenue South, encouraging addicts to come to the non-profit facility to collect “new tools and methods to continue their destructive and deadly addictions.”

    For more on this, KTTH Radio Host Jason Rantz recently joined the Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show to discuss how Democrats are destroying the city of Seattle. 

    Rantz tweeted a three-minute clip of him and Tucker talking about taxpayer funds used by DESC to purchase heroin pipes, syringes, and “booty bumping kits.” 

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

    “The city is now funding a homeless shelter that is passing out heroin pipes and distributing so-called ‘booty bumping kits’ so that junkies can inject drugs rectally,” Rantz told Tucker. 

    “Well, when you teach addicts, who are already the hardest to get off the street a more efficient way to get high in a way that lasts longer, when you’re doing it with the so-called ‘booty bumping kit,’ all you’re doing is making it that much easier for them to stay addicted,” he continued.

    In case you’re wondering, KTTH sheds more light on “booty bumping kits:”  

    This process has an addict inject drugs rectally, usually meth or cocaine mixed with water, through a needless syringe. A rectum is very efficient at absorption, so the high is described as more intense and longer-lasting. The flyer says this method to get high is a “good choice if your veins are hard to hit,” and that it “doesn’t leave tracks.” -KTTH explains 

    As ZH readers are undoubtedly aware, when liberal-run cities take part in funding these social experiments – many of them tend to fail. 

    For example, San Francisco’s needle exchange program resulted in hazardous waste increases across the city. More addicts got high and violent crime surged and drug-fueled vagrants terrorized people on the street. 

    … and it comes as no surprise that overdose deaths in the Democratic stronghold have killed almost four times more people than COVID-19 this year. These progressive ideas seem great on paper, but in actuality, they tend to disappoint. 

    If the goal is to help people with addiction – why are progressives aiding in programs that keep people perpetually addicted? 

    Why Seattle’s DESC believes they have the magic touch to solve an addiction crisis by employing similar failed programs seen in San Francisco is beyond us.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 23:00

  • "Slippery Slope" – Vaccine Passports Are A Technical & Ethical Minefield
    “Slippery Slope” – Vaccine Passports Are A Technical & Ethical Minefield

    Authored by Melinda Mills, op-ed via The Financial Times,

    I remember the evening a co-worker arrived at our door waving a phone, beaming “I’ve got it!” His Android mobile was the only way to use the UK government app that let EU citizens apply for UK settled status after Brexit. After some unsettling jokes about uploading my private biometric data on his device, we completed the deed and he disappeared into the night. As governments around the world ponder digital vaccine passports, that evening remains in my mind.

    Vaccine passports are essentially certificates that link proof of vaccination to the identity of the holder, a potential silver bullet to return to our pre-Covid-19 lives. Before the pandemic, the EU was working on plans for cross-border electronic certificates to replace the paper booklets that many travellers carry. At this week’s EU summit some leaders pressed for further steps towards coronavirus passports.

    A recent Royal Society report that I led came up with 12 different criteria that would need to be satisfied to make such passports feasible. This is a complex ecosystem that requires an understanding of everything from immunity and infection to technology, ethics and behavioural factors. But the underlying question must be: what would a vaccine passport be used for?

    The head of Heathrow airport has called for digital health certificates to reboot international travel. Estonia and Iceland already link e-vaccination certificates to travel and exclusion from quarantine. Greece is pressing the EU to move quickly. There are precedents such as the airline industry group Iata’s travel pass initiative. But would these certificates only be required for international travel or could they be needed for getting a job, attending a football match, or buying some milk?

    Israel recently introduced a green pass heralded as “the first step back to an almost normal life”. It opens entry to gyms, cinemas, hotels and meets some our technical criteria such as verifiable credentials, portability, (attempts at) security for personal data and interoperability. It is valid for six months after a second dose and for “those who have recovered from coronavirus”.

    But this could be problematic. Current vaccines protect against severe disease, but we do not yet know whether they stop transmission, how quickly immunity wanes or if they are compromised by emerging variants. Whether someone who has “recovered” meets immunity criteria remains a question. In addition to an expiry date, we would need the ability to revoke a vaccine passport. Israel’s warning of severe punishment for forgery is another reminder of what could go wrong.

    There is also the question of mission creep. Recall the UK’s early digital contact tracing app, which raised concerns about privacy, government surveillance and private sector data sharing. Or consider the technical problems with the Tawakkalna app, introduced in Saudi Arabia, which is used for entry into many places but recently froze.

    All vaccine passports have the potential to block people from essential goods and services and exclude those who lack identification or do not own or cannot afford a smartphone.

    The RS criteria for a workable vaccine passport included equity, ethics and non-discrimination. That means we must ask who would we exclude? There is higher vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minorities and the jabs are being rolled out by age. Plus some people are excluded entirely: children, pregnant women and those with allergies.

    Others worry of a slippery slope towards digital health or ID cards. We are already partway there, as I discovered, with Apple’s link with healthcare institutions which allows me to download my immunisation and medical records on to my iPhone. This technology could mean greater efficiency in the health system and better outcomes. But there would be serious ethical concerns if a vaccine QR code that tracks movement is linked to other data — say housing and immigration status — without our knowledge, or if it increases surveillance of already disadvantaged groups.

    Credit cards and social media data hold a wealth of behavioural and location data, that companies regularly mine. With vaccine passports, it will come down to trust in government and that can only be won through transparency. There is a risk that the government expends time and money to create a passport system only to have the public recoil in horror.

    We also shouldn’t forget we are globally interconnected. When travel resumes, visitors and workers will cross borders and need global standards such the WHO’s Smart Vaccination Certificate. This could be a legal minefield of issues. Human rights and data protection need to be weighed against a duty of care and commercial freedom to act. Governments may make vaccine passports mandatory on economic grounds or to protect public health. Or they may decide to dodge that bullet, but allow businesses to require them instead.

    There is also the question of whether a domestic vaccine passport is worth the investment. That depends, of course, on vaccine rollout, virus mutation and other factors. To work, a substantial proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated with universal access, which in most countries is months away. In the meantime, let’s put the pieces of this puzzle together and carefully judge if we like the picture that emerges. 

    *  *  *

    The writer directs the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science at Nuffield College, Oxford university

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 22:35

  • Biden Admits He Won't Sanction MbS Simply Because Saudis Remain "Our Allies"
    Biden Admits He Won’t Sanction MbS Simply Because Saudis Remain “Our Allies”

    The White House has issued a belated response – or ultimately a weak attempt at damage control – amid growing bipartisan outrage that despite his prior “tough” talk on the campaign trail to “hold the Saudis to account”, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman is getting off scot-free.

    “The Biden administration defended its decision not to sanction Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally for his role in the death of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, as the White House confirmed no more actions against the kingdom are imminent,” Stars & Stripes reports Sunday. This means that not so much as suspension of weapons sales are on the table, apparently.

    This despite the newly declassified intelligence assessment identifying MbS as “approving” the operation to kill or capture the Washington Post journalist. 

    Biden’s answer as to why the US is stopping short at sanctioning dozens of lower-level Saudi officials (and not MbS) that the newly declassified intelligence assessment identified as orchestrating Jamal Khashoggi’s Oct.2018 murder appears to simply be that the Saudis are “our allies”:

    “The United States has not historically sanctioned the leaders of countries where we have diplomatic relations or even some where we don’t have diplomatic relations,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Behind the scenes there are a range of diplomatic conversations.”

    A White House statement indicated that no further actions will be taken against Riyadh (other than slapping up to 76 officials with ‘travel restrictions’):

    “The recalibration of relations with Saudi Arabia began on January 20th and it’s ongoing,” the White House said in a statement. “The Administration took a wide range of new actions on Friday. The President is referring to the fact that on Monday, the State Department will provide more details and elaborate on those announcements, not new announcements.”

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

    Certainly the Saudis now have little to worry about given the White House is meekly talking “recalibration of relations” in the wake of US intelligence identifying MbS as having ordered the brutal killing and dismemberment. 

    So it took no time at all for things to return to “business of usual” in terms of Washington relations with the Saudi regime. The Saudi prince literally got away with murder… and now has a perpetual “get out of jail free card” simply because he’s a White House “ally”. Ultimately this of course comes as no surprise at all.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 22:10

  • After Record January Surge, US Spending Plummets In February… And It's Not Just The Texas Freeze
    After Record January Surge, US Spending Plummets In February… And It’s Not Just The Texas Freeze

    Unlike the recent retail sales report which stunned sellside expectations with a 5-sigma blowout beat, Friday’s personal spending report came in generally as expected, even if it too came in scorching hot, with personal incomes soaring 10% M/M and a whopping 13% Y/Y thanks to the December $900BN stimulus hitting household checking accounts.

    But for all those planning on extrapolating this surge in spending into February and further into Q1, you may want to hold the champagne.

    According to the latest aggregated credit and debit card data from BofA, total card spending declined 2% yoy for the 7-days ending Feb 20th with Bank of America chief economist Michelle Meyer writing that “this weakening owes to the winter blizzard that created major disruptions to Texas and the surrounding region.” BofA remains optimistic, and believes this is a temporary setback and expect a recovery as is typical with natural disasters.

    Some more details on the big driver behind February’s spending plunge:

    The winter blizzard: The blizzard that rampaged the South and left millions without power created major disruptions to economic activity. We found particular weakness in card spending in TX, LA, OK, MS, AR and TN. Combined card spending in these six states ran at a -25% yoy pace for the 7-days ending Feb 20th. Subtracting these states from the total, card spending increased 1.3% yoy over the same period, which was likely still held down by poor weather conditions given the breadth of the blizzard.

    As Meyer further notes, no sector was immune to the blizzard related retrenchment in consumer spending.

    Predictably, restaurant spending plunged in the states where the blizzard hit, down 39% yoy, while the rest of the country actually saw an improvement in restaurant spending to -9.4% yoy, likely reflecting easing COVID-related restrictions with restaurant activity in California accelerating. Grocery store spending also declined in the affected states after increasing prior to the storm.

    Even retail spending online (card not present) weakened meaningfully in affected states, likely reflecting the loss of power in the region.

    Next, BofA takes a tangent In order to understand consumer spending patterns around natural disasters, we looked at the daily data around Hurricane Irma in 2017. Florida, the epicenter of the hurricane, saw a similar sized drop in spending of around -40% yoy when the hurricane hit. Spending then normalized around 10 days after the initial rainfall from Irma.

    If history is a guide, BofA concludes that we are likely to see spending in TX and surrounding states return back to trend in the next week or so. We could even see spending run above trend as households restock.

    That would be the optimistic view. The less optimistic view comes from similar card spending data, but this time from JPMorgan, which found a similar plunge in Texas spending but also an acute dropoff in total spending across the US, not all of which could be explained by the Texas freeze.

    In other words, after the record January spending boom sparked by the latest round of stimulus, it is quite possible the Americans retrenched again and whether it is due to the cold weather or concerns that quite some time may pass before the next government handout stimulus is sent out, we may well be in for a rough patch as US spending – which drives 70% of US GDP – hibernates at least until such time as the first (of many) Biden stimulus is passed and those $2,000 $1,400 stimmies are sent out. Which, incidentally, would be good news for a market suddenly terrified that the US economy is overheating and something must be done to halt the surge in output and/or spending…

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 21:49

  • AOC Blasts NYPD's New "Robo-Surveillance Ground Drones" For Poor Neighborhoods
    AOC Blasts NYPD’s New “Robo-Surveillance Ground Drones” For Poor Neighborhoods

    Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez from New York ripped NYPD’s Boston Dynamics robot dog for ground surveillance of low-income neighborhoods. 

    AOC quoted an NYPost article titled “Video shows NYPD’s new robotic dog in action in the Bronx,” where she was not fond of the “robotic surveillance ground drones that are being deployed for testing on low-income communities of color with under-resourced schools.” 

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

    AOC, a Bronx Democrat, later tweeted that the money used for the robot’s purchase could have been allocated “for education, healthcare, housing” purposes. 

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

    For a couple of decades, police forces across the country have been militarized. Stepping into a new decade, police forces, like NYPD, are seeking to deploy automation and artificial intelligence systems to combat crime. 

    NYPD first received the robot dog, called “Digidog,” a couple of months ago. At the time, NYPD Technical Assistance Response Unit Inspector (TARU) Frank Digiacomo told ABC7 that the four-legged robotic dog “will save lives, protect people, and protect officers and that’s our goal.” 

    Digidog is like any Boston Dynamics Spot robot – though this one is equipped with lights, two-way communication, and video cameras.

    The latest video shows the 70-pound robot being tested in the Bronx. The department also deployed the robotic dog back in October to a Brooklyn shooting. 

    Social media was not enthused with NYPD’s actions to purchase a Boston Dynamics Spot. 

    One person tweeted: “destroy it at all costs. destroy every boston dynamics robot you see in the wild.”

    Another said, “I’m sorry, but @BostonDynamics needs to ban these types of uses. Their tech should be used to enrich people’s lives and to help society, not oppress it. I absolutely love their work, but I will not shed a tear if every single one of these gets destroyed by citizens.” 

    We showed last week just how easy a weapon (though a paintball gun) could be mounted on one of these robots. 

    It’s only a matter of time before these robotic surveillance dogs are deployed to low-income neighborhoods across the US. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 21:20

  • China's Bond Market Emerges As Safe Haven In Global Rout
    China’s Bond Market Emerges As Safe Haven In Global Rout

    By Ye Xie, Bloomberg macro commentator and writer

    Three things we learned last week:

    1. China’s bond market proved to be a haven in the global rout.

    In the global fixed-income selloff last week, yields on China’s 10-year bonds rose just 1 bp to 3.28%, compared with the 15 bps jump in U.S. Treasuries.

    In part, that reflects China’s status as the leading indicator of the global economy as it was the first to emerge from the pandemic. Chinese bond yields started to climb in April and have been largely unchanged since November. In a sense, the global bond market is just experiencing what the Chinese market went through a few months ago.

    The fact that the two economies are in a slightly different phase suggests that adding unhedged Chinese bonds provides the benefit of diversification. Indeed, Chinese bonds and their global counterparts have exhibited low correlation over the past two years.

    2. Financial conditions haven’t tightened enough to alarm the Fed.

    Investors have pushed forward their rate expectations, causing the 5s30s part of the yield curve to flatten. The euro-dollar futures now price in the first rate hike as soon as December 2022. That seems to be aggressive, as the Fed’s dot plot looks for no rate hike through 2023.

    Yet, while the rising real yields wreaked havoc in some segments of the markets, financial conditions only tightened marginally. As St. Louis Fed President James Bullard put it bluntly, the 10-year yield has not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

    So the Fed will want to see how the bond moves play out before “changing its tune,” Fed watcher Tim Duy noted. In other words, fasten your seat belt.

    3. Biden isn’t in a rush to reset U.S.-China relations.

    Katherine Tai, Joe Biden’s pick for U.S. trade representative, told senators during her confirmation hearing that China “needs to deliver” on the promises it made in the phase-one agreement. It is the strongest signal yet that the new administration plans to build on the accord brokered by its predecessor rather than scrap it. William Burns, Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the CIA, called China’s “adversarial, predatory leadership” the biggest threat to the U.S.

    For its part, the official China Daily said in an editorial that Biden’s early policy toward Beijing “smacks of Trumpism,” and the approach so far “affords little optimism.” Meanwhile, the government said Friday that it will extend punitive tariff exemptions for 65 items imported from the U.S.

    It sounds like a stick and carrot , doesn’t it?

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 20:55

  • Cuomo Denies Touching, Forcibly Kissing Aide – Calls Inappropriate Sexual Questions 'Teasing'
    Cuomo Denies Touching, Forcibly Kissing Aide – Calls Inappropriate Sexual Questions ‘Teasing’

    Update (2037ET): New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) issued a Sunday night statement explicitly denying claims that he touched and forcibly kissed a former aide, and suggested that inappropriate comments he made about another aide’s sex life were nothing more than ‘good-natured teasing.’

    “Questions have been raised about some of my past interactions with people in the office,” said Cuomo, adding “I never intended to offend anyone or cause any harm. I spend most of my life at work and colleagues are often also personal friends.”

    “At work sometimes I think I am being playful and make jokes that I think are funny. I do, on occasion, tease people in what I think is a good-natured way,” reads the press release. “I do it in public and in private. You have seen me do it at briefings hundreds of times. I have teased people about their personal lives, their relationships, about getting married or not getting married. I mean no offense and only attempt to add some levity and banter to what is a very serious business.“

    “I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended. I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

    Former aide Lindsey Boylan wrote in a Medium post that she resigned as an aide to Cuomo after he forcibly kissed her during a meeting, and would frequently go out of his way to touch her “on my lower back, arms and legs.” 

    Responding to the accusation, Cuomo wrote on Sunday that he never “touched anybody” and never “propositioned anybody.”

    *  *  *

    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been accused of sexual harassment by a second former aide, according to the New York Times.

    Charlotte Bennett, a former executive assistant and health policy adviser to the Cuomo administration up until November of last year, told the Times that Cuomo had asked her sever questions about her sex life – including whether she ever had sex with older men, and whether she was monogamous in her relationships.

    NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Charlotte Bennett

    He also allegedly told her during a June, 2020 encounter that the 63-year-old governor complained about being ‘lonely during the pandemic,’ and that he “can’t even hug anyone.”

    Ms. Bennett, 25, said the most unsettling episode occurred on June 5, when she was alone with Mr. Cuomo in his State Capitol office. In a series of interviews this week, she said the governor had asked her numerous questions about her personal life, including whether she thought age made a difference in romantic relationships, and had said that he was open to relationships with women in their 20s — comments she interpreted as clear overtures to a sexual relationship. –New York Times

    Cuomo told The Times on Saturday that he thought he was acting as a mentor, and “never made advances toward Ms. Bennett, nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate, before asking for an independent review of the matter – and imploring New Yorkers to await the results “before making any judgements.”

    Bennett related an exchange in which she felt Cuomo made clear he wanted to sleep with her.

    Ms. Bennett said that during the June encounter, the governor, 63, also complained to her about being lonely during the pandemic, mentioning that he “can’t even hug anyone,” before turning the focus to Ms. Bennett. She said that Mr. Cuomo asked her, “Who did I last hug?”

    Ms. Bennett said she had tried to dodge the question by responding that she missed hugging her parents. “And he was, like, ‘No, I mean like really hugged somebody?’” she said.

    Mr. Cuomo never tried to touch her, Ms. Bennett said, but the message of the entire episode was unmistakable to her. –New York Times

    “I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared,” Bennett said. “And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.”

    Bennett says she reported the interaction to Cuomo’s chief-of-staff, Jill DesRosiers, less than a week later – and was subsequently transferred to another job as a health policy adviser, where her office was located on the other side of the Capitol. Bennett also says she reported the incident to a special counsel to the governor, Judith Mogul, towards the end of last June – after which she chose not to insist on an investigation because she “wanted to move on” with her new job.

    Cuomo, in his statement, called Bennett a “hard-working and valued member” of his staff who had “every right to speak out,” revealing that she had opened up to him about being a survivor of sexual assault.

    “The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported,” said Cuomo, who did not deny asking Bennett personal questions.

    Bennett’s accusation comes less than a week after a woman accused Cuomo of sexually harassing her several times between 2016 and 2018, at one point allegedly giving her an unsolicited kiss on the lips at his Manhattan office.

    Lindsey Boylan has accused Mr. Cuomo of harassing her on several occasions while she was employed by the state government.Credit…Rob Latour/Shutterstock

    Cuomo says Boylan is lying. 

    In response to the allegations against Cuomo – and in light of recent revelations that he withheld nursing home death data in order to avoid prosecution by the Trump DOJ, a top New York state lawmaker, Tim Kennedy (D), said that there’s a ‘need to get more information,” adding “And I believe we’re going to be looking for that in the coming days.” 

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 20:37

  • Which Companies Are Most At Risk From Surging Yields: Goldman Answers
    Which Companies Are Most At Risk From Surging Yields: Goldman Answers

    For those living under a rock in 2021, the big story in the past month is that 10-year Treasury yield have climbed by 50 bps in a month to 1.5% (technically as high as 1.61% for a few brief seconds on Thursday after the catastrophic 7Y auction triggered stop loss selling) as real rates jumped following a steady increase in inflation expectations (breakevens), which however are largely set by 10Y TIPS whose price is determined largely by the Fed due to its massive ongoing monetization of TIPS (thus crushing any actual signaling power TIPS may have). Whatever the cause, while rising breakeven inflation has driven most of the rise in yields during the past six months, the last two weeks have been characterized by a 40 bp jump in real yields.

    It’s this sudden spike in real yields as opposed to breakevens, that has sparked much of the fear in markets in the past week, because as Goldman’s David Kostin explains in his Sunday Start note, “conceptually, and historically, equities digest rising inflation expectations more easily than rising real yields” and not just rising real yields, but a rapid spike the likes of which were last observed during the taper tantrum as we discussed two weeks ago in “Yields Soar, Sending 30Y Real Rates Positive Amid Overheating Panic: What Happens Next“). In any case, as a result of the violent moves in the rates complex, it is hardly a surprise that Kostin writes “the recent backup in rates has sparked a new wave of client concern.”

    Here are the three things Goldman clients are most concerned about, as well as Goldman’s answer:

    • First, investors ask whether the level of rates is becoming a threat to equity valuations.

    Predictably, Goldman’s answer is an emphatic “no” with Kostin claiming (with a straight face) that “although the S&P 500 forward P/E multiple of 22x currently ranks in the 99th historical percentile since 1976, ranking only behind the peak of the Tech Bubble in 2000, our dividend discount model (DDM) implies an equity risk premium (ERP) that ranks in the 28th percentile, 70 bp above the historical average.” In other words, massively, record stretched PE multiples won’t collapse if rates rise. Yeah, right. May want to Timestamp that David. We’ll check back in a few weeks. So what would cause a market crash according to Goldman’s head market cheerleader? Well, according to Kostin, “keeping the current P/E constant, the 10-year yield would have to reach 2.1% to bring the yield gap to the historical median of 250 bp. If instead the yield gap remains unchanged, and rates rise to 2.0%, then the P/E multiple would fall by 10% to 20x.” But don’t worry, Kostin adds, because “in today’s economic environment, our macro model suggests the ERP should be narrower than average.” Translation: yes, a 10% drop is coming but our models say it may not come, so just keep buying.

    • Second, Goldman’s bullish US equity view has already embedded expectations of rising interest rates.

    Addressing the second most regular pushback against its bizarre optimism, Goldman says that an environment of accelerating economic growth (and recall that recently Goldman found that the US Economy is Growing At the Fastest Pace On Record), and higher bond yields is consistent with the bank’s forecast that S&P 500 EPS in 2021 will grow by 27% and be 10% higher than pre-pandemic 2019, driving a 14% rise this year to our year-end price target of 4300 despite a flat P/E multiple. In other words, multiples may indeed contract but the rise in earnings – a result of economic growth – will offset much if not all of the move. Furthermore, the forward market implies that 10-year nominal yields will climb 25 bp further to 1.7% – below Goldman’s 2.1% redline – and real yields will climb by a similar amount to from -0.7% to -0.4% by year-end.

    • Third, even Kostin is forced to concede that the recent change in yields has reached a magnitude that is usually a headwind for stocks.

    As the Goldman strategist concedes, equities have generated an average return of nearly +1% per month, but the return has averaged -1% during months when nominal rates rose by more than two standard deviations and -5% when real yields rose by that amount. Today, a two standard deviation monthly rise in 10-year rates equates to 40 bp for nominal yields and 30 bp for real yields, both thresholds exceeded this week.

    Of course, it’s not just absolute levels across risk that are impacted by rates: Kostin also notes that “shifting interest rates have major implications for rotations within the equity market, a dynamic made clear in recent weeks.” In mid-2020, Kostin’s equity valuation model showed that equity duration –the expectations of earnings growth far in the future –had become a more important contributor to multiples than ever before. One key reason for the importance that investors ascribed to expected future growth was the extremely low level of interest rates. As rates have risen, the contribution of equity duration to stock valuations has declined while near-term growth profiles have become more important. Practically, this means that both the improving growth outlook and rising rates have supported the outperformance of cyclicals and value stocks relative to stocks with the highest long-term growth. Hardly surprising, in recent weeks Goldman’s S&P 500 Growth factor has declined by 9%, similar to the 12% decline around the announcement of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine efficacy in November

    Which brings us to the one sector most at risk from the continued risk in yields.

    As Kostin writes, “this rotation has also weighed on one of the most spectacular outperformers of the last 12 months: Stocks with negative earnings but strong expected growth.” One of the most remarkable moves of the past year is that a basket of non-profitable tech stocks soared by 204% last year and 27% in the first six weeks of 2021… before falling by 15% in last two weeks. The decline of these high-growth firms has been particularly painful given the current record degree of leverage carried by hedge funds and the elevated activity of retail traders, both of whom have recently favored some of these long-duration stocks.

    To be sure, while earnings for S&P 500 firms declined by 13% in 2020, the fall in aggregate profits does not capture the wide dispersion in operating results that occurred inside the market. While 2020 EPS growth was negative for the overall index and the median stock, the actual level of profits was positive… But not for every company.  In fact, 1082 firms or 37% of the constituents in the Russell 3000 posted negative net income in 2020 (i.e., a loss or negative EPS), and 21% posted negative EBITDA.

    Getting even more granular (and apologizing to George Orwell), Kostin then notes that all companies with losses are equal, but some are more equal than others. Some firms reported negative earnings in 2020 because the pandemic and economic shutdown disrupted their business and crushed their revenues. But in other instances, the Goldman strategist points out that “companies grew sales so rapidly that top-line was the focus of investors and bottom-line losses were ignored.” Indeed, consider that across all non-Financial US stocks with at least $50 million in revenues, “those with negative earnings and declining revenues in 2020 returned a median of -18% last year. In contrast, stocks with negative earnings and growing revenues returned +51%.”

    Recently, however, improving economic growth prospects from vaccination rollout and pending fiscal stimulus coupled with rising rates have moved firms that struggled most in 2020 into pole position so far in 2021. The cyclical and virus-affected firms with negative earnings and falling sales in 2020 have generated a median YTD return of +22%, outperforming the +10% return of the median stock that posted a loss but grew sales last year. Unsurprisingly, these cyclical stocks have been positively correlated with both nominal and real interest rates. In contrast, the ultra long-duration stocks have been negatively correlated with interest rates given they generate no earnings today and their valuations depend entirely on future growth prospects. Cyclicals also carry far lower valuations, with a median EV/2022 sales ratio of 2x vs. 6x for the median negative earner with positive sales growth.

    Putting it all together, Kostin concludes that “looking forward, investors must balance the appeal of promising businesses with the risk that rates rise further and the recent rotation continues.” The list of non-profitable companies that makes up GOldman’s Non-Profitable Tech basket is shown below:

    And although secular growth stocks may remain the most appealing investments on a long-term horizon, Goldman believes that those stocks will underperform more cyclical firms in the short-term if economic acceleration and inflation continue to lift interest rates. 

    Which brings us to the other side of the table: the chart below shows the Russell 1000 firms from each sector with the shortest implied equity durations that have outperformed sector peers during the past two weeks as rates rose and are expected to grow revenues in 2021. The median stock trades at a P/E ratio of 19x and has returned 7% YTD compared with 22x and 2% for the Russell 1000 median.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 20:30

  • Futures Soar, Yields Plunge After RBA Panics And Buys Double The Amount Of Bonds In Daily QE
    Futures Soar, Yields Plunge After RBA Panics And Buys Double The Amount Of Bonds In Daily QE

    On Thursday we reported that just three weeks after Australia’s central bank announced on Feb 1 an extension to its QE program by a further A$100 billion (when it also said it doesn’t expect to increase interest rates until 2024) in the pursuit of the central bank’s yield curve control (as a reminder Governor Philip Lowe had previously set the three-year yield target at 0.10%) that same day the RBA purchased a whopping (for Australia) A$3BN in three-year government bonds in the secondary market on Thursday – triple the amount it bought on Monday and the most since the bond market turbulence during the COVID-19 panic last March.

    Unfortunately, the RBA’s scramble to preserve both the Yield Curve Control target of 0.10% on the 3Y, and its credibility, fell short as “only” A$3BN proved insufficient and 3Y Australian bond rose to 0.13%, 3bps above the maximum YCC barrier (and the highest since December) which is why we said “Australia’s Yield Curve Control Is On The Verge Of Collapse.“

    So fast forward to Monday morning when after the latest round of fireworks, the Aussie 10Y had blown out to 1.92% and threatened to unravel the local bond market.That’s when the RBA officially panicked, and took emergency steps to show markets who’s boss, by announcing an even bigger increase in bond purchases, aimed at the longer-term debt and in hopes of keeping the YCC dream alive.

    Specifically, the RBA said it is buying A$4BN of longer-dated bonds, twice the usual amount. This was the first time since officials introduced the debt purchase program Nov. 3 that they bought more than the planned amount outlined by Governor Lowe, and follows the bank’s unscheduled A$3 billion bond purchase operation Friday to defend its three-year yield target, which however also failed to stabilize the rout.

    In kneejerk response, 10Y Aussie yields – which we already down for the day – tumbled much as 32bps.

    At the same time, amid expectations of even more coordinated central bank intervention, treasury futures were rising, with the 10Y yield down to 1.38% after hitting 1.61% on Thursday…

    … and the closely watched 5Y yield tumbling…

    … along with sliding yields in New Zealand and Japan. 

    And with the rout in bonds now seemingly under control, risk assets were heavily bid with Nasdaq futures up 1% in early trading…

    … and with stocks seemingly set for a sharp reversal to Friday’s rout and preparing to blast off in Monday’s session.

    Or, as BofA CIO Michael Hartnett is so fond of saying, “markets stop panicking when policy makers panic.”  As a reminder, Fed Chair Powell and several other U.S. central bankers are scheduled to speak this week, while the RBA has its monthly meeting tomorrow. And with BofA expecting the Fed to address markets “as soon as this week“, there is no telling how high stocks can soar in the coming days as central bank panic goes to 11…

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 19:55

  • Marcus Mauling: Head Of Goldman's Consumer Bank Leaving For Walmart
    Marcus Mauling: Head Of Goldman’s Consumer Bank Leaving For Walmart

    Back in 2015, when Goldman stunned Wall Street with the taxpayer-backed hedge fund’s decision to roll out a consumer-facing commercial bank – Marcus – which offered “high yield” deposit accounts (of 1.25%) and consumer loans, at least Goldman had rising rates to fall back on: after all that was a period when Janet Yellen had decided that it was time to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet and proceed with hiking rates, waking the infamous “ghost of 1937” (and culminating with the minicrash of 2018, and eventually the biggest liquidity injection of all time in March 2020).

    In any case, rising rates made it easier to sell a consumer-facing commercial bank to Goldman investors. Yes, the revenue stream would be limited (after all Goldman would have to steal market share from such established banks as JPM, BofA, Citi and Wells), but if rates rose enough the Net Interest Margin would provide for a generally risk-free source of income.

    All that ended last March when the Fed made it clear that ZIRP would be with us for years, and instead of an asset, any net interest margin exposure became a liability (especially when accounting for a potential surge in bad loans once the forebearance moratorium ends), and suddenly Goldman’s Marcus doesn’t look like such a hot idea.

    It also explains why Bloomberg reports this morning that Omer Ismail, the head of Goldman’s consumer bank, has made a “surprise exit” and is headed for WalMart as the retail giant muscles into the banking business.

    The world’s largest retailer made a splash last month after disclosing plans to offer financial services with an independent venture in a tie-up with investment firm Ribbit Capital without offering much detail. And now, it has sent shockwaves with the decision to poach Goldman’s top consumer bankers: in addition to Ismail, Bloomberg reports that Walmart is also hiring David Stark, one of his top lieutenants at Goldman, who will join him in the new venture.

    Walmart’s move, which deprives a top Wall Street firm of the talent atop its own foray into online banking, “underscores the seriousness of the retailer’s intent to intertwine itself in the financial lives of its customers.”

    The audacious poaching punctuates years of warnings by bank leaders that their industry faces tough new challengers, after regulators smoothed the way for corporate giants and Silicon Valley to expand into payments and other services

    Ismail is credited as one of the key architects behind Goldman’s push into Main Street, seeing through the growth of Marcus into a billion-dollar business in five years. But, as noted above, in a time of ZIRP (and perhaps NIRP), the allure of a fintech commercial bank rollout has faded.

    The departures are a setback for Goldman, which had just entrusted Ismail and Stark with bigger roles. Ismail formally assumed control of the consumer bank at the start of the year. But he’s been tied to it ever since Goldman’s merchant bank set up the side project several years ago.

    As part of Goldman’s attempt to expand beyond its traditional investment bank strengths, Ismail helped formulate the plan for Marcus – the biggest strategy refresh the firm has seen in three decades. The company ultimately resolved to make itself a serious force in digital banking.

    Meanwhile, stark played a key role in Goldman’s partnership with Apple on a credit card, for which the bank provides the financial backbone. Weeks ago, Goldman named Stark as the head of large partnerships, which was supposed to serve as a key peg for Marcus’s growth, which had recently struck deals with Amazon, JetBlue and – yes – even Walmart. However, Walmart appears to have decided to go it alone and rollout its own fintech division, offering customers low-cost products by avoiding physical branches, and instead using online portals or phones to provide loans, savings accounts or investment options.

    Walmart said in January it aims to combine its “retail knowledge and scale with Ribbit’s fintech expertise” to serve shoppers and associates. Walmart will own a majority of the new venture, but in Ribbit, it has a partner that’s made big bets in the fintech space including backing Robinhood, the scandalous brokerage which sells its retail orderflow to the likes of Citadel.

    As for Goldman, in a world where its “high-yield” savings account is now just a paltry 0.50%, the bank may find significant challenges as it hopes to poach clients away from existing commercial bank relationships.

    Making matters worse for Goldman, it is about to see even greater competition: in December, the FDIC approved a final rule governing so-called industrial loan companies that would make it easier for major businesses to seek banking charters while escaping capital and liquidity demands faced by dedicated financial firms. That’s a worrying prospect for banks facing the risk of going up against against corporate behemoths that could lean on their huge customer base to eat into the banking wallet.

    Ismail’s predecessor Harit Talwar is still a chairman at Marcus and will probably continue to play a key role with the division after Ismail’s exit. The unit also hired a former Stripe executive Swati Bhatia as the head of its direct-to-consumer business earlier this month. After the departure of Ismail and Stark, his tenure at Goldman may prove to be extremely short-lived.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 19:40

  • Hedge Fund CIO: "The Fed Will Never Again Cause A Market Collapse: The Next Crash Catalyst Will Be Trivial, Stupid"
    Hedge Fund CIO: “The Fed Will Never Again Cause A Market Collapse: The Next Crash Catalyst Will Be Trivial, Stupid”

    By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “My beloved dogs Koji and Gustav were taken in Hollywood two nights ago,” tweeted Lady Gaga, the nation reverting to normal, images of the capitol insurrection, the horned Shaman, receding into the depths of our collective humiliation.

    “I will pay $500,000 for their safe return,” offered Gaga, no questions asked, returning America to a more innocent time of price inflation and armed dog snatchings. Apparently, these things are on the rise after a year of lonely lockdowns.

    You see, handing out cash is rather easy, but you can’t print puppies. So their price quite naturally jumped. And for all the focus on the rising price of long-duration assets in a world of perpetually low interest rates, the market for adorably-ugly French bulldogs has been in a low growl. The imbalance rising, a Minsky moment approaching.

    So no sooner had Gaga’s heroic dogwalker taken a bullet to the chest in defense of her pugnacious short-duration assets, then US real rates began a dramatic rise. “The economic recovery remains uneven and far from complete, and the path ahead is highly uncertain,” said Fed Chairman Powell in a policy panic. “There is a long way to go,” he added, attempting to calm fears that rates will rise even slightly.

    After all, risks to the economy of an abrupt rise in rates has never been higher with a government budget deficit of 15% for the 2nd year running, debt and leverage at historic highs, and global asset prices having largely adjusted to the lowest interest rates in human history.

    Back in 1994, Greenspan hiked rates without preparing the market. Bonds crashed.

    Then in 2013, Bernanke suggested he would taper QE purchases. Bonds had a tantrum.

    But after decades of monetary manipulations, it is no longer Fed chairmen who markets should fear – they will never again knowingly cause a collapse. The next great catalyst, when it comes, will be against the backdrop of an accommodative Fed. It’ll be seemingly trivial, stupid. Obscure. Franz Ferdinand. French bulldogs.

    Temples

    “Daily bond returns were 32% correlated with equities in Feb,” said Indiana, our industry’s leading archaeologist, explorer. “This is an asset class with a 2% aggregate return expectation,” he said. “Nobody is holding bonds hoping for something special. They want surety of capital with the aim of buying cheap stuff when asset prices decline,” he said. “That bond aggregate was down more than 2% at its worst point in the month. Bonds no longer work. Not the end of the world. But it illustrates the problem – portfolios are commonly geared.”
     
    “Credit performance is terrible,” continued Indiana. “LQD is down more than 4% YTD with spreads barely moving.” Credit is funded through capital markets, not banks. “The weakest LatAm links saw a surge in local rates. Brazilian markets imply rate hikes to 9% through the end of 2023, when the Fed is supposedly on hold. That’s a long way from the current 2% rate,” he said. “It is all one trade. Art. Watches. Antique cars. Houses. Bonds. Equities.” Valuations surged in everything. “An orderly unwind means policy must be prepared to let assets become cheap at some point. The rise in bond yields cannot happen in a vacuum.”
     
    “The Fed is being tested,” said Indiana. “Dec 2023 OIS futures now price almost two hikes versus zero for the Fed dots.” This happened with 5yr5yr inflation breakeven spreads down 15bps in Feb and 5yr5yr real yields surging 51bps. “Fed economic types will say the yield rise is good news, reflecting a stronger economy.” The new framework types (Brainard biggest champion) argue that hidden unemployment is rife. “14mm Americans are collecting Federal relief programs that didn’t exist pre-pandemic, a massive number.”
     
    “When terms like ‘full range of tools’ are used by the Fed in various settings, I pay attention,’ said Indiana. “Went back to Clarida Feb 2019. Brainard Feb 2020. There are three tools – forward guidance (exhausted), negative policy rates (unanimous distaste at FOMC), and yield curve control (studied for more than a year now).” So the ‘full range of tools’ is really just yield curve targeting now. “Foreign ownership of treasuries is the blind spot for YCC. Rough numbers – foreigners own $7trln (official institutions are $4trln), Fed owns $7trln (including agency mortgages). YCC can accelerate foreign rebalancing away from US treasuries, weakening the dollar, boosting real asset purchases, or both.”
     
    “Guess what didn’t move in Feb? China,” he emphasized. “China’s bond market was up a bit on the month and the exchange rate was down a bit,” he said, pausing for the obvious conclusion. “The world is hunting for a new safe-haven and the number-crunching is pointing them to Chinese bonds.” The exchange rate may not be the main act of this play. “China is relaxing outflows, moving up the value curve. Their buying of foreign companies paused in the pandemic, and it is heating up again. That’s the story.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 19:15

  • "Stick To What You're Good At" – Global Soccer Superstar Slams LeBron's Political Pandering
    “Stick To What You’re Good At” – Global Soccer Superstar Slams LeBron’s Political Pandering

    Clash of the egotistical titans…

    Global soccer star Zlatan Ibrahimovic has a great deal of respect for the basketball skills of LeBron James, but wishes the Los Angeles Lakers star would refrain from remarking on political concerns.

    The historically outspoken Ibrahimovic, who’s a striker at A.C. Milan, spoke to UEFA and Discovery+ Sweden to express his opinion that athletes in general should shy away from delving into issues involving politics and cited James as an example.

    “He’s phenomenal, but I don’t like when people with a ‘status’ speak about politics. Do what you’re good doing,” Ibrahimovic said.

    “I play football because I’m the best playing football, I’m no politician. If I’d been a politician, I would be doing politics. This is the first mistake famous people do when they become famous: for me it is better to avoid certain topics and do what you’re good doing, otherwise you risk doing something wrongly.”

    Following Zlatan’s comments, LeBron wasn’t too pleased that someone dared to call him out and fired back Friday night, according to ESPN:

    “I would never shut up about things that are wrong. I preach about my people, and I preach about equality.

    Social injustice. Racism. Systematic voter suppression. Things that go on in our community…

    So, there’s no way I would ever just stick to sports, because I understand how this platform and how powerful my voice is…

    I speak from a very educated mind, so I’m kind of the wrong guy to actually go at because I do my homework.”

    Watch LeBron’s response here…

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

    Daily Caller’s David Hookstead summed things up perfectly: “This is America. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but being able to score 30 points in an NBA game doesn’t make you an authority on politics.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 18:50

  • Financial False Hope, Part 1: "I Know You're Lying…But, I Trust You With My Life!"
    Financial False Hope, Part 1: “I Know You’re Lying…But, I Trust You With My Life!”

    Authored by Steve Penfield,

    Investing trust in the wrong people and policies can be ruinous. How much dishonesty does it take before the public stops putting blind faith in debt dealers, corporate crooks and the servile politicians who do their bidding? The widespread acceptance of ‘healthy’ inflation, monopoly patent rights, the ‘retirement’ trap and enslaving corporate ‘benefits’ would suggest we enjoy the abuse.

    Throughout modern history, a perpetual quest among leisurely aristocrats, the entourage of corporate titans and their political suitors has been solving the mysteries of how to get paid for doing nothing and how to look good while doing it. The various means developed over the centuries by our mainstream banking industry—wearing a princely costume, shifting papers around a desk, funding corporate dominance along with ruinous wars and welfare programs, then lounging in the comfort of an expansive corner office—have neatly satisfied both elements of that royal endeavor. Enslaving the public to endless financial servitude just adds an unfortunate side-effect of the primary mission.

    In America, that economic bondage presently amounts to over $80 trillion in public and private debt that thousands of businesses and millions of citizens cannot possibly pay off. Political banking privileges have also created about 4,000% real inflation (using historical government accounting methods) since the U.S. fully abandoned the gold standard in 1971—turning $100 of savings into a paltry $2.50 of original value. (From the 1790s to 1933 in America, various gold standards—poisoned with fractional credit creation—failed to prevent about a dozen major banking collapses that many still mischaracterize as emotional “panics.” But those somewhat fixed standards did provide resistance to systemic monetary debasement.)

    It almost goes without saying that high-striving politicians will stretch the facts when it serves their purposes—especially on financial matters. But only within the last three or four generations has a broad segment of the U.S. population accepted this gross economic abuse—along with many related cultural distortions—as unquestionable necessities.

    By this late stage in Western society’s unraveling, the falsehoods protecting the chicanery are almost too many to fathom. So for this essay I will focus on the most prominent fictions of the financial world and some associated fables that bankers eagerly sponsor.

    This essay will consider the claims of “good” inflation, the natural market tendency of deflation and the reality of money multiplying that few insiders dare to admit. It will likewise expand on the issue of bank counterfeiting and introduce a suggestion for broadening that “stimulating” privilege to the rest of us. The false sense of security of trying to “regulate” corrupt banking activity will get some overdue attention. Along the way, I’ll briefly address some problems of monopoly patent “rights,” since easy bank money funds this corporate welfare racket that hurts actual innovators (noting once again, our mainstream media’s refusal to do their job on this important topic as well). Then I will venture into uncharted waters of critically reviewing the popular new traditions of relying on corporate “benefits” in lieu of intact families and financial interdependence, along with the practice of quitting your job and handing your life’s savings to empty bank vaults and Wall Street gamblers.

    A condensed table of contents for the section headings of this essay is provided below.

    Part 1

    • A Few Experts with Something Useful to Say

    • Money Multipliers and Empty Banks

    • A Minor Fib on the Fed’s Virtual ‘Printing Press’

    • Of Course, the Feds are Lying about Unemployment

    • Five Sections on Inflationary Myths

    • Sidebar on Monopoly Patents: More Corporate Welfare that Everyone Loves

    Part 2

    • False Sense of Security: Trying to ‘Regulate’ Corrupt Banking Activity

    • Four Sections on Retirement

    • Corporate ‘Benefits’

    • Monetary Monotheism

    • Conclusion and Post Script

    In researching and writing this three-part financial series, I frequently sat in amazement of the dismal state of economic understanding in America today. If our media did any honest reporting or our schools provided any challenging education, more people would already know just about everything to be discussed herein—as most of it is fairly easy to comprehend. But based upon our runaway debt, inflation and other catastrophic economic failures, that doesn’t seem to be the case. And it doesn’t appear to be an accident.

    Catering to the desires of our insular financial, corporate and political classes, a subsidized clique of mass media and institutional soothsayers would have us believe that the system is not rotten to the core. Their false narrative maintains that private bankers did not conjure any of the roughly $80 trillion in total outstanding U.S. credit from thin air—debt that keeps the elites on top and the vast majority trapped in stagnation. The manufactured inflation that turned “penny candy” of 1913 into similar treats costing well over a dollar today gets whitewashed as either a conspiracy theory of “gold bugs” or a productive policy we need to extend indefinitely (or somehow both). The “thought leaders” of society proceed to insist that the historically and mathematically demonstrated “credit cycle” is actually a natural “business cycle” of the reckless marketplace, and that fiat “legal tender” mandates divinely write themselves, thus can never be unwritten.

    On top of that, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare (a side-effect of easy money and World War II wage controls) associated with joining a corporate insurance pool is sold as “benefits”—always “your benefits”—to falsely impute personal ownership where none exists. Quitting your job, forever, and relying on altruistic Washington benefactors gets the double honorific—repeated ad nauseum—of being both “social” and enhancing “security.” Monopoly patent privileges and other barriers to market competition (medical licensing, legal guilds, teachers’ unions) must never be questioned, because they too are “beneficial” for society, we are frequently told.

    Yes, there is quite of bit of mind-numbing disinformation to sort through in our daily attempt to carry on. While the general public seems to have an increasing awareness—thanks to the liberating nature of the internet—that something doesn’t quite make sense, all cylinders are not yet firing in any movement for economic progress that I’m aware of.

    Part of the problem is the unnecessary distractions tossed out regularly by professional political experts—almost all of them lacking financial independence and thus prone to pandering to their base. Liberal/socialist pundits assure us that “unregulated” private-sector activity (although extinct since at least the 1970s) is to blame for every social ill; just a few thousand more rules and a few trillion more dollars for new centralized programs and we’ll be safe from those lingering free-market barbarians. Conservative/liberty types insist that the Federal Reserve is the root of all financial evil; never mind the numerous devastating banking collapses that occurred before the Fed was created (such as 1784, 1792, 1796, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1893, 1896, 1901 and 1907) and also ignore the inflationary debasement inherent to fiat banking.

    Thanks to the empty nature of both partisan messages—and the many important gaps conveniently left out—politicized banking elites and fascistic corporate cartels have been corroding the social fabric of the West for centuries, with virtually zero effective opposition.

    No matter how much we may claim to recognize the dishonest nature of our ruling authorities and their clandestine corporate masters, we just can’t seem to stop obeying all their foolish and harmful temptations. (Two such deceptive enticements will be explored at length in this essay, breaking tradition with conventional norms of tossing raw meat to the audience. Like most Americans, I thankfully have a full-time job outside of writing. So while I welcome any interesting feedback… I don’t need your financial support.)

    In accordance with the title of this piece, considerable attention will be given to the many enduring myths that keep our financial system in its perpetual state of dysfunction. To offset part of that inevitable negativity and economic gloom, a few sections of more sensible and/or positive material have been included towards the beginning to start on a brighter note. These should also help dispel some of the false narratives I’ll be addressing later.

    A Few Experts with Something Useful to Say

    For a good overview on the economics profession, I’ll refer to a comment by RoatanBill in a previous article (not one of mine) published in April on this website:

    It all starts with Economics. Economics is a fraudulent profession. Economics can’t prove anything, economists can’t predict anything without another economist saying the opposite and economists can’t even come up with why past events happened with a consensus OPINION.

    In short, Economics is just BS OPINION spread around by people with degrees that shouldn’t exist. If you can’t PROVE something, then that ‘profession’ shouldn’t be able to hand out PhD’s. Having a PhD in an opinion is worthless to society and does real harm.

    On a more upbeat note, I’ll add one of the best educational offerings I’ve found on the topic of economics. This starts with the important concept of a bank balance sheet. (Over the years, I must have read well over 100 economic essays by familiar names and from critical “outsiders” that manage to bypass this crucial topic.)

    The example balance sheet below comes from an article written by Alasdair Macleod, a former stockbroker and banker who is now a Senior Fellow at the GoldMoney Foundation. I did some formatting to change his two tables into a single chart and added footnotes at the end to help explain some banking terminology. Mr. Macleod’s tables illustrate how modern banking activity results in “lending money into existence” as he aptly puts it.

    Example Bank Balance Sheet

     

    M.U. = Monetary Units. Above data and labels are from Alasdair Macleod, except for the “equity ratio” which is discussed in his article but not shown directly in his tables.

     

    Additional notes by Steve Penfield:

    Due from Banks = deposits from “my” bank into other banks to expedite future transfers.

    Interbank Loans = short-term loans “my” bank receives from other banks for daily balancing.

    Debt bonds are issued by banks and sold to investors (pension funds, etc.).

    *Another way to view “shareholders’ equity” is to consider it the principal deposit.

    His chart shows a true Balance Sheet to Equity Ratio with a proper focus on the money multiplier effect. Conversely, the politicized “reserve ratio” at the end of expansion would be 30 (cash) / 250 total = 12%, which passes the Fed’s historical 10% minimum (dropped to zero on March 26, 2020) for state-chartered banks, with federally chartered banks always allowed to hold less reserves. So under the existing labyrinth of federal regulation, the 12.5 money multiplier is perfectly legal.

    Understanding a bank balance sheet also helps us recognize the common myth that only the government can create money out of thin air. Prior to the financial collapse of 2008, the only significant instances where fiat currency emanated directly from the U.S. federal government were the political rebels in 1775 who issued paper Continentals to fund their war against England and Lincoln’s Greenback stunt of the 1860s to wage battle on the South. Other than that, fiat credit creation—with its inevitable boom/bust cycles—throughout American history has been overwhelmingly accomplished by private bankers.

    This manufactured boom/bust dynamic helps explain why the top 0.1% of Americans now own more wealth than the bottom 80%—an achievement suited for a banana republic led by a military dictator.

    Blaming the current wealth gap on the Fed (or worse yet, “capitalism” itself) is just a cop out from people trying to attract attention to themselves or with some ideological axe to grind. Let’s recall that J.P. Morgan (1837–1913) at the end of his life had officers sitting on “the boards of directors of 112 corporations” and as of 1921 Andrew Mellon (1855-1937) served “on the board of more than 150 corporations,” as noted in my first essay of this series. Not bad for a couple of money manipulators with no useful job skills. (Fed-bashers take note: Morgan died before the Federal Reserve was created.)

    For a more recent look at the riches of high finance, the ten largest banks in the U.S. have accumulated nearly $10 trillion in assets (as of December 2019)—mostly by loaning and investing “money” they never owned in the first place. Mostly by exploiting political privileges that ordinary people cannot access. Mostly from the safety of air-conditioned offices like these ones.

    Of course, banks also provide the vital function of facilitating millions of transactions every day—with their check clearing, ATMs and credit card processing. Legitimate bankers can continue to play this important role in keeping consumer interactions secure and liquid without their fiat counterfeiting privileges. But why settle for an honest living when you can get rich on legalized alchemy?

    Money Multipliers and Empty Banks: The Best Kept Secrets in the Financial Industry

    While lingering just a bit longer on the positive side of the ledger, here’s a couple more sensible economic experts with important things to say about some rather villainous activity. These crucial topics tend to get obscured by so much heavy breathing over the Fed, the ogre of “globalism” or just vague denunciations of the “vampire squids” of finance.

    It turns out, the very concept of the “money multiplier” that bankers have been using for centuries is so embarrassing to the financial industry that many simply deny it. Wikipedia provides a decent entry on the Money Multiplier concept, reflecting some of the controversy with their statement:

    Although the money multiplier concept is a traditional portrayal of fractional reserve banking, it has been criticized as being misleading. The Bank of England, Deutsche Bundesbank, and the Standard & Poor’s rating agency have issued refutations of the concept together with factual descriptions of banking operations.

    Legacy media, banking executives and their support staff at the Federal Reserve would much rather talk about “consumer protections” and “deposit insurance” from the minimal reserves they hold—or just prattle on about “stimulus” and “quantitative easing” to put people at ease.

    Better yet, the major banks like to run advertisements in corporate media showing smiling parents walking into a sparkling new house (after signing a 30-year mortgage) or a college loan recipient clutching their precious diploma (not a care in the world over the debt they just incurred). The financial services industry spent nearly $16 billion in 2019 just on digital advertising to advance such blissful narratives. The overall theme of most financial promotions (that professional newsmen are glad to embellish) is that smothering debt equals pure joy.

    Images of paid actors pretending to be happy homeowners and ecstatic college students in flowing graduation robes help distract from the shocking fact that as of December 2019, the FDIC reports a $110 billion insurance fund balance to cover $7.8 trillion in insured deposits—a paltry 1.4% reserve ratio.

    For sake of completeness, their footnote #3 by the word “Fund” deals with accounting methods before 2006, thus is irrelevant for current data.

    To the glaring obscenity of the naked emperors in Wall Street and Washington D.C. (as well as London, Paris, Berlin and other financial centers): their banks are all nearly empty.

    As in the classic children’s story about a similarly exposed monarch, legacy media and leashed academics just tag along for the parade, pretending that the banking imperials are adorned in the finest of fashions.

    Cutting to the heart of fiat credit creation, U.K. economics professor Richard Werner authored an essay in the International Review of Financial Analysis in 2016 that summarized various viewpoints on the “money multiplier,” with over two dozen prominent economists cited in lengthy excerpts. As commenter RoatanBill asserted, the professor’s essay confirms there is nothing close to a consensus within the pseudo-science of economics.

    Werner’s essay investigates the three competing theories on the central question: “How do banks operate and where does the money supply come from?” In his words, with his groupings of economists into their respective categories shown in [brackets]:

    1. The currently prevalent financial intermediation theory of banking says that banks collect deposits and then lend these out, just like other non-bank financial intermediaries. [J.M. Keynes, Ludwig von Mises, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman support this theory]

    2. The older fractional reserve theory of banking says that each individual bank is a financial intermediary without the power to create money, but the banking system collectively is able to create money through the process of ‘multiple deposit expansion’ (the ‘money multiplier’). [Friedrich von Hayek, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Samuelson support this theory]

    3. The credit creation theory of banking, predominant a century ago, does not consider banks as financial intermediaries that gather deposits to lend out, but instead argues that each individual bank creates credit and money newly when granting a bank loan.

    The latter theory prevailed until the mid-1930s when famed economist Irving Fisher offered mild approval to that concept—and the more flamboyant Keynes sneered contemptuously otherwise. More recently, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Basil Moore and Richard Werner ignored the academic scoffing and support the credit creation theory of banking, to which I would agree.

    The fact that this core question is still viewed as controversial—and not remotely settled—just reinforces how far backwards the entire field of economics has regressed since the 1930s political takeover of the U.S. economy. Since that era, fiat credit creation became a moral imperative that dare never be publicly admitted by the vast majority of professional economists, politicians and media spokesmen. In Werner’s carefully measured words:

    the economics profession has singularly failed over most of the past century to make any progress in terms of knowledge of the monetary system, and instead moved ever further away from the truth as already recognised by the credit creation theory well over a century ago.

    Adding to the confusion, among the more vocal critics of the credit creation theory was MIT professor and author of the most popular economics textbook since World War II, Paul Samuelson (1915–2009). In the 1948 first edition of Samuelson’s famous economics textbook, he went to great length to insist it was “impossible” for a single bank to create money through the lending process. However, Samuelson conceded (for his example 20% reserve scenario) that:

    the whole banking system can do what no one bank can do by itself. Bank money has been created 5 for 1…”

    Rather than dwell on which of the three monetary theories is most accurate, I’ll just reiterate that the author of the leading college economics textbook of the 20th century (with over 4 million copies sold according to Wikipedia) admitted that the “banking system” creates money out of thin air. However, I will also note the acrobatics that Samuelson and others employ to fully absolve any individual banker of guilt.

    It may be a sign of progress that the home of the conservative Fed-bashers, ZeroHedge, allowed a brief moment of clarity to invade their otherwise puerile platform of pro-banking mythology. Financial pundit Travis Kimmel explained in an August posting on inflation picked up by ZeroHedge (since moved behind their paywall) that:

    A dollar is ‘born’ when a loan is made against collateral on a bank’s balance sheet. Banks can issue multiples of dollars for every dollar of collateral they have. … As banks lend more, more dollars are created and the money supply increases. This multiplicative lending is the chief driver of total dollars in the system.

    Simple wisdom you will never find from a federal broadcaster shilling for corporate advertising dollars. So far, this isolated exception has apparently not been repeated in any conservative or libertarian publication that I can find. (Most liberal publications are too busy raging against “capitalist greed” to offer anything sensible on financial education. But that’s to be expected.)

    With the internet lowering barriers to communication as not seen since the early 1920s advent of commercial radio (nationalized in 1927), useful information is now increasingly available to any person willing to look for it. But entrenched members of state media, corporate cartels and public schooling still hold a firm grip on institutional power. Those forces continue to wield enormous sway over who may speak on coveted broadcast airwaves, who receives a platform among censorious tech utilities and who gets pushed to the sidelines.

    This vast influence further dictates who receives praise as trustworthy “experts” and who gets mocked and ridiculed with pejorative slurs and epithets to invalidate their message. In virtually every case, the “winners” favor arbitrary centralized power, while the “losers” do not.

    A Minor Fib on the Fed’s Virtual ‘Printing Press’

    To begin addressing the central “lying” theme of this essay, I’ll ease into it with a popular distortion that maintains a nugget of truth. When it comes to pointless diversions, it’s hard to beat the incessant right-wing and libertarian denouncements of the Fed’s legendary “printing press.” Anti-government extremists need a villain with the word “federal” in its title. And conservative demagogues have milked this trope for decades to sell their books and newsletters and to fill seats at weekend seminars (while not helping the public one bit).

    The “printing press” meme grossly oversimplifies what the Federal Reserve does and distracts from the rampant counterfeiting of private fiat credit bankers whom the official Right cannot stand to criticize. As for the alleged Fed “printing,” banks conjure loans to the U.S. Treasury to buy government bonds (i.e., “financing the national debt”). When governments get desperate to spend new money they don’t have—and don’t have the integrity for transparent payment via unpopular tax increases—the Federal Reserve buys these bonds back from the banks, freeing up the banks’ balance sheets to create more loans (possibly) or buy more government and corporate bonds (more likely) or simply award lush C-suite bonuses (also likely). The latter option is exemplified in this 2009 clip from the New York Times (credit to Armstrong Economics):

    The Fed’s convoluted money processing machine—problematic as it is—only amounted to a relatively small $4.2 trillion balance sheet at the end of 2019. (All of that was owned by opportunistic banks and other institutional investors, by the way. The Fed can’t “print,” or more accurately buy back government bonds, without eager bankers willing to finance that shell game.) Much worse than that, as of the same time period the banking industry had created a total of $75.5 trillion in government, corporate and household credit (same as debt). Whining about the dastardly Fed running its non-existent “printing press” isn’t just misleading, it reflects willful ignorance or intentional deception among right-wing and libertarian ideologues who apparently want private bankers to be free to fleece the public without any accountability.

    Financial writer Travis Kimmel again gets it right, noting: “the Fed ‘printer’ … only increases the collateral banks have to lend against. It does not directly ‘birth’ dollars, only *potential* dollars.” But his sensible voice is presently drowned out by anti-Fed fanatics.

    Of Course, the Feds are Lying about Unemployment

    Warming up for more serious economic fabrications, we have the ongoing underreporting of unemployment. I’ll keep this section short since it’s pretty obvious that a country of over 330 million people, with less than 164 million civilian workers, cannot possibly have an unemployment rate of under 4% as reported for all of 2019. As is now common, some creative accounting helps make our staggering economy seem vibrant.

    Since 1994, the BLS has achieved their bogus unemployment figures by omitting “discouraged workers” who have given up looking for work for more than one year. This army of the downcast has grown, thanks in part to the natural comforts of not working, and also the smorgasbord of entitlement offerings Americans can now choose from (financed mostly by debt).

    For more realistic unemployment estimates that include these long-term “discouraged” Americans, ShadowStats data put the average unemployment rate for Jan 2010 through Dec 2019 at a whopping 22.4% compared to the official BLS reported rate of 6.2% for that period. That is, the entire decade of the 2010s experienced Depression-era unemployment numbers.

    Even the figures from ShadowStats are generous, since they omit tens of millions of seniors who follow the tradition of permanently quitting work since the New Deal convinced them to get out of the way. Millions of college-aged students—lured into classrooms to memorize dogma while they accumulate debt—are also overlooked by employment bean-counters. Both groups were overwhelmingly part of the workforce in the 1930s.

    Moving on to a much bigger pack of prevarications, we have the intentional debasement of our mandatory “legal tender” known quixotically as “inflation.” Owing to the enormity of this collection of falsehoods, I’ve broken this topic into five subsections.

    Many Big Lies on Inflation

    • The myth that passive inflation ‘just happens’

    • The natural state of beneficial deflation

    • Inflation is much worse than the Feds are admitting

    • America in the 19th century: progress with no net inflation (refuting left/right extremism)

    • Why not inflation and counterfeiting for the masses?

    The myth that passive inflation ‘just happens’

    Any discussion of “inflation” needs to begin with an understanding of what it is. Here again, we see the spectacular success of the financial community to convince the public that inflation means rising prices. Bankers, government officials and their institutional supporters now openly espouse this risible nonsense. And it just so happens that—“oopsie”—the false definition of passive inflation conveniently masks the problem of active fiat counterfeiting. (Hat tip again to Caitlin Johnstone as cited in Part 1: this too seems to be “manipulation… not incompetence.”)

    Actually, for centuries inflation was understood to mean the intentional act of pumping more government currency or bank notes into the money supply, which then caused prices to rise. As recently as 1919, the Federal Reserve was basically admitting as much:

    Inflation is the process of making addition to currencies not based on a commensurate increase in the production of goods. [as quoted in “On the Origin and Evolution of the Word Inflation,” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 1997]

    That same year just over a century ago, Cambridge economist J.M. Keynes was openly denouncing the “process of inflation [by which] governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” He added “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency”(longer quote available at Wikipedia). By 1936, Keynes’s influential book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, as reviewed in my last essay, would contain no such criticism of this powerful tool.

    Within a few generations of that semi-lucid 1919 Fed statement and the young Keynesian critique, our educational and media gatekeepers had debauched the language to make “inflation” into a passive result of unruly “market forces” that need to be tamed by wise central policy makers. (For a third piece of supporting evidence, the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary definition of “inflation” also focused on expansion or increase of currency, with no mention of resulting prices, as Peter Schiff recently pointed out.)

    When government officials now boast of their “efforts to curb inflation,” they are deflecting attention away from their own misdeeds and the mischief of their financial overlords.

    Inflationary raids on public money are nothing new, of course. When Roman emperors became aware they could issue more currency by mixing in cheap copper or iron in their valuable gold or silver coins, this was an early form of monetary inflation that we now call debasement. Economist Martin Armstrong provides a useful chart of the Collapse of the Roman Silver Monetary System from 280 B.C. to 518 A.D. that depicts this process. His chart reflects the centuries of relative monetary stability until a “waterfall event” around 250 A.D., when silver content of coins was reduced about 90%. Silver content of the Roman denarius stabilized again (to some extent) for about two centuries at the new debased levels, then finally collapsed entirely in the early 500s A.D., ushering in five or six dreadful centuries of public squalor we know as the Dark Ages.

    Prior to the ultimate collapse of the Roman denarius, as more and more worthless coins flooded the markets (allowing emperors to pay for wars and “bread and circus” social programs) prices of common goods also increased. But this didn’t mean the food and clothing of the era was more valuable or that people were getting richer. It meant that people had an abundance of cheap money they were willing to part with in exchange for real stuff— as we see today with skyrocketing prices for college and medical care and major cost increases for land, housing, automobiles and other essential items. And none of this is accidental.

    The natural state of beneficial deflation

    Whereas inflation enriches those first in line for the debased currency (fiat bankers, corporations and bloated bureaucracies), deflating prices inherently benefit consumers or those who save and invest their own money. Nevertheless, for all the talk of “democracy” helping the little guy, you’d be hard pressed to find any public figure saying anything positive about deflation. The problem is that habitual debtors (farmers, corporations and our federal government) actually want—and beg for—constant inflation to make their debts less burdensome. Monetary or price deflation is economic poison to that unstable mindset.

    While few admit this, the Fed’s magical 2.0% inflation target has little to do with “taming market excesses” or “protecting consumers” and more to do with overcoming the natural pressures of deflation, all for the benefit of wealthy debtors. If economic progress means anything at all, decreasing consumer prices should almost always be the norm. That is, every year businesses find more efficient ways of providing their products or services. In an open and competitive marketplace with a stable currency, this leads to lower (not higher) prices.

    For instance, industrial efficiencies brought down the price of British steel from $80 a ton in 1873 to under $20 per ton in 1886, according to Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson. These innovations (particularly the Bessemer process) would be adopted by Andrew Carnegie to aid America’s booming economy at the time—causing a price drop in steel railroad rails from $100 per ton in 1873 to $50 two years later, then down to $18 per ton in the 1890s, according to the prior Wikipedia link.

    America’s automotive manufactures produced similar growth and consumer savings. Henry Ford’s Model T automobile “sold for $600 in 1912 but its price had fallen to $240 by the mid-1920s” as noted in Robert Murphy’s P.I. Guide, page 71. Over at General Motors, a “Chevrolet six-cylinder touring car cost $2,150 in 1912; an incomparably improved six-cylinder Chevrolet sedan cost $907 in 1942,” according to Hazlitt.

    Contrary to the notion that deflation will harm workers, Hazlitt points out that U.S. automotive employment increased from 140,000 in 1910 to 250,000 in 1920 and then 380,000 in 1930—all while car prices were declining.

    Market efficiencies have driven down costs of essential products from food and clothing to computers and long distance calls—once AT&T’s patent-fueled monopoly was finally broken up in the 1980s. Financial blogger Mike “Mish” Shedlock adds other logical defenses of deflation and the sensible observation that “The very essence of rising standard of living is more goods at lower prices thanks to innovation and rising productivity.” Yet in state media and subsidized education, the myth persists that rising prices are both natural and beneficial for the public.

    Inflation is much worse than the Feds are admitting

    As many economic observers in alternative media have asserted, official CPI data as tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) have been manipulated for decades to under-report inflation. The Chapwood Index helps provide useful background on why the BLS altered its own Consumer Price Index calculations in the 1980s, including this excerpt:

    prior to 1980 [the CPI] was accepted universally as an accurate measure of how the cost of living increased. Fast forward to 1983-1984, when the government realized that the cost of living was growing more than 12% – 13% per year. It was determined that if the cost of living were lower the government would save money.

    It turns out that the CPI has been around since the 18th century and it worked well when it “was a measure describing a basket of goods that defined the same items of goods applying the same weight during the same time period,” as Ed Butowsky of the Chapwood Index puts it. We could also call this using honest “weights and measures” or maybe just “responsible government.” But that’s not what we have today.

    The longstanding CPI calculation went haywire soon after Nixon took the U.S. off the international gold standard in 1971, to help finance the Vietnam War and also pay for LBJ’s lingering “war on poverty” that most of Washington was terrified to scale back.

    Official Consumer Price Index figures over the last two decades show average annual inflation at about 2.2%. Historically consistent (1980-based) CPI measures tracked by ShadowStats put average inflation from 2000 to present at 9.4%. This is a huge difference and also a major injustice.

    For a $20 trillion economy, causing a mere 2% net inflation steals at least $400 billion from consumers and savers each year. (That ignores natural deflation, which makes the issue even worse.) At 9% real inflation, the annual theft is more like $1.8 trillion—mostly going to rich bankers and Wall Street executives, as the system was designed. It also allows deficit spending for military adventures and social programs without unpopular tax increases or Congressional accountability.

    To put it mildly, politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, colleges, farmers, financial planners and public corporations all really LOVE inflation. They all enjoy the free lunch at someone else’s expense—namely those that don’t have a front row seat to the banking industry’s liquidity hydrant.

    For a graphical view of recent U.S. inflation, economics writer Charles Hugh Smith provides the useful chart:

    One common thread on the worst of the skyrocketing prices (college and medicine) is that the delivery systems are all politicized, with massive federal interference and mandatory state licensing cartels that minimize competition, intensify vanity and maximize cost. Home building and automotive manufacturing are also highly restricted by government rules, limiting market efficiencies and artificially raising costs in both cases.

    American banking in the 19th century: progress with no net inflation (refuting left/right extremism)

    Here’s an area of monetary history where Fed-bashers and Fed supporters both trip over themselves in differing ways on their missions to spin false narratives on inflation, resulting in the extremist myopia of choosing No Government or Totalitarian Socialism, no other options.

    First, to solely blame the Federal Reserve for today’s persistent inflation—implicitly pushing for no banking oversight whatsoever—is both foolhardy and disingenuous for multiple reasons. Besides the inherent fraud of fiat banking itself, one powerful evidence of “End the Fed” absurdity is that U.S. inflationary booms and busts were also rampant in the 19th century during periods when there was no central bank.

    Wikipedia’s entry on the “History of central banking in the United States” provides the chart below along with a description of the “free banking” era of 1837–1862:

    In this period, only state-chartered banks existed. They could issue bank notes against specie (gold and silver coins) and the states heavily regulated their own reserve requirements, interest rates for loans and deposits, the necessary capital ratio etc. …During the free banking era, the banks were short-lived compared to today’s commercial banks, with an average lifespan of five years. About half of the banks failed, and about a third of which went out of business because they could not redeem their notes.

    Wikipedia fails to mention that banks were free to issue bank notes many times the amount of actual gold and silver holdings—i.e., the enduring practice of counterfeiting. This careless “printing” of notes and loans caused the instability, as it does today in a more gradual fashion.

    Monetary Chaos of the ‘Free Banking’ Era

    The “free banking” credit sprees caused the wild up/down changes in the money supply and price levels, hurting consumers and wrecking thousands of businesses. Mere numbers on a chart don’t capture the suffering inflicted by such reckless banking behavior.

    On the other hand… Fed supporters cling to the notion that their beloved central bank is actually helping to curb inflation. This too is false.

    Before 1914 when the Federal Reserve came into existence, painful boom/bust credit cycles eventually leveled off to a relatively stable position—until the next cycle soon started up again. Subsequent maneuvering by the Fed and the U.S. Treasury over the last century (artificially suppressing interest rates, selling then buying Treasury bonds to and from banks, using bond proceeds for illicit government spending, creating the false sense of security with sham regulations and deposit insurance, etc.) just postpones a full correction—which will be excruciating.

    Since the Fed and the Treasury Department have jointly worked to prevent a proper recovery, the cumulative inflation using original Bureau of Labor Statistics methods (as tracked by ShadowStats) for 1913 through 2019 is about 16,000%, as detailed in my last essay. This means that anyone who saved a dollar back in 1913, if they were still living today, would now have under 1 penny of equivalent purchasing power. That’s an over 99% loss of value and evidence of incompetence on the part of federal politicians as well as proof of malevolence among their financial masters.

    Prior to the Fed’s creation, matters were much different. The federal agency that officially tracks inflation, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, even admits to an absence of *net* inflation during the 1800s, if you can sort through thousands of words of bureaucratic fluff. The BLS states:

    The limited price data from the 19th century also show no pattern of consistent inflation; indeed, evidence suggests that there was net deflation over the course of that century, with prices lower at the end than the beginning.

    I’ll note again, the above quote is from the federal government. The very same federal government now insists that persistent inflation is both normal and healthy. That informative BLS website also provides useful charts (their data, my descriptions) of what:

    1. A rapid market correction during a depression looks like…

    1. What a prolonged, politically “stimulated” non-correction looks like…

    In figure 1, we see a sharp deflationary correction during the 1920-21 depression following World War I. For the next eight years, Americans experienced “roaring” prosperity across all income brackets.

    In figure 2, we see the effects of massive “stimulus” spending and other market interference—precisely to avoid a deflationary correction that politicians and corporations fear. The result was more than a decade of economic squalor, business closings and high unemployment.

    Why not inflation and counterfeiting for the masses?

    At some point (probably reached long ago) all the data and history and charts and graphs stop having an impact on the public psyche and just fade into background noise. When businesses and politicians have a vested interest in believing nonsense—that fiat credit and inflation are somehow good for society—and diligently promote such gibberish, it becomes more practical to simply call their bluff.

    If credit creation, money multiplying and price inflation are all beneficial… then why not extend those privileges to the general public? (In a “well-regulated” manner, of course.)

    For instance, instead of the universal basic income that many liberals now advocate, we could just allow people in selected income ranges to periodically withdraw ten $20 bills (a responsible 10% equity stake) and add an extra zero in the corners, transforming each one into a $200 bill—a net gain of $180 for each note. Assuming roughly 200 million poor or middle-class U.S. adults, changing a stack of ten $20 bills into $2,000 would create $360 billion in new “credit” for each iteration.

    This new money would then be pumped into the economy—in accordance with reasonable guidelines on proper spending (e.g., not cigarettes, junk food or alcohol, etc.)—to “stimulate” business growth and hiring, thus paying for itself according to prevailing monetary theory. We could hold such Universal Credit events a few times a year to give working families a much-deserved “hand up, not a handout” as social welfare activists often say.

    Let’s remember that George Floyd was arrested and killed in Minneapolis for alleged “credit creation” involving a couple fiat $20 bills found in his possession. To commemorate this unnecessary loss of life—and enhance monetary equity—I propose that Universal Credit be established on currency designed in Mr. Floyd’s honor (with added markings left to public discretion):

    Under such a program, store owners would naturally be compelled by Legal Tender statutes to accept such $200 bills at face value. To maintain order, participants would just stop by the nearest Social Security or Food Stamp office and have trained Monetary Agents scan and record the serial numbers on the altered bills to prevent too much “bad” inflation, which skilled federal workers would watch out for. Many social problems from food insecurity to lack of affordable housing to schools without band instruments could be quickly solved or greatly diminished with such an influx of liquidity.

    Except, no one would fall for such an obvious display of monetary manipulation. A crucial feature of inflationary debasement has always been to obscure the damage to the greatest extent possible, in order to extend the process. After all, the #1 goal of any con-artist is not getting caught. For the last two decades, this has meant rigging the stats to pretend that 8 to 10% annual inflation is only 2 or 3%. Since long before that, inflationary graft has relied on a stable of academic cranks and pro-government journalists who adamantly insist inflation is good.

    My proposed program of Universal Credit faces an even greater obstacle, in that ruling elites don’t like their special privileges being shared with the masses. So inflation and counterfeiting “rights” are fiercely guarded by the powerful banking cartels with help from their agents in mass media and politics.

    *  *  *

    SIDEBAR: Monopoly Patents: More Corporate Welfare that Everyone Loves

    While on the topic of corporate banking privileges, another major form of corporate welfare worth considering is what politicians call the “patent system.” With so much misguided angst circulating about “globalism” and private-sector “greed”—and with commercial media usually shilling for corporate favoritism—I think it’s overdue to figure out how those evil “oligarchs” actually empower themselves.

    In the U.S., politicized corporate boards (seldom a real “innovator” in sight) rely on monopoly patent “rights” to protect their fiefdoms from open competition. I have never heard any member of the Official Right or the Official Left even meekly question this legal monopoly scheme—arguably the second most significant example of corporate welfare after fiat banking, and a strategy that requires international policing to even pretend to function. (Hence, the fierce hatred of China, which bucks the global patent cabal and dares to compete with Western industry.)

    In keeping with the old British practice of granting Royal monopoly charters to preferred members of society, aristocratic heads of the Industrial Revolution (that began around 1760 in England) succeeded in extending Royal privileges to legally block competition to protect manufacturing concepts they officially “patented.” Wealthy American Founding Fathers continued this tradition when they imposed their new national contract on the public in 1787.

    In America, this particular gift from the Founders of owning an idea—somewhat like their other Constitutional handiwork of “owning other people”—allows companies to hire patent lawyers to dress up applications to convince other federal lawyers that some idea is such a novel, unique and beneficial “flash of genius” that it deserves legal protection in federal courts.

    The 12,600 attorneys and support staff at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (and the cottage industry of private lawyers to help inventors navigate the process) do nothing to foster the innate creative desire of humans or to protect the “small inventor” from corporate vultures. Instead, such federal maneuvering allows corporations to claim absolute and exclusive “ownership” to the original ideas of their employees or competitors, and prevent them from starting new businesses.

    The fact that every “new” innovation is built on thousands, if not millions, of prior innovations should cast doubt on this murky field of juris probity. But corporate supporters insist all human progress will come to a screeching halt if Big Business ever loses its lucrative patent protections. Anything else, they cry, is just not fair!

    How well has this worked? Just great for well-financed corporations. Not so well for actual inventors. For example, the federal patent and copyright system has allowed Microsoft to clone ideas from true software innovators (Windows from Xerox, QDOS operating system, Lotus spreadsheets, Netscape internet browser) then bundle them with other monopoly products, get juiced up with Wall Street capital, surround themselves with a phalanx of patent attorneys, then crush the competition.

    Similar situations of corporate abuse include the notorious “current war” where Thomas Edison and General Electric used patent litigation to harass and copy alternating-current electrical developments from Nikola Tesla and Westinghouse, after failing to implement Edison’s less efficient direct current. Marconi radio stole radio transmitting technology from Tesla (Marconi got caught, then still was awarded a patent). The Radio Corporation of America filed and appealed bogus lawsuits starting in 1932 against television inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, ultimately succeeding in delaying TV’s development for over 15 years.

    More recently, the world witnessed the boom in fiber optics, cellular service and other telecommunications only after the stifling AT&T monopoly was broken by Reagan in the early 1980s. For most of the prior four generations, Ma Bell and her legions of corporate R&D minions were too busy looking for small inventors to rout and guarding their own strong “patent portfolio”—with 12,500 active patents as of 2016—to think beyond their starched white lab coats.

    No doubt thousands, perhaps millions, of other small inventors with less financial resources have been caught up in the buzz saw of royal monopoly charters that weaponize industry to the advantage of large corporations. A more detailed exploration of that abusive system of arbitrary justice will be left for another day. For now, suffice to say that any policy supported unanimously by both major parties in Washington along with apparently all voices in Legacy media deserves far greater scrutiny.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 18:25

  • CTAs Are Going "All-In" Oil
    CTAs Are Going “All-In” Oil

    Two weeks ago when the world was still transfixed by the rolling squeezes of the most shorted stocks triggered by the WallStreetBets subreddit, we reported that JPMorgan said to ignore the spectacle du jour in the illiquid, left-for-dead smallcaps, and instead focus on what was coming: a coming massive, marketwide squeeze as quant, momentum and other systematic investors soon start covering what is a historic short across the energy sector. Importantly, JPM also gave us the timing of said squeeze: early March.

    Fast forward to today when various funds have naturally frontrun what is expected to be a massive market move. Yes, the systematic short squeeze that JPM’s Kolanovic wrote about two weeks ago, has started and as Rabobank’s Ryan Fitzmaurice wrote, “the one-year rolling momentum signal for Brent flipped from bearish to bullish this week, effectively leaving systematic traders “all-in” with respect to their directional oil market bias.”

    For those unfamiliar with the energy squeeze thesis, first discussed two weeks ago, here are the key points made by Fitzmaurice, whose full note is excerpted below for those who are still unconvinced about the coming surge in commodities:

    • Investor dollars continued to pour into the popular broad-based commodity index ETFs this week with inflows of more than +450mm USD reported through Thursday

    • he closely followed IP week was held from Tuesday to Thursday and with that bullish oil sentiment increased markedly as tends to happen during these major industry events

    • Aggregate open interest is increasing in oil futures markets and the ICE Brent contract has even set a new record, further underpinning the oil rally

    Here is Fitzmaurice’s full Oil Market Outlook:

    CTAs going all-in: It was another impressive week in the oil patch with spot prices setting new multi-month highs, resulting in the one-year momentum signal for Brent turning positive for the first time in almost a year. This flip from bearish to bullish in the one-year momentum signal is quite important, to our minds, as it is a prominent trading signal used in the heavily momentum-driven CTA space.

    In fact, the flip in this important signal effectively leaves systematic traders directionally “all-in” as it relates to oil market exposure with all of the trend, momentum, and carry signals we track now firmly in the bullish camp. Of course, inflows into CTA funds or a drop in market volatility or even the US Dollar could lead to more oil buying from CTAs, but directionally speaking all major signals are now “long”, as we see it. On top of the CTA buying, passive flows into the broad-based commodity ETFs continued at a brisk pace this week, a dynamic we have been highlighting all year.

    In addition to this machine-driven trade, the strong oil price action has been helped along by a number of very bullish calls from  prominent investment banks and trading houses in recent days and weeks. Further to that end, the much followed IP week was held this past Tuesday to Thursday and with that the bullish oil sentiment increased markedly as tends to happen during these major industry events. These events can also provide a good backdrop for discretionary “longs” at trade houses and the like to lighten up positions and especially so this week given the strong momentum bid that was in the market. As such, it would not surprise if a change of ownership took place with discretionary “longs” taking profits while the machines buy, buy, buy.

    A surge in interest

    As we just highlighted, CTAs were likely big buyers of oil futures on the week thereby supporting the oil rally, but to our minds, they are effectively “all-in” now. Moving forward, perhaps the more important trend to watch is the substantial pick-up in money flows into broad-based commodity index products as that has the potential to attract “new” money into oil markets, a likely precursor to sustain the strong oil and commodity index rally. This is an area that has been dormant for a number of years due to poor performance of the alternative asset class and subsequent lack of interest from the investment community. In our view, this is all set to change in a big way as both retail and institutional investors turn to commodities for purposes of inflation hedges and hedges against a falling US dollar. In fact, we have already seen nearly 3 billion USD in year-to-date flows into the popular broad-based commodity index products and that is just in the ETF space.

    As we discussed in our last oil note, this is just a fraction of the true inflows as many institutional and high-net worth investors are also putting money to work in commodities but through more opaque means such as privately managed accounts. As we explained, the oil market has a substantial weighting in nearly all of the popular index products and, as such, is a big benefactor of these flows. This trend is also apparent in the aggregate futures open interest data for the benchmark crude oil contracts which is increasing back toward the 2018 high watermark.

    In fact, aggregate open interest has been steadily increasing in oil futures markets this year and the ICE Brent contract has even set a new record, further underpinning the oil rally. This surge in open interest is exactly what we witnessed during the last commodity super-cycle of the mid-2000s when commodity index investing was last popular. As such, a breakout in open interest figures will be a key factor in whether or not we are in the early stages of a new commodity super-cycle as some insist or simply just a short-term bull market. At the very least, increasing open interest is likely necessary for oil prices to maintain their recent upward momentum in the near-term, not to mention reach the high levels that some are calling for. The reason being is that there are not many speculative “shorts” left to cover, so further price appreciation will likely have to come from an increase in speculative “longs” bidding up oil prices, a scenario that could indeed unfold given the extremely loose monetary and fiscal conditions at play coupled with global stimulus checks.

    Looking Forward

    Looking forward, we remain of the view that oil prices are likely to dislocate from oil fundamentals this year should more “new” money continue to find its way into commodity markets. As such, we are closely monitoring trends in commodity index investing and aggregate open interest data in the oil futures market for signs of a breakout. On the flip side, oil fundamentals are still mixed, as we see it, and given the now consensus bullish oil view in the market coupled with short-term overbought signals, a modest near-term correction in prices would not surprise us in the least.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 18:00

  • Von Greyerz: Sisyphean Printing Will Kill The Dollar & Bonds
    Von Greyerz: Sisyphean Printing Will Kill The Dollar & Bonds

    Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

    Understanding four critical but simple puzzle pieces is all investors will need to take the flood that leads to fortune.

    Why then will the majority of investors still take the wrong current and lose their ventures?

    Well because investors feel more comfortable staying with the trend than anticipating change.

    Understanding these four puzzle pieces will not just avoid total wealth destruction but also create an opportunity of a lifetime.

    The next 5-10 years will involve the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Since most investors will hang on to the bubble markets in stocks and bonds, their wealth will be decimated.

    As Brutus said in Julius Caesar by Shakespeare:

    “There is a tide in the affairs of men,

    Which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.

    Omitted, all the voyage of their life

    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

    On such a full sea we are now afloat.

    And we must take the current when it serves.

    Or lose our ventures.”

    FOUR PUZZLE PIECES TO CLARITY

    So what are the four puzzle pieces that will lead to either fortune or misery.

    They are:

    1. Stocks

    2. Currencies

    3. Interest rates

    4. Commodities

    Just put these 4 pieces together and the conundrum of the direction of markets and the future of the world economy will be very clear.

    But sadly most investors will find it difficult to join up the 4 pieces.

    ETERNAL PRINTING

    Have governments and central banks conditioned investors to eternal happiness by their profligate policies?

    Yes, they most probably have. But happiness in this case is ephemeral and will end in “miseries”.

    Central banks are now caught in Sisyphean task of printing money to eternity.

    The more they print, the more they need to print. When Sisyphus came to Hades, his punishment was to roll a big rock up a hill. Once he got to the top, it rolled down and he had to roll it up again and again and again.

    And this is also the punishment that the Fed has received. As I pointed out in my article about the Swiss 16th century doctor Paracelsus, everything is poison, it is only a question of the dose. The US has for decades received a toxic overdose of “free” money and once hooked the only remedy is to continue to inject the poisoned patient (the US economy) with more of the same.

    On the one hand, the Fed can never voluntarily stop the printing as this would lead to instant collapse of stock markets, bond markets and the financial system.

    But on the other hand, the incessant printing also has consequences.

    It will destroy the dollar and it will destroy the treasury market and eventually lead to inflation and hyperinflation.

    Destroying the bond market means substantially higher interest rates which is something that neither the US nor the world can afford with $280 trillion of debt and rising fast.

    So there we have it. The US and the world have both their hands tied and whatever they do will have dire consequences for the world.

    So let’s come back to the 4 puzzle pieces which investors should have imprinted in their brain.

    PUZZLE PIECE 1: COMMODITIES

    Since Nixon closed the gold window 50 years ago, the world has experienced unprecedented credit growth and money printing.

    Gold backing of the currencies kept the central banks on a short leash, but since 1971 there has been a free for all monetary bonanza in the US and most of the world.

    Since 2006 the money creation has gone exponential.

    The pure definition of inflation is growth in money supply. But until recently, only asset classes such as stocks, bonds and property have seen major inflation. Normal consumer prices have officially only increased by marginal percentages even though most of us are experiencing much higher inflation than the official figures.

    But now commodity prices are warning us that inflation is here with a vengeance.

    For example, agricultural product inflation is up 50% since last May. This hasn’t yet reached consumer prices in a major way but it soon will.

    If we look at commodity prices in general, they are up 100% since the April 2020 bottom.

    And looking at commodity prices to stocks, we can see in the chart below that commodities are at a 50 year low with a massive upward potential which is an advance warning of a major inflationary period lurking.

    Most commodities will go up dramatically in price, including food and energy.

    GOLD – THE KING OF METALS

    Investors who have been reading my articles will know that the best investment for benefiting from inflation and simultaneously preserving wealth are precious metals stocks as well as physical gold, silver and platinum.

    Gold is the king of the precious metals and since it broke the Maginot Line at $1,350, it is now on its way to levels few can imagine. Any correction, like the current one should be taken as an opportunity to add more gold.

    Gold is today at historical lows in relation to money supply and at the same level as in 1970 when gold was $35 and in 2000 when gold was $290. See graph below.

    This means that the price of gold has far from reflected the massive creation of money in the last few decades. So that is still to come.

    PUZZLE PIECE 2: DOLLAR – CURRENCIES

    The accelerating deficits and debts in the US will continue to put downward pressure on the dollar.

    When I started my working life in Switzerland in 1969, $1 bought 4.30 Swiss francs. Today you get only 0.89 Swiss franc for $1. That is an 80% fall of the dollar against the Swiss. The next significant target is 0.5 Swiss franc for $1. That would be another 44% fall from here.

    Admittedly, the Swiss franc has been the strongest currency for over 50 years. But even if we look at the troubled EU, it has recently broken out against the dollar and looks very bullish.

    But we must remember that all the currencies are in a race to the bottom and there is no prize for being first.

    Just look at the gold against the dollar which has lost 85% since 2000.

    As I have pointed out many times, all currencies have lost 97-99% in real terms, against gold, and in the next few years, they will lose the remaining 1-3%.

    We need to understand that those final few percent fall means a 100% fall from today. And the demise of the current currency system as von Mises predicted.

    CURRENCIES DEMISE ARE DETERMINED THE DAY THEY ARE BORN

    The very nature of fiat currencies means that their demise is determined the day they are born. Since governments throughout history have destroyed every single currency, it is ludicrous to measure your wealth in a unit that is destined to become worthless.

    Remember that gold is the only money which has survived for 5,000 years.

    PUZZLE PIECE 3: INTEREST RATES

    Interest rates worldwide are at historical lows. In Switzerland for example, you can get a 15 year mortgage at 1.1%.

    It clearly sounds like the bargain of a lifetime. You can buy a house for 1 million Swiss franc and just pay 11,000 francs in interest. If you rented the same house, the annual rent would be 3x the interest. So there is a clear disconnect which is not sustainable.

    The emerging inflation will push interest rates up and we have already seen the 10 year US treasury rise from 0.39% in March 2020 to 1.34% today. Technical and cycle indicators confirm that the monthly closing bottom in July 2020 could have been the secular bottom.

    If that is correct, we have seen the end of the bear market in rates and bull market in treasuries since the Volker high at 16% in September 1981.

    There is nothing natural in this 40 year suppression of interest rates.

    When Volker became Chairman of the Fed in August 1979 the 10-year Treasury was 9% and he quickly hiked it to 16% in 1981. When Volker left in August 1987 the 10 year was back at 9%, the same level as when he took over 8 years earlier.

    GREENSPAN – GREENSPEAK & LOW RATES

    Then Greenspan entered the scene with a Fedspeak that nobody understood but both politicians and Wall Street actors loved his actions that spoke much clearer than his words. During his 13 year tenure, the 10 year halved from 9% to 4.5% in 2006.

    Every subsequent Chair after Greenspan only had one policy, accommodate more by endless printing and lower interest rates.

    And that is the 40 year saga of US 10 year treasury rates – from 16% in 1981 to 0.4% in 2020.

    PRINT UNTIL YOU ARE SKINT

    Clearly, the management of US rates seems more like desperation than policy.

    In a free and unmanipulated credit market, supply and demand would determine the cost of borrowing. As demand for money goes up, so will the cost of borrowing, thus reducing demand. And when there is little demand the cost goes down which stimulates borrowing.

    This would be the beauty of a free and unregulated credit market. Supply and demand for credit affects the cost of money and acts as a built in regulator.

    But Keynesian policies and MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) have done away with sound money.

    UMT (Unsound Monetary Theory) would be a more appropriate name for the current policies.

    Another suitable name would be Print Until You Are Skint!

    The current policy of low rates has two purposes.

    The first is to keep stock rising. Because high stocks gives the illusion of a strong economy and strong leadership. Thus it is the perfect tool to buy votes.

    Secondly, with a US debt of $28 trillion, free money is a matter of survival for the US. Imagine if rates were determined by supply and demand.

    Every president in this century setting a new record. Bush almost doubled US debt from $5.7 trillion to $10t over 8 years. Obama doubled it again from $10 to $ 20t and Trump set a new 4 year record with a $8 trillion increase.

    With debt going up exponentially, an appropriate market interest rate would be nearer 10% than the current short term rate of 0%.

    A 10% cost of the US debt of $28t would mean $2.8t which would virtually double the already disastrous US budget deficit.

    And if we take total US debt of $80 trillion, a 10% interest rate would cost the US $8t or 40% of GDP.

    So a colossal task here for the Fed to suppress rates against the natural market forces.
    In my view they will fail in the end – with dire consequences.

    It looks like Powell is going to be the first Chair of the Fed since Volker who will actually preside over rising rates although he will fight against it.

    The interest rate cycle has most probably bottomed. This will be a major shock to the market which forecasts low rates for years. Initially inflation will drive rates up. Thereafter a falling dollar will lead to yet higher rates. The panic phase will come as the dollar collapses, and debt markets default. That will lead to hyperinflation.

    PUZZLE PIECE 4: STOCKS

    Warren Buffett started in the investment business in 1956. The Dow was then 500 and has since gone up 63X. Since he started, Buffett has achieved an average annual return of 29.5% year on year.

    Clearly a remarkable record achieved over a 75 year period. It is very likely that Buffett and all stock market investors will see stocks not just fall but crash.

    BUFFETT INDICATOR – MASSIVE OVERVALUATION OF STOCKS

    Buffett’s own indicator of stock market value to GDP is now giving investors a very strong warning signal.

    The US market is now 228% to GDP. That is 88% above the long term trend line and substantially above the 1999-2000 valuation when the Nasdaq crashed by 80%.

    STOCKS TO ENTER AN AIR POCKET

    With an 88% overvaluation the Dow can enter a very big air pocket at any time.

    The Dow/Gold ratio is a very important measure of relative value between real money and stocks. This ratio peaked in 1999 and fell 89% to 2011. Since then we have seen a correction which finished in 2018. The next move in the ratio will reach 1 to 1 as in 1980 when the Dow was 850 and gold $850. Lower levels are likely thereafter.

    A 1 to 1 ratio in the Dow/Gold ratio would mean that the Dow will lose 94% from today against gold. That is a very realistic target. Remember that the Dow fell 90% on its own in 1929-32 and that it took 25 years to recover to the 1929 level. And on all accounts, the situation today is much more severe than in 1929.

    The secular bull market in stocks is very likely to finish in 2021. This turn could be at any time. Just like in 2000, it will all happen very quickly and this time it will be the start of a very long and vicious secular bear market.

    Real assets like gold, silver and platinum will be investors’ life insurance.

    To hang on to stocks and bonds will totally destroy your wealth and your health.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 17:35

  • 'Bad Optics': Pelosi's Office Reportedly Opposed National Guard On Capitol Grounds Leading Up To Riot
    ‘Bad Optics’: Pelosi’s Office Reportedly Opposed National Guard On Capitol Grounds Leading Up To Riot

    In the months leading up to the Capitol riot, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her office opposed having National Guard on Capitol Grounds due to “optics,” according to Tuesday comments reportedly made to House Admin by former Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, while making what he described as a “blender of decision making” before the inauguration.

    House Sergeant at Arms Paul D. Irving, right, and Chief Administrative Officer of the House Phil Kiko, testify during the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee hearing titled “House Officers FY2021 Budget, in the Capitol on Tuesday, March 3, 2020. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Three sources ‘with direct knowledge of Irving’s talk’ told the Daily Caller that the discussions came at a time when Democrats were against the deployment of federal resources to quell civil unrest.

    The discussion, if accurate, raises questions as to what role Pelosi’s office had in the security failures that resulted in the resignations of both Irving and former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund. Pelosi’s Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill did not deny the allegations in a statement to the Daily Caller. –Daily Caller

    “The Speaker’s Office has made it clear publicly and repeatedly that our office was not consulted or contacted concerning any request for the National Guard ahead of January 6th. That has been confirmed by former Sergeant at Arms Irving in sworn testimony before Senate committees. The Speaker expects security professionals to make security decisions and to briefed about those decisions,” said Hammill, adding “It is our understanding that Committee on House Administration Ranking Republican Member Davis was briefed in advance of January 6th about security preparedness, but took no action to address any security concerns that he might have had.”

    The Seargent at Arms is one of three officials with the power to vote on the Capitol Police Board, and is both chosen by, and takes direction from, the Speaker of the House.

    Irving testified that he first received a formal request from Sund to activate the National Guard after 2 pm on Jan. 6th. Additionally, when Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley asked if he had to run the request “up the chain of command,” Irving replied “no,” in testimony before a joint Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committee. 

    The New York Times previously reported that the Speaker’s office confirmed that the National Guard was approved around 1:43 pm. Sund said he sent a request for help from the National Guard to Irving around 1:09 p.m, according to CNN. Irving said he was contacted about the matter after 2:00 pm, Axios reported. Sources questioned how Irving got the request after 2 pm but Pelosi approved the request at 1:43 pm. –Daily Caller

    “If you believe Irving’s timeline that he testified under oath to, how could he ask for permission from the Speaker 20 minutes before he got the request?” said one Caller source. “Also if you believe his sworn testimony that he never had to run the request up the chain, why did the Speaker’s office confirm he did just that?”

    According to the Caller‘s third source, “Irving is covering for Pelosi. There’s no doubt.“

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 17:10

  • A PM Recalls How Steve Cohen Traded The Bursting Of The Tech Bubble
    A PM Recalls How Steve Cohen Traded The Bursting Of The Tech Bubble

    Submitted by DataTrek Research founder Nicholas Colas, former PM at SAC Capital

    Today we have a mashup of behavioral finance and anecdotes about trading stocks at SAC during the dot com bubble implosion. While there are many similarities between frothy tech stock markets now and back then, let’s remember that the 2000 – 2002 bear market was just as much about 9-11 and the run up to the Iraq War than the end of a speculative bubble. The common lesson then to now: manage risk like we are in the early stages of a Tech stock selloff. Until proven otherwise, we are.

    Our usual Story Time format typically centers on behavioral finance or market history but today we’ll combine the two and wrap them into some thoughts about current market psychology.

    Let’s start with the behavioral side and discuss “Attribution Substitution”. That happens when we are faced with a complex question and, rather than do the heavy analytical work to solve it, use simple shortcuts (heuristics) based on attributes of seemingly similar situations. Behavioral psychologists like Daniel Kahneman have been looking at this topic since the 1970s, and it is a bedrock idea in the field of behavioral finance.

    An example: in the last week I’ve seen two Tesla Model 3 NYC yellow cabs and one Uber on 57th Street in Manhattan. My immediate thought was “Tesla is a raging short” because whenever a car company goes into fleet sales you know organic demand is waning. That’s my heuristic from 30 years of experience covering the autos. I am substituting the “fleet sales are bad” attribution to the Tesla investment case in place of real analysis like asking taxi medallion owners if the company is offering them discounts or going to the company for an explanation.

    Shifting gears to markets, a really sharp DataTrek client recently emailed in an observation that dovetails with our theme today. Paraphrasing his thought: “why do we think of the Pandemic Recession as the start of a ‘new’ cycle rather than a glitch in an ongoing upcycle driven by ever-lower rates?”

    One answer – maybe THE answer – is that investors simply use heuristics like GDP growth/NBER dates, the dollar, and monetary/fiscal policy intervention as the markers for recession. A growth shock plus Fed and Federal stimulus means you reset the economic clock to midnight and begin counting out a new period of expansion. A few nights ago we mentioned the old portfolio manager sine wave model of cyclical investing where you buy Financials at the start of a cycle and Tech/Industrials at the end. That’s the melding of economic cycle “theory” and investing “practice”, but it is still based on substituting easy to find attributes for deeper analysis.

    An alternative narrative, and one very much in sync with recent market action, is that the “cycle” began not on March 23rd, 2020 with the market’s lows but in October 2020 when 10-year yields finally began to rise. That makes February 2021 distinctly “early cycle” because markets have to consider what happens as rates rise. How far will they go? How much inflation are fiscal and monetary policy going to create? Will, as we’ve been highlighting repeatedly, the Fed have to increase policy rates this year? Or will they need to “do a 1994” and take rates up by 50 basis points a meeting in 2022? Unless you were (like I, Nick) in the business in the 1990s you’ve never seen a 50 bp meeting. Trust me… They are not fun.

    Right or wrong, at least this narrative respects the idea that we can’t just count months and years from a market low or Fed policy shift as representative of a “cycle”.

    * * *

    Moving on to the sort of anecdote we often use, let’s talk about 2000 – 2002 because the bursting of the dot com bubble is another one of those heuristics people grab on to when facing complex investment decisions.

    I was at SAC Capital at the time working directly for Steve so my recollections of that highly stressful period in market history are as fresh as if they happened last year.

    A few thoughts from that experience that I think are especially relevant today:

    #1. Unwinding the Internet 1.0 bubble took a long, long time. It did not “burst”. It leaked air, month after month after month, for years. There were actually many days in 2000 when it looked like everything would be OK. But in your heart, you knew something had broken. The old saying that “you don’t need analysts because in a bull market they’re unnecessary and in a bear market they’ll kill you” was a common refrain in the room. Wall Street endlessly reiterated their Buy recommendations on speculative tech names, to no avail.

    Takeaway: remember that the S&P was only down 9 percent in 2000, and while the NASDAQ was off by 39 percent you were still up 15 percent from the start of 1999. There were plenty of opportunities to lighten up on tech names in 2000, and this was when I first heard the phrases “sell when you can, not when you have to” and “in a bear market the best sale is the first one”.

    #2: It wasn’t just a loss of investor confidence in tech valuations that made 2000 – 2002 the worst bear market since 1973 – 1974. The September 11th, 2001 terror attacks hit US consumer confidence, as did higher oil prices in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those dampened interest in funding cash-burning tech companies more than the first leg of the NASDAQ downdraft.

    Takeaway: take away the other negative market catalysts in 2001 – 2002 and the Internet 1.0 bubble might not have burst so spectacularly. We’re thinking a lot about that just now. While speculative tech names are clearly in for some pain, they may not vaporize the way the prior generation did in the early 2000s.

    #3: There’s plenty of money to be made in volatile bear markets, but you need to manage risk very aggressively. I sat next to an awesome trader in 2001 and every day was a master class in risk management. Anything that wasn’t working came off the pad quickly. Anything that was working got more capital. He wouldn’t add long exposure without an equally compelling short. When he scaled in and out of positions, he would keep his net exposure long or short exactly the same literally hour-by-hour. The stress was intense. I would often hear him muttering his mantra “I live the life I choose” repeatedly into the close. It wasn’t pretty, but it worked.

    Takeaway: there are enough imbalances in US equity markets which need sorting out that 2000 – 2002 is still a good heuristic for risk management even if we don’t get a really bad bear market. As we’ve been saying, a 10 percent correction is a reasonable base case right now given the 2010 Playbook. But our heuristic toolbox includes 1994’s rate cycle, and even if it’s just a shortcut to answer a complex problem the analogy is sound enough to bring it to your attention.

    Summing up with a final thought: while behavioral finance may portray heuristics like Attribution Substitution in a negative light, a big part of investing is understanding where capital will flow as a result of these very human mental shortcuts. All the chatter about bubbles (take our survey if you haven’t) and now suddenly higher long-term rates are pushing capital to the “old school company/cyclical recovery” heuristic. The first bit of that comes from what happened in 2000 – 2002. Non-tech companies outperformed. The second part is just the classic recovery heuristic.

    As Steve was fond of telling us in 2000 – 2002, “don’t make things harder than they have to be.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 16:45

  • Israel Strikes Syria "In Response To Iranian Attack" On Israeli Commercial Ship
    Israel Strikes Syria “In Response To Iranian Attack” On Israeli Commercial Ship

    Syrian state television is reporting new Israeli airstrikes against the capital of Damascus on Sunday. 

    SANA state news said that Syrian air defenses were active in response to an “Israeli aggression in the vicinity of Damascus” after explosions were heard above the capital, according to Reuters. The strike was reportedly near the international airport.

    While the Israeli military has yet to confirm or deny the airstrikes, which is typical of such attacks which have occurred almost on a weekly basis for much of the past year, Israeli public broadcasting is now saying it’s in “response” to the “Iranian attack on an Israeli ship near the Gulf of Oman this weekend.”

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

    It appears Israel is seeking to punish both Iran and Syria for Thursday’s incident in the Gulf of Oman.

    As we reported this weekend, Israel is blaming Iran for the Thursday blast in the Gulf of Oman wherein a cargo vessel owned by an Israeli businessman was hit by a ‘mystery’ explosion, forcing it to divert to the nearest port after sustaining severe damage.

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

    Defense Minister Benny Gantz had announced Saturday as part of an “initial assessment” that Tel Aviv believes Iran was behind a bomb attack on the car-carrier vessel, identified as the Helios Ray.

    Suspicion of Iran’s involvement has been rampant in Israeli media since the blast.

    Damage to the Israeli-owned cargo vessel Helios Ray…

    However, there’s yet to be definitive proof or evidence that either a state actor or terrorist elements were involved, much less any specific details released to the public. Regardless, Israel has acted apparently against ‘Iranian positions’ near Damascus. 

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

    “Iran is looking to hit Israeli infrastructure and Israeli citizens,” Defense Minister Benny Gantz had said in prior remarks, according to Reuters. “The location of the ship in relative close proximity to Iran raises the notion, the assessment, that it is the Iranians,” he said.

    Crucially this newest Israeli attack on Damascus comes just days after for the first time Biden ordered US airstrikes on supposed ‘Iranian positions’ in Syria’s east.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 02/28/2021 – 16:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 28

Today’s News 28th February 2021

  • Why The Capitol Riot Terrified The Elites
    Why The Capitol Riot Terrified The Elites

    Authored by James Ketler via The Mises Institute,

    These days, it sure looks like they have them right where they want them. Using the storming of the Capitol Building as a pretext, the media-government alliance has targeted Trump, his supporters, and their fellow travelers harder than ever before. Many on the right consider the January 6 storming to have been a dream come true for the leftist elite—giving them the ability to impeach Trump again, deplatform right-wingers, and weaponize the Justice Department against the establishment’s foes. Everything, though, may not be as it first seems. There’s no reason to be despondent or worry that the Left has sealed its ultimate victory—it has done no such thing. Rather, the storming, for what it’s worth, proved the power of ragtag populists and exposed the elite’s shaky foundations. There’s a reason they’re so terrified.

    What Happened?

    In political discourse, narratives are everything, so – quite predictably – there’s heated dispute over what actually happened on January 6. One pressing question is: How did the stormers manage to actually break into the Capitol—one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world? Cell phones and social media allowed civilian attendants to document the day’s events, which has made some details clearer and others a bit murkier. From freelance journalist Marcus DiPaola, one particularly bizarre video emerged which appeared to show Capitol Police willingly removing barricades to allow rioters inside the building complex. 

    In response to that footage, many leftists contend that the storming was an attempted “coup” and “inside job” planned by Republican politicians and Capitol Hill officials to reinstall Trump for a second term. Of course, that’s nothing more than baseless media drivel. Had it been an actual coup, the storming would have been far bloodier and better orchestrated, with rogue military units and politicians leading the charge—but nothing like that happened.

    On the other hand, after seeing the questionable footage, many right-wingers have alleged that the event was a “false flag” arranged by Antifa provocateurs to defame Trump and his supporters. To the credit of this theory, at least one far-left activist was arrested in connection with the storming. However, it’s not clear that Antifa had any role in drumming up the crowd’s furor; certainly, the antielitist spirit was strong enough on its own.

    Strange as the video was, there’s a third potential explanation, expounded by PolitiFact: “Many officers had to abandon their posts and barricades because they were far outnumbered and overwhelmed.” Marcus DiPaola, who shot the footage, floated the same explanation, as did former Capitol Police chief Terrance Gainer. The police’s limited manpower was no match for the immensity of the Trumpian mob, leaving the officers in fear for their own safety and their posts strategically indefensible. A panoply of additional on-the-ground footage reveals the brutish tactics many of the rioters used to gain access to the building. They openly ripped away barricades, scaled walls, broke windows and doors—and once inside, used their collective force to push back the officers who tried to “hold the line.” If nothing else, this shows, in physical terms, how frustrated the populist right has become with the federal establishment.

    As is true of most mass spontaneous action, the stormers seem to have had different reasons for doing what they did. Some may have hoped to interrupt the Senate’s session and pressure lawmakers into blocking some of Biden’s electoral votes. Others likely stormed the building as an act of antiestablishment desecration, whipped up by the rage of other rioters. Apparently, there was also a small group of extremists who called for Mike Pence’s execution, according to reports. Indeed, the stormers were a far-from-perfect lot, but—aside from a couple crazies here and there—they were driven by an opposition to the federal establishment shared by millions of Americans.

    The People Hold the Power

    After five years of shameless anti-Trump witch hunts, culminating in an election fraught with vote irregularities, the events of January 6 should be little surprise. When legal, political methods of seeking redress from the state become unresponsive, there is no longer any choice but to seek extralegal, nonpolitical methods. Trump himself understands this. In one of his final tweets before being suspended, he wrote: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” These tensions, in fact, existed long before the Trump era. Disheartened by decades of increasing federal abuse, these people stood up in an anti-Swamp rebellion aiming to “take back the people’s house.”

    This reflects an immutable principle of government outlined by the sixteenth-century French libertarian Étienne de La Boétie: “[T]he inhabitants themselves … permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.” It may appear that the state holds power over the people, but in reality the converse is true; it is the people en bloc who—by choosing to obey or not obey—hold ultimate power over the state. The only way a state can enforce its laws at all is if the people overall acquiesce to it. If sufficiently widespread, political resistance would disrupt the status quo to such a degree as to render its function completely ineffectual. In the final analysis, it is the people who hold the power.

    A Catalyst for More Resistance

    After stirring up a great deal of chaos, the Capitol stormers were flushed out of the building over the course of a few hours and the riots outside were broken up. Early the next morning, Congress certified the electoral vote count for Joe Biden, and the following weeks were flooded by the prosecution of more than two hundred stormers. Does that mean that their resistance failed? In the short term, yes; in the long term, maybe not. As Murray Rothbard said about the French “May 68” protests: “Whether it fizzles … or triumphs, … it gives the lie, once and for all, to the widespread myth that revolutions, whether or not desirable, are simply impossible in the modern, complex, highly technological world.” By storming the Capitol, the rioters proved that successful resistance against the American Leviathan is indeed still possible.

    Clearly, the right-populists have both the numbers and willpower necessary to significantly disrupt the federal order, and their zeal is unlikely to dissipate any time soon. Therefore, the question of another revolt is not one of if, but of where and when. This reality was clear right after the storming occurred. In anticipation of riots during President Biden’s inauguration, twenty-six thousand army and Air National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, DC, and razor-wire fencing was set up around the Capitol Building. The day passed by without any incident, yet thousands of national guardsmen are still set to remain in DC through mid-March (or longer) and the acting chief of the Capitol Police has called for the fencing to stay up permanently.

    As Rothbard observed in volume I of Conceived in Liberty, political resistance is not effect neutral, but actually has an augmentative effect on the actions of other partisans: “If cherished in later tradition, a revolution will decrease the awe in which the constituted authority is held by the populace, and in that way will increase the chance of a later revolt against tyranny.” That is to say that even a foiled resistance plot can help attract more people to the fold of dissent if the rebels have some cultural sway. Plans to pack the Supreme Court, unleash restrictive gun control, and prosecute right-wingers—rather than signifying the elite’s final triumph—may serve to further rally the populist dissenters.

    Hitting the State Where It Hurts

    When the rioters began their push to breach the Capitol Building, lawmakers were forced to shelter in place, before then evacuating to a secure location. For some of them, the day’s events were evidently traumatic. That can be seen in the hyperbolic language that’s been used to describe the storming, like Chuck Schumer likening it to Pearl Harbor.

    The stormers crossed the threshold of the establishment’s cushy elitism and exposed lawmakers to the real-world ire their actions create. As described in a passage from Cato’s Letters, “The only secret … in forming a free government is to make the interests of the governors and of the governed the same.” Angry populists, who’ve watched federal decrees wreak havoc on their lives, turned around and gave lawmakers a taste of their own medicine.

    In the wake of this, the media-government alliance has clamped down against the populist right harder than ever before.

    Yet, in this vicious pushback, one can sense a prescient hint of panic within establishment ranks that the threads of their dominance may finally be unraveling. Far from playing a domineering role, the establishment politicos find themselves on the defensive in a politically unstable position.

    Someday—whether it be in one week or thirty years—the US could face a serious period of mass antiestablishment demonstrations; if that day comes, it’ll signal the Washington elite’s ultimate failure.

    With no cards left to play, they may be forced to tread lightly on the right-wing populists and avoid violent confrontation as much as possible, for fear of repercussions like those of January 6. This may force their hand into granting the Right some concessions—perhaps some very big ones, like a return to more states’ rights or, better yet, the right of unilateral secession. This would short-circuit the federal order and help restore to America’s overtaxed and overburdened some of their long-withheld freedoms. With everything in view, it looks like the journey down this path may have already begun.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 23:30

  • How Global Health And Wealth Has Changed Over Two Centuries
    How Global Health And Wealth Has Changed Over Two Centuries

    At the dawn of the 19th century, global life expectancy was only 28.5 years.

    Outbreaks, war, and famine would still kill millions of people at regular intervals. These issues are still stubbornly present in 21st century society, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes, broadly speaking, the situation around the world has vastly improved. Today, most of humanity lives in countries where the life expectancy is above the typical retirement age of 65.

    At the same time, while inequality remains a hot button topic within countries, income disparity between countries is slowing beginning to narrow.

    This animated visualization, created by James Eagle, tracks the evolution of health and wealth factors in countries around the world. For further exploration, Gapminder also has a fantastic interactive chart that showcases the same dataset.

    The Journey to the Upper-Right Quadrant

    In general terms, history has seen health practices improve and countries become increasingly wealthy–trends that are reflected in this visualization. In fact, most countries drift towards the upper-right quadrant over the 221 years covered in the dataset.

    However, that path to the top-right, which indicates high levels of both life expectancy and GDP per capita, is rarely a linear journey. Here are some of the noteworthy events and milestones to watch out for while viewing the animation.

    1880s: Breaking the 50-Year Barrier
    In the late 19th century, Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway already found themselves past the 50-year life expectancy mark. This was a significant milestone considering the global life expectancy was a full 20 years shorter at the time. It wasn’t until the year 1960 that the global life expectancy would catch up.

    1918: The Spanish Flu and WWI
    At times, a confluence of factors can impact health and wealth in countries and regions. In this case, World War I coincided with one of the deadliest pandemics in history, leading to global implications. In the animation, this is abundantly clear as the entire cluster of circles takes a nose dive for a short period of time.

    1933, 1960: Communist Famines
    At various points in history, human decisions can have catastrophic consequences. This was the case in the Soviet Union (1933) and the People’s Republic of China (1960), where life expectancy plummeted during famines that killed millions of people. These extreme events are easy to spot in the animation due to the large populations of the countries in question.

    1960s: Oil Economies Kick into High Gear
    During this time, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia all experience massive booms in wealth, and in the following decade, smaller countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait rocket to the right edge of the visualization.

    In following decades, both Iran and Iraq can be seen experiencing wild fluctuations in both health and wealth as regime changes and conflict begin to destabilize the region.

    1990s: AIDS in Africa
    In the animation, a number of countries plummet in unison at the end of the 20th century. These are sub-Saharan African countries that were hit hard by the AIDS pandemic. At its peak in the early ’00s, the disease accounted for more than half of deaths in some countries.

    1995: Breaking the 65-Year Barrier
    Global life expectancy reaches retirement age. At this point in time, there is a clear divide in both health and wealth between African and South Asian countries and the rest of the world. Thankfully, that gap is would continue to narrow in coming years.

    1990-2000s: China’s Economic Rise
    With a population well over a billion people, it’s impossible to ignore China in any global overview. Starting from the early ’90s, China begins its march from the left to right side of the chart, highlighting the unprecedented economic growth it experienced during that time.

    What the Future Holds

    If current trends continue, global life expectancy is expected to surpass the 80-year mark by 2100. And, sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest life expectancy today, is expected to mostly close the gap, reaching 75 years of age.

    Wealth is also expected to increase nearly across the board, with the biggest gains coming from places like Vietnam, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Some experts are projecting the world economy as a whole to double in size by 2050.

    There are always bumps along the way, but it appears that the journey to the upper-right quadrant is still very much underway.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 23:00

  • Escobar: Putin, Crusaders, & Barbarians
    Escobar: Putin, Crusaders, & Barbarians

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Moscow is painfully aware that the US/NATO “strategy” of containment of Russia is already reaching fever pitch. Again.

    This past Wednesday, at a very important meeting with the Federal Security Service board, President Putin laid it all out in stark terms:

    We are up against the so-called policy of containing Russia. This is not about competition, which is a natural thing for international relations. This is about a consistent and quite aggressive policy aimed at disrupting our development, slowing it down, creating problems along the outer perimeter, triggering domestic instability, undermining the values that unite Russian society, and ultimately to weaken Russia and put it under external control, just the way we are witnessing it transpire in some countries in the post-Soviet space.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting of the Federal Security Service Board in Moscow on February 24. Photo: AFP / Alexei Druzhinin / Sputnik

    Not without a touch of wickedness, Putin added this was no exaggeration: “In fact, you don’t need to be convinced of this as you yourselves know it perfectly well, perhaps even better than anybody else.”

    The Kremlin is very much aware “containment” of Russia focuses on its perimeter: Ukraine, Georgia and Central Asia. And the ultimate target remains regime change.

    Putin’s remarks may also be interpreted as an indirect answer to a section of President Biden’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.

    According to Biden’s scriptwriters, 

    Putin seeks to weaken the European project and the NATO alliance because it is much easier for the Kremlin to intimidate individual countries than to negotiate with the united transatlantic community … The Russian authorities want others to think that our system is just as corrupt or even more corrupt.

    US President Joe Biden speaks virtually from the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, to the Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 19. Photo: AFP / Mandel Ngan

    A clumsy, direct personal attack against the head of state of a major nuclear power does not exactly qualify as sophisticated diplomacy. At least it glaringly shows how trust between Washington and Moscow is now reduced to less than zero. As much as Biden’s Deep State handlers refuse to see Putin as a worthy negotiating partner, the Kremlin and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have already dismissed Washington as “non-agreement capable.”

    Once again, this is all about sovereignty. The “unfriendly attitude towards Russia,” as Putin defined it, extends to “other independent, sovereign centers of global development.” Read it as mainly China and Iran. All these three sovereign states happen to be categorized as top “threats” by the US National Security Strategy.

    Yet Russia is the real nightmare for the Exceptionalists: Orthodox Christian, thus appealing to swaths of the West; consolidated as major Eurasian power; a military, hypersonic superpower; and boasting unrivaled diplomatic skills, appreciated all across the Global South.

    In contrast, there’s not much left for the deep state except endlessly demonizing both Russia and China to justify a Western military build-up, the “logic” inbuilt in a new strategic concept named  NATO 2030: United for a New Era.

    The experts behind the concept hailed it as an “implicit” response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaring NATO “brain dead.”

    Well, at least the concept proves Macron was right.

    Those barbarians from the East

    Crucial questions about sovereignty and Russian identity have been a recurrent theme in Moscow these past few weeks. And that brings us to February 17, when Putin met with Duma political leaders, from the Communist Party’s Vladimir Zhirinovsky – enjoying a new popularity surge – to United Russia’s Sergei Mironov, as well as State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin.

    Putin stressed the “multi-ethnic and multi-religious” character of Russia, now in “a different environment that is free of ideology”:

    It is important for all ethnic groups, even the smallest ones, to know that this is their Motherland with no other for them, that they are protected here and are prepared to lay down their lives in order to protect this country. This is in the interests of us all, regardless of ethnicity, including the Russian people.

    Yet Putin’s most extraordinary remark had to do with ancient Russian history:

    Barbarians came from the East and destroyed the Christian Orthodox empire. But before the barbarians from the East, as you well know, the crusaders came from the West and weakened this Orthodox Christian empire, and only then were the last blows dealt, and it was conquered. This is what happened … We must remember these historical events and never forget them.

    Well, this could be enough material to generate a 1,000-page treatise. Instead, let’s try, at least, to – concisely – unpack it.

    The Great Eurasian Steppe – one of the largest geographical formations on the planet – stretches from the lower Danube all the way to the Yellow River. The running joke across Eurasia is that “Keep Walking” can be performed back to back. For most of recorded history this has been Nomad Central: tribe upon tribe raiding at the margins, or sometimes at the hubs of the heartland: China, Iran, the  Mediterranean.

    The Scythians (see, for instance, the magisterial The Scythians: Nomad Warriors of the Steppe, by Barry Cunliffe) arrived at the Pontic steppe from beyond the Volga. After the Scythians, it was the turn of the Sarmatians to show up in South Russia.

    From the 4th century onward, nomad Eurasia was a vortex of marauding tribes, featuring, among others, the Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries, the Khazars in the 7th century, the Kumans in the 11th century, all the way to the Mongol avalanche in the 13th century.

    The plot line always pitted nomads against peasants. Nomads ruled – and exacted tribute. G Vernadsky, in his invaluable Ancient Russia, shows how “the Scythian Empire may be described sociologically as a domination of the nomadic horde over neighboring tribes of agriculturists.”

    As part of my multi-pronged research on nomad empires for a future volume, I call them Badass Barbarians on Horseback. The stars of the show include, in Europe, in chronological order, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, Hungarians, Peshenegs, Seljuks, Mongols and their Tatar descendants; and, in Asia, Hu, Xiongnu, Hephtalites, Turks, Uighurs, Tibetans, Kirghiz, Khitan, Mongols, Turks (again), Uzbeks and Manchu.   

    Arguably, since the hegemonic Scythian era (the first protagonists of the Silk Road), most of the peasants in southern and central Russia were Slav. But there were major differences. The Slavs west of Kiev were under the influence of Germania and Rome. East of Kiev, they were influenced by Persian civilization.

    It’s always important to remember that the Vikings were still nomads when they became rulers in Slav lands. Their civilization in fact prevailed over sedentary peasants – even as they absorbed many of their customs.  

    Interestingly enough, the gap between steppe nomads and agriculture in proto-Russia was not as steep as between intensive agriculture in China and the interlocked steppe economy in Mongolia.

    (For an engaging Marxist interpretation of nomadism, see A N Khazanov’s Nomads and the Outside World).

    The sheltering sky

    What about power? For Turk and Mongol nomads, who came centuries after the Scythians, power emanated from the sky. The Khan ruled by authority of the “Eternal Sky” – as we all see when we delve into the adventures of Genghis and Kublai. By implication, as there is only one sky, the Khan would have to exert universal power. Welcome to the idea of universal empire.

    Kublai Khan as the first Yuan emperor, Shizu. Yuan dynasty (1271–1368). Album leaf, ink and color on silk. National Palace Museum, Taipei. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/National Palace Museum, Taipei

    In Persia, things were slightly more complex. The Persian Empire   was all about Sun worship: that became the conceptual basis for the divine right of the King of Kings. The implications were immense, as the King now became sacred. This model influenced Byzantium – which, after all, was always interacting with Persia.

    Christianity made the Kingdom of Heaven more important than ruling over the temporal domain. Still, the idea of Universal Empire persisted, incarnated in the concept of Pantocrator: it was the Christ who ultimately ruled, and his deputy on earth was the Emperor. But Byzantium remained a very special case: the Emperor could never be an equal to God. After all, he was human.

    Putin is certainly very much aware that the Russian case is extremely complex. Russia essentially is on the margins of three civilizations. It’s part of Europe – reasons including everything from the ethnic origin of Slavs to achievements in history, music and literature.

    Russia is also part of Byzantium from a religious and artistic angle (but not part of the subsequent Ottoman empire, with which it was in military competition). And Russia was influenced by Islam coming from Persia.

    Then there’s the crucial influence of nomads. A serious case can be made that they have been neglected by scholars. The Mongol rule for a century and a half, of course, is part of the official historiography – but perhaps not given its due importance. And the nomads in southern and central Russia two millennia ago were never properly acknowledged.

    So Putin may have hit a nerve. What he said points to the idealization of a later period of Russian history from the late 9th to early 13th century: Kievan Rus. In Russia, 19th century Romanticism and 20th century nationalism actively built an idealized national identity.

    The interpretation of Kievan Rus poses tremendous problems – that’s something I eagerly discussed in St. Petersburg a few years ago. There are rare literary sources – and they concentrate mostly on the 12th century afterwards. The earlier sources are foreigners, mostly Persians and Arabs.

    Russian conversion to Christianity and its concomitant superb architecture have been interpreted as evidence of a high cultural standard. In a nutshell, scholars ended up using Western Europe as the model for the reconstruction of Kievan Rus civilization.

    It was never so simple. A good example is the discrepancy between Novgorod and Kiev. Novgorod was closer to the Baltic than the Black Sea, and had closer interaction with Scandinavia and the Hanseatic towns. Compare it with Kiev, which was closer to steppe nomads and  Byzantium – not to mention Islam.

    Kievan Rus was a fascinating crossover. Nomadic tribal traditions – on administration, taxes, the justice system – were prevalent. But on religion, they imitated Byzantium. It’s also relevant that until the end of the 12th century, assorted steppe nomads were a constant “threat” to southeast Kievan Rus.

    So as much as Byzantium – and, later on, even the Ottoman Empire – supplied models for Russian institutions, the fact is the nomads, starting with the Scythians, influenced the economy, the social system and most of all, the military approach.   

    Watch the Khan

    Sima Qian, the master Chinese historian, has shown how the Khan had two “kings,” who each had two generals, and thus in succession, all the way to commanders of a hundred, a thousand and ten thousand men. This is essentially the same system used for a millennia and a half by nomads, from the Scythians to the Mongols, all the way to Tamerlane’s army at the end of the 14th century.   

    The Mongol invasions – 1221 and then 1239-1243 – were indeed the major game-changer. As master analyst Sergei Karaganov told me in his office in late 2018, they influenced Russian society for centuries afterwards.

    For over 200 years Russian princes had to visit the Mongol headquarters in the Volga to pay tribute. One scholarly strand has qualified it as “barbarization”; that seems to be Putin’s view. According to that strand, the incorporation of Mongol values may have “reversed” Russian society to what it was before the first drive to adopt Christianity.   

    The inescapable conclusion is that when Muscovy emerged in the late 15th century as the dominant power in Russia, it was essentially the successor of the Mongols.

    And because of that the peasantry – the sedentary population – were not touched by “civilization” (time to re-read Tolstoy?). Nomad Power and values, as strong as they were, survived Mongol rule for centuries.

    Well, if a moral can be derived from our short parable, it’s not exactly a good idea for “civilized” NATO to pick a fight with the – lateral – heirs of the Great Khan. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 22:30

  • A Whopping 91% Of US Restaurants Will Invest In Kitchen Automation, Says Survey 
    A Whopping 91% Of US Restaurants Will Invest In Kitchen Automation, Says Survey 

    The virus pandemic did not change the trajectory of where the restaurant industry was headed, but it did force years of change in a short period. Restaurants are embracing artificial intelligence and automation to revolutionize their business models. 

    A new report via payments company Square titled “Future of Restaurants” discusses an overview of how technology is sweeping through the industry. Square partnered with Wakefield Research to survey 500 restaurant owners and managers across the country. 

    They found an overwhelming number of owners and managers are pivoting towards automation in the kitchen and embracing the hub-and-spoke model. 

    About 91% of respondents said they have made or planning to make investments in kitchen automation technology.

    So what’s the rush to digitize the backend of a restaurant? 

    Well, as explained by Bruce Bell, Head of Square for Restaurants, he said:

    “We’re seeing more of a hub-and-spoke model with the kitchen at the center of it all. Restaurants embrace new channels for customers to interact with their business, effectively meeting them wherever they are. Each of these channels represents a revenue stream for the restaurant, and they connect to the same kitchen and are all managed by the same centralized POS system.” 

    Bell is essentially saying restaurants, via investments in kitchen automation technology, will be able or have already been able to pivot to various revenue streams at a moment’s notice, such as making meal kits, dining room, groceries, delivery, among others. 

    “One channel might be the dining room, one channel might be first-party delivery, one channel might be meal kits, and so on,” added Bell. “Having the kitchen run as efficiently as possible extends that efficiency into all of those channels.”

    Square said one respondent, Mediterranean fast-casual chain The Kebab Shop, already invested in kitchen automation technology when the pandemic struck, and quickly allowed it to pivot to curbside pickup and delivery. 

    “We’re really lucky that we keep everything in the same ecosystem,” owner Wally Sadat explained. “We were already digital-forward, so when it came to implementing something on the fly, like during COVID, we were in a good position.”

    Other notable stats from the survey shows how restaurants are rapidly evolving in a post-COVID world: 

    • 3 in 4 restaurants plan on offering contactless ordering and payment options across all channels.
    • 59% of consumers are willing to buy items that are not part of the restaurant’s core offerings.
    • 42% of restaurants plan to invest in customer loyalty programs
    • Restaurants that are using online ordering for delivery and takeout expect 62% of revenue to come through those channels.
    • 67% of consumers prefer to use a restaurant’s own website or app for food delivery.
    • 92% of restaurant owners and managers are open to experimenting with their menu.
    • 88% of restaurants would consider completely switching from physical to digital menus.

    … and as readers may know when artificial intelligence and automation are embedded into company businesses models – they become job killers – suggesting technological unemployment will soar through this decade. 

    How will the economy replace the millions of jobs lost if technology displaces them?  

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 22:00

  • Watch: Exeter WW2 Bomb Detonated As Thousands Evacuated
    Watch: Exeter WW2 Bomb Detonated As Thousands Evacuated

    Update ( 2153 ET): On Saturday evening, a controlled detonation of the unexploded World War Two bomb found in Exeter, England, was conducted by the Royal Navy bomb disposal team.

    * * * 

    At a construction site in Exeter, a city on the River Exe in southwest England, an unexploded World War Two bomb was found.

    On Saturday morning, Devon & Cornwall Police released a statement that read 2,600 households have been “evacuated in preparation for the examination of a possible unexploded World War Two device, which was located at a site on Glenthorne Road, Exeter, yesterday, Friday 26 February.” 

    The 2.5m (8ft) by 70cm (27in) bomb was found by construction workers on a private worksite west of the University of Exeter campus.

    Devon & Cornwall Police said, “the Royal Navy bomb disposal team who worked through the night to establish a walled mitigation structure.” 

    Examination and detonation of the bomb are expected to be conducted by the Army. 

    Devon & Cornwall Police tweeted a map of where the bomb was found and the evacuation area. 

    In a series of tweets, the University of Exeter said students were evacuated from the area on Friday. 

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

    The discovery comes as no surprise considering the Germans in World War Two bombarded the city. 

    With the area around the bomb site locked down and the military working to defuse the device – additional updates on the situation should follow. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 21:53

  • The Danger Of The Administrative State
    The Danger Of The Administrative State

    Authored by Ethan Yang via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Lockdowns should have shown every American just how tyrannical and unreasonable our leaders can be. There are elected leaders like Governor Cuomo who have acted as outright tyrants, alienating everyone, even those in his own party. Then there are the unelected bureaucrats who wave away our liberties with the stroke of a pen from the secrecy of their massive offices with technocratic efficiency. This is all of course a sudden and dramatic curtailing of our freedoms. I would not be surprised that with this much public attention, some sort of effort will be made to roll back much of what has been done. Although lockdowns are certainly an existential threat to our long-term freedoms and system of liberal democracy, there has been another specter out there that many experts have been sounding the alarm on for decades. The growth of the administrative state. 

    The chilling narrative about the growth of the administrative state, which is essentially the regulatory apparatus of the executive branch, is usually confined to specialist professions. The ever-present danger of a slowly expanding and unaccountable apparatus of bureaucrats that threatens to sap the life out of American society and drown it in a sea of paperwork is typically a concern that only keeps policy wonks and lawyers up at night. Although many lawyers probably celebrate this dystopian vision because they benefit from the compliance fees. The regulatory state not only threatens to make society that much slower and dreary with its excessive onslaught of regulation but it also makes us poorer. Robert Samuelson writes for the Washington Post that

    “No one really knows by how much, but “there is ample evidence that regulation has expanded and that this expansion has limited economic growth,” as Ted Gayer and Philip Wallach of the Brookings Institution recently wrote. One study estimates that regulation has shaved 0.8 percent off the U.S. annual growth rate, which — if confirmed by other studies — would be huge.”

    The regulatory state refers to organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, and all the other three-letter agencies in Washington, DC. If you would like to see how long the list of agencies is, take a look at the Federal Register, to which there are 455. That number is absolutely mind-boggling and you don’t need a fancy degree in political science like I have to say that society can function without their oversight. A paper by Peter Strauss at Columbia Law School notes that there are currently over 2 million civilians employed in the federal government alone. He notes that for context,

    “The first Congress to meet once the Constitution was ratified created a Post Office and Departments of War, Navy, Foreign Affairs, and Treasury, each in unique ways suited to its responsibilities; this new government employed few civil servants to manage all its affairs. The first serious count of federal civilian employees, in 1816, reported that they numbered 4,837.” 

    The drastic expansion of the administrative state has come at a cost to not only our liberty, which is slowly being eroded by a sea of paperwork and regulations, but it also undermines our democracy. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the legislative branch or Congress is supposed to be the primary law-making body of our government. That is because if there are bad laws or laws society doesn’t like, we can hold people accountable. However, more and more power has been shifted to the executive branch because of the growth of the administrative state. Even the judicial system is losing power to the administrative state after the establishment of a legal doctrine known as Chevron Deference, which binds the court system to defer to the administrative agency’s interpretation of a rule, not the Constitutional interpretation of a sitting judge. It shouldn’t be too hard to assume that the interpretation will probably favor the ambitions of the agency, not the integrity of the Constitution. These issues and more form the basis of legal scholar Richard Epstein’s assertion that the administrative state is not congruent with rule of law in this country.

    The worst part about all of this is that society continues to tell itself that those in the administrative state are simply humble public servants. Although I’m sure many of them are, the hard reality is that at the end of the day it’s a source of income and advancement for bureaucrats just like jobs in the private sector are for everyone else. This is the basic insight of Public Choice Theory, which is the common-sense realization that government agents are not angels, they are humans and follow human nature. That means that although many government agents may think they are serving the country, they are also limited by their own capabilities as humans as well as their desires. This is demonstrated by a phenomenon known as the Washington Monument Syndrome, which refers to how when a government agency is threatened with a budget cut or hiring freeze, they shun fiscal restraint in order to protect their own self-interests. The Washington Monument Syndrome gets its name because when the National Park Service was faced with budget cuts, instead of streamlining its finances like a normal private company they protested by shutting down the Washington Monument rather than taking sensible steps to cut costs. In the private sector there is a natural check on how much workers can demand, such as the threat of going out of business. In the public sector there are no such restraints. This is part of the reason why the bureaucracy simply grows and grows and grows, taking our freedom as well as our treasure as it does. 

    Finally, there is the dark fact that there are ambitious people in the administrative state who want to make a name for themselves at the expense of their fellow countryman. If there aren’t any problems to solve, hotshot regulators are trying to move up the food chain by creating problems to solve by either targeting innocent private actors or trying to pump up their resumes with unnecessary sanctions. This problem is well known when it comes to the criminal justice system, as prosecutors leverage plea bargains to increase their incarceration statistics regardless of the guilt of the defendant and without ever having to take a case to trial, which is a constitutional right. However, this system of perverse incentives to simply rack up wins at the expense of society is present in the regulatory state as well as agencies bringing the government’s boot down on businesses just trying to provide a good service. 

    I had a personal experience with this dynamic when I interned at a law firm providing pro bono services to private entities that were being pursued by trigger-happy regulators. The case I worked on was FTC vs D-Link Systems, which was settled finding no liability for any violations. The FTC in this case levied a claim that D-Link Systems was engaging in deceptive practices. However, upon investigation there were no rules that they violated, nor were there any widespread complaints from consumers to be found. The FTC was essentially going out of its way and leveraging vague rules to pursue a responsible corporation likely in the name of career advancement. That is because there are no rewards for doing nothing, even though that’s what the government should be doing when its citizens are being responsible. Sadly, not every private business has the resources to fight back against overzealous government regulators. Even worse, there is little being done to check the powers of the administrative state. In fact, many elected politicians simply see it as a way to shift blame away from themselves.

    Key Takeaway

    If lockdowns were a sudden and brutal assault on our liberties, the rise of the administrative state would be the silent killer. It keeps itself away from the public spotlight, only raising alarms for the communities it directly affects and policy wonks who enjoy ranting about taxes and federal codes all day. To the average person, the administrative state is not a problem until it is. Every year it grows and grows with little incentive to care for the trouble it has caused for the rest of American society. It is the true embodiment of the leviathan illustrated by Hobbes. Although there is certainly a time and place for regulatory agencies, today they have so greatly outgrown their bounds to the point they are becoming an unelected judge, jury, and executioner. What was a handful of executive agencies at the beginning of the republic has now become an expansive list of alphabet soup abbreviations, some with their own SWAT teams and court systems. The administrative state not only saps our treasure and stifles our creativity but it drains our spirit. If left unchecked it will surely turn this country of ambitious innovators and entrepreneurs into one of paper pushers and clerks.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 21:30

  • Ikea Is Now Selling Tiny Homes For Broke Millennials 
    Ikea Is Now Selling Tiny Homes For Broke Millennials 

    The virus pandemic’s economic hit has been particularly severe for millennials, considering many of them decided to get useless English degrees and rack up insurmountable student debt while choosing after college to become bartenders. As the story goes, in a post-pandemic world, the downturn has crushed the restaurant industry. Many youngsters are either collecting government checks or finding other jobs or attempting to retrain for a new career. As home prices soar (no thanks to Fed. Chair Powell), housing affordability has become out of reach for many. That’s why Ikea, yes, the affordable furniture store that sells Swedish meatballs, is now marketing tiny homes for broke millennials. 

    The tiny home crazy has been gaining momentum in the last decade as wealth inequality, driven mainly by the Federal Reserve, leaving most of the wealth concentrated in just a few hands, has resulted in the middle class’s decimation. People are downsizing left and right and opting for tiny homes. 

    Ikea launched the Tiny Home Project to capitalize on this trend. The 187-square-foot structure, or what could be viewed as a trailer, but commonly known as a “tiny home” to hipsters, is equipped with renewable, reusable, and recycled materials for inside furnishings, solar panels on the roof, running water, kitchen, and a ductless heat pump and air conditioner unit. 

    Under the guise of eco-conscious minimalists, millennials who gravitate towards tiny homes don’t realize that their living standard has collapsed. Say goodbye to the McMansion of the late 90s and early 2000s, and hello, to the double-wide trailer. 

    Unlike assemble-it-yourself furniture that the Swedish company is known for, these tiny homes are preassembled in a factory in partnership with media firm Vox Creative and Wisconsin-based tiny home ESCAPE. 

    During the pandemic, internet searches for “tiny homes” hit a five-year high. 

    With Amazon already selling tiny homes, how long until Walmart joins the party?

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 21:00

  • Lacalle: MMT Is Fake Economics
    Lacalle: MMT Is Fake Economics

    Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

    In this era of monetary fiction, one tends to read all types of undocumented and misguided views on monetary policy. However, if there is one that really is infuriating is the MMT science fiction.

    One of its main principles is based on a fallacy.

    “A country with monetary sovereignty can issue all the debt it needs without default risk”

    First, it is untrue. A report by David Beers at the Bank Of Canada has identified 27 sovereigns involved in local currency defaults between 1960 and 2016 (database here).

    (source: Bank of Canada, David Beers)

    David Beers explains: “A long-held view by some investors is that governments rarely default on local or domestic currency sovereign debt. After all, they say, governments can service these obligations by printing money, which in turn can reduce the real burden of debt through inflation and dramatically so in cases like Germany in the 1923 and Yugoslavia in 1993-94. Of course, it’s true that high inflation can be a form of de facto default on local currency debt. Still, contractual defaults and restructurings occur and are more common than is often supposed”.

    (source: Bank of Canada, David Beers)

    No, a country with monetary sovereignty cannot issue all the debt it needs without default risk. It needs to issue in foreign currency precisely because few trust their monetary policies. Most local citizens are the first ones to avoid domestic currency exposure and buy US dollars, gold or cryptocurrencies (now), fearing the inevitable:

    Most governments will try to cover their fiscal and trade imbalances by devaluing and making all savers poorer.

    “A country with monetary sovereignty can issue all the currency it needs” is also a fallacy.

    Monetary sovereignty is not something the government decides. Confidence and use of fiat currency are not dictated by the government nor does it give said government the power to do what it wants with monetary policies. Citizens all over the world have stopped accepting the government-issued and denominated currency when confidence in its purchasing power has been destroyed after increasing the money supply well above its real demand.

    That is why the Sucre in Ecuador or the Colon in El Salvador collapsed or why the Argentine peso and the Venezuela bolivar or the Iran Rial are widely rejected by local and international citizens. There are numerous fiat currencies that have failed or disappeared.  As Michael Sanibel writes, “a nation’s currency is not exempt from the laws of supply and demand, so the more that is printed, the less it is worth“. Currency collapses and failures are frequent, but, more importantly, even if some survive, its domestic and international demand is irreparably damaged.

    Given that the world of currencies is a relative one, the average citizen of the world will prefer gold, cryptocurrencies, US dollars or Euros and Yen despite their own imbalances rather than their own currencies.

    Why is this? When governments and central banks worldwide try to implement the same mistaken monetary policy of the US and Europe or Japan but without their investment security, institutions and capital freedom, then they fall into their own trap. They weaken their own citizens’ trust in the purchasing power of the currency.

    The MMT answer would be that all that is needed then is stable and trustworthy institutions. Well, it does not work either. The first crack in that trust is precisely currency manipulation to finance bloated government spending. The average citizen may not understand monetary debasement but certainly understands that their currency is not a valid reserve of value or payment system. Because the value of the currency is not dictated by the government, but by the latest purchase agreements made with such means of payment.

    Governments always see economic cycles as a problem of lack of demand that they need to “stimulate”. They see debt and asset bubbles as small “collateral damages” worth assuming in the quest for inflation. And crises become more frequent while debt soars & recoveries weaker.

    (source World Bank, Deutsche Bank)

    The imbalances of the US, Eurozone or Japan are also evident in the weak productivity growth, high debt and diminishing effectiveness of policies (read “Monetary Stimulus Does Not Work, The Evidence Is In“).

    (source IIF, BIS)

    Countries don’t borrow in foreign currency because they are dumb or ignore MMT science fiction, but because savers don’t want government currency debasement risk, no matter what yield. The first ones that avoid domestic currency debt tend to be domestic savers and investors, precisely because they understand the history of purchasing power destruction of their governments’ monetary policies.

    Some 48% of the world’s $30T in cross-border loans are priced in US dollars, up from 40% a decade ago, according to the Bank of International Settlement. Again, not because countries are stupid and don’t want to issue in local currency. Because there is little real demand.

    (source IIF)

    As such, governments cannot unilaterally decide to issue “all the debt they need in local currency” precisely because of the widespread lack of confidence in the central bank or the governments’ perverse incentive to devalue at will.

    As reserves dry up, and citizens see that their government is destroying purchasing power of the currency, the local savers read minsters talk about “economic war” and “foreign interference”, but they know what really happens. Monetary imbalances are soaring. And they run away.

    (source: Capital Economics)

    Inflation is not solved with (more) taxation.

    Many MMT proponents solve this equation of inflation caused by monetary excess denying that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, and saying that inflation would be solved by taxation. Is it not fantastic?

    The government benefits the first from new money creation, massively increases its imbalances and blames inflation on the last recipients of the new money created, savers and the private sector, so it “solves” the inflation created by the government by taxing citizens again. Inflation is taxation without legislation, as Milton Friedman said.

    First, the government policy makes a transfer of wealth from savers to the political sector, and then it increases taxes to the “solve” inflation it created. Double taxation.

    How did that work in Argentina? That is exactly what governments implemented, only to destroy the currency, create more inflation and send the economy to stagflation (read).

    These two factors, inflation, and high taxation, negatively impact competitiveness and ease to attract capital, invest and create jobs, relegating a nation of enormous potential, such as Argentina, to the final positions of the World Economic Forum index, when it should be at the top.

    Excessive inflation and high taxes are two almost identical factors that hide an excessive public expenditure that has acted as a brake on economic activity since it is not considered as a service to facilitate economic activity, but as an end in itself. The consolidated public expenditure reached 47.9% of GDP in 2016, a figure that is clearly disproportionate. Even if we consider primary public expenditure, that is, excluding the cost of debt, it doubled between 2002 and 2017.

    The idea that a country’s debt is not a liability but simply an asset that will be absorbed by savers no matter what is incorrect as it does not consider three factors.

    1. No debt is an asset because the government says so, but because there is a real demand for it. The government does not decide the demand for that bond or credit instrument, the savers do. And savings are not unlimited, hence deficit spending is not endless either.

    2. No debt instrument is an attractive asset if it is imposed onto savers through repression. Even if the government imposes the confiscation of savings to cover its imbalances, the capital flight intensifies. it is literally like making a human body stop breathing in order to conserve oxygen.

    3. That debt is simply impossible to assume when the investor and saver know that the government will destroy purchasing power at any cost to benefit from “inflating its way out of debt”. The reaction is immediate.

    The Socialist idea that governments artificially creating money will not cause inflation, because the supply of money will rise in tandem with supply and demand for goods and services, is simply science fiction.

    The government does not have a better or more accurate understanding of the needs and demand for goods and services or the productive capacity of the economy. In fact, it has all the incentives to overspend and transfer its inefficiencies to everyone else.

    As such, like any perverse incentive under the so-called “stimulate internal demand” fallacy, the government simply creates larger monetary imbalances to disguise the fiscal deficit created by spending and lending without real economic return.  Creating massive inflation, economic stagnation as productivity collapses and impoverishing everyone.

    The reality is that currency strength and real long-term demand for bonds are the ultimate signs of the health of a monetary system. When everyone tries to play the Fed without the US economic freedom and institutions, they only play the fool. Monetary illusion may delay the inevitable, a crisis, but it happens faster and harder if imbalances are ignored.

    However, when it fails, the MMT crowd will tell you that it was not done properly. And that it is YOU, not them, who do not understand what money is.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 20:30

  • Israel Says Iran Behind Blast On Israeli-Owned Ship In 'Initial Assessment'
    Israel Says Iran Behind Blast On Israeli-Owned Ship In ‘Initial Assessment’

    Israel is blaming Iran for the Thursday incident in the Gulf of Oman wherein a cargo vessel owned by an Israeli businessman was hit by a ‘mystery’ explosion, forcing it to divert to the nearest port after sustaining severe damage.

    Defense Minister Benny Gantz has announced as part of an “initial assessment” that Tel Aviv believes Iran was behind a bomb attack on the car-carrier vessel, identified as the Helios Ray. Suspicion of Iran’s involvement has been rampant in Israeli media since the blast. However, there’s yet to be definitive proof or evidence that either a state actor or terrorist elements were involved, much less any specific details released to the public. 

    “Iran is looking to hit Israeli infrastructure and Israeli citizens. The location of the ship in relative close proximity to Iran raises the notion, the assessment, that it is the Iranians,” Defense Minister Benny Gantz said on Saturday, according to Reuters.

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

    Gantz appears to be speculating to a large degree, likely with an intelligence investigation still pending. He added: “Right now, at an initial assessment level, given the proximity and the context – that is my assessment.”

    No crew were reported harmed in the blast which struck the hull of the Bahamian flag vessel as it traveled through the Gulf of Oman from Saudi Arabia to Singapore. It’s now reported to be docked in Dubai as the damaged is assessed, some photos of which circulated online in the past two days.

    Pentagon sources confirmed the damage yet without specifying blame. “A U.S. defense official in Washington said the blast left holes above the waterline in both sides of the hull. The cause was not immediately clear and no casualties were reported,” Reuters noted.

    During the summer 2019 ‘tanker war’ involving Iran and the West, the Islamic Republic was blamed for limpet mine attacks on commercial vessels in the region; however, Tehran vehemently denied these attacks, which many speculated was ‘retaliation’ for the UK seizing and temporarily detaining the Iranian oil tanker ‘Grace 1’ off Gibraltar, citing compliance with US-led sanctions.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 20:00

  • Minimum Wage, Maximum Discrimination
    Minimum Wage, Maximum Discrimination

    Authored by Caleb Fuller via The Mises Institute,

    Since the days of Adam Smith, economists have sought a set of social institutions which permit “neither dominion, nor discrimination,” to use Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan’s phrase. In this, economists are joined by all people of goodwill—including those in the Biden administration, which has enshrined equity and inclusion as cornerstones of how they’ll govern.

    What separates the economist from other social do-gooders, however, is an unflinching focus on the means used to achieve noble goals. It’s therefore with alarm that I consider the Biden administration’s dual focus on “diversity and equity” and its doubling down on the “fight for $15.” I’m alarmed because the minimum wage impedes our ability to foster a society genuinely built on “diversity and equity.”

    Here’s the straight talk on the minimum wage that you probably didn’t learn in school: the minimum wage has been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of racists and bigots. Economists have illuminated the devastating effects of the minimum wage on minorities with empirical evidence and entire books on the subject, but to see one reason why the policy targets minorities, first consider a little basic economics.

    Consider the demand side of the labor market.

    Firms will hire fewer workers if the government criminalizes voluntary agreements to work for less than $15 per hour. This is an uncontroversial point to make about virtually any other market. If the price of apples doubles, people buy fewer apples. They buy more oranges instead. Employers do the same thing. Under the minimum wage, they start buying more machinery, like the kiosks you see in Panera. The upshot: fewer jobs.

    Now let’s consider the supply side of the labor market, where the higher minimum wage attracts new workers to the labor market—those, like college students, who might have sat on the sidelines otherwise. The upshot: more job seekers.

    Fewer jobs plus more job seekers means that more people will be searching for jobs than there are jobs available—a labor surplus. In other words, the minimum wage creates a “buyer’s market” in labor, because it causes job seekers to line up in front of employers who have limited jobs to offer.

    Suppose an employer receives a hundred applicants for a job opening. How does he choose whom to hire?

    Without the minimum wage, whoever wants the job most will outcompete other jobseekers by offering to work for less.

    With a minimum wage, the employer can’t say: “Who will work for $14.95?” If he does, he’s a criminal; he literally violates the law.

    Since he can’t just pick the most eager job seekers, he needs some alternative way to select from his hundred applicants. When you have a surplus of labor in a market with a minimum wage, prices aren’t allowed to adjust, so the employer picks from that surplus based on personal preferences. These may include race, sex, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics that have little to do with productivity. In fact, in the past, it has included just that. Faced with more job seekers than there are jobs available, a bigoted employer bears little cost when he refuses to hire a member of a group he dislikes. He knows someone else in the applicant pool will be from his preferred group.

    In a market without a minimum wage, when an employer turns down an applicant to satisfy his bigoted tastes, he doesn’t have ninety-nine other job seekers to choose from. There’s no labor surplus. If he chooses to indulge his bigoted tastes, the job remains unfilled for longer, which means less money for our racist employer. Consider that in the United States the African American teenage male unemployment rate was lower than the white teenage male unemployment rate through the late 1940s. The 1950s saw the single largest increase (in percentage terms) of the minimum wage. The reasoning I just gave explains why the African American teen joblessness rate then soared above that of whites. That gap remains to the present day. Like Adam Smith, James Buchanan, and the Biden administration, I too desire a society where the power of bad people to exercise “dominion or discrimination” is constrained, even eliminated. Presumably, my fellow Pennsylvanians do too. The fact that nearly two-thirds of them (and 89 percent of liberals) support a $15/hour minimum wage is therefore troubling. My fellow citizens should consider whether this policy facilitates or impedes the ability of bad men to do harm. Economics says it facilitates.

    So does history. As Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has demonstrated in his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, the early minimum wage advocates saw it as a prime tool to exercise “dominion and discrimination” over those they deemed ill-suited to reproduction. The minimum wage was well suited to perform the Progressives’ dirty work of discriminating against (what they considered) the least productive by making them unemployable.

    It has been over a hundred years since the Progressive Era. But the laws of economics haven’t changed. The only question is: Have we?

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 19:30

  • FDA Clears JNJ Covid-19 Shot For Use In The US, Giving Americans 3rd Vaccine Choice
    FDA Clears JNJ Covid-19 Shot For Use In The US, Giving Americans 3rd Vaccine Choice

    Late on Friday afternoon, when an FDA panel unanimously endorsed the J&J Covid vaccine finding that its benefits outweigh any risks, we wrote that the “FDA could now give the green light to the single-dose vaccine as early as Saturday, and it probably will.” And just after 6pm on Saturday, that’s precisely what happened when the Food and Drug Administration on Saturday authorized Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot, non-mRNA Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use for people 18 and older beginning the rollout of millions of doses of a third effective vaccine that could reach Americans by early next week.

    The announcement come following weeks of steep declines in coronavirus cases (which however may have stabilizied in recent days) and millions of Americans are on waiting lists for shots.

    The FDA’s decision comes after a Wednesday report according to which the J&J shot is highly effective at preventing severe Covid-19, with no serious side effects.

    On Sunday, a committee of vaccine experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will meet to discuss whether certain population groups should be prioritized for the vaccine, guidance that state health officials have been eagerly awaiting in anticipation of the F.D.A.’s authorization.

    Joe Biden hailed the vaccine’s authorization, calling it “exciting news” in a statement on Saturday.

    “Thanks to the brilliance of our scientists, the resilience of our people, and the eagerness of Americans in every community to protect themselves and their loved ones by getting vaccinated, we are moving in the right direction,”

    That said, we are confident that Trump – under whose watch operation WarpSpeed was launched – could say the exactly same thing and have more credit.

    Johnson & Johnson has pledged to provide the United States with 100 million doses by the end of June. When combined with the 600 million doses from the two-shot vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna scheduled to arrive by the end of July, there will be more than enough shots to cover any American adult who wants one.

    But federal and state health officials are concerned that even with strong data to support it, some people may perceive Johnson & Johnson’s shot as an inferior option. That’s because the new vaccine’s 72% efficacy rate in the U.S. clinical trial site falls short of the roughly 95% rate found in studies testing the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Across all trial sites, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine also showed 85 percent efficacy against severe forms of Covid-19 and 100 percent efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus.

    “Don’t get caught up, necessarily, on the number game, because it’s a really good vaccine, and what we need is as many good vaccines as possible,” Anthony Fauci said in an interview with the NYT on Saturday. “Rather than parsing the difference between 94 and 72, accept the fact that now you have three highly effective vaccines. Period.” And when it comes to pitching “ballpark” figures who better than the person who admitted to lying about herd immunity to trick Americans into getting the vaccine.

    If Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine would have been the first to be authorized in the United States instead of the third, “everybody would be doing handstands and back flips and high-fives,” said Dr. James T. McDeavitt, dean of clinical affairs at the Baylor College of Medicine.

    As a reminder, unlike Pfizer and Moderna, J&J’s vaccine is made from a common cold virus that doesn’t replicate in the body but triggers an immune response to fight off infection. In the U.S. portion of a more than 43,000-person global trial, it was found to be 72% effective at preventing moderate to severe Covid.

    To create this vaccine, the Johnson & Johnson team took a harmless adenovirus – the viral vector – and replaced a small piece of its genetic instructions with coronavirus genes for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

    After this modified adenovirus is injected into someone’s arm, it enters the person’s cells. The cells then read the genetic instructions needed to make the spike protein and the vaccinated cells make and present the spike protein on their own surface. The person’s immune system then notices these foreign proteins and makes antibodies against them that will protect the person if they are ever exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future.

    The adenovirus vector vaccine is safe because the adenovirus can’t replicate in human cells or cause disease, and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can’t cause COVID–19 without the rest of the coronavirus.

    Policy makers claim they have been eager to get more people immunized before virus mutations can take firmer hold in the U.S. J&J’s vaccine provided less protection against the new variants, trial data suggested. In Brazil, the shot was 68% effective against moderate-to-severe disease 28 days after vaccination, while in South Africa it was 64% effective. But across the globe, including in countries with emerging variants, the shot successfully prevented all hospitalizations and deaths.

    Speaking to Bloomberg, Mathai Mammen, the head of global research and development for J&J’s pharmaceutical division, said in an interview last month that it’s impossible to compare overall efficacy levels between the vaccines, given that the trials were carried out in different locations at different times in the course of the pandemic.

    “What people fear is getting sick, so sick they have to go to an emergency room, or hospital, and even die,” he said “This vaccine, in a single shot, protects completely from that kind of fear.”

    J&J is still testing a two-shot regimen in a large, global trial that is expected to produce results before year-end. Like Pfizer and Moderna, the company is working on boosters tailored to the variants. And it plans studies soon in children, pregnant women and the immunocompromised. J&J executives have said the company will charge no more than $10 a dose for the vaccine during the pandemic — a price at which it won’t profit. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine costs the U.S. $39 for the full regimen, and the Moderna vaccine costs $33 for both doses.

    * * *

    In any case, Johnson & Johnson has said it will ship nearly four million doses as soon as the F.D.A. authorizes distribution and another 16 million or so doses by the end of March. That is far fewer than the 37 million doses called for in its $1 billion federal contract, but the contract says that deliveries that are 30 days late will still be considered timely. The federal government is paying the firm $10 a dose for a total of 100 million doses to be ready by the end of June, substantially less per dose than it agreed to pay Moderna and Pfizer.

    More importantly, Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine might allow states to rapidly increase the number of people who have been fully inoculated. Unlike the other two vaccines, it can be stored at standard refrigeration temperatures for at least three months.

    Dr. Danny Avula, the vaccine coordinator for Virginia, said the Johnson & Johnson shipments would increase the state’s allotment of vaccine next week by nearly one-fifth. “I’m super-pumped about this,” he said. “A 100 percent efficacy against deaths and hospitalizations? That’s all I need to hear.”

    He said the state was planning mass vaccination events specifically for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, partly to quell any suspicion that it is a lesser product targeted to specific groups.

    “It will be super clear that this is Johnson & Johnson — here’s what you need to know about it,” he said. “If you want to do this, you’re coming in with eyes wide open. If not, you will keep your place on the list.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 19:26

  • 'The Governor Wanted To Sleep With Me': Cuomo Accused Of Sexually Harassing Second Former Aide
    ‘The Governor Wanted To Sleep With Me’: Cuomo Accused Of Sexually Harassing Second Former Aide

    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been accused of sexual harassment by a second former aide, according to the New York Times.

    Charlotte Bennett, a former executive assistant and health policy adviser to the Cuomo administration up until November of last year, told the Times that Cuomo had asked her sever questions about her sex life – including whether she ever had sex with older men, and whether she was monogamous in her relationships.

    NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Charlotte Bennett

    He also allegedly told her during a June, 2020 encounter that the 63-year-old governor complained about being ‘lonely during the pandemic,’ and that he “can’t even hug anyone.”

    Ms. Bennett, 25, said the most unsettling episode occurred on June 5, when she was alone with Mr. Cuomo in his State Capitol office. In a series of interviews this week, she said the governor had asked her numerous questions about her personal life, including whether she thought age made a difference in romantic relationships, and had said that he was open to relationships with women in their 20s — comments she interpreted as clear overtures to a sexual relationship. –New York Times

     Cuomo told The Times on Saturday that he thought he was acting as a mentor, and “never made advances toward Ms. Bennett, nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate, before asking for an independent review of the matter – and imploring New Yorkers to await the results “before making any judgements.”

    Bennett related an exchange in which she felt Cuomo made clear he wanted to sleep with her.

    Ms. Bennett said that during the June encounter, the governor, 63, also complained to her about being lonely during the pandemic, mentioning that he “can’t even hug anyone,” before turning the focus to Ms. Bennett. She said that Mr. Cuomo asked her, “Who did I last hug?”

    Ms. Bennett said she had tried to dodge the question by responding that she missed hugging her parents. “And he was, like, ‘No, I mean like really hugged somebody?’” she said.

    Mr. Cuomo never tried to touch her, Ms. Bennett said, but the message of the entire episode was unmistakable to her. –New York Times

    “I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared,” Bennett said. “And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.”

    Bennett says she reported the interaction to Cuomo’s chief-of-staff, Jill DesRosiers, less than a week later – and was subsequently transferred to another job as a health policy adviser, where her office was located on the other side of the Capitol. Bennett also says she reported the incident to a special counsel to the governor, Judith Mogul, towards the end of last June – after which she chose not to insist on an investigation because she “wanted to move on” with her new job.

    Cuomo, in his statement, called Bennett a “hard-working and valued member” of his staff who had “every right to speak out,” revealing that she had opened up to him about being a survivor of sexual assault.

    “The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported,” said Cuomo, who did not deny asking Bennett personal questions.

    Bennett’s accusation comes less than a week after a woman accused Cuomo of sexually harassing her several times between 2016 and 2018, at one point allegedly giving her an unsolicited kiss on the lips at his Manhattan office.

    Lindsey Boylan has accused Mr. Cuomo of harassing her on several occasions while she was employed by the state government.Credit…Rob Latour/Shutterstock

    Cuomo says Boylan is lying. 

    In response to the allegations against Cuomo – and in light of recent revelations that he withheld nursing home death data in order to avoid prosecution by the Trump DOJ, a top New York state lawmaker, Tim Kennedy (D), said that there’s a ‘need to get more information,” adding “And I believe we’re going to be looking for that in the coming days.” 

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 18:53

  • War Mongering For Artificial Intelligence
    War Mongering For Artificial Intelligence

    Authored by Dr. Binoy Kampmark via Southfront.org,

    The ghost of Edward Teller must have been doing the rounds between members of the National Commission on Artificial Intelligence.  The father of the hydrogen bomb was never one too bothered by the ethical niggles that came with inventing murderous technology.  It was not, for instance, “the scientist’s job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used.”  Responsibility, however exercised, rested with the American people and their elected officials.

    The application of AI in military systems has plagued the ethicist but excited certain leaders and inventors.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has grandiloquently asserted that “it would be impossible to secure the future of our civilization” without a mastery of artificial intelligence, genetics, unmanned weapons systems and hypersonic weapons.

    Campaigners against the use of autonomous weapons systems in war have been growing in number.  The UN Secretary-General António Guterres is one of them. 

    “Autonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement,” he wrote on Twitter in March 2019, “are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law.” 

    The International Committee for Robot Arms Control, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and Human Rights Watch are also dedicated to banning lethal autonomous weapons systems.  Weapons analysts such as Zachary Kallenborn see that absolute position as untenable, preferring a more modest ban on “the highest-risk weapons: drone swarms and autonomous chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons”.

    The critics of such weapons systems were far away in the Commission’s draft report for Congress.  The document has more than a touch of the mad scientist in the bloody service of a master.  This stood to reason, given its chairman was Eric Schmidt, technical advisor to Alphabet Inc., parent company of Google, which he was formerly CEO of.  With Schmidt holding the reins, we would be guaranteed a show shorn of moral restraint.  “The AI promise – that a machine can perceive, decide, and act more quickly, in a more complex environment, with more accuracy than a human – represents a competitive advantage in any field.  It will be employed for military ends, by governments and non-state groups.”

    In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 23, Schmidt was all about “fundamentals” in keeping the US ascendant.  This involved preserving national competitiveness and shaping the military with those fundamentals in mind.  But to do so required keeping the eyes of the security establishment wide open for any dangerous competitor.  (Schmidt understands Congress well enough to know that spikes in funding and outlays tend to be attached to the promotion of threats.)  He sees “the threat of Chinese leadership in key technology areas” as “a national crisis”.  In terms of AI, “only the United States and China” had the necessary “resources, commercial might, talent pool, and innovation ecosystem to lead the world”.  Within the next decade, Beijing could even “surpass the United States as the world’s AI superpower.”

    The testimony is generously spiked with the China threat thesis.  “Never before in my lifetime,” he claimed, “have I been more worried that we will soon be displaced by a rival or more aware of what second place means for our economy, our security, and the future of our nation.”  He feared that such worries were not being shared by officials, with the DoD treating “software as a low priority”.  Here, he could give advice on lessons learned in the spawning enterprises of Silicon Valley, where the principled live short lives.  Those dedicated to defence could “form smart teams, drive hard deliverables, and move quickly.”  Missiles, he argued, should be built “the way we now build cars: use a design studio to develop and simulate in software.”

    This all meant necessarily praising a less repressible form of AI to the heavens, notably in its military applications.  Two days of public discussion saw the panel’s vice chairman Robert Work extol the virtues of AI in battle.  “It is a moral imperative to at least pursue this hypothesis” claiming that “autonomous weapons will not be indiscriminate unless we design them that way.”  The devil is in the human, as it has always been.

    In a manner reminiscent of the debates about sharing atomic technology in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Committee urges that the US “pursue a comprehensive strategy in close coordination with our allies and partners for artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and adoption that promotes values critical to free and open societies.”  A proposed Emerging Technology Coalition of likeminded powers and partners would focus on the role of “emerging technologies according to democratic norms and values” and “coordinate policies to counter the malign use of these technologies by authoritarian regimes”.  Fast forgotten is the fact that distinctions such as authoritarianism and democracy have little meaning at the end of a weapon.

    Internal changes are also suggested to ruffle a few feathers.  The US State Department comes in for special mention as needing reforms.  “There is currently no clear lead for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State Department, which hinders the Department’s ability to make strategic technology decisions.”  Allies and partners were confused when approaching the State Department as to “which senior official would be their primary point of contact” for a range of topics, be they AI, quantum computing, 5G, biotechnology or new emerging technologies.

    Overall, the US government comes in for a battering, reproached for operating “at human speed not machine speed.”  It was lagging relative to commercial development of AI.  It suffered from “technical deficits that range from digital workforce shortages to inadequate acquisition policies, insufficient network architecture, and weak data practices.”

    The official Pentagon policy, as it stands, is that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems should be “designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.”  In October 2019, the Department of Defence adopted various ethical principles regarding the military use of AI, making the DoD Artificial Intelligence Centre the focal point.  These include the provision that, “DoD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care, while remaining responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI capabilities.”  The “traceable” principle is also shot through with the principle of human control, with personnel needing to “possess an appropriate understanding of the technology, development processes, and operational methods applicable to AI capabilities”.

    The National Commission pays lip service to such protocols, acknowledging that operators, organisations and “the American people” would not support AI machines not “designed with predictability” and “clear principles” in mind.  But the note of warning in not being too morally shackled becomes a screech.  Risk was “inescapable” and not using AI “to solve real national security challenges risks putting the United States at a disadvantage”.  Especially when it comes to China.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 18:30

  • Propaganda Crash: World Economic Forum Tweets "Lockdowns Improving Cities", Then Deletes Admitting It Was Wrong
    Propaganda Crash: World Economic Forum Tweets “Lockdowns Improving Cities”, Then Deletes Admitting It Was Wrong

    If there was any doubt that economic lockdowns supposedly inspired by the Covid pandemic are the peak in globalist propaganda, it disappeared not so “quietly” once and for all at 5:48am ET on Saturday, when the globalist organization which recently unleashed such lunatics as Klaus Schwab, best known for revealing the endgame with his book COVID-19: The Great Reset, deleted a that “Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world.”

    Remarkably, the WEF’s propaganda tweet – which was was accompanied by a video showing deserted streets and silent factories, that noted a record drop in carbon emissions and linked to an article claiming that silent cities contributed to better detection of minor earthquakes (because millions of workers losing their jobs is clearly less important than being able to measure the next M2 quake to the 8th significant digit) – survived just a few hours following a barrage of mockery and outraged comments.

    Just before 6am ET on Saturday, the WEF finally deleted the tweet, admitting in a subsequent highly ratioed tweet that “lockdowns aren’t “quietly improving cities” around the world” despite still insisting that the restrictions have been “an important part of the public health response to Covid-19.”

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

    By this point, however, social media was  in a full blown frenzy over the WEF’s admission that covid lockdowns are just peak propaganda  – one which has the complicit participation of all Silicon Valley tech giants – and sparked en even louder response from an outraged non-Davos audience.

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

    A group quickly swarmed on the corrected tweet, claiming correctly that the actual effect of lockdowns on halting the spread of the coronavirus remains a highly debated issue.

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

    The concession message looked like the WEF was actually “doubling down on [its] idiocy” instead of trying to do some damage control, former British MEP Martin Daubney wrote

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

    At the same time, the peasants demonstrated remarkable insight accusing the WEF of being “the hidden enemy of the people, worldwide. The unelected force that look to dominate our lives by influencing Governments all over the globe. It needs shutting down.”

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

    Some were furious that the propaganda arm of globalists had a “RIGHT TO RULE and DECIDE WHAT IS FAIR, EQUITABLE and REASONABLE” and warned that the crowd was coming for the WEF:

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

    Others quickly saw through the propaganda flip-flopping, and straight to the heart of the WEF’s agenda, one of spreading “global socialism” which will make lives for billions of people a nightmare which making a handful of virtue signaling uber-globalists (who arrive in Davos on their private jets even as they parade with how green they are) richer than ever:

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

    Yet others had even more direct suggestions for the WEF:

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

    At the end, the catastrophic gaffe left a huge dent on what little was left of the the globalist group’s reputation, and many users argued that it should just shut up:

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

    But most importantly, the tweet confirmed once again that what until now was a “conspiracy theory” pursued with rabid fervor by such tech giants as Google, Amazon and Twitter, was fact:

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

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

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

    Hours later, as the WEF’s catastrophic fiasco spread virally across the world, the WEF decided to triple down on its peak idiocy, and instead of just forgetting all about the matter decided that it’s best to engage with random twitter economists, and blame it all on “a working human being who made a mistake.”

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 18:16

  • These Are The 4 Things That Can Stop The Panic In The Bond Market
    These Are The 4 Things That Can Stop The Panic In The Bond Market

    It was just last Tuesday when he presented our readers with the latest observations from JPM quant Nicholas Panaigrtzoglou, who warned that the rapid rise in bond-equity correlations…

    … was bringing memories of previous violent bond tantrum episodes, including Bernanke’s famous Taper Tantrum from May-June 2013, the Bill Gross-inspired Bund tantrum of May-June 2015, the period into the US election Oct-Nov 2016, Feb 2018 and Q4 2018. All of those ended with pain for both bond and equity longs, and certainly risk parity and 60/40 balanced funds who were crushed on both long legs.

    Well, just two days later this warning was realized as we saw a surge in bond volatility as global bond prices plunged and yields soared as the latest inflation scare finally came to the fore (catalyzed by the catastrophic 7Y auction which sparked massive liquidation volumes across the curve).

    And, as Panigrtzoglou writes today, the surge in the bond-equity correlation together with the increase in volatility is putting even more pressure on multi-asset investors, such as risk parity funds and balanced mutual funds to de-risk (something we also discussed last Thursday in “Vol, Correlation Massacre Means Capitulation Is Just Starting“).

    And though we now know what catalyzed last week’s furious liquidation in rates, the question everyone is asking is whether the puke is over. And while some, such as the Nomura quant who correctly called both the early CTA liquidation and shorting that sparked last week’s rout now believe that the worst is over and CTAs are are now covering their shorts, Friday’s action which saw stocks closely sharply at their lows suggests that few are convinced.

    Which brings us to the key question posed by JPM’s Panigirtzoglou, namely “what conditions are needed for the current episode to subside and for equity and risk markets to resume their uptrend?”

    He then proceeds to answer his  own question, the lesson from the previous positive bond-equity correlation episodes of May-June 2013, the Bund tantrum of May-June 2015, the period into the US election Oct-Nov 2016, Feb 2018 and Q4 2018, is that there are two main conditions:

    1. Rate vol needs to decline from its current very high level
    2. Bond yields need to subside and unwind a decent portion of most recent increases, in particular at the 5yr UST tenor.

    Neither of these should come as a surprise to our readers. After all just last Sunday we laid out the week’s events clearly, when we proposed the opposite question, i.e., “Are Yields About To Blast-Off: Here Are The 3 Things To Watch“, concluding that “the aptly named MOVE index is the best real-time measure of potential runaway yields.” And sure enough, just days later the MOVE exploded to the highest level since last March’s bond crash.

    So now that what the two critical conditions that must be present for a return to normalcy, the next question is “how could these conditions be achieved.” Here JPM envisages four scenarios.

    A) The Fed intervenes by raising its bond buying pace in a similar fashion to March 2020. At the time, the Fed justified its intervention by seeking to restore functioning in rate markets. Thus far at least, this argument does not yet appear justified at the current level of market stress according to JPM, although as we noted earlier, BofA is already convinced that the Fed may address nervous markets as soon as this week.

    Here JPM notes that while its market depth metrics for 10y UST futures and cash bonds have deteriorated, they still appear well above levels during March 2020 and this is true for both the 5y and 10yr tenor. And, as JPM claims, without further deterioration in UST liquidity it would be difficult to envisage a Fed intervention a la March 2020, especially if one views the recent bond selloff as a function of investors embracing the reflation trade. At the same time, Fed Chair Powell and Governor Brainard are scheduled to speak next week, and it will be important to watch for signs of how it views the bond market correction.

    B) CTAs and other momentum traders hit oversold levels as mean reversion signals kick in. This, JPM writes, would provide at least some temporary relief (and it sure would especially if Nomura is right that the CTA shorting has now reversed). But back to JPM’s own calculations, the bank asks how far are we from oversold conditions on our momentum traders framework? The sell-off in 10y USTs to close just above 1.5% on Feb 25th has seen the bank’s shorter-term momentum signal for 10y USTs reach extreme bearish territory at -1.7 standard deviations, below even its early 2018 low of -1.5 standard deviations. The average of the shorter and longer-term signals reached a level of -0.8, still some way from its early 2018 low of – 1.2 standard deviations, but it would only take a further extension of the sell-off for 10y yields to 1.6% for this to reach its early 2018 low, while for the average of the shorter-term and longer-term signals to reach its 2018 low would take a further sell-off of just 5bp to around -0.2%.

    Long story short, JPM agrees with Nomura that at 10y maturities, it appears the shorter-term signals for USTs have reached levels where mean reversion or profit taking signals by CTAs should  start kicking in, while the average of shorter-term and longer-term signals are approaching those levels. That said, while there are signs that the shorter-term signal for 10y USTs and Bunds reaching extreme levels has triggered some CTAs to reduce short duration exposure, for the signals to more decisively reach oversold conditions for CTAs could take 10y UST yields reaching 1.6% and for 5y to reach 1.0%. This means that more yield momentum chasing higher could be in store in the coming days.

    C) Japanese and Euro area investors step in to buy USTs to take advantage of the large yield pickup on a currency hedge basis relative to their domestic bonds. As the chart below shows, the recent TSY sell-off has seen the attractiveness of US Treasury yields rise on a currency-hedged basis, particularly for Japanese investors, and yet the probability of this flow materializing at current levels of UST vol is low as these investors and in particular banks tend to be averse to high levels of rate volatility.

    Indeed, the latest weekly data on Japanese residents’ net purchases of foreign bonds for the week ending Feb 19th already saw net sales of around $18bn amid last week’s sell-off.

    Before these investors step in, JPM suggests that first other flows or central bank actions are need to materialize first to induce a decline in volatility.

    D) Finally, rebalancing flows by balanced mutual funds and/or pension funds would help bond markets to stabilize and bond yields to subside. Unlike foreign flows, the chance of these flows materializing is high during the current quarter according to JPM, though the timing is harder to predict and could happen. In the event it materializes more towards the end rather the beginning of March, it could create a flow vacuum for rate markets over the next two weeks. One potential risk: if and when these rebalancing flows emerge, they are unlikely to be supportive of equities, as they combine bond buying with equity selling.

    * * *

    Putting it all together, when thinking about the above four scenarios JPM finds that the conditions needed for this week’s market stress – which is reminiscent of the previous positive bond-equity correlation episode of Q4 2018 – to subside “may not yet be fully in place” which is a surprisingly bearish assessment, especially if as Nomura (correctly) observes, the CTA unwind of shorts has already begun and the next stop is likely to be 1.20%. Of the four scenarios, Panigirtzoglou concludes that there are some signs at least of the second starting to take shape as shorter-term momentum signals for 10y reached oversold conditions. In any event, if urgent stabilization is required and does not emerge, dragging equities lower, BofA will be right and the Fed will have to address the ongoing liquidation wave… although what the Fed will say is unclear.

    After all, as we said earlier, the Fed is in a very big bind – the reason we have the current tantrum is precisely due to the massive liquidity injections from central banks who have been desperate for more inflation. Well, they have their inflation and to reverse it they plan to do what – inject even more liquidity? At some point even our broken markets will have to concede that what is going on is complete and terminal idiocy.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 18:00

  • 'Brace For Rampant Inflation': Hedge Fund Billionaire Stunned At "Market Craziness", Sees "Trouble Ahead"
    ‘Brace For Rampant Inflation’: Hedge Fund Billionaire Stunned At “Market Craziness”, Sees “Trouble Ahead”

    In 2012 Elliott Management’s Paul Singer correctly warned that financial system leverage and technology would “serve as an accelerant in the next crisis”:

    “The major message that I want to give you (and I’ve invited challenge on both parts of my thesis here and I’ve never had anybody challenge it): The major financial institutions in the US and around the globe are utterly opaque; and The next financial crisis will happen faster, more suddenly.“

    Risk did indeed happen fast, numerous times since.

    In 2014, Singer went more aggressively after the central banks and their arrogant largesse:

    “There is no reason to suppose that they [central bankers] understand the modern financial system and economy to any greater extent than they did in 2007 (that is to say, not at all). Nevertheless, they plow ahead, expressing total confidence that what they are saying and doing is wise and not dangerous drivel.”

    …

    “It is unlikely that these unprecedented and experimental government policies of such gargantuan scope will actually create the desired result and allow themselves to be able to be unwound without great shock and disruption to the global financial system.”

    His solution at the time:

    “Although the levitation of financial assets has yet to levitate gold, we will grit our collective teeth on that score and await either ‘asset price justice’ or the ‘end times,’ whichever comes first.”

    Justice was to come a couple of times since.

    Interestingly, 2014 was when Singer began to warn about inflation and the potential for social unrest:

    “…inflation is spreading in both scope and intensity. If and when it breaks out in an inescapably broad way, there will be a crowd of seriously confused policymakers making excuses and claiming that inflation does not in fact exist; it is not their fault; it was completely unpredictable; and/or it will actually be good for people.

    “We believe that if and when inflation goes from being something that affects only a particular list of assets (a growing list, presently a combination of things owned by the well-off plus a number of things that are basic necessities) to a widespread “in-your-face” phenomenon affecting the cost of living of almost the entire population, then the normal yardsticks of risk, return and profit may be thrown into the garbage can. These measures may be replaced by a scramble by citizens and investors to preserve value on a foundation of shifting sand, together with societal unrest that may make the current politically-useful “inequality” riffs, blaming the “1%” and attacking those “millionaires and billionaires” who refuse to “pay their fair share,” look like mere warm-ups for real class warfare.”

    He hasn’t always been right, obviously, as he claimed in 2016 that Donald Trump (if elected) would “cause a widespread global depression.” Quite the opposite happened, and the depression, it turns out did not happen until China (allegedly) unleashed COVID on the world.

    Which brings us to Singer’s prophetic 2019 warning that a 40% crash was coming for the stock market.

    “global debt is at an all-time high. Derivatives are at an all-time high and it took all of this monetary easing to get to where we are today and I don’t think central bankers, or policymakers or academics are in any better shape to predict the next downturn and I think we are the high end of the risk spectrum.”

    He then ominously added that “I’m expecting the possibility of a significant market downturn.”

    “December [2018] supported the notion that they’re trapped,” he said.

    “What they should have done, and what they should do now, is try to restore the soundness of money. They should not be cutting rates right now. They should be calling on the congresses and parliaments around the developed world to take steps to deal with the economic slowdown in growth.”

    He was right again in 2020 as all hell broke loose everywhere and prompted more of the policies he has been warning of since at least 2012.

    And now – after 10 years – Singer is readying himself for the final victory lap, as he tells investors in his latest letter that he can’t wait to say “I told you so” having long-warned of an ugly end to the Fed’s extreme (and getting extreme-er) easy-money policies.

    “We believe that hindsight will show the champion of head-smacking craziness in the American stock market to be the period playing out right now,” the 76-year-old exclaimed, adding that a “flamboyant line-up” of excesses will come back to haunt investors.

    The (very visible) invisible hand behind all this excess is, in Singer’s (correct) opinion, The Fed (and the rest of the world’s central banking copycats) as he echoes Michael ‘Big Short’ Burry’s recent warnings of out of control “rampant inflation” that will shock policy makers, stock pickers and bond investors, alike.

    “‘Trouble ahead’ is signaled by a rare combination of low-quality securities, staggering valuation metrics, overleveraged capital structures, a scarcity of honest profits, a desperate dearth of understanding evinced by the most active traders, and economic macro prospects that are not as thrilling as the mobs braying ‘Buy! Buy!’ seem to think,” he wrote.

    Having registered annualized gains of about 13%, Elliott’s performance over 44 years suggest Singer is worth listening to as Bloomberg reports he clearly exuded frustration at what he sees as the hysteria driving everything from Bitcoin to government debt – a “return-free risk,” as his letter put it.

    Specifically, Singer is not a big fan (to understate it extremely) of Bitcoin:

    “Pulling out your hair is an option, though only if you have hair to spare,” the mostly bald Singer wrote.

    “Hiding under the bed to avoid people who gloat about being long Bitcoin can get…tiring. Deep breathing exercises can work, but only for short periods. We continue to press on for the day when we can say, ‘We told you so.’”

    In conclusion we go back to Singer’s 2012 warning.

    “Nobody in America has actually seen, or most people probably can’t even contemplate, what an actual loss of confidence may look like.

    If you think about some of these elements and how they might interact, you might come up with other paths of transmission or risk and pain. But I wouldn’t go about your business thinking it’s business as usual in a typical post-crisis, post bear market recovery.”

    Given the chaos in Treasury markets this week, it seemed apropos.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 17:45

  • Is Anyone Else Fed Up With Dr. Fauci's Forever Moving Goalposts?
    Is Anyone Else Fed Up With Dr. Fauci’s Forever Moving Goalposts?

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Despite vaccines and a falling number of cases Dr. Fauci keeps moving the goalposts.

    Not Yet, When?

    Dr. Facuci says Vaccinated People Shouldn’t Dine Indoors or Go to the Theater Quite Yet.

    “There are things, even if you’re vaccinated, that you’re not going to be able to do in society,” Fauci said on Monday during a White House COVID-19 press briefing.

    “For example, indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate. That’s because of the safety of society.“

    Though vaccines can help prevent people from contracting severe cases of COVID-19, the jabs may not stop them from getting sick altogether. It’s also still unclear whether vaccinated people can be disease carriers, meaning they might spread illness to unvaccinated people in a community where vaccination is far from universal, prolonging the pandemic.

    “We hope that when the data comes in, it’s going to show that the virus level is quite low and you’re not transmitting it,” Fauci said, cautioning:

    “We don’t know that now. And for that reason, we want to make sure that people continue to wear masks despite the fact that they’re vaccinated.”

    Early signs are looking promising that vaccinated people may not spread the virus well, but it’s still too soon to say for sure.

    I understand wearing masks. I understand avoiding groups and parties. But enough already. 

    Double masking and telling people not to eat out even after they have been vaccinated is too much to take. 

    The teachers’ unions will pick up on this and play it for all it’s worth.

    Addendum

    I was asked about my brief teachers’ union comment above. I will explain in detail in just a bit in another post.

    Meanwhile, please note Fauci falls silent following New York nursing home scandal after repeatedly praising Cuomo response.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 17:30

  • Judge "Disturbed" To Learn Google Tracks 'Incognito' Users, Demands Answers
    Judge “Disturbed” To Learn Google Tracks ‘Incognito’ Users, Demands Answers

    A US District Judge in San Jose, California says she was “disturbed” over Google’s data collection practices, after learning that the company still collects and uses data from users in its Chrome browser’s so-called ‘incognito’ mode – and has demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does,” according to Bloomberg.

    In a class-action lawsuit that describes the company’s private browsing claims as a “ruse” – and “seeks $5,000 in damages for each of the millions of people whose privacy has been compromised since June of 2016,” US District Judge Lucy Koh said she finds it “unusual” that the company would make the “extra effort” to gather user data if it doesn’t actually use the information for targeted advertising or to build user profiles.

    Koh has a long history with the Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, previously forcing the Mountain View, California-based company to disclose its scanning of emails for the purposes of targeted advertising and profile building.

    In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers. Google makes it seem like private browsing mode gives users more control of their data, Amanda Bonn, a lawyer representing users, told Koh. In reality, “Google is saying there’s basically very little you can do to prevent us from collecting your data, and that’s what you should assume we’re doing,” Bonn said.

    Andrew Schapiro, a lawyer for Google, argued the company’s privacy policy “expressly discloses” its practices. “The data collection at issue is disclosed,” he said.Another lawyer for Google, Stephen Broome, said website owners who contract with the company to use its analytics or other services are well aware of the data collection described in the suit. –Bloomberg

    Koh isn’t buying it – arguing that the company is effectively tricking users under the impression that their information is not being transmitted to the company.

    “I want a declaration from Google on what information they’re collecting on users to the court’s website, and what that’s used for,” Koh demanded.

    The case is Brown v. Google, 20-cv-03664, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose), via Bloomberg.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 17:00

  • Democrat Voters' Number One "Concern" Is Trump Supporters, New Poll Finds
    Democrat Voters’ Number One “Concern” Is Trump Supporters, New Poll Finds

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    A poll conducted by Echelon has found that while Republican voters are concerned with issues such as illegal immigration, lack of police resources, and high taxes, Democrat voters’ top concerns are supporters of President Trump, racism, and discrimination against LGBTQ people.

    While 81% of Republican voters cited immigration as the top issue, 82% of Democrats said that ‘Trump’s supporters’ is their top issue at the moment.

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

    A further 79% and 77%, respectively cited ‘white nationalism’ and ‘systemic racism’ as the issues they are most concerned about.

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

    Commentators immediately noted that the results highlight how the Democratic Party and the leftist media has brainwashed liberals into purely caring about identity politics over substantive issues.

    It should be noted that Echelon says it created a list of “likely primary issues” for supporters of each party.

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

    But still, when collating the full range of issues, ‘Trump’s supporters’ was a top concern for Democrats:

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

    Also of note was the finding that those who identify as Trump supporters, rather then ‘party-first’ Republicans are more concerned about every issue:

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 02/27/2021 – 16:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 27

Today’s News 27th February 2021

  • Buchanan: Trump, Once & Future King?
    Buchanan: Trump, Once & Future King?

    Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    “I don’t know if he’ll run in 2024 or not. But if he does, I’m pretty sure he will win the nomination.”

    So says Mitt Romney, the sole Republican senator to have voted twice to convict President Donald J. Trump of impeachable acts.

    But is it possible Trump could win the nomination in 2024?

    What does history teach us about Republican presidents who, after losing the White House, come back to win it again?

    Well, to be frank, there is no such history.

    Consider. Four Republican presidents in the 20th century were defeated while seeking a second term. None was nominated again.

    William Howard Taft lost the White House to Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and even ran behind the third-party “Bull Moose” candidate, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt. Taft never ran again but went on to serve as chief justice of the United States.

    Ex-President Teddy Roosevelt was considering running again in 1920 but died at 60 in January of 1919 at Sagamore Hill.

    After President Herbert Hoover lost to FDR in 1932, he never ran again.

    Gerald Ford, serving out Nixon’s second term, lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and packed it in for good, as did President Carter after losing to Ronald Regan in 1980.

    George H. W. Bush lost the White House in 1992 and retired from electoral politics, never to run again.

    As for Trump running in 2024 and winning the GOP nomination, he does hold high cards no other ex-president held, except perhaps Roosevelt.

    Trump has a vast and loyal following. Currently three-fourths of all Republicans see him as their leader. He won 74 million votes, the highest total ever for a sitting president or a losing presidential candidate.

    Their loyalty is traceable to what Trump achieved, whom and how he fought, and the new issues he introduced and has become indelibly associated. Foremost among these is his struggle to secure the Southern border against endless illegal migrant crossings.

    Unrestricted immigration from the South, the Third Worldization of America, is the true existential threat “climate change” purports to be.

    Trump also succeeded in enacting the traditional GOP platform of low taxes and deregulation, producing record-low unemployment — before the pandemic hit in March 2020.

    His record of elevating strict constructionists, constitutionalists and conservatives to the federal courts, and three Supreme Court seats, is unrivaled in the history of the modern Republican Party.

    Trump also forged a bond with Middle America by taking on a media whose treatment of him was remorselessly hateful and hostile. “We love him for the enemies he has made,” it was said of Grover Cleveland.

    He brought a new and unique agenda to the GOP.

    He replaced a free trade globalist ideology with nationalism. He set out to rebuild America’s depleted manufacturing base and restore her economic independence. Under Trump, the slogan “America First” came to represent a new foreign policy where rich and prosperous allies carried more of the burden of their own and the common defense.

    He wanted Americans to do their nation-building here in the USA.

    While Beltway Russophobes prevented Trump from achieving the rapprochement he wanted, and he failed to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East, he did drawdown U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and keep us out of an all-out war with Iran.

    There is thus a specific Trumpian agenda, with which he is alone associated, that is becoming the issues agenda of the conservative movement and the party base, if not the party elites.

    Yet, the drawbacks to a Trump nomination remain major.

    He did, after all, lose in 2020. And he has been damaged by the months-long battle since to prove that Biden was the beneficiary of a stolen election. The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by MAGA militants was blamed on Trump and became the article of his second impeachment where every Democratic senator and six Republicans voted to convict him. And even some of those who voted to acquit, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared him guilty of inciting the mob. Moreover, Trump faces a blizzard of legal challenges and charges that will damage his reputation, his businesses and him, personally.

    In 2024, Trump will turn 78, the age Joe Biden is today. And between now and 2024, there is sure to be considerable attrition in support among the 74 million who voted for Trump.

    But if Romney is right and Trump has the kind of strength that could make him the nominee in 2024, that strength will surely be sufficient to veto or sink any potential nominee who does not have the former president’s blessing.

    And, from seeing both candidates of 2020 up close in recent weeks and months, does not Trump appear more likely to be the Republican leader of his party than does slow-moving “Sleepy Joe” look like the Democratic nominee 44 months from now?

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 23:40

  • COVID Outbreak Hits Two Navy Warships Deployed In Middle East
    COVID Outbreak Hits Two Navy Warships Deployed In Middle East

    In what seems a repeat of the USS Theodore Roosevelt coronavirus outbreak saga of last Spring which led to the sacking of its commander who blew the whistle on Pentagon mishandling, and the resignation of no less than the Secretary of the Navy, there are now two US warships that have been struck with COVID-19 outbreaks while patrolling Middle East regional waters.

    Both are now said to be returning to port in Bahrain to handle the emerging crisis, according to the Associated Press on Friday. “A dozen troops aboard the USS San Diego, an amphibious transport dock, tested positive for COVID-19, said Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich, a spokeswoman for the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet,” AP reports.

    Additionally, the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea which has also been deployed to the gulf and Indian Ocean regions has “confirmed several cases of COVID-19,” according to the 5th Fleet’s statement. This out of an estimated 380 sailors on board. The San Diego is the larger of the two, with almost 600 sailors and Marines. 

    USS Philippine Sea in the foreground, via US Navy/Wikimedia

    “All positive cases have been isolated on board, and the (ships) remains in a restricted COVID bubble,” Cmdr. Rebarich said. “The port visit and medical support have been coordinated with the host nation government and Bahrain Ministry of Health.”

    Through much of the summer following the major USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier outbreak crisis which saw over 1,000 sailors test positive – including one death – a number of naval ships opted for extended stints at sea – avoiding port calls in order to maintain natural isolation from potential exposure on land. 

    However, there’s since been a sense of ‘normal’ deployment protocols resuming, though with heightened hygiene and distancing measures, and what the Navy has called “aggressive mitigation” efforts to combat the virus.

    Meanwhile, earlier this month the Roosevelt itself was actually back in pandemic related news after at least three sailors tested positive for COVID-19. The small cluster of infections was uncovered during ‘random’ surveillance testing for the virus. It remains that the majority of cases in the Navy are asymptomatic, which why the military has been so regularly conducting large scale monitoring tests.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 23:20

  • China Emits More Carbon In 2 Weeks Than Australia Does In One Year: Think Tank
    China Emits More Carbon In 2 Weeks Than Australia Does In One Year: Think Tank

    Authored by Henry Jom via The Epoch Times,

    China emits more carbon dioxide in 16 days than Australia does in one year, according to new research published by a free-market think tank.

    Australia’s net-zero emissions target would therefore be cancelled out by China in just two weeks, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) said in a press release on Wednesday.

    According to the report, China operates 57 times as many coal-fired power stations as Australia. This figure is set to increase with China currently constructing 92 coal-fired power stations.

    The report also added that while Australia’s carbon emissions per capita have declined by 15.4 percent since 2004, China’s emissions per capita over the same period have increased by 83.5 percent.

    Globally, the report identified that Australia’s share of global carbon emissions declined from 1.3 percent in 2009 to 1.1 percent in 2019.

    “Despite Australia’s negligible share of global emissions, under the Paris Agreement, Australians are subject to the deepest per capita emissions cuts in the developed world,” the report added.

    Meanwhile, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is pursuing “low emissions technologies” instead of committing Australia to net-zero emissions, with New South Wales and Western Australia referring to net-zero it as an “aspirational” target, reported Herald Sun.

    However, Federal Labor Opposition leader Anthony Albanese looks set to committing his party to achieve net-zero by 2050, while Independent Member for Warringah Zali Steggall plan to introduce a Climate Change Bill to parliament in March.

    Cian Hussey, Research Fellow at the IPA, said calls for Australia to adopt a net-zero emissions target would “ignore the significant economic, social, and humanitarian costs which would inevitably be the result of such a target.”

    “It is reckless and futile for the political class to impose on Australians further severe cuts to emissions which costs jobs and livelihoods, while China—the world’s largest emitter—continues to rapidly increase its emissions without consequence,” said Hussey.

    Earlier research by the IPA found that up to 653,600 jobs would be at “direct risk” if a net-zero carbon emissions target were put in place—particularly in the agriculture, heavy manufacturing, and coal mining industries.

    While some Nationals have called for exemptions for the agricultural sector, Independent Zail Steggall said keeping the sector out of the zero-emissions target would mean the sector risked being charged carbon tariffs from other countries.

    Nationals backbencher Matt Canavan has warned the 2050 net-zero emissions target is the “wrong priority” for the Federal government, reported Sky News.

    “There’s way too much focus on what might or might not happen in 30 years time rather than dealing with the challenges we face right now,” Canavan said.

    “When I think about what the biggest challenge for my kids is going to be in their generation, I think it’s the rising aggression of the Chinese Communist Party in our region. Not carbon neutrality by 2050.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 23:00

  • "Drunk" Roomba Robots Aimlessly Roam Homes Amid Major Software Glitch   
    “Drunk” Roomba Robots Aimlessly Roam Homes Amid Major Software Glitch   

    Here’s an instance where smart internet of things (IoT) automation devices are miserably failing. Users on Reddit and other forms of social media are reporting their iRobot Roomba vacuums are experiencing navigation issues, with some users comparing their expensive robo-vaccums’ behavior to that of a “drunk.”

    “iRobot what’s up with the 3.12.8 release? My tickets were closed and I wasn’t rolled back. These robots looks drunk since the update. Mounting complaints in the forums continue. Some folks who were rolled back got rolled forward and the issues came back. HELP!,” tweeted Anthony Virtuoso. 

    YouTuber Garrett McGrath uploaded a video titled “Drunk roomba, useless firmware” that shows the robo-vacuum wandering around the room, performing useless tasks. At the end of the video, the robot fails to dock at its charging station. 

    “irobot published a firmware recently that may as well have turned these things into paperweights. the ‘fix’ is to delete all your maps, reseat the robot a bunch of times, factory reset it after that, reboot it a few more times, and start over entirely with pairing it again. Just to the machine work for two weeks then return to this state, “McGratg explained in the video’s description.

    The Verge reports that iRobot’s latest software updates for i7 and s9 Roomba models have faulty “firmware updates have been causing navigation issues.” According to that report, new software updates could be rolled out “over the next several weeks.” 

    One Reddit user records a timelapse video of their i7 failing to dock. 

    //embed.redditmedia.com/widgets/platform.js

    These robots cost anywhere from $600 to $900 per unit – these domestic help robo-cleaners under the IoT umbrella are supposed to improve our lives though that doesn’t appear to be the case here. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 22:40

  • Facebook Algorithm Accuses 81-Year-Old Grandmother Of "Hate Speech" Over Knitted-Pigs Comment
    Facebook Algorithm Accuses 81-Year-Old Grandmother Of “Hate Speech” Over Knitted-Pigs Comment

    Authored by Paul Jospeh Watson via Summit News,

    Facebook’s algorithm flagged an 81-year-old grandmother’s comments about knitted pigs as an example of “hate speech” and threatened her with a permanent ban.

    Yes, really.

    After losing her husband last year, Rita Rich-Mulcahy, a retired teacher who lives in Australia, created the Facebook page to share with the world her love of knitting and raise money for The Smith Family charity, which helps disadvantaged children.

    After posting a picture of her own knitted pigs, Rich-Mulcahy referred to them as “white pigs” and “high-viz pigs,” resulting in the threat to terminate her account over “hate speech.”

    “It may seem a small thing to most people, but to someone who had never even had an overdue library book, being charged with using hate speech was frightening,” said Rich-Mulcahy.

    Facebook issued a statement asserting that its automated system flagging the comments was a “mistake” that its AI “sometimes” makes.

    The story once again illustrates how Facebook’s censorship algorithm, which gets stricter almost by the day as a result of relentless mainstream media hysteria, is completely broken.

    *  *  *

    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
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 22:20

  • Huawei Plans New Electric Car As US Sanctions Crush Cellphone Business
    Huawei Plans New Electric Car As US Sanctions Crush Cellphone Business

    If you thought the hype surrounding electric vehicles and the hunt for a “Tesla killer” had ended with the exposure of the Nikola fraud by short-sellers last year, well, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

    And not only because Saudi-backed Lucid motors is getting ready to go public via a deal with a SPAC put together by investment banker Michael Klein. As the CCP pushes for more electric vehicles to be sold in China, more domestic companies are entering the fray.

    One example is Huawei, which – according to Reuters – is planning to make electric vehicles under its own brand and could launch some models this year as it pivots away from making smartphones after the Trump Administration cut off access to critical American components.

    Since building cars from scratch is no easy task, Huawei is instead is in talks with state-owned Changan Automobile and other automakers to use their car plants to make its Huawei branded electric vehicles, according to Reuters.

    Huawei is also in talks with another Chinese firm: BAIC Group’s BluePark New Energy Technology. Like Foxconn’s deal with Lucid, BluePark would be responsible for mass producing the cars presumably designed by Huawei.

    According to Reuters, the plan heralds “a potentially major shift in direction for Huawei after nearly two-years of US sanctions that have cut its access to key supply chains, forcing it to sell a part of its smartphone business to keep the brand alive.

    The Trump Administration targeted Huawei over concerns that western countries using its technology and products in their 5G networks would give the CCP unprecedented access to private and sensitive information belonging to foreign governments. A spokesman for Huawei warned that while the company doesn’t presently manufacture cars, it is aiming to provide “digital car-oriented and new-added components”.

    “Huawei is not a car manufacturer. However through ICT (information and communications technology), we aim to be a digital car-oriented and new-added components provider, enabling car OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) to build better vehicles.”

    The company’s EVs will reportedly target mass-market consumers, while “foreign” electric cars like those produced by Tesla and other foreign automakers (like Ford, which has partnered with a domestic Chinese firm to make electric cars for the Chinese market) presumably will target wealthier Chinese consumers. It’s a divide that reflects the Chinese smartphone market, where domestic phones from Huawei and Xiaomi are seen as more pedestrian than Apple products purchased in the country.

    The prospects for growth in China’s EV market are high: Sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs), including pure battery electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, are expected to make up 20% of China’s overall annual auto sales by 2025. And inndustry forecasts put China’s NEV sales at 1.8MM units this year, up from about 1.3 million in 2020.

    And Huawei isn’t alone. Its ambitious plans to make its own cars are allowing it to join a raft of Asian tech companies that have made similar announcements in recent months, including Baidu Inc and Foxconn.

    Huawei was awarded at least four patents related to EVs this week.

    Of course, the Huawei electric car is only one of several new EV projects that are still in the early stages. For example, Fisker, the one-time Tesla rival, has reportedly partnered with Foxconn to build electric cars as it clearly sees better business prospects in China.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 22:00

  • Biden Gun Control Plan Would "Criminalize" Up To 105 Million People: Gun-Rights Group
    Biden Gun Control Plan Would “Criminalize” Up To 105 Million People: Gun-Rights Group

    Authored by Jack Cardillo via The Epoch Times,

    A gun-rights organization said that President Joe Biden’s gun control proposal would potentially make about 105 million law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

    “While we can agree that there are several ‘common sense’ and long overdue changes needed to our nation’s gun laws, we firmly believe that the path forward should be focused on supporting and protecting responsible, law-abiding Americans – not criminalizing and punishing them,” the U.S. Concealed Carry Association said in a letter to Biden this week.

    The group – which, according to the group’s website, has about 556,000 members – said the president’s push for gun control on the anniversary of the Parkland, Florida mass shooting was needless.

    “The U.S. Concealed Carry Association exists to help responsible Americans avoid danger, save lives, and keep their families safe, and we believe that our elected leaders in Washington have an incredible obligation to pursue these same goals,” the group added.

    The group noted that in 2020, a significant number of people purchased firearms in the midst of historic riots and the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The FBI stated last month that it processed a record 39.7 million firearm background checks in 2020, which bested the previous high of 10 million. Reports said that as many as 8.5 million purchased their first firearm in 2020, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Meanwhile, a number of gun and ammunition manufacturers reported shortages amid the surge in demand.

    Biden earlier this month said that he would push Congress to enact more gun control measures, including allowing gun manufacturers to face lawsuits, banning “assault weapons,” and placing bans on high-capacity magazines. His pick for Attorney General, Merrick Garland, told lawmakers on Monday that he would support the White House’s stance on gun control.

    “This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets,” Biden said earlier this month.

    Pro-Second Amendment groups have noted that the term “assault weapon” has a nebulous meaning, with some saying that it is a made-up term that was invented by the anti-gun lobby in the 1980s. “Assault rifle” is a term sometimes used by the military to define a rifle that has select-fire capabilities, or the ability to switch between semi-automatic or fully automatic. For example, the much-derided AR-15 doesn’t have select-fire capability and only operates as a semi-automatic rifle.

    The U.S. Concealed Carry Association further added that “record numbers of Americans have been purchasing firearms to keep themselves and their loved ones safe,” adding that “women and minorities are now leading the way as the fastest-growing groups of concealed carry permit holders in the country.”

    White House officials, furthermore, have said Biden would take on the largest gun-rights group, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

    “But I will say that the president is somebody, throughout his career, who has advocated for smart gun, smart gun safety measures,” press secretary Jen Psaki said earlier this month. “He is not afraid of standing up to the NRA – he has done it multiple times.”

    The letter was first obtained by the Washington Examiner. The Epoch Times has reached out to the White House for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 21:40

  • Artificial Intelligence Takes Over Drive-Thru Orders At This Fast-Food Restaurant
    Artificial Intelligence Takes Over Drive-Thru Orders At This Fast-Food Restaurant

    Today, the warning is that no low-skilled job is safe from being displaced by automation and artificial intelligence. For example, humans taking orders at drive-thru lines at fast-food restaurants are being replaced with an automated system.

    Lee’s Famous Recipe Chicken in Englewood, Ohio, beginning this week, will be using “artificial intelligence to take orders of customers passing through the drive-thru,” according to local television station WHIO-TV. 

    The automated drive-thru ordering system developed by Hi Auto uses “artificial intelligence” to greet and take orders from customers. 

    Andrea Newport, the spokesperson for Lee’s Famous Recipe Chicken, said, “employees in the restaurant will be able to listen to every transaction through existing headsets and intervene in case an issue arises during the order process.”

    Far Hills Development, LLC operates the Englewood location and 12 other locations around Ohio. The company believes artificial intelligence will alleviate staffing problems due to the virus pandemic. 

    … and this is creepy.

    “The technology also can be scaled to include video and recognize license plates and greet regular customers by name and know their favorite menu items,” Newport said.

    Technological unemployment is set to soar as robots and artificial intelligence are replacing jobs faster than ever due to the virus pandemic. The pandemic has created a strong incentive to automate the workplace. In pandemics, machines and computers don’t catch infections. 

    This all suggests that on top of the millions of jobs lost to the pandemic, there will be increasing jobs lost to robots, driving technological unemployment higher. 

    For governments – now question now remains: What to do with the millions of people without jobs? Retrain them of usher in universal basic income? 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 21:20

  • The Coming Space-Race
    The Coming Space-Race

    Authored by Brian Berletic via 21stCenturyWire.com,

    Introduction

    The domain of space has become an increasingly important playing field economically and militarily amid the wider great power game here on Earth.

    While mostly out of sight, the satellites circling overhead provide us with precise positioning information for navigation, communication, weather data, intelligence, and imaging for maps so readily available online – we have begun to take this all for granted.

    The impact of this technology in orbit on our ability to engage in commerce and maintain military preparedness has become so vital over the past several decades that nations have begun dedicating not only more resources into developing spaceborne capabilities, but also creating the ability to monitor threats in space and develop methods to defend against them.

    This has led to several nations creating “space forces,” with the United States creating the US Space Force in 2019. Russia and China also have equivalent military forces dedicated solely to the domain of space – though how they will be used will most certainly differ from how the US will likely (and is already beginning to) use theirs.

    What we see unfolding now is geopolitical cooperation and conflict here on Earth being extended into Earth orbit and beyond.

    China has begun launching as many, if not more rockets per year than the United States. Its capabilities range from placing entire satellite constellations into orbit, to launching its own astronauts and even space station segments, as well as commercial missions for clients from around the globe.

    Russia continues to develop its space launch capabilities and currently still has these most reliable manned space launch systems on Earth – the Soyuz. Their plans to develop reusable rockets to remain competitive with American aerospace company SpaceX means that Russia too remains a significant partner/competitor in the space domain.

    And of course, private companies – from the US to China and everywhere in between – are creating capabilities and pursuing objectives beyond existing state-dominated space programs – with US-based SpaceX creating everything from reusable launch vehicles, to satellite internet, to a fleet of stainless steel starships designed to colonize Mars.

    And just beyond reach of current technology are resources in space in the form of minerals and ore on the Moon and trapped in near-Earth objects like asteroids that could open the door to a multi-trillion dollar space economy that could sustain a population within our solar system many times larger than the 7.6 billion people on Earth today.

    Through this now quickly shifting and rapidly developing space industry we can see the stage being set for a new, and much more wide-ranging “space race” for the 21st century.

    While the first space race was bipolar – between the United States and the Soviet Union – today’s new space race includes old adversaries – the US and Russia – as well as China, India, and even Iran. There are also a growing number of private space companies from US-based firms like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, to Japan’s iSpace, and Galactic Energy in China.

    The Space Economy 

    There is a very real space-based economy already.

    It consists of constellations of satellites providing everything from communication to navigational services – services that are playing an increasingly important role in the global economy.

    Industries like delivery services heavily depend on satellite navigation to connect drivers with their destinations, aiding them in navigating to customers and allowing customers to track their progress in real-time. Food delivery alone is an industry of over $100 billion worldwide.

    There are also taxi services that increasingly rely on satellite navigation to find and deliver passengers.

    The growing importance of satellite navigation for the economy is only set to grow as companies around the globe explore the possibility of drone delivery services and modes of land transportation that are increasingly autonomous.

    Communication satellites have long served an important role in advancing and connecting modern information technology. Satellite phones and now satellite internet are services already available around the world. These services depend on satellites in higher orbits over the Earth meaning that latency is higher – and internet speeds slower.

    Geostationary orbits, while higher and providing slower communication speeds, require fewer satellites to cover any particular area – with specific satellites assigned to and stationed permanently over a single region of the planet.

    Communication satellites in low earth orbit cannot remain over a single region of the planet permanently. They are constantly moving, and thus to create worldwide coverage, shells of constantly moving satellites with protocols meant to relay signals not only from the ground to orbit, but between satellites in orbit are required – and in large numbers.

    The lowering costs of both satellite manufacturing and space launches to place them into orbit makes this possible today.

    With SpaceX’s Starlink service, consisting of thousands of satellites in low earth orbit (and eventually tens of thousands of satellites), low latency satellite internet will be available worldwide with a partial network already being tested.

    Other companies are attempting to create their own low earth orbit constellations including OneWeb and Amazon’s Project Kuiper.

    Russia’s Roscosmos is planning to create a similar constellation and China via its Hongyun project is already launching satellites in a bid to create its own low earth orbit broadband internet constellation.

    These would constitute global internet service providers – though satellites would still depend on ground stations that connected to the physical backbone of the Internet in order to receive and transmit data – and companies involved in proposing and building these constellations are designing custom tailored solutions on a state-by-state basis to address security concerns in an age where information warfare is as serious a threat as actual warfare.

    There are also clear military implications regarding satellite navigation and communication.

    Its use on the battlefield includes collecting intelligence, coordinating the locations of and communication between troops in the field, guiding warships at sea as well as warplanes overhead, guiding munitions accurately to their targets and for managing the growing fleet of unmanned military vehicles on land, in the air, and both on and under the sea.

    The obvious importance of satellite navigation and communication for both a nation’s economy and its defense is why nations like the United States, Russia, China, and the EU have developed their own networks that they control and that they cannot be excluded from. These are networks that they can offer access to for allies and customers, to enhance their alliances and to open up streams of revenue.

    The United States maintains the Global Positioning System (GPS) with a constellation of 31 satellites. The maintenance and protection of America’s GPS satellites was transferred to its newly christened Space Force.

    Russia maintains the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) with 24 satellites in orbit. The EU’s Galileo network also consists of 24 satellites.

    China recently completed its BeiDou network with 35 satellites in orbit – the largest network of its kind and one of several key indicators illustrating not only how serious China takes this new space race, but the competence it is able to bring to it.

    The BeiDou network has already become a key component of China’s One Belt, One Road initiative. It is space infrastructure China is using to help stitch together the economies of Eurasia and to help augment the military capabilities of its allies – including nations like Pakistan who now have access to BeiDou’s higher military-grade positioning resolution.

    Since China is building continent-spanning transportation infrastructure – creating and maintaining its own network of navigation satellites with global coverage prevents nations like the US from cutting it off from the GPS network at junctures of geopolitical tensions and potentially stranding logistical operations across entire continents.

    CISLunar Economy 

    United Launch Alliance (ULA) – a space lift company created by Boeing and Lockheed – has proposed what it calls a “cislunar economy.” Cislunar describes the space between the Earth and the Moon.

    ULA’s proposal imagines a cislunar economy reaching $3 trillion by 2050. According to SpaceNews in an article titled, “ULA’s Tory Bruno argues for U.S. investments in the production of fuel in space,” that economy would include mining, transportation, manufacturing and space tourism.

    Space.com in an article titled, “Inside ULA’s Plan to Have 1,000 People Working in Space by 2045,” would note just how many people would make up that economy

    CISLunar economy (Image Source: ULA/NASA)

    Mining and in-situ manufacturing in space alone would be transformative for human civilization – akin to moving from the bronze age to the iron age. The resources trapped in near earth objects dwarf the total amount of resources here on Earth. It is just a matter of accessing it and possessing the tools to use it in manufacturing processes in space.

    The science fiction future imagined in books and movies for decades could become a reality, complete with orbital habitats not unlike that featured in the 2013 film, “Elysium,” hopefully without the accompanying dystopian class divide.

    While ULA’s own expendable launch vehicles are unlikely capable now or anytime in the near future of actually realizing their cislunar economy, other US-based companies and even those abroad might – and sooner than we imagine.

    Jeff Bezos – Amazon founder and owner of US-based aerospace company Blue Origin – has proposed a roadmap (video) for the mining of resources and the construction of such habitats. Blue Origin is currently working on its New Glenn rocket – the closest launch vehicle in terms of capability and reusability to SpaceX’s Starship currently under testing. New Glenn, Starship, and similar launch vehicles would be needed to create the foundation of these proposed manned economies in space.

    Getting to Space

    Space was once the sole domain of a handful of government space programs.

    Today, governments, corporations, and a mix of both are now widening the space launch capabilities of countries with space programs, as well as opening increasingly attractive options for nations without their own space launch capabilities.

    To date, Russia, the US, Japan, China, the EU, India, Israel, Ukraine, Iran, and North Korea have all demonstrated the ability to launch payloads into orbit.

    Currently, China, Russia, and the US lead the world in total launches per year – placing public, military, and commercial payloads into orbit not just for their respective countries but for a wide range of customers from around the world.

    China currently leads, or closely follows the US in total launches per year – depending on the year – with US-based SpaceX accounting for America’s ability to continue competing.

    The US currently holds the edge in overall competitiveness – again because of SpaceX – and owed in particular to SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Some of its Falcon 9 boosters have flown and landed up to 8 times (at the time of writing). The boosters are designed to fly up to 10 times before major overhauls.

    The merit of reusability has not been lost on America’s main competitors. China has been nurturing its own private space industry and several companies are pursuing Falcon-style reusability including Galactic Energy with its planned Pallas 1 rocket targeting a 2021 test launch. Companies like iSpace are also pursuing similarly reusable launch vehicles. Both companies have already reached orbit with expendable rocket designs.

    Russia’s Roscosmos is developing its Amur rocket, following SpaceX’s strategy for reusability using a first stage that launches and lands under the power of its own rocket engines.

    SpaceX itself – while continuing to launch its Falcon 9 on a regular basis (26 launches in 2020 alone) – is working on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles – Starship.

    It will be the largest, most powerful rocket ever built and feature fully reusable first and second stages. It is designed ultimately not only to send people to Mars, but to be able to lift enough material, equipment, and people into orbit frequently enough to build a city on the red planet.

    While this goal remains on a more distant horizon, the cargo lift capabilities of Starship – lifting 150 tons into low earth orbit – and its rapid reusability will make access to space cheaper than ever before. It will open up a variety of possibilities both economically and militarily for the United States and its allies, as well as for commercial partners around the world – while leaving other nations playing catch-up.

    Nothing like Starship is even under development elsewhere around the globe. While China and Russia are developing heavy-lift rockets nearing Starship’s lift capabilities, none of them will be even partially reusable.

    There is also the ability to reach other places in the solar system – other than Earth orbit. The US, China, Russia, and Japan all possess the capability to reach the Moon, Mars, and even near earth objects like asteroids.

    In 2020 when the most recent launch window opened to send missions to Mars, the US and China both sent major missions.

    NASA’s Perseverance rover successfully touched down on Mars’ surface earlier this month. The rover contains experiments to retrieve and eventually send back samples of the Martian surface to Earth as part of future missions to Mars, as well as an experiment for in-situ oxygen production which will be vital for human habitation and the production of fuel on Mars in the future.

    China’s mission – Tianwen-1 – has also reached the red planet, featuring an orbiter, a lander, and a rover.

    If China successfully lands on the surface of Mars it will signify a major milestone for the nation and its spaceborne capabilities. Having already reached Mars orbit and having sent back incredible pictures of the Martian surface – Tianwen-1 has already made a major geopolitical statement.

    While critics say China has not done the many things the US has done in space and has a long way to go to catch up – China does not need to replicate America’s past achievements – it merely needs to match or surpass America’s current achievements and is working to do exactly this.

    Mission accomplished: Japanese Hayabusa2 carrying asteroid samples in December 2020 (Image: JAXA)

    NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) have both sent missions to asteroids – a major first step toward eventually exploiting the vast amount of resources trapped in them.

    JAXA’s Hayabusa missions both retrieved samples from targeted asteroids and returned them to Earth. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission has successfully collected a sample from asteroid Bennu and is slated to return it to Earth by 2023.

    Getting into space and being able to reach a wide variety of destinations there – and being able to carry out a wide variety of activities will be key to expanding Earth’s economy into space. Government agencies and private companies are developing these capabilities at an increasingly faster pace each year with large implications regarding cooperation and conflict in space in the near future.

    Conflict in Space

    The networks being placed into orbit will enhance the economic and military capabilities of the respective nations on the ground launching them. The importance of creating and defending these networks is obvious.

    Satellite navigation’s use in conducting warfare and in particularly accurately guiding unmanned aircraft and even munitions across the battlefield makes it an obvious target for electronic jamming.

    F-35 Fighter (Image Source: Darin Russell/Lockheed Martin)

    Here we can see the clearest example of how geopolitical competition on Earth is extending into the domain of space.

    The National Interest in a 2019 article titled, “GPS Jammed: Russia Is Messing with America’s F-35s,” would claim:

    Russian forces have been jamming GPS systems in the Middle East. The electronic-warfare campaign could affect U.S. forces gathering in the region in advance of potential strikes on Iran.

    “Since last spring, pilots flying through the Middle East, specifically around Syria, have noted that their GPS systems have displayed the wrong location or stopped working entirely,” The Times of Israel reported in late June 2019.

    GPS is essential for US military operations – and for pilots of warplanes like the F-35 in particular – both regarding navigation and guiding munitions to target. Jamming GPS signals in theater means partially blinding US warplanes and severely inhibiting their ability to carry out military operations.

    While the US has claimed this jamming is a serious provocation, Syria is a nation the US has illegally occupied for years. This is in addition to its military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and, as the article points out, its planned military aggression against Iran, all nations thousands of miles from America’s shores, and all nations that pose no direct threat to the US itself.

    The use of America’s GPS in the Middle East is explicitly for enabling military aggression abroad – not the defense of the United States itself.

    With the founding of the US Space Force in late 2019, and with the new armed forces branch overseeing America’s GPS capabilities, it is certain that stopping Russia or any other nation from disrupting these capabilities overseas will become part of its mission.

    It is clear that the US Space Force will be used – not to defend the United States itself – but to prevent others from defending themselves from US aggression and its spaceborne capabilities used to enable it.

    Russia’s use of electronic jamming has complicated American aggression in the Middle East. But there are other threats to America’s spaceborne capabilities – and theoretically, to those of all other nations as well.

    This includes anti-satellite missiles.

    In 2007, when China tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) missile which destroyed one of its aging Fengyun series weather satellites, the West vocally protested – so much so – that many might believe China was the first ever to carry out such a test.

    In reality, the US conducted a very similar test as early as 1985 using an ASM-135 ASAT missile mounted on an F-15 Eagle fighter aircraft. The missile was used to destroy the Solwind P78-1 satellite – a scientific platform nearing the end of its lifespan.

    The early US test – like the Chinese one in 2007 – created debris that posed a hazard to other satellites and spacecraft in orbit. The US test even delayed the construction of what is now the International Space Station (ISS).

    After the Chinese test in 2007 – and despite the US already demonstrating its ability to destroy satellites in orbit – the US carried out an additional ASAT mission a year later using a modified SM-3 missile to destroy the USA-193 reconnaissance satellite operated by the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

    While the mission was justified by claiming there were fears that the malfunctioning satellite could enter the atmosphere and cause contamination with its highly toxic fuel – the timing following the Chinese missile test made it clear this story was just cover for what was a tit-for-tat demonstration vis-a-vis China and a test of US missile defense systems as provocative as the US claimed China’s test was.

    Russia began testing modern ASAT missiles in 2015, conducting several tests but none of them directed at actually destroying a satellite in orbit.

    India – a nation with an increasingly capable space program – tested an ASAT missile in 2019 successfully destroying a test satellite in low earth orbit (LEO).

    In other words, several nations now possess the ability to not only jam satellites but also destroy them.

    For nations like the US who depend heavily on its GPS network when fighting wars of aggression abroad – the destruction of even parts of its GPS network would immediately impact its fighting capacity and require a time consuming and expensive process to replace lost satellites.

    The advent of ASAT systems has increased the cost of US military aggression abroad should red lines be crossed and either Russia or China decide to begin targeting this crucial component of American military might.

    On the other hand, US-based SpaceX – should its Starship launch vehicle begin placing payloads into orbit, it would be capable of replacing entire constellations faster than they could be shot down.

    Here, we can see the potential ingredients for a space-based arms race.

    Should ULA’s cislunar economy – or a version of it – begin to take shape, it will be difficult to imagine how economics in orbit and on Earth, as well as the conflict that will inevitably arise will take full shape.

    It may resemble in many ways the process of exploring for and exploiting hydrocarbons here on Earth with a process of staking and exploiting claims clearly defined and competitors moving on to other objects in search for resources.

    If current studies of near earth objects are accurate, there would be more resources in space than human civilization has the ability to fully exploit – although real estate on the Moon or Mars, or specific asteroids in closer proximity to Earth would be likely candidates for races, competition, and possible conflict.

    Conflict might be fought out on Earth between respective nations over what is happening in space or a new class of weapons and tactics might be developed for use in space-to-space combat.

    Here on Earth we can already see attempts by the US to pressure nations like Iran and hinder the development of Iran’s space program – which has already successfully placed payloads into orbit and is developing more capable launch vehicles as well as its own satellites to place in orbit.

    Denial to space, and denial to regions in space may become common themes in near-future warfare.

    Cooperation in space or exclusion of certain nations from specific projects has already become a geopolitical tool. Russia’s monopoly over manned space launches – only recently broken by SpaceX’s crewed Dragon 2 spacecraft – was a useful tool for Moscow to remind America of the limits of its omnipotence.

    America’s plans for a Lunar Gateway station now exclude Russia – a politically-motivated decision that will cost America in terms of technical expertise can capabilities Russia could offer the project.

    America’s exclusion of China from virtually all cooperation with NASA including on the International Space Station would at first serve to hinder China’s space program – but now appears to be spurring it.

    China now plans to launch its own space station and will use it to cooperate with any  and all nations in space – including those thus far excluded by US-dominated projects.

    These are possibilities that are no longer the domain of science fiction writers but the serious topics of policymakers and the aerospace branches of national armed forces around the globe.

    Satellite-killing missiles, moon bases, Mars rovers, space stations, rockets taking off and landing under the power of their own engines – are fast becoming a reality or in some cases, are already here.

    The new space race has begun and it is a race a growing number of nations and companies are joining on a nearly monthly basis.

    Rockets are taking off from traditional launch sites in Florida and Kazakhstan – but also now from places like New Zealand and Amur Oblast in eastern Russia. SpaceX is building a spaceport in Boca Chica, Texas, near America’s border with Mexico. And China is constructing new launch facilities on land and at sea.

    The scale and importance of activity in space is expanding rapidly, with ever-expanding rewards of the wealth, power and influence for its participants. Wherever there are people and resources – there will be competition, and in this new space race we will likely see this competition move beyond flag-planting and toward something that resembles actual conflict.

    ***
    VIDEO: Amazon founder Jeff Bezos presents his and others’ plans for the future of outer space. Watch:

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 21:00

  • New CDC Director Raises Alarm On "New Variants"… Despite Finding Virtually No Household Asymptomatic Spread
    New CDC Director Raises Alarm On “New Variants”… Despite Finding Virtually No Household Asymptomatic Spread

    On Friday, Biden’s new CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, issued a ‘sobering warning’ over new COVID-19 variants – in particular the B.1.1.7 strain first found int he UK, and which now accounts for an estimated 10% of current US cases. Additionally, variants in California and New York also appear to spread more easily, according to Bloomberg.

    CDC Director Rochelle Walensky

    “Things are tenuous — now is not the time to relax restrictions,” said Walensky, adding “The latest data suggest that these declines may be stalling, potentially leveling off at still a very high number. We at the CDC consider this a very concerning shift in the trajectory.”

    Walensky’s warning was simultaneously parroted by Anthony Fauci – head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – saying that people shouldn’t become complacent, and that we may be wearing masks into 2022.

    “We really have to be careful and take a look at that curve,” he said, adding “If we plateau at 70,000, we are at that very precarious position that we were right before the fall surge, where anything that could perturb that could give us another surge.”

    “We may be done with the virus but clearly the virus is not done with us.”

    The renewed ‘concern’ comes as both COVID cases and deaths are falling precipitously.

    According to BofA, “The seven-day average of new cases in the US is down up 5% from the prior week to 68,000,” which they attribute in part to the impact of last week’s winter storms driving down testing – but noting that “the true trend in infections is still likely modestly lower.”

    And now for the chaser; The CDC just admitted in its own report that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission within households – a key justification for lockdowns – turns out to be virtually nonexistent. Household transmission is the primary mode of infection for COVID-19.

    As The Federalist‘s Georgi Boorman writes:

    The Jan. 29 report’s conclusion seems to fit the pro-mask narrative, of course: “Schools might be able to safely open with appropriate mitigation efforts [such as masking and not allowing student cohorts to mix] in place.” In the 17 rural Wisconsin schools surveyed, only seven cases were linked to in-school transmission out of 4,876 pupils, and no staff members were infected at school during the study period.

    While the report spends ample time explaining the mitigation strategies employed in the schools and the high reported mask compliance (92%) among students, the authors later discuss something you probably have not seen in any of the mainstream media’s coverage of this report:

    “Children might be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than are adults…This apparent lack of transmission [in schools] is consistent with recent research (5), which found an asymptomatic attack rate of only 0.7% within households and a lower rate of transmission from children than from adults. However, this study was unable to rule out asymptomatic transmission within the school setting because surveillance testing was not conducted” (emphasis added).

    The study, a meta-analysis of 54 studies into household transmission of COVID-19, was posted as a pre-print over the summer and published in December.

    The most significant portion of the analysis finds that while asymptomatic and presymptomatic cases account for just 0.7% of transmission, symptomatic cases had an 18% attack rate within the household. In other words, most people who contract COVID-19 at home were infected by someone who was visibly ill.

    “Estimated mean household secondary attack rate from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) was significantly higher than from asymptomatic or presymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%; P < .001), although there were few studies in the latter group. These findings are consistent with other household studies28,70 reporting asymptomatic index cases as having limited role in household transmission," reads the study.

    As Boorman continues: “The key, if not central, rationale for non-pharmaceutical interventions such as masking, distancing, and staying at home is allegedly significant transmission from people who don’t show symptoms. If the contagiousness of people without symptoms is not what drives the spread of SARS-COV-2, then no COVID restriction on public life besides staying home when you are clearly sick could be justified, considering the obvious negative consequences of these restrictions.”

    Read the rest of the report here.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 20:40

  • Socialism-In-Practice Was A Nightmare, Not Utopia
    Socialism-In-Practice Was A Nightmare, Not Utopia

    Authored by Richard Ebeling via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    It is amazing sometimes how really short humanity’s historical memory can be. Listening to some in American academia and on social media, you would think that socialism was a bright, new, and shiny idea never tried before that promises a beautiful future of peace, love, and bountifulness for all. It is as if a hundred years of socialism-in-practice in a large number of countries around the world had never happened. 

    If the reality of actual socialism in the 20th century is brought up, many “progressives” and “democratic” socialists respond by insisting that none of these historical episodes were instances of “real” socialism. It was just that the wrong people had been in charge, or it had not been implemented in the right way, or political circumstances had prevented it from getting a “fair chance” of successfully working, or it is all lies or exaggerations about the supposed “bad” or harsh” experiences under these socialist regimes. You cannot blame socialism for there having been a Lenin, or a Stalin, or a Chairman Mao, or a Fidel Castro, or a Kim Il-Sung, or a Pol Pot, or a Hugo Chavez, or . . .  

    Tyranny, terror, mass murder, and economic stagnation, along with political plunder and privilege for the few at the top of socialist government hierarchies were not indicative of what socialism could be. Just give it one more chance. And, then, another chance, and another. 

    Soviet Statistical Lies Too Often Taken at Face Value in the West

    These attitudes are really nothing new. Throughout the 20th century there were apologists aplenty making excuses, and accepting at face value whatever propaganda was spewed out by the mouthpieces for the socialist regime in Soviet Russia. They closed their eyes to any facts or evidence about what was going there. Those who found ways to escape from the prison camp known as the U.S.S.R. and who told about what life was actually like in the workers’ paradise were ignored or ridiculed as people with anti-Soviet axes to grind. Why else would they have left their wonderful Soviet motherland? 

    Another version of this blindness was the acceptance of Soviet economic statistics at face value by many reputed Soviet experts in the West, including the “professional” analysts inside the intelligence services of countries like the United States. Both before and after the Second World War, a majority of these scholars and analysts took for granted the official statistics and related data released by the Soviet government about how wonderful and successful the Soviet centrally planned economy was. Soviet propaganda heralded the planning successes of the Soviet Union becoming an industrial country in the 1930s with the introduction of five-year central plans, including the forced collectivization of farming. Then in the years following the Second World War, Soviet state planning agencies produced massive amounts of statistical data showing that in the postwar period all was well and vibrant on the road to socialist prosperity. 

    Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev proudly announced in 1961 that in twenty years; that is, by the 1980s, the Soviet people would be living in the long-promised and awaited future of a post-scarcity communism. The noted American economist and later Nobel Laureate, Paul Samuelson (1915-2009), had even suggested in his widely used economics textbook, in the editions published in 1960s and 1970s and even into the 1980s, that it was very possible that by the early 21st century, Soviet Gross Domestic Product would overtake American GDP. Soviet socialism will have shown its economic superiority over American capitalism.  

    Soviet Socialism Realistically Shown by Western Correspondents in Moscow

    There were notorious apologists and propagandists for the Soviet Union during the period between the two World Wars among the Western press corps stationed in Moscow. The most scandalous of them was The New York Times correspondent, Walter Duranty (1884-1957), who even received a Pulitzer Prize for his coverup reporting of the famine in the early 1930s during Stalin’s forced collectivization of the land that caused the deaths of upwards of 12 million men, women and children.

    But there were solid Western truth tellers who did their reporting stints in the Soviet Union during this time; once they were home from their tour in Moscow and were free of the Soviet censors who restricted what they could send out of the country to their newspaper editors in the West, they told the reality of things in great detail. Two of the best of them, in my opinion, were William Henry Chamberlin (1897-1969) in his books, Soviet Russia: A Living Record and a History (1931), Russia’s Iron Age (1934) and Collectivism: A False Utopia (1937), and Eugene Lyons (1898-1985), in his writings, Moscow Carousel (1935) and Assignment in Utopia (1937).

    It particularly became the case of revealing uncensored accounts of real life under Soviet socialism in the 1970s and 1980s. No candy-coated dry statistical data here. In the standard reporting style, the correspondents explained the logic of the planned society by telling unending tales about the absurdities of how central direction of an economy actually worked from the perspective of ordinary people going through their everyday lives. As well as about the oppressions, arrests, and torture of any and all suspected of “anti-Soviet” thoughts and actions. 

    Again, in my view, among the most informative accounts may be found in Hedrick Smith, The Russians (1976), Robert G. Kaiser, Russia: The People and the Power (1976), David K. Shipler, Russia: Broken Idols, Solemn Dreams (1983), Michael Binyon, Life in Russia (1983), Kevin Klose, Russia and the Russians: Inside the Closed Society (1984), David Willis, Klass: How Russians Really Live (1985), David Remnick, Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire (1993), and Scott Shane, Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union (1994).

    The Absurdities and Corruptions of Socialist Central Planning

    In state enterprises, there was the meeting of manufacturing goals by producing components parts or finished products that met quantity and tonnage quotas under “the plan” that were unusable in size, shape or functionality, but which fulfilled the targets of output insisted upon by the central planners in Moscow. There were the consumer goods that were shoddy in quality, badly worked, and mismatched in quantities with those actually wanted by Soviet consumers in terms of styles, features, or dimensions. As long as production and output targets were met, at least on paper, it did not matter how stagnant, poor and frustrated were the lives of ordinary Soviet citizens, just so the middle level Communist Party authorities throughout the country and the central planning officials in Moscow could assure those above them in the higher echelons of Soviet power that all was going according to plan. 

    It did not matter how economically inefficient, wasteful, and misallocated material, machinery and men may have been from a hypothetical centrally planned coordination perspective. If the quantities and types of inputs that were assigned to each production plant and factory by the planning agencies were found too little or too much to fulfill the output planning quotas, the plant production managers always had at their disposal a fix-it man on staff who bartered or bribed for needed inputs at other factories to meet the monthly production targets with surplus inputs at their disposal as means of paying for them. Not that this informal and illegal factor and resource market had anything to do with real cost-efficiencies or productivities. It all was just a matter of having what you minimally needed to make sure you met the plan target for that month. 

    If that did not always work out, well, fudging the figures passed on to central planning bean counters higher up just needed to be done in the right way so that nobody noticed; and if it was caught by someone further up the Party and planning hierarchy, gifts and favors could be supplied to just the right person to assure that “juggling the books” remained safe “between friends.” Prices assigned to goods were meaningless, having been fixed by the planning agencies years, if not decades before, with no relevance or reality to actual supplies and demands. Endless lines for needed goods solved the rationing problems of Soviet society. For worthless goods, well, they could just sit on the shelves of unvisited government retail stores manned by government employees who could care less, as long as they got their pay and could “disappear” from work for hours to go about doing their own shopping for what they needed to get; hence, the popular Soviet phrase, “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

    Witnessing Soviet Consumer Life in the Soviet Socialist Utopia

    I was traveling frequently to the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s doing consulting work on market reforms and privatization, some of it with the Moscow city government and the Russian Parliament, but mostly with anti-Soviet members of the government in Soviet Lithuania, who were determined to reclaim their country’s national independence and reestablish a market-based economy. (See my article, “Witnessing Lithuania’s 1991 Fight for Freedom from Soviet Power”.)

    Several times when in Moscow, I went to the GUM department store complex, facing the Kremlin across Red Square. Today, in post-Soviet Russia, it has been modernized with stores and boutiques not much different than any such shopping areas in Paris, London or New York. But back then, it was all owned and managed by the Soviet state and supplied by the production and quotas of the central planning agency, GOSPLAN. 

    The building had a U-shaped inside with three levels, on each level of which there were a variety of “people’s” retail stores. The building was old and dilapidated, with peeling paint and chips and cracks on the walls, walkways, and handrails. The place was dingy and dirty. It was an outstanding example of the achievements of Soviet socialism in service to the toiling masses in the bright and beautiful socialist paradise.   

    Sullen and tired-looking people walked around the three levels, passing by and giving generally empty looks as they passed one store after another with their mostly empty shelves attached to depressingly gray and bare walls. Sales personnel stood behind counters with no or few goods, glumly interrupted in their empty stares into nowhere whenever a few customers asked a question or wanted to buy something. Clearly, the Soviet socialist retail mottos were “Service with a rude frown and a harsh word,” and “The Soviet consumer is never right nor ever wanted.” 

    In the wisdom of Soviet central planning, there were no Western-style supermarkets. Instead, there were separate retail stores for individual or particular types of goods. I stood on a line in a “people’s” bread store, waiting and waiting to get to the counter at which I told a store employee which of the limited types of bread I wanted. I was given a ticket with the amounts desired and directed to stand and wait on a second line, at the end of which I paid for the loaves of bread I wished to buy. I was then given a receipt and instructed to join a third line from which, again after a long wait, I could pick up the bread I had paid for.

    But, as the phrase goes, man does not live by bread alone. So, I went in search of the dairy and meat retail stores, which were not necessarily near where I had obtained the bread. And at each of these I repeated the pattern of line one, line two, and line three. Now, with bags containing whatever I was fortunate enough to actually find in supply at these stores, I finally found a store where bottled water and the Soviet version of soda drinks might be purchased. I got on a line that stretched well out into the street, and when, after a long, long wait, I had almost reached the counter inside the store, it was announced that they had exhausted their day’s supply and told everyone to come back tomorrow. But even in the socialist paradise, there were possibilities for a happy ending. From a corner inside the store a black marketeer shouted out that she had plenty of everything; of course, at a Soviet version of a “market” price. I had earlier noticed that this same woman now offering a plentitude of what people wanted had been standing in a doorway inside the store leading to the backroom where the bottled water and soda inventories were kept. What a coincidence!

    Under the Watchful Eyes of Servants of the Soviet State

    I often stayed in Moscow at the Cosmos Hotel, which was reserved for foreigners and into which Soviet citizens were barred, unless, of course, they were among the Party-approved prostitutes sharing their profits with their Party pimps and/or spying on selected foreign visitors about whom the Soviet authorities were especially interested. I once went out and did not return to the hotel that evening. When I came back the following morning, I took the elevator up to my floor, and when the doors opened I was greeted by one of the Soviet matrons assigned to each floor and grilled as to where I had been all night, since “It had been noticed” that my bed had not been slept in, and my movements needed to be accounted for. As the old song says, “Someone to Watch Over Me.” 

    I rented a car at this Moscow hotel so my future wife and I could drive to Leningrad for a long weekend, and she would show me the city where some of her friends lived. I was warned by everyone that whenever I parked I needed to remove the windshield wipers and lock them in the car if I did not want them to be stolen. I was told by several people that I better make sure that I had filled up the gas tank and had borrowed several portable gasoline canisters to refill the tank along the way, since there were almost no gasoline stations along the 500 miles of road between the two cities. In the socialist wonderland there were also few gasoline stations even in Moscow. After locating one, I had a two-hour wait on a line to finally get the car up to the gas pump. In addition, my fiancé made a point of packing plenty of food and drinks for the trip because there were neither restaurants nor rest areas (other than just pulling off the road into the forest) along the road. And this, on the main thoroughfare between the two showcase cities of the Soviet Union!

    I also experienced the delight of being stopped by a militiaman (policeman) for a traffic violation near the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB, and I practiced the art of cash bribe-giving, even though I had done nothing wrong in my driving. I had the pleasure of attempting to get needed medicines in the socialist society of “free” health care when it was difficult to find the right person at a “people’s” clinic and for the right price; and even if you found such a person and you have the money to pay the bribe, the chances were that the needed antibiotic was simply unavailable. I also had the chance of trying to go out for dinner at a restaurant, and finding that socialist Moscow had very few open for the general public, and the few that there were required you to bribe the doorman to gain entrance to then find out that 90 percent of anything on the printed menu was actually not available. 

    In the lobby of the old Russiya Hotel not far from the Kremlin I was having coffee with my future wife, when I noticed a hotel matron sitting on a bench along the wall pull out a small camera from under the coat on her lap and quickly take a picture of us before hiding the camera back under her coat. Somewhere in the archives of the secret police is the first-ever photo of the two of us together; if only I could get an 8×10 glossy! When we decided to get married, an official at the one marriage license office in Moscow that married Soviet citizens to foreigners told me that I would need a notarized document from the attorney general’s office in each of the 50 United States that certified that I was not married in their jurisdiction; in other words, I needed to prove a negative 50 times, and before any of the documents had expired. We were finally married in the U.S. 

    What a world was that of socialism-in-practice! A world of what the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, titled one of his shorter books, Planned Chaos (1947). But even more, Soviet socialism was an upside-down Alice-in-Wonderland Through the Looking-Glass world of literal planned madness.

    When the French sociologist, Gustave Le Bon published The Psychology of Socialism in 1899, he feared that, “One nation, at least, will have to suffer it [the establishment of a socialist system] for the instruction of the world. It will be one of those practical lessons which alone can enlighten the nations that are bemused with the dreams of happiness displayed before our eyes by the priests of the new [socialist] faith.” Is it really necessary to go through it all again? Let us hope not.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 20:20

  • Biden To Let Trump-Era Rule Severely Regulating China Tech "Threats" Take Effect
    Biden To Let Trump-Era Rule Severely Regulating China Tech “Threats” Take Effect

    In a move that China state media has ironically enough said is part of broader White House policy that “smacks of Trumpism” – and which is also unpopular with American businesses, Biden will move forward with a rule that will allow the Commerce Department to ban tech-related business on US soil deemed to “pose a national security threat”.

    It appears yet more confirmation that Trump’s prior efforts to “box-in” Biden on China are proving effective. The rule proposed under the Trump White House as late as January, and based on a prior Trump-issued executive order from 2019, might not be enforced as “aggressively” – officials quoted in The Wall Street Journal seek to assure, however, it’s also said that Biden doesn’t want to appear “soft” on China in nixing it.

    Specifically, “Administration officials are concerned that blocking or diluting the rule would send the wrong message about the new administration’s approach to China, potentially fueling criticism that it is taking a weaker approach, according to the people,” WSJ writes.

    Via Bloomberg

    It comes after a series of Biden national security cabinet picks have in recent weeks been pressed in confirmation hearings over whether they’d be “tough” on China. Despite this, it remains hugely controversial and deeply undesired among US businesses and industries, given at the very least the confusion and lack of compliance guidance that can be expected out of Washington.

    Addressing the feared deep and lasting negative impact on the US economy itself, WSJ explains:

    The rule could affect millions of American businesses, according to a Commerce Department estimate, potentially requiring them to get government clearance for purchases and deals involving sophisticated technology with what the regulation calls a “foreign adversary,” or face potential unwinding of the deals or other enforcement.

    Everything from sophisticated electronics, most especially computer components and iPhones, to camera equipment to vehicles, could potentially be impacted by a web of confusing regulations that could ensue. 

    Leading the charge against implementing the rule includes IBM, which was quoted in Bloomberg as saying, “By the Commerce Department’s own estimate, this rule would impose many billions of dollars in new compliance costs on millions of U.S. firms, including countless small businesses.” 

    As indicated in the quote by IBM Regulatory Affairs Vice President Christopher Padilla, it’s simply Biden carrying a Trump policy on “autopilot”: “Such a massive, overbroad, and economically damaging Trump-administration rule should not be on autopilot,” he said. It goes without saying that small businesses are still being battered by the COVID-impacted economy, which means Biden’s move will further be seen as hitting them while they’re still down – perhaps all in the name of not being “soft” on China.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 20:00

  • Judge Rules Arizona's Maricopa County Must Turn Over 2.1 Million November Election Ballots To Senate
    Judge Rules Arizona’s Maricopa County Must Turn Over 2.1 Million November Election Ballots To Senate

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A judge on Friday ruled that Maricopa County must provide some 2.1 million ballots from the Nov. 3 election to the Arizona state Senate and allow access to its election equipment to conduct an audit.

    Poll workers count ballots inside the Maricopa County Election Department in Phoenix, Ariz., on Nov. 5, 2020. (Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images)

    Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason ruled that subpoenas issued by Arizona’s state Senate are valid and should be enforced, and he disputed arguments from Maricopa County officials saying the subpoenas are unlawful. The county previously stated that multiple audits have been sufficient and said ballots should be sealed.

    “The Court finds that the subpoenas are legal and enforceable,” Thomason wrote (pdf) in his ruling. “There is no question that the Senators have the power to issue legislative subpoenas. The subpoenas comply with the statutory requirements for legislative subpoenas. The Senate also has broad constitutional power to oversee elections.”

    He argued that the “Arizona legislature clearly has the power to investigate and examine election reform matters,” adding that senators can “subpoena material as part of an inquiry into election reform measures.”

    The move was hailed by Republican legislators in Arizona.

    Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, a Republican, told news outlets after the judge’s ruling that their move was “never about overturning the election, it was about the integrity of the Arizona election system.”

    “This was always about voter integrity and the integrity of the voting system itself,” Fann added.

    State Sen. Warren Petersen, a Republican, confirmed that the Senate will go through with a “forensic audit” of Maricopa’s Nov. 3 election results. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, saw more than 2.1 million people vote during the last election.

    But Bill Gates, the vice-chairman of the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, wrote Friday that the county has “nothing to hide,” adding that officials have “conducted three fully transparent audits, including two forensic audits by independent, qualified and outside Vote System Testing Laboratories.”

    “I trust the Senate will be completely transparent with the public as Maricopa County has been,” he added. “From the beginning, the County sought clarification from the court. The court has ruled. I look forward to working with the Senate to provide them the information they are requesting.”

    The subpoenas were issued following allegations of voter fraud and irregularities made by former President Donald Trump and surrogates including Rudy Giuliani.

    A dispute over the election began when former Senate Judiciary Chairman Eddie Farnsworth held a hearing to question county officials about the election. Farnsworth and Fann then issued several subpoenas, which prompted Maricopa County to issue a lawsuit. The subpoenas were re-issued in January.

    It’s not clear if the Maricopa Board of Supervisors will appeal Thomason’s decision. The Epoch Times has reached out to the county for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 19:40

  • 'Brace For Rampant Inflation': Hedge Fund Billionaire Stunned At "Market Craziness", Sees "Trouble Ahead"
    ‘Brace For Rampant Inflation’: Hedge Fund Billionaire Stunned At “Market Craziness”, Sees “Trouble Ahead”

    In 2012 Elliott Management’s Paul Singer correctly warned that financial system leverage and technology would “serve as an accelerant in the next crisis”:

    “The major message that I want to give you (and I’ve invited challenge on both parts of my thesis here and I’ve never had anybody challenge it): The major financial institutions in the US and around the globe are utterly opaque; and The next financial crisis will happen faster, more suddenly.“

    Risk did indeed happen fast, numerous times since.

    In 2014, Singer went more aggressively after the central banks and their arrogant largesse:

    “There is no reason to suppose that they [central bankers] understand the modern financial system and economy to any greater extent than they did in 2007 (that is to say, not at all). Nevertheless, they plow ahead, expressing total confidence that what they are saying and doing is wise and not dangerous drivel.”

    …

    “It is unlikely that these unprecedented and experimental government policies of such gargantuan scope will actually create the desired result and allow themselves to be able to be unwound without great shock and disruption to the global financial system.”

    His solution at the time:

    “Although the levitation of financial assets has yet to levitate gold, we will grit our collective teeth on that score and await either ‘asset price justice’ or the ‘end times,’ whichever comes first.”

    Justice was to come a couple of times since.

    Interestingly, 2014 was when Singer began to warn about inflation and the potential for social unrest:

    “…inflation is spreading in both scope and intensity. If and when it breaks out in an inescapably broad way, there will be a crowd of seriously confused policymakers making excuses and claiming that inflation does not in fact exist; it is not their fault; it was completely unpredictable; and/or it will actually be good for people.

    “We believe that if and when inflation goes from being something that affects only a particular list of assets (a growing list, presently a combination of things owned by the well-off plus a number of things that are basic necessities) to a widespread “in-your-face” phenomenon affecting the cost of living of almost the entire population, then the normal yardsticks of risk, return and profit may be thrown into the garbage can. These measures may be replaced by a scramble by citizens and investors to preserve value on a foundation of shifting sand, together with societal unrest that may make the current politically-useful “inequality” riffs, blaming the “1%” and attacking those “millionaires and billionaires” who refuse to “pay their fair share,” look like mere warm-ups for real class warfare.”

    He hasn’t always been right, obviously, as he claimed in 2016 that Donald Trump (if elected) would “cause a widespread global depression.” Quite the opposite happened, and the depression, it turns out did not happen until China (allegedly) unleashed COVID on the world.

    Which brings us to Singer’s prophetic 2019 warning that a 40% crash was coming for the stock market.

    “global debt is at an all-time high. Derivatives are at an all-time high and it took all of this monetary easing to get to where we are today and I don’t think central bankers, or policymakers or academics are in any better shape to predict the next downturn and I think we are the high end of the risk spectrum.”

    He then ominously added that “I’m expecting the possibility of a significant market downturn.”

    “December [2018] supported the notion that they’re trapped,” he said.

    “What they should have done, and what they should do now, is try to restore the soundness of money. They should not be cutting rates right now. They should be calling on the congresses and parliaments around the developed world to take steps to deal with the economic slowdown in growth.”

    He was right again in 2020 as all hell broke loose everywhere and prompted more of the policies he has been warning of since at least 2012.

    And now – after 10 years – Singer is readying himself for the final victory lap, as he tells investors in his latest letter that he can’t wait to say “I told you so” having long-warned of an ugly end to the Fed’s extreme (and getting extreme-er) easy-money policies.

    “We believe that hindsight will show the champion of head-smacking craziness in the American stock market to be the period playing out right now,” the 76-year-old exclaimed, adding that a “flamboyant line-up” of excesses will come back to haunt investors.

    The (very visible) invisible hand behind all this excess is, in Singer’s (correct) opinion, The Fed (and the rest of the world’s central banking copycats) as he echoes Michael ‘Big Short’ Burry’s recent warnings of out of control “rampant inflation” that will shock policy makers, stock pickers and bond investors, alike.

    “‘Trouble ahead’ is signaled by a rare combination of low-quality securities, staggering valuation metrics, overleveraged capital structures, a scarcity of honest profits, a desperate dearth of understanding evinced by the most active traders, and economic macro prospects that are not as thrilling as the mobs braying ‘Buy! Buy!’ seem to think,” he wrote.

    Having registered annualized gains of about 13%, Elliott’s performance over 44 years suggest Singer is worth listening to as Bloomberg reports he clearly exuded frustration at what he sees as the hysteria driving everything from Bitcoin to government debt – a “return-free risk,” as his letter put it.

    Specifically, Singer is not a big fan (to understate it extremely) of Bitcoin:

    “Pulling out your hair is an option, though only if you have hair to spare,” the mostly bald Singer wrote.

    “Hiding under the bed to avoid people who gloat about being long Bitcoin can get…tiring. Deep breathing exercises can work, but only for short periods. We continue to press on for the day when we can say, ‘We told you so.’”

    In conclusion we go back to Singer’s 2012 warning.

    “Nobody in America has actually seen, or most people probably can’t even contemplate, what an actual loss of confidence may look like.

    If you think about some of these elements and how they might interact, you might come up with other paths of transmission or risk and pain. But I wouldn’t go about your business thinking it’s business as usual in a typical post-crisis, post bear market recovery.”

    Given the chaos in Treasury markets this week, it seemed apropos.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 19:20

  • Global Military Spending Hit Record High In 2020 With US In The Lead
    Global Military Spending Hit Record High In 2020 With US In The Lead

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    Despite the damage coronavirus lockdowns did to the world’s economy, 2020 marked a record high in global military spending, according to a new report. As always, the US was in the lead, accounting for 40.3 percent of the world’s military expenditures at $738 billion.

    The report, released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), says total military expenditures added up to $1.83 trillion in 2020, a 3.9 percent increase from 2019. “This came despite the coronavirus pandemic and the subsequent contraction in global economic output,” the IISS said.

    Via War on the Rocks

    Second behind the US was China, which accounted for 10.6 percent, or $193.3 billion. After the US and China, the top spenders were India, the UK, and Russia.

    The report said military spending increased in the US by 6.3 percent in 2020. In China, it grew by 5.3 percent, slightly lower than the 5.9 percent growth seen in 2019.

    Based on the research, Stars & Stripes had some interesting observations on China:

    However, IISS and other research groups have questioned China’s budget transparency in recent years. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute pegged Chinese defense spending at $261 billion in 2019.

    China’s maritime paramilitary forces are using facilities in the South China Sea as forward operating bases, the report noted. China has also built artificial islands in the sea over the last decade and constructed bases on natural features claimed by other nations in the region.

    “Beijing seems intent on achieving primacy in its littoral areas,” IISS said.

    Meanwhile, China’s navy has maintained an “over-the-horizon” presence focused on extending its reach.

    The top 15 military budgets in fiscal year 2020, via IISS

    European NATO countries have increased military spending by 20 percent since 2014, according to the report. Although in 2020, Europe’s military spending only grew by 2 percent, compared with 4.1 the year prior.

    But overall, IISS believes Europe could be where the most growth in defense spending is seen in the coming years.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 19:00

  • The Ten "Peaks" Behind BofA's Call For A Second Half Crash
    The Ten “Peaks” Behind BofA’s Call For A Second Half Crash

    Having been bearish for much of the past 3 months, BofA’s Chief Investment Officer looks at the chaos unleashed by surging bond yields in the past week, and extrapolates a period of much greater pain across all markets, driven by a flood of what he calls the “contrarian Ps” which include:

    • pandemic (vaccine winning),
    • prices (bond crash),
    • positioning (bullish),
    • policy (excessive & impotent),
    • profits (peaking Q2)

    … which leads Hartnett to an “absolute” call that the first half od 2021 will mark the top in stocks & credit, leading to a substantial market correction, while relative value call is inflation hedges, with Hartnett calling “energy the new BTD trade” (something we have been saying since last fall), while growth defensives such as staples the barbell partner to this core trade.

    And just to round off the increasingly dismal picture, Hartnett then lays out ten “peaks” that underscore his pre-crash outlook:

    Peak pandemic: global vaccines (219mn) outpacing global virus (113mn – Chart 3); anticipation of vaccine > virus has already been Q4/Q1 catalyst for reopening>lockdown, cyclicals>defensives, small>large, value>growth…sell-the-vaccine = risk>return.

    Peak prices I: bond sell-off hitting speculative froth, ghosts of 1999, ARKK look ominously like Invesco (Chart 5).

    Peak prices II: bond sell-off eroding bull leadership of i) Housing (past three months US house prices annualizing 19% gain, lumber prices have doubled – Chart 4), ii) Credit (LQD <$133, EMB <110 & HYG rolling), iii) Tech (Amazon down since Aug, NDX & KOSDAQ down YTD).

    Peak prices III: bond sell-off…next risk big levels fail, e.g. Dow Jones 30k, Nikkei 30k, SOX 3k, KOSPI 3k, ChiNext 3k. bond sell-off has been wonderful for high yield, small cap, banks, energy, EM…when these reverse as bond yield rise = rate rise flips from good to bad (Chart 6); most imp triggers for bonds = cyclicals selloff…HYG 6.55 (China no longer tolerating FX appreciation).

    Peak positioning: only reason to be bearish is there is no reason to be bearish…record, stunning $414bn inflow to stocks past 16 weeks (Chart 7), and yet stocks struggling; unlike ‘13 & ’18 bond losses in ’21 yet to incite bond fund outflows.

    Peak policy I: rate cuts in 2020 = 191; rate cuts in 2021 = 3; no Fed YCC before >2% GT10 yields or <3400 SPX.

    Peak policy II: monetary impotence or fiscal impotence inducing bond sell-off that exceeds on annualized basis 1994, 1999, but not quite taper tantrum of 2013 (Chart 8); bond busts (don’t forget 2018) lead to contagion, illiquidity, busts, bankruptcies…volatility & hedges against inflation & currency debasement set to outperform in 2021.

    Peak policy III: 3Rs of Rates, Regulation, Redistribution historic catalysts end bull markets & bubbles…we say all ’21 events, not ’22, all spell lower/volatile coming quarters; 2020 = secular low for rates/inflation = “buy humiliation, sell hubris” = inflation assets to beat deflation in coming years.

    Peak profits I: BofA Global EPS model says peak profits 20-25% YoY in Q2; could be >10% nominal GDP growth, surge in labor participation rates quashing wage growth, inflation peaks Q2 not EPS, productivity on up as COVID-19 inspires tech innovation means we wrong, but….

    Peak profits II: a. even during stagflationary ‘70s, equities obeyed PMIs and today’s PMI levels rarely get higher;

    … b. past 9 months…Asian exports…”V”, global PMIs…”V”, US housing…”V”, US retail sales…”V”, global capital goods orders “V”… yet no one believes global inflation will “V” despite epic stock market & housing inflation, US politicians about to spend another $2tn, TIPS breakevens highest since ’11…

    … maybe a straw that will break the camel’s back…watch March 30th Alabama vote on unionization at Amazon; trough labor unionization & peak corporate equity valuation not a good combo.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 18:40

  • Trump Is "Still The Future Of The Republican Party" Says Don Jr.
    Trump Is “Still The Future Of The Republican Party” Says Don Jr.

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Donald Trump Jr. asserted that his father, former President Donald Trump, is still the future of the GOP ahead of his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this weekend.

    “If you’re reading the room and you’re intelligent, you realize that Donald Trump is still the future of the Republican Party,” Trump Jr. said on Fox News. “Those people who are being displaced by illegals, those people who are being swept aside by the Democrat Party, who has just flagrantly ignored them for decades, Donald Trump is all over that,” he added.

    Trump Jr. is scheduled to speak at CPAC on Friday, while the former president will give a speech on Sunday.

    The former commander-in-chief has not yet indicated whether he would run for president in 2024. Trump was impeached and later acquitted by the Senate earlier this month, triggering a schism between Republicans who either voted to impeach or convict and those who did not.

    Since the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, a number of corporations severed ties with Republicans. The younger Trump argued that it may ultimately be a positive development because it shows the GOP represents working-class Americans, rather than Democrats—who have for decades attempted to cast themselves as the party representing the working class and unions.

    “The Republican Party isn’t going to be bound to those corporate interests anymore,” he argued in the Fox interview. “So I love that they are making that link and breaking it, because we need more of that and we need candidates and people who will go to bat, who will go to war and fight for the American working class and make sure we put them first.

    Trump added that it’s unprecedented in history for it to be considered “controversial” for “leaders of a nation to put their people first.” He added: “Why is it now, and how do the Democrats get away with making America last as opposed to first?”

    A number of opinion polls in recent weeks suggest that Trump is still viewed highly by Republican voters, with one survey showing that up to 70 percent of Republicans would consider joining a Trump-backed political party.

    Since the Jan. 6 incident, Trump was de-platformed by Big Tech firms, including Twitter—his once-favored social media platform—and has delivered messages to supporters and the media mainly via email. Should he run again for president, it’s not clear if he would attempt to join an alternative social media website and app like Parler or start his own.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 18:20

  • US & Israel Convene Top Secret "Strategic Forum" On Iran
    US & Israel Convene Top Secret “Strategic Forum” On Iran

    With expected EU-sponsored US and Iranian talks toward restoring the nuclear deal (JCPOA) still at an impasse before they’ve even begun, Israel is on a full diplomatic blitz of Capitol Hill to prevent what’s it’s long claimed to be merely Tehran’s “cover” for secretly developing a nuke, even with inspectors on the ground.

    As Washington and Tehran continue their blame game and tit-for-tat on who will “comply first”, the Biden administration will sit down with Israeli security officials for a “strategic forum” on Iran. Axios first learned this week that the close allies have “elected to reconvene a strategic working group on Iran, with the first round of talks on intelligence surrounding the Iranian nuclear program expected in the coming days.”

    Via AP

    This will present Tel Aviv with an official forum with which to make Netanyahu’s case for permanently shooting down the 2015 nuclear deal, or at least to impose higher and more stringent requirements on Iran if it hopes to keep its nuclear energy program. Alternately, the White House is likely to use the opportunity to ensure a political fight will be avoided with America’s closest Mideast ally.

    The “working group” on Iran was first established under the Obama administration, giving opportunity for intelligence sharing at the highest levels – even at a policy level – which has made it a ‘top secret’ initiative from the beginning. The need for the group became somewhat moot given Trump later ramped up ‘maximum pressure’ and turned toward regime change strategizing.

    Axios reviews some of the details of the reestablished US-Israeli forum as follows: 

    • It was the main venue for strategizing over how to apply pressure to Iran during Obama’s first term, and it became the primary setting to air disagreements about the nuclear deal during Obama’s second term.
    • During Donald Trump’s tenure, the forum convened to discuss the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal and to coordinate the “maximum pressure” campaign.
    • The forum is headed by the U.S. and Israeli national security advisers — currently Jake Sullivan and Meir Ben-Shabbat — and includes top officials from across the various national security, foreign policy and intelligence agencies in both countries.

    Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government has considered US re-entry into the JCPOA as nothing less than an “emergency” and national security crisis.

    Further complicating matters was the fact that it took Biden a full month to actually return the Israeli Prime Minister’s phone call. The new forum will likely be Israel’s only shot at engaging the White House on the Islamic Republic.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 18:00

  • For Bonds, This Is Now The Second Worst Bear Market In 40 Years
    For Bonds, This Is Now The Second Worst Bear Market In 40 Years

    Last December, we predicted that the US was heading for a “titanic taper tantrum” in 2021, to an extent as a result of a sharp drop in bond demand as a result of reduced bond purchases by the Fed but also due to a spike in inflation which would lead to a sharp drop in demand for duration.

    So fast forward to this week when the crash in US Treasurys, and especially the belly of the curve led by a plunge in 5Y prices…

    … led to a historic vol shock as the real 10Y yield soared and which crushed both bond and equity bulls, but especially risk parity and balanced funds, who suffered tremendous losses as the conventional hedging role that bonds play was reversed as the bond stock correlation reversed from deeply negative to positive…

    … resulting in a crushing blow to risk parity returns.

    What is more remarkable is that while this week was terrible for bond bulls, the past year has been just as painful. As Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett writes today, the past 12 months have been great for equity investors with the GOAT rally since March, coupled with a GOAT V-shape macro recovery… yet on the other side we have had a bond bear market which is now also one of greatest-of-all-time. Consider that since Aug 4th annualized price return from +10-year US govt bonds = -29%, Australia -19% (they do YCC!), UK -16%, Canada -10%. Hartnett’s advice is to watch bank stocks for the “tell” on how badly the bond rout is hurting liquidity & growth expectations.

    But going back to our original warning from December about a “titanic taper tantrum”, what we find stunning is that while Thursday may well have been the culmination of growing concerns about runaway inflation (and, to Michael Burry, hyperinflation), even if more pain is certainly coming if the US is set to suffer through a period of 4%, 5%, 6% or more inflation, the pain for bonds over the past year is absolutely staggering, and as Michael Hartnett notes, the “Vaccine Bear Market” in bonds is now the second worst bear market in history…

    … and warns that the monetary impotence or fiscal impotence inducing bond sell-off that exceeds on annualized basis 1994, 1999, but not quite taper tantrum of 2013, may “lead to contagion, illiquidity, busts, and bankruptcies” … which is why volatility & hedges against inflation & currency debasement set to outperform in 2021.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 02/26/2021 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 26

Today’s News 26th February 2021

  • How Does All Of This End?
    How Does All Of This End?

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    There is a sense in the air that the pandemic is winding down, and the toxic culture of division, fear, and hatred along with it.

    • Cases are down dramatically.

    • Deaths too.

    • Hospitalizations are no longer irregular.

    • Restrictions are being repealed.

    You can follow all the action daily at the CDC’s new and unusually competent landing page on the virus (it only took them a year to build this). 

    Despite all the talk of a new normal and infinite mandates, there is hope that it could all unwind quickly, pushed by force of public impatience and frustration with restrictions, and a political scramble to avoid responsibility by running away from all that they did for the last year. 

    The list of signs and symbols could be made very long. 

    • The politicians who overreached are suddenly being held accountable, with both Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom on the hotseat. Calls for governors and mayors to resign consume state and local news. There is clearly major political tumult building. 

    • The Great Barrington Declaration scientists can hardly keep up with the requests for respectful interviews, now that it is becoming clear that they were right all along. 

    • The experience in open states like Florida, Georgia, South Dakota, and so on, makes it impossible to ignore the grim truth that the lockdowns achieved nothing for public health but did harm health, businesses, liberties, law, and civilized life. 

    • The push to open economies, by the same people who locked down the economies, such as Boris Johnson in the UK, is an implicit repudiation of the nonsensical ZeroCovid movement. Everyone seems now to agree with what AIER has been saying for a year: humanity must deal intelligently with pathogens and stop pretending that political forces can control them. 

    • AIER visiting senior fellow Naomi Wolf had a hit just last evening on the Tucker Carlson show, and they spoke as allies in the reopening efforts after years of ideological sparring. 

    • There is growing weariness of Anthony Fauci’s daily word salads that have massively mixed up the public health messaging for a full year, to the point that Meghan McCain has called for his firing. 

    • A year ago, Slate was making sense until the virus became political and they joined the lockdown mob. Now the publication is back to making sense again, with this excellent piece. 

    • British medical journal The Lancet is publishing excellent short pieces on the cost of lockdowns, including this riveting letter from Martin Kulldorff. 

    • A prestigious European journal of public health has published a blistering attack on the very idea that a power government should ever be trusted with virus mitigation. 

    The people who have committed their careers and lives to this pandemic and the policies surrounding it might soon need to find a new raison d’etre. Then the clean up begins – how did this happen, who did it, how to make sure it never happens again – and does not end perhaps for decades. 

    It’s been fascinating to see the early drafts on the reasons why. There will be some perfunctory efforts to credit lockdowns, masks, human separation, and closures for somehow making the virus go away. The trouble is that there is no evidence of this. There is evidence for many other explanations having to do with herd immunity and “seasonality” (another way of saying the pathogen comes and then goes) and possibly more precision in testing. 

    For example, this new article by the very sensible Jennifer Beam Dowd of Oxford names many factors (while downplaying the role of vaccines) but says of masks and so on that it is “challenging to identify their specific effects, and cases are dropping in almost all states even with a wide range of policies.” 

    Indeed! 

    The reckoning will be taking place for months if not years. In the end people will be left wondering why we took such extreme measures that wrecked so many lives when the endemic equilibrium comes in time regardless of all these measures. We tried a crazy experiment in social and economic control and we are left with scant evidence that it made much difference on the virus but vast evidence that they demoralized and ruined life for billions of people. 

    What about the opening? There will continue to be those who will cower in fear, still dealing with the deep psychological trauma that comes from watching TV journalists scream panic for the better part of a year. But there will be an emerging majority that will be more than willing to go back to real life. 

    My go-to book on the pandemic and the response has been Albert Camus’s remarkable novel The Plague. He wrote it as partially autobiographical about his own quarantine. It was published in 1947. It still stands as a brilliant account of the sociology and psychology of fear during pandemic and lockdown. 

    As we approach the end of the novel, the plague begins to lift, not because of anything that the townspeople did or because of the restrictions on their lives. It lifts because the virus ran its pandemic course. What’s striking is how quickly the dawn of normalcy happens, followed by a new appreciation for life, fun, revelry, and exuberance. 

    As people begin to see the end, Camus records the fictional scene. 

    No doubt the plague was not yet ended—a fact of which they were to be reminded; still, in imagination they could already hear, weeks in advance, trains whistling on their way to an outside world that had no limit, and steamers hooting as they put out from the harbor across shining seas. Next day these fancies would have passed and qualms of doubt returned. But for the moment the whole town was on the move, quitting the dark, lugubrious confines where it had struck its roots of stone, and setting forth at last, like a shipload of survivors, toward a land of promise….

    In streets and squares people were dancing. Within twenty-four hours the motor traffic had doubled and the ever more numerous cars were held up at every turn by merry-making crowds. Every church bell was in full peal throughout the afternoon, and the bells filled the blue and gold sky with their reverberations. Indeed, in all the churches thanksgiving services were being held. But at the same time the places of entertainment were packed, and the cafés, caring nothing for the morrow, were producing their last bottles of liquor. A noisy concourse surged round every bar, including loving couples who fondled each other without a thought for appearances. All were laughing or shouting. The reserves of emotion pent up during those many months when for everybody the flame of life burned low were being recklessly squandered to celebrate this, the red-letter day of their survival. Tomorrow real life would begin again, with its restrictions. But for the moment people in very different walks of life were rubbing shoulders, fraternizing. The leveling-out that death’s imminence had failed in practice to accomplish was realized at last, for a few gay hours, in the rapture of escape.

    And so on goes the opening, slowly at first, then quickly, then all at once. The decisive turn is when the public returns to thinking rationally, refuses to be locked up anymore, and decides to trust themselves and the medical profession rather than the powerful elites who only pretend to manage disease. The trauma lasts, of course, but the healing also begins. 

    Last April, in a more naive time, I truly did imagine that these lockdowns and restrictions could not last. I had underestimated both the public panic and the government’s willingness to double- and triple-down on unworkable policies. 

    I also overestimated what I had previously imagined to be a widespread commitment to liberty and property that would have inspired some public revolt early on. So here we are a full year later, with the reports of lockdown carnage pouring in by the day and hour. It’s a gigantic mess, to be sure, but the end does seem to be in view, and thank goodness for that. Let the blowback begin.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 23:40

  • New Bill Would Prohibit Transgenders From Entering Opposite-Sex Bathrooms, Women's Sports
    New Bill Would Prohibit Transgenders From Entering Opposite-Sex Bathrooms, Women’s Sports

    A new bill set to be introduced on Friday by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) would prevent transgender individuals from using opposite-sex bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.

    Intended to protect women and girls from both predators and unfair competition, the bill would also clarify the word “sex” in Title IX as “sex determined solely by a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” according to the Daily Caller, which obtained an advance copy of the bill.

    The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the legislation which is titled the Safety and Opportunity for Girls Act. Miller, who has five daughters herself, decided to put the bill together after President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order to interpret Title IX as requiring schools to allow access to sex-segregated spaces and activities based on gender identity on his first day in office.

    Biden’s executive order specifically mentions restrooms, locker rooms and sports in schools would be targeted. Girls would no longer have spaces to change their clothes or go to the bathroom, as biological males would have access to their spaces. Miller’s bill also focuses on women’s sports and how it is unfair for a biological male to compete against a biological female. –Daily Caller

    Rep. Miller Headshot/Daily Caller Obtained

    “Democrats continue to push radical gender ideology on our children, and we must draw the line to protect women and girls. On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an Executive Order to interpret Title IX as requiring schools to allow access to sex-segregated spaces and activities based on gender identity. But Title IX was created to enhance athletic opportunities for women, not threaten their safety. This is why I’m sponsoring the Safety and Opportunity for Girls Act,” said Miller, who told the Caller that women could be put at risk by Biden’s Executive Order.

    Daily Caller Obtained Safet… by Henry Rodgers

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 23:20

  • FBI "Aware Of" Possible UFO Spotting, Won't Confirm Investigation
    FBI “Aware Of” Possible UFO Spotting, Won’t Confirm Investigation

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

    The FBI said Thursday it’s aware of a possible unidentified flying object (UFO) sighting, but would not confirm whether the bureau is probing the incident.

    “The FBI is aware of the reported incident. While our policy is to neither confirm nor deny investigations, the FBI works continuously with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to share intelligence and protect the public,” a spokesperson for the bureau’s Albuquerque Field Office told The Epoch Times via email.

    “Anyone who is aware of suspicious or criminal activity should contact their local law enforcement agency or the FBI,” the spokesperson added.

    The incident in question reportedly took place as an American Airlines plane was en route to Phoenix, Arizona, from Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Chatter recorded by blogger Steve Douglass shows a pilot reporting that “we just had something go right over the top of us.”

    “I hate to say this but it looked like a long cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing – moving really fast right over the top of us,” he added, according to a transmission from a radio scanner.

    American Airlines did not return a request for comment.

    The airline told Fox News that the transmission was from its flight 2292, though it also told ABC 7 that it was not.

    UFOs are periodically spotted by pilots and passengers but the mysterious vessels are sometimes confirmed to be everyday objects. In other cases, sightings are confirmed but no ready explanation is provided.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Defense said in 2019 that officials investigate UFO reports.

    “The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment, as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland,” the spokesperson said.

    “The department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation’s adversaries.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 23:00

  • Boeing 777 Makes Emergency Landing In Moscow Due To Engine Trouble
    Boeing 777 Makes Emergency Landing In Moscow Due To Engine Trouble

    It really has not been a good year for Boeing. Or a good decade for that matter.

    Just days after a Boeing-777 became the latest symbol of all that is wrong with the once almighty aircraft maker, when the plane’s right engine exploded (with debris striking houses below it in a scene right out of Breaking Bad) and only a miracle prevented a tragedy, moments ago another Boeing-777 made an emergency landing in Russia’s Sheremetyevo airport outside of Moscow, Interfax reports, adding that the plane crew requested the landing after one of left engine control channels failed

    The news service doesn’t name the airline operator; but said that the plane was flying from Hong Kong to Madrid. Luckily, no injuries were reported.

    The latest mishap followed even more bad news for the aerospace giant, which earlier on Thursday agreed to pay $6.6 million to U.S. regulators as part of a settlement with the Federal Aviation Administration over the planemaker’s failure to comply with a 2015 safety agreement including quality and safety-oversight lapses going back years, a setback that comes as Boeing wrestles with repairs to flawed 787 Dreamliner jets that could dwarf the cost of the federal penalty.

    As Reuters reported, Boeing is beginning painstaking repairs and forensic inspections to fix structural integrity flaws embedded deep inside at least 88 parked 787s built over the last year or so. The inspections and retrofits could take up to a month per plane and are likely to cost hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars, though it depends on the number of planes and defects involved.

    The penalties include $5.4 million for not complying with the agreement in which Boeing pledged to change its internal processes to improve and prioritize regulatory compliance and $1.21 million to settle two pending FAA enforcement cases.

    “The FAA is holding Boeing accountable by imposing additional penalties,” FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement.

    But the biggest challenge facing Boeing is whether or not it can find passengers for its 737 MAX now that the infamous deadly airplane which was reportedly “designed by clowns…supervised by monkeys” is set to fly again. While the plane may indeed have gotten a green light from the FAA, a far bigger question is whether Boeing has by now lost the trust of the public for good.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 22:45

  • "Deeply Unfair Move" – Baltimore Strippers Protest City's COVID-19 Restrictions
    “Deeply Unfair Move” – Baltimore Strippers Protest City’s COVID-19 Restrictions

    Baltimore strippers showed up enforce at City Hall Wednesday to protest the mayor’s new coronavirus health measures that keep adult entertainment establishments closed, according to local television station WBAL. 

    The announcement came from Mayor Brandon Scott earlier this week, who allowed restaurants to partially open with indoor capacity set to 25% and outdoor dining to 50%. He felt optimistic about current COVID-19 health trends in the city. 

    However, strip clubs were not permitted to open; this triggered outrage among sex workers who protested the City Hall Wednesday afternoon. 

    “This is a deeply unfair move, in our view,” an anonymous spokesperson for adult entertainment business owners in Baltimore said in a statement. “We’re being selectively targeted to stay closed. If you can open a gym or put on a stage show, you can have a gentleman’s club open. There’s some other agenda at work here, and it’s very insensitive to the not inconsequential number of people who make their livings through the adult entertainment industry.”

    The statement also pointed out cooks, bartenders, janitors, security guards, and other tradespeople are also affected by the mayor’s harsh coronavirus measures. 

    At the protest, strippers chanted, “Sex work is real work.” 

    Dozens of strippers showed up in front of City Hall to voice their anger at the mayor as mandatory government shutdowns have ruined their lives. 

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

    Bella Gluscevich, a 22-year-old stripper at Fantasies in Baltimore, told Baltimore Brew that it’s been tough during the pandemic. 

    “It’s been really rough being out of work; I lost my apartment, my car, and I haven’t been able to pay for school,” Gluscevich said.

    A provision in the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) banned strip clubs from collecting stimulus checks – the industry across the country has been devastated. But as capitalism always prevails, some clubs have found ways to survive. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 22:40

  • Luongo: The Greening Of The Grid Froze Texas
    Luongo: The Greening Of The Grid Froze Texas

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    Polar winds scream out of Canada in seeming revenge for Joe Biden canceling the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Texas’ power grid collapsed as temperatures more likely in Sioux Falls than San Antonio roared in plunging more than 4 million people into darkness and without heat.

    How can this have possibly happened in a place whose entire cultural identity revolves around producing energy?

    Simple.

    Texas’ deregulated energy market went green over the past decade. In the past ten years, according to the EIA, Texas retired more than 5,000 MW of coal-supplied power while spinning up more than that in windmills.

    Wind produces the marginal, or last, megawatt in Texas, in this case the last 17%. Nuclear provides the first megawatt, less than 10%.

    Natural Gas provides most of the megawatts.

    One would think in a world which is getting hotter that putting windmills and solar panels would be a good idea.

    I’m sure that’s what the CEO’s of all those energy providers across Texas thought as well. And our government at every level incentivized this. The cultural zeitgeist of ‘sustainability’ and ‘renewables’ overrode, as it always does, common sense.

    Because at the heart of this problem is, bluntly, the planet isn’t warming. It hasn’t warmed net-on-net for the nearly twenty years Texas’ electricity market has been deregulated.

    In fact, when one steps back from the entire CO2-induced Climate Change hysteria and sees it for what it is – a giant money laundering operation through taxes — we have been preparing for the wrong climate catastrophe for more than a generation.

    More on that in a minute.

    Because of the intense cold power, demands for electric heat in Texas spiked well above levels needed for air conditioning in their normally brutal summers. Why? Because those wind turbines which produce the marginal megawatt froze.

    Even worse, because most of Texas’ power actually comes from its abundant production of natural gas and no one thought to consult the folks in Canada or North Dakota, apparently major parts of the gas pipeline infrastructure which delivers the gas to the power plants froze as well.

    So, no gas, no power. No wind, no power. Even with wind, no power.

    H/T ElVaquero5555 on Telegram

    On top of that one of the two reactors at the South Texas Nuclear Power Station went down this week adding to the state’s power woes.

    The result was the price for electricity spiking to unheard of numbers that make Bitcoin look like a stablecoin in comparison.

    From under $100 per MWHr to the limit, as defined by Texas’ regulatory board ERCOT, of $9000 per MWHr.

    Anti-free market types will chime in and decry the evils of deregulation and protecting the little guy from price gougers. Commies will scream that it wasn’t the frozen windmills’ fault or the lack of sunlight.

    It will be blamed on the evils of capitalism because that’s what always happens when even a somewhat deregulated market like that of electricity in Texas is hit with a six-sigma outlier event, like Dallas dealing with a high of 9oF in mid-February.

    It doesn’t matter if we socialize the costs or not, the bills for the power used this week in Texas have to be paid. Those costs weren’t necessarily caused by deregulation the extremity of the situation was caused by something far more pernicious than price gouging, bad planning because of bad information.

    CO2-induced global warming theory is, simply put an illusion. The emotions surrounding it along with the economic incentives created through government edict are real.

    The planetary and solar physics have far more predictive and explanatory power than the endless data fudging associated with Mann’s Hockey Stick graph and Al Gore’s stupid movie.

    The weather event which engulfed the center of the U.S. and is moving east, which pushed the Jet Stream to the extreme south cannot be explained by aggregate CO2 concentrations, but rather the interactions between fluctuations in the solar wind and Earth’s rapidly weakening magnetic field.

    A strong solar wind event which pushes on the magnetic field alters the flow of the jet stream bringing strong polar winds farther south than thought possible by the builders of Texas’ energy grid.

    In geological and solar system time scales fifty or sixty years of data are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that it hasn’t been this cold in Texas for a hundred years when the conditions which caused this event occur every few thousand.

    You can’t plan for that unless you are looking at the right data with the right sets of eyes.

    For decades the effects of solar physics on our planet have been suppressed in pursuit of the CO2 narrative enshrined at the heights of our political power structure at a global level. They do this, in my opinion, to further their political power and advance an agenda of control rather than one of freedom and inquiry.

    Because of this we’ve diverted trillions in useful capital into critical infrastructure projects which fail when we need them most because their bad information crowded out better information.

    It’s pushed back the promise of home power generation for a generation.

    This, to me, is real energy freedom.

    It looked promising back when I built my house in 2003. It is still just a dream outside of solar. The power companies and local governments will not give up that control, it is the key to their tax collection.

    The rallying cry of Joe Biden, when he can read it clearly off the teleprompter, is ‘Trust the Science.’ But science isn’t consensus anymore than chocolate is vanilla. Science in our hyper-politicized world is just that, political.

    Because if we listened to the science (SCIENCE!!) we would have given up on Global Warming decades ago.

    The history of science is the scientists acting as gatekeepers of the dominant political system. New knowledge which threatens the existing power structure is suppressed, its advocates branded heretics slowing the adoption of new paradigms of thought for generations.

    That’s where we are today in climate science. The global warming story collapsed. Now it’s Climate Change. And even that is dubious as the solar physics story gains incontrovertible traction.

    And remember, what we wanted was less pollution. What we got was frozen wind turbines and solar farms in Germany covered in ice.

    Even the IPCC will finally add some solar particle forcing data, the kind which pushed the Jet Stream down to freeze Texas, into their data set in 2022. This is the first major step, officially, towards ending this insanity.

    Reality is reasserting itself with a vengeance in this space and yet the Biden Administration is full steam ahead with the Green New Deal.

    The sad truth is that if none of us had ever listened to the renewable energy hysteria and pushed for proper deregulation of energy markets things would be better today.

    If Texas had left those coal plants running and built a few more nuclear reactors it wouldn’t be freezing today.

    If we’d gotten the government out of the energy regulation market altogether and allowed a proper free market in it with a properly decentralized grid, we would be far closer to the socialists dream of ending price gouging during weather crises.

    But because of government’s insatiable need to control the real means of production – energy, communications, travel and education – we limp along with a hodgepodge grid just waiting for the next catastrophe.

    *  *  *

    Addendum:

    Since this piece was written (2/16/2021) it’s come out that Gov. Greg Abbott wanted to fire up the coal plants to keep the grid from collapsing ahead of the front. He was denied by the DoE unless they charged customers $1500 per MWHr to satisfy Green Energy requirements.

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

    Politics is the killer here, not free markets.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon if you understand that Teslas run on coal

    Donate via Crypto
    BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
    BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
    DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
    LTC: MWWdCHbMmn1yuyMSZX55ENJnQo8DXCFg5k
    DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
    XMR: 48Whbhyg8TNXiNV2LNkjeuJJU55CNt5m1XDtP3jWZK2xf5GNsbU2ZwHLDJTQ5oTU3uaJPN8oQooRpSQ2CPMJvX8pVTqthmu

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 22:20

  • Japanese 10Y Blows Out Above YCC Barrier, But In The US Yields Are Already Sliding
    Japanese 10Y Blows Out Above YCC Barrier, But In The US Yields Are Already Sliding

    Earlier we noted that despite an aggressive attempt by Australia’s central bank to enforce its recently launched yield curve control, including a $3BN POMO yesterday – triple the amount it bought on Monday and the most since the bond market turbulence during the COVID-19 panic last March – followed by another $3BN POMO on Friday, the Australian 3Y had blown out to 0.13% earlier today then rose as high as 0.154% a few hours ago, before retracing and last trading at 0.116% still above the 0.10% “controlled” max yield on the security.

    Australia was just the start: shortly after Asia reopened following today’s blowout, Japan followed suit and saw its 10Y surge above 0.18%, the highest level since early 2016, well before the BOJ implemented Yield Curve Control in September of the same year, which changed the bank’s policy framework to target the yield on ten-year government bonds at “around zero percent.”

    Well, with today’s blowout past the highest level reached during the YCC period, one can conclude that YCC is starting to fail across the globe, first in Australia and now in Japan.

    But while yields were surging across the globe in sympathy with the epic rout that took place in US bonds earlier in the day, when a catastrophic 7Y auction sent the 10Y soaring by 10bps in seconds, rising as high as 1.60%, US Treasurys have since faded much of the move as traders are now rushing to buy the dip.

    As JPMorgan writes in its end of day market recap, “today there were many multi-month/multi-year levels that were broken and now the question is now where can markets find a level. Today was the first day in the recent sell-off that felt distinctly defensive in nature. Equity markets are taking cues from bond markets and today we took out our firm’s forecast for mid-year 10Y yield. In the face of another slug of almost $2T in fiscal and a third vaccine, how much farther can yields run?”

    While one would think that the answer is “a lot”, JPM then notes that its “Equity Derivatives team saw buyers of interest rate products, betting that yields have moved too far.“

    There’s more: as JPM strategist Jay Barry adds in a valientattempt to find dip buyers, Treasury yields are somewhat “mispriced” at current levels with the first hike baked in for March 2023, which is out of line with fundamentals according to the JPM trader. And while Barry expects to ultimately see higher yields and steeper curves from current levels, in the latest moves fundamentals have been taking a back seat to technicals and are now well below fair value.

    This, to JPM, presents the short-term opportunity to add duration. Given there are over 50bp of hikes priced by early 2024, there is value in intermediate Treasuries, and JPM recommend tactical long positions in 5- year notes at 0.796%.

    Others echoed JPM’s sentiment that the bond rout is a dip buying opportunity, and according to Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai Asset Management, investors will consider buying Treasuries after 10-year U.S. yields rose above the closely watched level of 1.5%.

    “Looking at the current levels, it’ll be hard for investors to stay bearish and they’ll start to think about dip-buying opportunities,” said the bank’s Akio Kato, who may have been stating his wishes instead of his “objective” assessment.

    He added that “Treasury yields are overshooting as Fed officials have been refraining from commenting directly about them” and noted that “the pick up in momentum reflects strong economic signals from U.S. indicators.”

    Finally, keep in mind that as recently as Monday JPM calculated that due to month-end pension rebalancing, around $90bn of equity selling was expected by balanced mutual funds for February month-end. Well, following today’s bond rout, funds may instead reverse and opt to buy bonds in the next three days ahead of month end to take advantage of the sharply lower prices which have not been matched by a similar decline in stocks.

    In short, we wouldn’t be surprised to see a vicious snapback rally in the coming days, especially if some CTAs close out their shorts, which are currently the highest in 2 years…

    … and turn long duration. In fact, one look at the aggressive buying of Treasurys in the overnight session, it appears that this may have already started.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 22:01

  • Secretly, Biden's Foreign Policies Are Trump's Foreign Policies
    Secretly, Biden’s Foreign Policies Are Trump’s Foreign Policies

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Biden’s foreign policies are putting Democratic Party lipstick onto the Republican Party’s pig. That’s his ‘change’, on US foreign policies. Though President Joe Biden is publicly critical of Trump’s foreign policies, he’s continuing almost all of them and is changing only minor ones. The changes are almost entirely in rhetoric, not in actual policies, as will be documented here.

    A good example of this entirely rhetorical ‘difference’ is described in a February 19th article from Reuters, Drawing contrast with Trump, Biden promises US allies a partnership that’s not transactional. Biden’s policy, to “promote democracy over autocracies,” condemns Trump’s polices as having been “transactional” instead of based on “values.” But, actually, America’s invasions, and coups, and economic sanctions, during the past few decades, have been ‘justified’ by condemning the US regime’s target-nations (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine before America’s 2014 coup there — and now Ukraine is ‘our ally‘) as not being “democratic,” and as not adhering to ‘human rights’, as if the US regime itself were an authentic democracy, or were unquestionably better on human rights than the targets against which its aggressions are directed — none of which is true.

    Illustration via Axios/Getty Images

    If America were a democracy, then why does it have a higher percentage of its residents in prisons than does any other nation on the planet? And they’re almost all poor people, who couldn’t even afford a good lawyer. That’s ‘equal rights’? America is a country of equal rights? And it provides equal opportunity there, if your father went to prison? (Many ex-cons in America aren’t even allowed to vote. And their job-prospects, with a prison record or empty years shown on a CV, are permanently reduced.) Biden condemned “Trump, who angered allies by breaking off global accords and threatening to end defense assistance unless they toed his line. ‘Our partnerships have endured and grown through the years because they are rooted in the richness of our shared democratic values. They’re not transactional’ [he said].” Liberal hogwash — purely arrogant lies, by the U.S. regime, so that it can continue to perpetrate aggression against its target-nations, while appearing, to suckers, to be a ‘kinder and gentler nation’.

    The hypocrisy of that is understood by all of America’s allies — all leaders of the empire’s vassal-nations. They know that many of those allied leaders are, themselves, even more tyrannical than America’s leaders are. For example, on February 16th, the BBC bannered Princess Latifa: ‘Hostage’ ordeal of Dubai ruler’s daughter revealed, and reported: “The daughter of Dubai’s ruler who tried to flee the country in 2018 later sent secret video messages to friends accusing her father of holding her ‘hostage’ as she feared for her life. In footage shared with BBC Panorama, Princess Latifa Al Maktoum says commandos drugged her as she fled by boat and flew her back to detention.” Will Biden therefore dump its UAE vassal-nation, for this “problem,” which goes all the way back to the year 2000 and has never yet caused the US regime to drop any ‘ally’?

    Another of the ‘democratic’ America’s vassal leaders, the one who controls Saudi Arabia, had perpetrated the 2 October 2018 luring into Istanbul’s Saudi Consulate of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi (who feared for his life even as he entered there) where he was immediately dismembered and chopped-up by the team of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud, and thus was placed on public display how above-the-law Saudi Arabia’s Government really is. The five execution-team-members, whom the Crown Prince had reason to believe might testify against him if released, were sentenced to death. So, anyone who would be hired for such an operation in the future would be a fool to trust that employer. The only real insiders in such a regime are at the very top. ‘Honor among thieves’ doesn’t exist at that high a level. Finally, on 9 September 2019, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper bannered Saudi hit squad’s gruesome conversations during Khashoggi’s murder revealed, and reported that—

    The recordings, which took place before the murder between Sept. 28 and Oct. 2, 2018, reveal in detail the plans and preparations made between the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and the Riyadh administration.

    On Sept. 28, when Khashoggi came to the Saudi Consulate for papers to marry his fiancee Hatice Cengiz, Ahmed Abdullah al-Muzaini, who worked as Saudi Arabia’s intelligence station chief at the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul, informed Riyadh with an emergency code that Khashoggi had arrived at the consulate. Khashoggi’s return to the consulate on Oct. 2 was also informed to Riyadh.

    On the same day at 7:08 p.m., Saudi Consul Otaibi held a phone call with an official from the office of Saud al-Qahtani, a close aide of Crown Prince Mohammed.

    During the conversation, the murder of Khashoggi was called [in order to code so as to hide what was going on, in case Turkish intelligence were listening-in] “a private matter” and “a top-secret mission.” The official told the Saudi consul that “the head of state security called me. They have a mission. They want one of your officials from your delegation to deal with a private matter. They want someone from your protocol… for a private, top-secret mission. He can even get permission if necessary.”

    These statements are proof that the murder of Khashoggi was not done without the consent of the Saudi crown prince.

    And Israel’s Netanyahu isn’t leading a racist apartheid theocratic nation? And Saudi Arabia’s monarch and his son Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud aren’t also leading a pro-jihadist regime, and America’s Government don’t know this?

    Not “transactional”? It’s actually just replacing Trump’s transactionalism by Biden’s more hypocritical type.

    And the hypocrisy here goes beyond the “not transactional” lie. On February 18th, Reuters headlined US says ready for talks with Iran over nuclear deal and this propaganda reported that:

    Washington would respond positively to any European Union invitation to talks among Iran and the six major powers who negotiated the original agreement: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

    “We are ready to show up if such a meeting were to take place,” the official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, after a senior EU official said he was prepared to convene such a meeting among the parties to the deal.

    But it’s just a nothingburger.

    Though Russia supported an unconditional restoration of the Iran deal, because only the US had broken it and quit it, the US ‘allies’ backed the aggressor-nation (the US regime), “during a video meeting with his British, French and German counterparts gathered in Paris,” as Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken (who has supported every U.S. invasion including the 2003 invasion of Iraq) led them:

    “Secretary Blinken reiterated that … if Iran comes back into strict compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA, the United States will do the same and is prepared to engage in discussions with Iran toward that end,” a joint statement from the four nations said.

    America broke it first, but Iran must return to it first — according to America (which broke it first). Only idiots would accept such wacky ‘reasoning’. But Joe Biden’s Administration appeals only to such idiots. And yet America’s liberals deride Trump for Trump’s stupidity, and for the stupidity of his followers. Truth, and progressivism (which opposes all lies, conservative or liberal), have virtually no representation in today’s American politics. Progressives are marginalized here.

    Also on February 18th, the Moon of Alabama blogger bannered Why Is Biden Creating Himself An Iran Quagmire? and he wrote that the US side were not only demanding that Iran cancel its own departure from the Iran deal (which cancellation had followed after the U.S. had already abandoned the deal) before the US and its gang would return to the negotiating table to restore the Iran deal, but that in addition the U.S. and its ‘allies’ would demand that Iran restrict its missile program — which hadn’t even been included in the Iran deal — before the U.S. and its allies would negotiate a return to the Iran deal. In other words: Iran would have to make concessions first — though only the U.S. had actually broken the deal — and the U.S. and its ‘allies’ still wouldn’t negotiate unless and until Iran would first agree to reduce its missile-forces (which weren’t part of the Iran deal). Furthermore, already, a law recently passed in Iran’s Parliament requires Iran’s Government to bring an end to the IAEA inspections, starting on February 23rd; so, Iran’s Government wouldn’t be allowed to back down to the U.S. regime’s demands, even if Iran’s President were stupid enough to want to do so.

    Instead of the gangster — the US regime — apologizing for what it had done, it tries to fool its own and allied publics into believing that Iran — and not the U.S. gang — were the criminals here. The blatancy of America’s being a regime instead of a democracy is obvious (after all, America stole Iran in 1953 and has been trying to grab it back ever since Iran finally broke away in 1979), and Biden’s pretense to being in a better category than Trump is based on lies that only fools could believe.

    And then there’s Syria.

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

    On January 23rd, Zero Hedge — linking to reliable online sources — headlined A Large US Military Convoy Rolled Into Syria On 1st Day Of Biden Presidency. Not only is the new US President Joe Biden intensifying America’s invasion of Syria, but he is preparing to increase the theft of oil that his predecessor Trump began in Syria after Trump’s predecessor Obama had begun America’s attempted conquest of Syria in 2012.

    Among the sources which were linked to, in that news-report, is Syrian National News Agency (SANA), which — in the past — has proven to have been truthful, about the war, far more often than standard US and other anti-Syrian ‘journalism’ has been shown to have been. SANA reported, on January 21st (Biden’s first day as U.S. President) that:

    The so-called US-led international coalition has sent weapons and logistical materials to its illegitimate bases in Hasaka countryside.

    Local sources told SANA that a convoy consisted of 40 trucks loaded with weapons and logistical materials, affiliated to the so-called international coalition have entered in Hasaka countryside via al-Walid illegitimate border crossing with north of Iraq, to reinforce illegitimate bases in the area.

    Over the past few days, helicopters affiliated to the so-called international coalition have transported logistical equipment and heavy military vehicles to Koniko [Conoco] oil field in northeastern Deir Ezzor countryside, after turning it into military base to reinforce its presence and loot the Syrian resources.

    That oil field had been heavily contested during 2016 between Syria’s Government (which owns it) and ISIS, until US President Barack Obama bombed Syria’s troops who were protecting it, and immediately ISIS forces moved in, and took it over (as was Obama’s intention). That oil facility promptly became the chief source of income for ISIS’s Syrian operation, to overthrow Syria’s Government.

    On 30 April 2017, I had bannered How Obama & Erdogan Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad, and explained:

    Chris Tomson of Al Masdar News headlined on Monday May 1st, Syrian Army tank takes direct hit from ISIS guided missile in Deir Ezzor [on Sunday, April 30th] and reported that, “Currently, government forces are less than 1500 meters from linking up Deir Ezzor city to its airbase,” which would be an essential link-up in order for the Syrian government to begin to restore control over the largest city in eastern Syria. Here will be the account of how U.S. President Barack Obama handed that city over to ISIS by means of two key actions, so as to weaken Assad’s government.

    Today, Der Zor, or Deir Ezzor, Syria’s major oil center, is controlled by ISIS or Daesh, but Obama’s warplanes bombed the Syrian government troops there on 17 September 2016 and thereby ended the then 5-day-old ceasefire that John Kerry had spent months putting together with Sergei Lavrov [Russia’s Foreign Minister], and thus Obama effectively ended all peace negotiations with Russia regarding Syria. Then, when US and Turkish forces attacked ISIS in Mosul Iraq, an escape-path was intentionally left by them for those ISIS jihadists to travel west to Der Zor, so that they could not only take over the oil wells there, but do major damage to the Syrian government’s army forces in that key city, after Obama had bombed there on September 17th. Consequently, Erdogan and Obama were now using ISIS in Mosul as a means for reinforcing ISIS in Syria, in such a way as to provide oil-income to ISIS and also to directly weaken Assad’s government.

    Obama never told anyone that he favored ISIS and all jihadists over Assad’s government, but he showed it clearly and consistently by his actions.

    A 12 August 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warning [whose original can be seen here] that the Obama Administration’s strategy might drive ISIS from Mosul in Iraq to Der Zor in Syria, has actually been carried out as a plan instead of a warning — a plan to weaken and ultimately oust Syria’s non-sectarian President Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a Sunni Sharia-law regime (one led by jihadists). The 2012 DIA warning had called this scenario an “unraveling,” but Obama and the U.S. Congress actually chose it, so as to set the incoming President Trump up with an opportunity to replace Assad’s government by one that the Sauds and their U.S.-made weapons will control.

    Previously, Al Qaeda had been stealing Syria’s oil, and the EU was cooperating with the Obama regime in order to help sell into the EU nations. Syrian troops briefly grabbed it back, but Obama now forced Syria’s Army out and handed that oil-facility to ISIS, so that they could make money from it and continue the job of weakening Syria’s Government.

    On 9 March 2019, three years into Trump’s Presidency, I headlined Syria Accuses U.S. of Stealing 40+ Tons of Its Gold that ISIS had accumulated from their foreign sales of Syria’s oil. However, now that US President Trump knew that ISIS had been ‘earning’ that much money from selling that oil, he wanted to become the person who would be choosing whom would be funded by Syria’s oil. So, on 30 October 2019, I bannered How the U.S. Regime ‘Justifies’ the Theft of Syria’s Oil and reported that—

    On 26 Oct, the New York Times headlined “Keep the Oil”: Trump Revives Charged Slogan for New Syria Troop Mission and opened by saying that “in recent days, Mr. Trump has settled on Syria’s oil reserves as a new rationale for appearing to reverse course and deploy hundreds of additional troops to the war-ravaged country.” They closed with a statement from Bruce Riedel, retired from the CIA: “‘Let’s say he does do it,’’Mr. Riedel said. ‘Let’s say we establish the precedent that we are in the Middle East to take the oil. The symbolism is really bad.'” The propaganda-value of a ‘news’-report is concentrated in its opening, and especially in what the ‘reporter’ (fulfilling the intentions of his editors) selected to be at the very end (such as Riedel’s statement). However, is what’s wrong with taking Syria’s oil actually the “symbolism,” as Riedel said, or is it instead the theft — the reality (and why did the NYT pretend that it’s the symbolism)? Nowhere did that NYT article use the word “theft,” or anything like it, but that is the actual issue here — not mere ‘symbolism’.

    So, Biden will continue that operation, which Obama had started and Trump continued.

    The goal is to hand to the Saud family control over Syria’s government. The Saudis are to select whom the rulers of Syrians will be. That has been the plan ever since the CIA’s second coup, which briefly overthrew Syria’s Government, in 1949.

    And then there’s Julian Assange, who has never been convicted of anything but is being drugged and held in a British maximum-security prison as the latest stage in his decade-long imprisonment-without-conviction for anything. A British judge dropped all charges against him and was keeping him in prison pending a decision by Joe Biden (via Merrick Garland) on whether or not to re-assert Donald Trump’s re-assertion of Barack Obama’s assertion that Assange had stolen (though he never stole) and made public US Government secrets and should be extradited to the US for what everyone expects to be a kangaroo court trial that would end in his execution for having done what Daniel Ellsberg had done in the Pentagon Papers case about the Vietnam War. The international hero, Assange, is to be ‘tried’ in a US court. On February 12th, the New York Times bannered, Biden Justice Dept. Asks British Court to Approve Extradition of Julian Assange. Biden continues Trump’s continuation of Obama’s attempt to murder Julian Assange.

    Ultimately, Biden’s foreign policies are putting Democratic Party lipstick onto the Republican Party’s pig. That’s his ‘change’, on US foreign policies.

    Just like with Hitler, it’s all fakery, except that (like with Hitler) the evil which motivates it, and which threatens the entire world, is all too real. Whether the US regime will go all the way to yet another World War in order to impose it everywhere (as Hitler aspired to do), is unknown. (Some experts think the signs point that way.) Hitler went that far, but lost his war. And his spirit (minus the anti-Semitism) then took over in Washington, but with ‘kinder’ rhetoric. The results in the nuclear Age would be that everyone would lose. The only way to stop that would be to stop Washington, but that’s a decision which only Washington’s vassal-nations would make — if they will.

    And even on his domestic polices, Biden lies in order to serve the priorities of the billionaires who funded his way into the White House. For example, on February 20th, NPR headlined FACT CHECK: Biden’s Comments On Loan Forgiveness And Elite Colleges and proved that he was deceiving the public about that issue. He is as corrupt as they come. The stopping of the US aristocracy will either come from abroad, or not at all. It won’t come internally from within the US, because the regime doesn’t allow its public to recognize that it’s a regime — an imperialistic aristocracy — instead of a democracy. It’s more cunning than Hitler was. America’s aristocracy recognizes that in modern times, personification of their regime (in a monarch or other ‘divinely ordained’ individual or “Fuehrer”) produces only a fleeting dictatorship and one that is hard to keep in line or continue with a successor. In modern times, a ‘democratic’ dictatorship has more lasting power. So, that’s what we now have. The spirit of Hitler lives on, in America’s aristocracy.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 22:00

  • California Collapsing
    California Collapsing

    Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    California now fulfills Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s nightmare vision in his prophetic masterpiece “The Possessed” as to what unlimited liberalism must inevitably create – if not stopped in its tracks and rolled back.

    Where California goes today, the rest of the United States and much of the Western world goes tomorrow. But what we are now seeing in America’s most populous state is the complete internal collapse of the entire liberal progressive civilization and the society that has most frantically tried to fulfill it

    For well over a hundred years, California, the self-styled “Golden State” has trail-blazed  the future of America especially through the two famously American industries of aerospace and motion pictures. Telecommunications, computers and Artificial Intelligence are now led from Silicon Valley and the state has dominated the national politics of the United States too.

    California rapidly grew into the wealthiest and largest population US state. It has produced two two-term presidents (Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan), one of the most important Chief Justices of the Supreme Court (Earl Warren) and the likely next president – current Vice President Kamala Harris if 78-year-old Joe Biden cannot complete his term.

    From 1928 to 2004, 14 out of 19 winning presidential election tickets included someone from either California or Texas and Biden’s choice of Harris put California back at the heart of national electoral politics last year.

    Politically, California remains rock solid liberal. It has not elected a single Republican to national or statewide office since reelecting incumbent Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. In 2016, then-Governor Jerry Brown notoriously notoriously handed out state accreditation and driving licenses to untold hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, secure in the knowledge that they would all vote Democrat and so it proved. Registered Democrats now hold a 46 percent to 24 percent advantage over registered Republicans statewide.

    California also holds a cast-iron grip on the national Democratic leadership in Congress through House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her key allies such as Congressman Adam Schiff, whose farcical bungles in the two impeachments of President Donald Trump did not dent his immutable position as one of Pelosi’s most youthful favored sons (he is merely 60) at all.

    Yet now, California is in terminal collapse and crisis. Governor Gavin Newsom, farcically promoted by the national Mainstream Media (MSM) as a heroic White Knight in Shining Armor in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic last spring has been exposed even in his own state as a catastrophic bungler and hypocrite who has never had a clue what he was – or more usually was not – doing. As I write, California’s sick and tired citizens are close to providing the 1.5 million signatures necessary to pull Newsom into what would certainly be a chaotic recall election.

    California was also ravaged last year by the worst wild fires in its history. The slavish media – told what to think by the mindless Los Angeles Times (once a great newspaper) and even more infantile San Francisco Chronicle – bent over backwards to avoid acknowledging the real causes but they have been exhaustively documented.

    Witless romantic Green environmental policies scrapped the centuries old, wise practices of creating firebreaks in forests between clumps of trees that would limit fire outbreaks in hot weather. Far from “protecting the trees” and wildlife, as the kneejerk Greens demanded, the ending of windbreak spaces instead allowed forest fires to blaze on an unprecedented scale and at record speed.

    At the same time, multiple millions of people sweated in even luxury suburbs through the rolling heat waves without any air conditioning relief because the state electric grid -another victim of ignorant Green prejudice falsely masquerading as “science” – repeatedly collapsed, unable to generate the necessary reliable requisite power levels at vital times.

    Los Angeles, the state’s largest city and arguably the most populous now in the United States, has become a byword for violent crime and especially the stronghold of the enormous, ultraviolent and rapidly growing MS 13 organization, routinely mislabeled as a mere “gang” in media reports. MS 13 has up to 50,000 members worldwide of whom at least 10,000, officially, and probably twice as many according to the private assessments of many police officers are in LA.

    The Trump administration had remarkable success – again unacknowledged in the liberal media – in deporting many thousands of MS 13 members. However, President Joe Biden has already ensured with his initial Executive Orders that the old open border policies of both Democratic presidents (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) and Republican ones (Ronald Reagan and both George Bush’s) is being restored so they can flood back in again.

    San Francisco – America’s “anything goes” city – is in even worse shape. Its most famous, historically popular and beautiful stylish locations are now swamped with aggressive, unsanitary street people who openly urinate and defecate in the streets. Public services, long superb, are now appalling.

    Even the mindless liberal suburban classes who have relentlessly voted for and imposed these catastrophic polices over the past 40 and more years are now fleeing California as property values crash and taxes become too crushing even for them.

    If California continues to trail-blaze the future for the rest of the United States, that future is now clear: It is a high taxation society with a huge, impoverished, unemployed and unemployable destitute class where the middle class is annihilated, organized gangs and general chaotic street crime including muggings, rapes and murders metastasize in all major urban areas and gangs more numerous and heavily armed than the police operate openly with impunity.

    It is a society where unlimited abortion on demand to and even beyond the point of birth is acclaimed as a “moral” imperative supposedly superior to all the Ten Commandments.

    For California now fulfills Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s nightmare vision in his prophetic masterpiece “The Possessed” or “The Devils ” as to what unlimited liberalism must inevitably create – if not stopped in its tracks and rolled back.

    As goes California, so goes the rest of the United States: For a hundred years, since the infant silent movie industry entranced the entire world before and during World War I, that simple mantra has held true.

    But if America’s future now has no future – what future can the rest of America look forward to?

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 21:40

  • "It's Bananas" – 72% Of US Homebuyers Say Pandemic Disrupted Plans
    “It’s Bananas” – 72% Of US Homebuyers Say Pandemic Disrupted Plans

    Americans have been fascinated by market trends during the pandemic era, as everything from bitcoin, to baseball cards, is seeing prices rise, and central bankers like Jerome Powell have been repeatedly forced to swat away questions about asset bubbles.

    And one of the most interesting markets – perhaps because millions have been confined almost exclusively to their homes during the quarantines and repeated waves of COVID-19 – has been real estate, as urban markets have seen their luster fade, while suburban areas are suddenly hot again.

    The other day, the LA Times and other media outlets published a story explaining how falling rents in San Francisco are starting to draw tenants back from nearby Oakland. In fact, some parts of San Francisco are actually cheaper than parts of Oakland now.

    Even on a foggy San Francisco morning, the view from Scott Simmons’ 25th-floor apartment stretches from downtown to Golden Gate Park. The home of the 42-year-old tech worker is also spacious for a one-bedroom, featuring hardwood floors, new appliances and granite countertops.

    A year ago, when he was sharing a two-bedroom place with his brother, Simmons couldn’t have imagined living in an apartment like this one. But last fall, when Simmons heard about big rent declines during the COVID-19 pandemic, he discovered he could get way more for his money in the heart of San Francisco than in the neighborhood where he was doubling up in Oakland.

    “It’s bananas,” Simmons said. “I never thought I was going to be someone who was going to have a nice view. It’s a luxury.”

    In a survey from Improve.net in partnership with CraftJack found that the pandemic had a serious impact on prospective homeowners and their ability to move ahead with plans to buy. According to the survey, 72% of prospective buyers- basically everyone in the Gen Z and Millennial generations – among the sample of Americans surveyed said that the outbreak of COVID-19 had disrupted their plans to buy. Here’s a breakdown of the study’s highlights.

    • 72% of prospective homebuyers said their savings plan for a home has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    • 54% of prospective homebuyers report that their moving and home buying plans have changed during the pandemic (30% have accelerated vs 24% have slowed or been put on hold).

    • 52% say their interest in types of homes and locations has changed as a direct result of the pandemic.

    • On the bright side, 54% of millennials and Gen Zers report being more motivated to become homeowners, as a direct result of the pandemic.

    • The top home buying factors that have been impacted by the pandemic: 1. Access to nature 2. Proximity to family 3. Indoor space 4. Outdoor space 5. Home location.

    • 36% of city residents say they value suburban living more than they did before the pandemic.

    Read the full writeup from Improve.net below:

    During the coronavirus pandemic, millions of Americans have felt their relationship with their home tested. Whether it’s because of remote learning, remote work, or simply having nowhere else to go, both space and functionality have been pushed to their limits for so many of us.

    Many have embarked on home improvement projects to optimize their space – and used our home service cost estimator to see what they can afford – but sometimes making a change means more. Many Americans find themselves reflecting on long-term priorities and recalibrating their homeowner ideals.
    In this study, we explore how attitudes, ideals, and needs have shifted for homeowners and aspiring homeowners alike. No doubt, a spirit of change is in the air. In fact, 79 percent of those we surveyed said all the change forced by the pandemic has inspired them to make other changes in their lives that may never have occurred.

    We began by asking people about moving plans and buying plans. Four in 10 say their plans haven’t changed, but a majority of people report things have changed. Thirty-six percent say they either didn’t plan to move and now they’re moving, or their previous moving plans have accelerated.

    Similarly, 30 percent report that homebuying plans have either materialized or accelerated. But an almost equal amount have said plans are slowing down or are on hold. On top of that, 72 percent of millennials and Gen Zers – basically everyone under 40 years old – who have been saving to buy a home say their savings plans have been disrupted by the pandemic.

    That aside, the future looks bright for the real estate market as 54 percent of millennials and Gen Zers say they feel more motivated than ever to become homeowners, as a direct result of the pandemic. Across all generations, 52 percent say their interest in certain types of homes and/or locations has shifted since the beginning of the pandemic.

    One of the things we were most curious about is how priorities have changed with respect to where and how people live. We were particularly interested to learn about the experience of younger people, those who either don’t yet own homes or are early in their homeownership journey.

    We also asked people how well their homes are functioning for them, and in what ways they wish their space better supported their current lifestyles. Spoiler alert: contrary to much of the attention its been given, home office space is not the top priority right now.

    Finally, we waded into the city versus suburbs debate. Even though many people are entrenched on this topic and have strong preferences, we sensed that attitudes have softened as a result of the pandemic. They have – at least one in three people say their opinion of city living has lessened over the past year and almost four in 10 say they feel more strongly about the suburbs.

    We also asked both urbanites and suburbanites what they thought of the long-term prospect for big cities.

    * * *

    Source: Improve.net

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 21:20

  • In Final Days, Trump Gave Up On Forcing Release Of Russiagate Files, Nunes Investigator Says
    In Final Days, Trump Gave Up On Forcing Release Of Russiagate Files, Nunes Investigator Says

    Authored by Aaron Maté via RealClear Investigations (emphasis ours),

    After four years of railing against “deep state” actors who, he said, tried to undermine his presidency, Donald Trump relented to U.S. intelligence leaders in his final days in office, allowing them to block the release of critical material in the Russia investigation, according to a former senior congressional investigator who later joined the Trump administration.

    Kash Patel, whose work on the House Intelligence Committee helped unearth U.S. intelligence malpractice during the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, said he does not know why Trump did not force the release of documents that would expose further wrongdoing. But he said senior intelligence officials “continuously impeded” their release – usually by slow-walking their reviews of the material. Patel said Trump’s CIA Director, Gina Haspel, was instrumental in blocking one of the most critical documents, he said.

    CIA Director Gina Haspel was instrumental in blocking one of the most critical documents, says Kash Patel (top photo). It is a House report detailing “significant intelligence tradecraft failings” in the CIA’s assessment that Russia ordered  interference in the 2016 campaign to elect Trump.

    Patel, who has seen the Russia probe’s underlying intelligence and co-wrote critical reports that have yet to be declassified, said new disclosures would expose additional misconduct and evidentiary holes in the CIA and FBI’s work.

    “I think there were people within the IC [Intelligence Community], at the heads of certain intelligence agencies, who did not want their tradecraft called out, even though it was during a former administration, because it doesn’t look good on the agency itself,” Patel told RealClearInvestigations in his first in-depth interview since leaving government at the end of Trump’s term last month, having served in several intelligence and defense roles (full interview here).  

    Trump did not respond to requests seeking comment sent to intermediaries.

    Although a Department of Justice inspector general’s report in December 2019 exposed significant intelligence failings and malpractice, Patel said more damning information is still being kept under wraps. And despite an ongoing investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the conduct of the officials who carried out the Trump-Russia inquiry, it is unclear if key documents will ever see the light of day.

    Patel did not suggest that a game-changing smoking gun is being kept from the public. Core intelligence failures have been exposed – especially regarding the FBI’s reliance on Christopher Steele’s now debunked dossier to secure FISA warrants used to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But he said the withheld material would reveal more misconduct as well as major problems with the CIA’s assessment that Russia, on Vladimir Putin’s orders, ordered a sweeping and systematic interference 2016 campaign to elect Trump. Patel was cautious about going into detail on any sensitive information that has not yet been declassified. 

    ‘Continuously Impeded’ in Public Disclosure 

    Patel’s work on the House Intelligence Committee, under the leadership of its former Republican chairman, Devin Nunes, is widely credited with exposing the FBI’s reliance on Steele and misrepresentations to the FISA court. Yet congressional Democrats and major media outlets portrayed him as a behind-the-scenes saboteur who sought to “discredit” the Russia investigation. 

    The media vitriol unnerved Patel, who had previously served as a national security official in the Obama-era Justice Department and Pentagon – a tenure that exceeds his time working under Trump. Patel says that ensuring public disclosure of critical information in such a consequential national security investigation motivated him to take the job in the first place.

    Rep. Devin Nunes: Patel said he went to work for the California Republican with a condition: optimal disclosure.

    “The agreement I made with Devin, I said, ‘Okay, I don’t really want to go to the Hill, but I’ll do the job on one basis: accountability and disclosure,” Patel said. “Everything we find, I don’t care if it’s good or bad or whatever, from your political perspective, we put it out.’ So the American public can just read it themselves, with a few protections here and there for some certain national security measures, but those are minimal redactions.”

    That task proved difficult. The House Intelligence Committee’s disclosure efforts, Patel said, “were continuously impeded by members of the intelligence community themselves, with the same singular epithets that you’re going to harm sources and methods. …  And I just highlight that because, we didn’t lose a single source. We didn’t lose a single relationship, and no one died by the public disclosures we made because we did it in a systematic and professional fashion.”

    “But each time we forced them to produce [documents],” Patel added, “it only showed their coverup and embarrassment.” These key revelations he helped expose include Justice official Bruce Ohr’s admission that he acted as a liaison to Steele even after the FBI officially terminated him; former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s false statements about leaks related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation; and the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier to spy on Page. “There is actually a law that prevents the FBI and DOJ from failing to disclose material to a court just to hide an embarrassment or mistake, and it came up during our investigation. It helped us compel disclosure.”

    Assessing the ‘Intelligence Community Assessment’ 

    For Patel, a key document that remains hidden from the public is the full report he helped prepare and which Trump chose not to declassify after pressure from the intelligence community: The House Intelligence Committee report about the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).

    The ICA is a foundational Russiagate document. Released just two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, it asserted that Russia waged an interference campaign to help defeat Hillary Clinton. Despite widespread media accounts that the ICA reflected the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, it was a rushed job completed in a few weeks by a small group of CIA analysts led by then-CIA Director John Brennan, who merely consulted with FBI and NSA counterparts. The NSA even dissented from a key judgment that Russia and Putin specifically aimed to help install Trump, expressing only “moderate confidence.”

    John Brennan: A House report finding that his Intelligence Community Assessment “deviated from established CIA practice” remains classified.
    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

    The March 2018 House report found that the production of the ICA “deviated from established CIA practice.” And the core judgment that Putin sought to help Trump, the House report found, resulted from “significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments.”

    Along with that March 2018 report, Patel and his intelligence committee colleagues produced a still-classified document that fleshed out the ICA’s “tradecraft failings” in greater detail.

    “We went and looked at it [the ICA], and looked at the underlying evidence and cables, and talked to the people who did it,” Patel says. According to Patel, the ICA’s flaws begin with the unprecedentedly short window of time in which it was produced during the final days of the Obama White House. “In two to three weeks, you can’t have a comprehensive investigation of anything, in terms of interference and cybersecurity matters.”

    Patel said that still classified information undermines another key claim – that Russia ordered a cyber-hacking campaign to help Trump. The March 2018 House report noted that the ICA’s judgments, “particularly on the cyber intrusion sections, employed appropriate caveats on sources and identified assumptions,” but those were drowned out by partisan insistence that Russia was the culprit.

    Constrained from discussing the material, Patel said its release “would lend a lot of credence to” skepticism about the Mueller report’s claim that Russia waged a “sweeping and systematic” interference campaign to install Trump.

    That skepticism was bolstered in July 2019 when the Mueller team was reprimanded by a U.S. District judge for falsely suggesting in its final report that a Russian social media firm acted in concert with the Kremlin. (Mueller’s prosecutors later dropped the case against the outfit.)

    “We had multiple versions, with redactions, at different levels of classifications we were willing to release,” Patel said.”But that was unfortunately the one report, which speaks directly to [an absence of concrete evidence] that’s still sitting in a safe, classified. And unfortunately, the American public – unless Biden acts – won’t see it.”

    Confirming earlier media reports from late last year, Patel says it was Trump’s CIA Director Gina Haspel who personally thwarted the House report’s release. The report sits in a safe at CIA headquarters in Langley. “The CIA has possession of it, and POTUS chose not to put it out,” Patel says. He does not know why.

    ‘Outrageous’ Reliance on CrowdStrike

    Another key set of documents that the public has yet to see are reports by Democratic National Committee cyber-contractor CrowdStrike – reports the FBI relied on to accuse Russia of hacking the DNC. The FBI bowed to the DNC’s refusal to hand over its servers for analysis, a decision that Patel finds “outrageous.”

    “The FBI, who are the experts in looking at servers and exploiting this information so that the intelligence community can digest it and understand what happened, did not have access to the DNC servers in their entirety,” Patel said. “For some outrageous reason the FBI agreed to having CrowdStrike be the referee as to what it could and could not exploit, and could and could not look at.”

    Richard Grenell: Until he came on as Director of National Intelligence, explosive CrowdStrike depositions were kept secret. AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic

    According Patel, Crowdstrike CEO Shawn Henry, a former top FBI official under Mueller, “totally took advantage of the situation to the unfortunate shortcoming of the American public.”

    CrowdStrike’s credibility suffered a major blow in May 2020 with the disclosure of an explosive admission from Henry that had been kept under wraps for nearly three years. In  December 2017 testimony before the House Intel Committee showed he had acknowledged that his firm “did not have concrete evidence” that Russian hackers removed any data, including private emails, from the DNC servers. 

    “We wanted those depositions declassified immediately after we took them,” Patel recalled. But the committee was “thwarted,” he says, by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Dan Coats, and later by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff once Democrats took control of Congress in January 2018. According to Patel, Schiff “didn’t want some of these transcripts to come out. And that was just extremely frustrating.” Working with Coats’ successor, Richard Grenell, Patel ultimately forced the release of the Henry transcript and dozens of others last year. 

    Still classified, however, are the full CrowdStrike reports relied on by the FBI, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Patel said their release would underscore Henry’s admission while raising new questions about why the government used reports from DNC contractors – the other being Fusion GPS’ Steele dossier – for a consequential national security case involving a rival Republican campaign.

    Doubting Reliability of CIA’s Kremlin Mole

    The CIA relied on another questionable source for its assertion that Putin personally ordered and orchestrated an interference campaign to elect Trump: a purported mole inside the Kremlin. The mole has been outed as Oleg Smolenkov, a mid-level Kremlin official who fled Russia in 2017 for the United States where he lives under his own name. According to the New York Times, some CIA officials harbored doubts about Smolenkov’s “trustworthiness.”

    Patel said he could not comment on whether he believes Smolenkov relayed credible information to the CIA. “I’m sort of in a bind on this one, still, with all the classified information I looked at, and the declassifications we’ve requested, but have not yet been granted.”

    Patel did suggest, however, that those who have raised skepticism about the CIA’s reliance on Smolenkov are “rightly” trying to “get to the bottom” of the story. “But until that ICA product that we created, and some of the other documents are finally revealed – if I start talking about them, then I’m probably going to get the FBI knocking at my door.”

    Will Key Documents Be Released?

    On his last full day in office, President Trump ordered the declassification of an additional binder of material from the FBI’s initial Trump-Russia probe, Crossfire Hurricane. A source familiar with the documents covered under the declassification order confirmed to RealClearInvestigations that it does not contain the House committee’s assessment of the January 2017 that Patel wants released. Nor does it contain any of the CrowdStrike reports used by the FBI.

    In addition to those closely guarded documents, Patel thinks that there is even more to learn about the fraudulent surveillance warrants on Carter Page. The public should see “the entire subject portion” of the final Carter Page FISA warrant, Patel said, as well as “the underlying source verification reporting” in which the FBI tried to justify it, despite relying on the Steele dossier. By reading what the FBI “used to prop up that FISA, the American public can see what a bunch of malarkey it was that they were relying on,” Patel added. “The American public needs to know about and read for themselves and make their own determination as to why their government allowed this to happen. Knowingly.

    “And that’s not castigating an entire agency. We’re not disparaging the entire FBI because of Peter Strzok [the FBI agent dismissed, in part, because of anti-Trump bias] and his crew of miscreants. Same thing goes for the intelligence community. If they did some shoddy tradecraft, the American public has a right to know about it in an investigation involving the presidential election.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 21:00

  • Biden Carries Out Air Strikes In Syria Targeting "Iranian-Backed" Militia
    Biden Carries Out Air Strikes In Syria Targeting “Iranian-Backed” Militia

    You knew it was coming when the NYT set the stage yesterday with its latest anti-Assad hit piece titled “Having Won Syria’s War, al-Assad Is Mired in Economic Woes” (which makes only a passing reference just why Syria is mired in economic woes namely that “most of the country’s oil fields and much of its agricultural land are in the northeast, which is controlled by Kurdish-led forces backed by the United States”) and sure enough, just over a month since his inauguration, Biden reminded the world that the military-industrial complex is back in control by carrying out air strikes in eastern Syria against facilities that allegedly were used by “Iranian-backed” militia, the U.S. Defense Department said on Thursday night.

    The strike marked the first (of many) overseas military attack ordered by Joe Biden, which in its first weeks has emphasized its intent to put more focus on the challenges posed by China.

    Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that the strikes took place “at President Biden’s direction” and were authorized “in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel.”

    “Specifically the strikes destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian backed militant groups including Kait’ib Hezbollah and Kait’ib Sayyid al Shuhada,” Kirbry said.

    “The operation sends an unambiguous message; President Biden will act to protect American coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to deescalate the overall situation in both Eastern Syria and Iraq.”

    A file picture of the MQ9 Reaper, widely used by the US military for reconnaissance and airstrikes

    The site is reportedly used as part of a weapons smuggling operation by the militias. The strikes were carried out to degrade the ability of the groups to carry out future attacks and to send a message about the recent attacks, the US official said.

    The assault came after a series of rocket attacks in recent days on facilities in Iraq used by the U.S., including one that killed a contractor working with the U.S.-led coalition in the country.

    What is amusing is that on one hand Biden is attacking “Iran-backed” militia in Syria, while at the same time he is reportedly seeking to restore the Nuclear deal with Iran and restore cordial relations. As Bloomberg notes, “by hitting a facility in Syria said to be operated by an Iranian-linked militia, the U.S. avoids raising tensions that would come with a strike directly on Iran, which the Biden administration is seeking to persuade to return to a 2015 nuclear deal that former President Donald Trump withdrew from three years ago.”

    Of course, that’s hardly how the attack will be spun by Iran, where Biden just burned any political capital he may have had, and may soon have to resort to paradropping pallets full of billions in cash, similar to what Obama used to do.

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

    What is even more amusing is that as usual, the deep state never actually had any proof (but it is always highly confident in everything, including that Russia is behind every evil in the world),  and the US had not definitively blamed any specific group for the rocket attacks or attributed them to any Iranian proxies in the region, but the administration had made it clear where they place the blame.

    Earlier this week White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the US holds Iran accountable for the actions of its proxies, which is of course quite different from what she said back in April 2017 when Trump ordered a similar airstrike on Syria.

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

    It gets better…

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

    In any case, Biden administration officials condemned the Feb. 15 rocket attack near the city of Irbil in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish-run region, but as recently as this week officials indicated they had not determined for certain who carried it out. Officials have noted that in the past, Iranian-backed Shiite militia groups have been responsible for numerous rocket attacks that targeted U.S. personnel or facilities in Iraq.

    Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, had said Tuesday that Iraq is in charge of investigating the Feb. 15 attack.

    “Right now, we’re not able to give you a certain attribution as to who was behind these attacks, what groups, and I’m not going to get into the tactical details of every bit of weaponry used here,” Kirby said. “Let’s let the investigations complete and conclude, and then when we have more to say, we will.”

    So… launch attacks first, and then conclude who is responsible later. Sounds like the good old MIC is back in action.

    In any case, the strikes come as Washington and Tehran position themselves for negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program, potentially crippling the already fragile process.

    The U.S. launched the strike one day after Biden spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi. The two leaders “discussed the recent rocket attacks against Iraqi and coalition personnel and agreed that those responsible for such attacks must be held fully to account.”

    Now if only the US had determined who that was before actually, well, launching the attacks…

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

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 20:29

  • McConnell Says He'd "Absolutely" Back Trump If He's 2024 GOP Nominee
    McConnell Says He’d “Absolutely” Back Trump If He’s 2024 GOP Nominee

    After throwing former Donald Trump under the bus following this month’s impeachment acquittal, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he would back the former president if he wins the party’s 2024 presidential nomination.

    “There’s a lot to happen between now and ’24. I’ve got at least four members that I think are planning on running for president. … Should be a wide open race,” McConnell told Fox News’ Bret Baier.

    Then, when asked if he would support Trump in 2024 if nominated, McConnell replied: “The nominee of the party? Absolutely.”

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

    The statement was McConnell’s first mention of Trump weeks after he excoriated Trump on the Senate floor – calling him “morally responsible” for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, despite the fact that he was acquitted of incitement.

    Trump, in response, called McConnell “a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

    “My point is what happened in the past is not something relevant now, we’re moving forward. We’ve got a new administration,” said McConnell, after Baier played a clip of the scathing floor speech, while similarly declining to reveal whether he blamed Trump for the loss of two Senate seats in Georgia, or whether Trump should speak on Sunday Sunday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

    “I don’t have any advice to give the former president about where he should speak or what we should say,” said McConnell, who stressed that the GOP needs to unite heading into the 2022 midterms. As The Hill notes, “Republicans hold 50 seats, putting them on the cusp of the majority, but they are also playing defense in 20 states in 2022. “

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 20:27

  • New California Bill Would Fine Retailers With Separate "Girls" & "Boys" Sections
    New California Bill Would Fine Retailers With Separate “Girls” & “Boys” Sections

    Authored by Christian Britschgi via Reason.com,

    Retail stores in most of California are only allowed to operate at 25 percent capacity. A new bill in the state legislature would ensure that whatever part of their shop is allowed to be open is as inclusive as possible.

    Last week, Assembly Members Evan Low (D–Cupertino) and Cristina Garcia (D–Los Angeles) introduced a bill that would require retailers to offer their toys and childcare products in a gender-neutral format.

    Brick-and-mortar shops would have to display the majority of their products and clothing aimed at children in one undivided, unisex area on the sales floor.

    They’d also be barred from putting up signage that would indicate whether a product was intended for a boy or girl.

    California-based retailers that sell children’s products online would also have to have a page on their website that offers these products in a general neutral fashion.

    The bill would allow retailers to title that section of their website “kids,” “unisex,” or “gender neutral.”

    The bill is nearly identical to one that Low introduced last year, telling Politico at the time that he was hoping to create a more inclusive shopping experience.

    “This is an issue of children being able to express themselves without bias,” he said.

    Low dropped the bill in May to prioritize COVID-19-related work but promised to pick up the fight later, saying in a statement that “the policy behind this bill is not only important in regards to addressing perceived societal norms but also ensuring that prejudice and judgment does not play a prominent role in our children’s lives. I look forward to working on this issue in the future.”

    If passed, stores that did put dresses in a separate girls section could be hit with a $1,000 civil fine. The policy would only apply to retail department stores with over 500 employees.

    Even without mandates, some retailers have been moving away from gendered in-store promotion. In 2015, Target announced that it would get rid of separate sections for bedding and toys.

    At the time, the company was careful to note that they weren’t eliminating all gender distinctions in their store layout and signage, saying that “some cases, like apparel, where there are fit and sizing differences” gender-based suggestions were appropriate.

    Low’s bill would deprive Target and other retailers of making that choice for themselves.

    That stores like Target are voluntarily moving toward more gender-neutral promotions shows that mandating such a change isn’t necessary to provide a genderless child section to shoppers. The fact that some haven’t made the same move suggests that there may still be customers who find gendered distinctions helpful.

    Regulating how companies market their products online and in their stores could potentially raise First Amendment challenges as well.

    The bill would appear to disadvantage brick-and-mortar stores versus online retailers. But it’s those same brick-and-mortar retailers that have been hammered by the pandemic and related lockdown restrictions. Having to spend more complying with new regulations is the last thing many need.

    *  *  *

    “There are clear political and social motivations behind this bill, namely to use the state to compel “inclusivity” and encourage the “self-expression” of disordered inclinations at a very young age. It’s despicable,” commented Evan James.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 20:20

  • Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Plan Will Not Be In Stimulus Bill, Parliamentarian Rules
    Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Plan Will Not Be In Stimulus Bill, Parliamentarian Rules

    Two weeks ago we discussed the fact that President Biden was about to run into “the most important person no one has ever heard of” – namely, the parliamentarian.

    The sudden interest in the obscure official was because the parliamentarian determines which laws can be repealed (or passed) using budget reconciliation, the procedure by which the Senate can avoid a filibuster and allow legislation to pass by a simple majority.

    This makes the parliamentarian the powerful procedural traffic cop on Capitol Hill, as all of the headlines asserted. MacDonough stopped Republicans cold when they tried using reconciliation to repeal some provisions of Obamacare, and she might soon rule that a provision in the COVID relief bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 is out of order.

    Well, tonight we just discovered how powerful she is as Axios reports that the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the minimum wage increase cannot be included in the Democratic COVID-19 stimulus package.

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

    Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough was playing referee under what’s known as the “Byrd Rule,” a 1980s construct of then-Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat and master of Senate procedures. The rule requires that anything done under the cover of the budget must be central to the country’s fiscal situation.

    Extraneous provisions can be struck by the motion of a single senator, and it requires 60 votes to waive the rule – the same threshold as a filibuster.

    We do note that Vice President Kamala Harris could overrule the decision, but the administration has signaled they will not do so (especially with Manchin already signaling he is not comfortable with $15).

    “We’re going to honor the rules of the Senate and work within that system to get this bill passed,” Mr. Klain said on MSNBC.

    This is a significant blow to the more progressive wing of the party who have insisted the $15 minimum wage bill be a part of the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill.

    This means that any increase in the minimum wage will need bipartisan support.

    Bear in mind that Republicans have introduced their own versions of bills to increase the minimum wage.

    • Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) proposed an increase to $10/hour by 2025. This bill, however, contains a provision that would mandate E-Verify for all employers to ensure the rising wages go to “legally authorized workers,” which likely would not get any Democratic support.

    • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced an alternative to the Democrats’ proposal that would use federal dollars to increase low-earning workers’ income. One foreseeable problem: the subsidy would disproportionally benefit those in states that have kept their minimum wages low.

    But, of course, Bernie and his pals won’t stand for anything less than $15!

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 19:54

  • Leaked Emails Confirm UN Gave Names Of Dissidents To CCP
    Leaked Emails Confirm UN Gave Names Of Dissidents To CCP

    Authored by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Leaked emails prove that, contrary to United Nations denials, UN human-rights officials did in fact give the names of Chinese dissidents to the communist regime in Beijing before those activists were set to testify in Geneva against the Communist Chinese Party’s abuses.

    People walk past the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Sept. 26, 2018. (John Moore/Getty Images)

    In fact, it appears from the leaked documents that the practice of handing over names of Chinese dissidents to the dictatorship was viewed as a “usual practice” by all involved. The whistleblower told The Epoch Times that it continues to this day, despite UN denials.

    Chinese communist authorities used the names received from the UN to prevent the dissidents from leaving China. At least one dissident identified by the UN and detained by the CCP before leaving for Geneva, Cao Shunli, died while in detention.

    If the dissident expected to embarrass Beijing at the UN was already abroad, the CCP frequently threatened or even kidnapped and tortured the person’s family, according to UN whistleblower Emma Reilly, who first exposed the scandal.

    Critics of the regime whose names were handed over by the UN included activists concerned about Tibet, Hong Kong, and the Islamic Uyghur minority in Western China—all of which are being targeted by the CCP for various reasons.

    In February of 2020, The Epoch Times reported on the scandal, and on the retaliation faced by Reilly for attempting to expose and halt the practice. Reilly’s case at the UN is ongoing. She remains employed there but is under “investigation.”

    Prominent human-rights organizations around the world have slammed the UN practice for endangering the lives of dissidents and their families.

    In comments to The Epoch Times, Reilly described it as “criminal” and even argued that it made the UN “complicit in genocide.”

    For years, the UN denied that its agents were providing the names of dissidents to the CCP.

    Thanks to leaked e-mails about the practice, however, it is now clear that the UN misled its member governments and the press surrounding the scandal.

    One of the explosive emails in question was sent on Sept. 7, 2012, from a diplomat at the CCP’s Mission to the UN in Geneva requesting information on Chinese dissidents set to testify at the UN Human Rights Council.

    “Following the usual practice, could you kindly heip me [sic] to check whether the persons on the attached list are requesting the accreditation of the 21st session of the HRC?” asked the CCP diplomat in an email to a UN liaison with non-governmental organizations. “My delegation has some security concern [sic] on these persons.”

    The UN official, whose name was redacted from the leaked email, responded by confirming that two of the dissidents on the CCP’s list were in fact accredited and planning to attend.

    “As per your request, kindly be advised that Dolkun Isa and He Geng were accredited by the Nonviolent Radical party, Transnational and Transparty for the 21st session of the Human Rights Council,” the UN official confirmed to the regime, with no apparent concern for the safety of either dissident or their families still in China.

    Isa is the president of the World Uyghur Congress, which advocates on behalf of the Uyghur population of Western China’s Xinjiang region that is being brutally targeted by the CCP.

    Numerous official sources around the world say the regime is holding more than a million Uyghurs in “re-education” camps. Former detainees who spoke with The Epoch Times revealed that they were being raped, tortured, brainwashed, and savagely abused.

    Isa also serves as the vice president of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), which seeks to be a voice for nations and people groups without representation from a nation-state of their own.

    The year after that email, at the request of the regime’s delegation, UN security attempted to remove Isa from the Human Rights Council chamber. However, Reilly—and only Reilly—intervened and prevented his ouster.

    The other dissident identified by the UN in its email to the CCP mission, Geng He, is the wife of imprisoned Chinese human-rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, a Christian who wrote a book about the severe torture he was subjected to by the CCP for his work and beliefs.

    One of the reasons for the brutal torture of Gao was the fact that his wife was speaking out at the UN, as revealed to the CCP in advance by the UN officials in that email.

    Another leaked email, this one from 2013, showed the same CCP diplomat again seeking to confirm the identities of Chinese dissidents expected at the Human Rights Council to expose CCP abuses.

    “The Chinese Mission had very good cooperation with you and your section in previous sessions,” the CCP diplomat said in to the UN official in the email obtained by The Epoch Times and other media. “We appreciate it a lot.”

    “This time, I need you to do me a favor again,” the CCP diplomat continued. “Some anti-Chinese Government secessionists are trying to participate the HRC session [sic] under the disguise of other NGOs. They might pose a threat to the United Nations and the Chinese Delegation.”

    “Could you please check and inform me whether the persons I list below have got accreditation for the 22th session [sic] of the Human Rights Council?” the CCP diplomat asked. “If you have any information, please contact me through email or at [number redacted].”

    Among the names on the list was Dolkun Isa, again.

    According to Isa, CCP agents have showed up at his house overseas to try to get him to stop speaking out. CCP operatives also arrested his family in China, including his mother, who died in a Chinese “concentration camp” in 2018. His older brother was also arrested. And his younger brother has been missing since 2016. CCP media outlets reported that Isa’s father died, too, though Isa does not know when or where.

    The Epoch Times attempted to reach the CCP diplomat in question at the Swiss cell-phone number listed in the email, but was unsuccessful.

    UN human-rights officials responded to that CCP mission email with the names of four activists who were expected to attend the Human Rights Council.

    The Epoch Times is withholding the names of the activists that are not yet public for their protection and privacy.

    Reilly was furious and horrified at the same time.

    “This is a hideous practice, but if the UN is going to do it, at least they must make sure it’s public so people know the danger they are going to be put in,” she told The Epoch Times in a video-conference interview from Geneva. “This is basic decency and basic standards of humanity—don’t secretly put these people in danger. Is that too much to ask?”

    Right from the start, the emails reveal that Reilly argued against giving the names of dissidents to the CCP. Instead, she advocated informing the targeted individuals.

    However, Chief of the UN Human Rights Council Branch Eric Tistounet argued that the list of names was public and that the CCP requests could therefore not be resisted.

    Indeed, Tistounet suggested acting as quickly as possible to avoid “exacerbating Chinese mistrust,” the emails show.

    “When did that become part of the considerations?” Reilly asked rhetorically in comments to The Epoch Times.

    News of the emails confirming that the UN was in fact handing over names of Chinese dissidents made a major splash in Turkish media. However, in Europe and the United States, the scandal has barely been mentioned in the press.

    In remarks to The Epoch Times, Reilly urged journalists worldwide to examine the documents, transcripts of internal court cases, and other evidence to see who was telling the truth—and then to report that truth so the people of the world can see what is happening.

    But Reilly said this is a systemic issue with the UN.

    “The problem with the UN is there are no adults in the room, and there is no external oversight,” she said, citing other examples of whistleblowers who have been persecuted for trying to do the right thing. “Unless the member states act, this is going to continue.”

    Reilly also expressed deep concern about the close relationship between CCP agents and senior officials within the UN human rights system charged with protecting human rights.

    For years, senior UN officials attempted to mislead UN member states, the media, and the public about the name-sharing scandal, Reilly told The Epoch Times.

    From 2013 to 2017, the UN claimed the practice was not happening. Much later, in January of 2021, a spokesman for the UN was quoted telling the Anadolu Agency that the practice was stopped “since 2015.”

    However, in a Feb. 2, 2017, press release aiming to deflect the escalating criticism, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) admitted that it was indeed confirming to governments the identities of individuals being accredited to attend its human-rights events.

    “Chinese authorities, and others, regularly ask the UN Human Rights Office, several days or weeks prior to Human Rights Council meetings, whether particular [non-governmental organization] delegates are attending the forthcoming session,” the UN OHCHR said. “The Office never confirms this information until the accreditation process is formally under way, and until it is sure that there is no obvious security risk.”

    Reilly said she was shocked by the language used in the release.

    “The only security checks that are ever done are those done by the Chinese diplomats,” she told The Epoch Times.

    Indeed, transcripts from the case show that Reilly challenged the UN to show any evidence of its supposed “security” checks before handing over the names. None was provided.

    “It was all about whether these people would cause problems for the Chinese diplomats at the UN,” she said. “It had nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.”

    This is a major violation of the UN’s own rules as well, Reilly said, noting that if governments want to know who is attending they are supposed to ask the plenary in front of other UN member states.

    Despite the escalating scandal surrounding the practice and the UN’s retaliation against the whistleblower who exposed it, Reilly told The Epoch Times that the practice of handing dissident names to the CCP continues to this day.

    “It has now become my personal mission and responsibility to prevent this UN complicity in genocide,” she said.

    Documents obtained by The Epoch Times reveal that some of the highest-ranking officials within the UN system have been involved in an effort to silence, discredit, and retaliate against Reilly for her efforts.

    The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not respond to requests for comment on the leaked emails or the broader scandal.

    In early 2020, the UN OHCHR declined to comment to The Epoch Times, citing ongoing litigation. However, Reilly told The Epoch Times this week that she has given them full permission to comment on the case to the media.

    Multiple spokesmen for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also declined to comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 19:40

  • Global 'COVID Deaths' Top 2.5 Million One Year After Start Of Pandemic
    Global ‘COVID Deaths’ Top 2.5 Million One Year After Start Of Pandemic

    The global COVID death toll has surpassed another macabre milestone: more than 2.5MM people have died from the virus around the world.

    Although globally new deaths are falling thanks to changing weather patterns and the rollout of various COVID-19 vaccines in certain hard-hit countries, with over 800K deaths, Europe is the hardest hit region, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean, then the US and Canada.

    Nearly half of these deaths can be attributed to just five countries: the US, Brazil, Mexico, India and the UK. They have reported 506K, 250K, 183K and 122.3K deaths each, respectively. The combined global tally according to Johns Hopkins University topped 1MM on Sept. 28, a little over nine months after the first death was recorded in Wuhan. The world topped 2MM on Jan. 15 – roughly six weeks ago.

    Despite extreme differences in restrictions, vaccine roll-outs, and levels of inequality, the pace of COVID-linked deaths has slowed almost uniformly across every continent since the start of 2021, as the chart above shows, but since November, Europe has contributed roughly one-third of the global daily total.

    Source: CNN

    The US has seen a sharp drop in COVID deaths since the vaccines were rolled out late last year (Europe hasn’t had nearly as much success with getting vaccines to patients). And deaths among nursing home residents, seen as the most vulnerable, have fallen by an even greater margin.

    But daily death tolls have fallen on every continent since the start of the year. Deaths in North America have fallen by nearly 25%, faster than Europe and Africa, which shed 13% to report 378 new deaths per day.

    While Britain earlier this week laid out its plan for reopening its economy, EU officials said that despite initial delays, the bloc remains on track to reach its goal of fully vaccinating 70% of adults by mid-September, after AstraZeneca’s boss said on Thursday that he was confident the company could make up a huge shortfall in promised doses. Speaking by videolink, Pascal Soriot told the European Parliament that Europe had plans to accelerate its vaccination program, and that the delivery deficit (which is currently equal to around 60% of the 100 million doses that were supposed to be supplied between January and March) could be attributed to low production yields in the EU factories making AstraZeneca’s vaccine.

    At any rate, while the UK prepares to wind down its COVID-fighting measures, other European economies, most notably Finland, are weighing whether to impose another round of restrictions.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 19:20

  • Mr. Potato Head To Become "Gender Neutral" To Allow Kids To Create "Same-Sex Families"
    Mr. Potato Head To Become “Gender Neutral” To Allow Kids To Create “Same-Sex Families”

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Toy giant Hasbro has announced that Mr. Potato Head will become gender neutral ‘Potato Head’ in order to encourage kids to create “same sex families.”

    Yes, really.

    The company is dropping “Mr.” from the name in a move “designed to break away from traditional gender norms, particularly when it comes to creating Potato Head families,” according to Fast Company.

    The change will help children “create same-sex families or single-parent families” as Hasbro seeks to lean away from representing the “traditional family structure.”

    “Culture has evolved,” said Kimberly Boyd, an SVP and GM at Hasbro.

    “Kids want to be able to represent their own experiences. The way the brand currently exists—with the “Mr.” and “Mrs.”—is limiting when it comes to both gender identity and family structure.”

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

    “The brand’s solution is to drop the gendered honorific title altogether,” writes Elizabeth Segran.

    “This means the toys don’t impose a fixed notion of gender identity or expression, freeing kids to do whatever feels most natural to them: A girl potato might want to wear pants and a boy potato might wear earrings. Hasbro will also sell boxed sets that don’t present a normative family structure. This approach is clever because it allows kids to project their own ideas about gender, sexuality, and family onto the toy, without necessarily offending parents that have more conservative notions about family.”

    According to the report, the move is a bid to “stay relevant in the 21st century” while challenging “heteronormative narratives.”

    In other words, Hasbro is cashing in on the million in free advertising exposure that this will generate as a result of creating yet another divisive thing for woke imbeciles and those who’ve retained a semblance of sanity to argue over.

    While in the meantime, kids will further be indoctrinated about how abnormal traditional family structures have become.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    *  *  *

    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
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 19:00

  • Drought In Taiwan Just Turned The Semi Shortage "Crisis" To "Critical"
    Drought In Taiwan Just Turned The Semi Shortage “Crisis” To “Critical”

    Taiwan is suffering the “island’s worst drought in decades”, according to Nikkei. And this is terrible news for semiconductor manufacturers, who are being forced to make cuts on water usage while at the same time desperately trying to scramble and play catch-up with a drought of their own. 

    Taiwan is now planning to “further tighten water use in several cities that are home to a cluster of important manufacturers,” including plants in Taoyuan, Taichung, Hsinchu and Miaoli. They are going to be asked to cut consumption by up to 11%. Chiayi and Tainan, where Taiwan Semiconductor is based, will be asked to take a 7% cut.

    All of these cuts come on top of another 7% cut already put into effect last month.

    One chipmaker executive told Nikkei: “All the industries are concerned whether the situation will be alleviated soon. … No one wants to see the worst-case scenario of anyone being forced to dial back production capacity due to water issues.”

    Companies like TSMC use 156,000 tons of water a day. Water quality is “is extremely critical to chip production lines and the processes. … It could affect product performance, so that needs to be handled very carefully,” one insider told Nikkei. 

    “So far the situation is manageable, but if it does not rain properly and continues like this till the end of May, that would be a real big problem,” they concluded. 

    Meanwhile, TSMC is now considering trucking water in to supplement its reservoirs. “Deployments are still limited and the main purpose is to get the involved staff prepared for possible future needs,” a TSMC spokeswoman said. 

    United Microelectronics is considering doing the same. CFO and spokesperson Liu Chi-tung told Nikkei: “As the water-saving rate needs to increase to 11%, we need the support of additional water trucks. Currently we only need a small percentage of additional water, but the company will adjust accordingly based on the dynamics.”

    Unimicron CFO Michael Shen said on an earnings call Wednesday: “We’ve been reserving water and we will use rental water trucks to support our use if necessary. If we keep having no rain … it will be difficult for us to address the issue.”

    No typhoons hit the island in 2020, despite Taiwan averaging three major storms a year that bring much needed rain. 

    We just documented weeks ago how critical Taiwan would be in getting the semiconductor industry back up and running. We noted that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing is 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 this month 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 weeks ago 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.

    Neil Mawston, an analyst with Strategy Analytics, said: “The virus pandemic, social distancing in factories, and soaring competition from tablets, laptops and electric cars are causing some of the toughest conditions for smartphone component supply in many years.” 

    At the center of the shortage is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., who now sits astride a larger political crisis between China and Taiwan while Biden officials in the U.S. work to find solutions, not only for the semiconductor issues, but for the larger conflict developing between the two nations. 

    While the extent of the damage on consumer electronics remains to be seen, the shortages are expected to cost $61 billion worth of sales in the auto industry. Recall, we noted weeks ago that GM and Ford had joined Nissan in cutting production due to the shortage. 

    Several weeks ago the U.S. automaker announced that the shortage would “impact production in 2021”, according to StreetInsider. The company said in a statement that “semiconductor supply for the global auto industry remains very fluid”.

    It continued: “Our supply chain organization is working closely with our supply base to find solutions for our suppliers’ semiconductor requirements and to mitigate impacts on GM. Despite our mitigation efforts, the semiconductor shortage will impact GM production in 2021.”

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 02/25/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 25

Today’s News 25th February 2021

  • How Societies Are Imprisoned: The Whole World Will One Day Be Like Hollywood?
    How Societies Are Imprisoned: The Whole World Will One Day Be Like Hollywood?

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    I rarely write about Hollywood or the film industry, primarily because there is a vast array of analysts and YouTubers in the alternative media that discuss the bizarre behaviors and trespasses of Tinsel Town on a daily basis. They usually have it covered. That said, every once in a while I find that events in Hollywood reflect a much more pervasive dynamic in our culture and that the bigger picture needs to be addressed.

    I also want to be clear that when I talk about “Hollywood” I am not only referring to the place; I’m referring to the entire corporate empire. I’m including Netflix and other streaming companies that may not work completely out of LA. They are all funded and run by the same people anyway.

    Hollywood and the corporate cabal behind it have long sought to be the center of America’s cultural universe. In other words, they are seeking to pervert the natural dynamic so that life imitates art instead of art imitating life. And, if they control all the art then they control people’s perceptions of life.

    The concept of “Manufacturing Consent”, posited by people like Noam Chomsky, plays a role here, but I think it goes far beyond that. Rather, Hollywood seeks to not only manufacture consent from the public, but also to manufacture the public’s relationship to reality. They don’t just want us to keep our heads down and begrudgingly accept their ideological zealotry; they want us to believe that their way is and always was the ONLY way.

    What I see in the film industry and in the corporate world in general today is complete and unfettered propaganda. We have moved beyond the phase of subversively hidden manipulations to a new stage in which the propaganda has become blatant and aggressive. Almost every new movie and television series, not to mention most commercials, are rife with leftist distortions. You will be hard pressed to find any content these days that does not push ideas like:

    1) Endless feminist platitudes.

    2) Mentions of patriarchy and “white privilege”.

    3) Ridiculous exaggerations of racism in America (as if nothing has changed since the days of Jim Crow).

    4) Oppression of women, rape culture, etc. as if all the tenets of first and second wave feminism have not already been accomplished. Depicting oppression of women where none actually exists.

    5) Women consistently portrayed as overtly masculine with traits and abilities that defy their biology.

    6) Men consistently portrayed as weak and feminine.

    7) Masculinity, strength, competition and merit portrayed as destructive, “toxic” and outdated.

    8) Common positive feminine traits (nurturing, child rearing, home making) portrayed as obsolete or oppressive.

    9) Forced and unrealistic diversity, which misrepresents the actual statistical racial make-up of the US population and other Western nations.

    10) Saturation of gay and Trans representation – A tiny percentage of the population is made to appear as if it is a vast movement that inhabits every person’s daily experience.

    11) Older generations cast as confused and ignorant, or removed from film and television completely.

    12) Younger people portrayed as wise leaders “cleaning up the messes” of older generations, somehow blessed with extensive knowledge and experience by mere virtue of their youth.

    13) History erased and rewritten to reflect modern leftist ideals.

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. “Representation” in itself is not a bad thing, but when it becomes a weapon used to twist fundamental truths for political gain, then it is a problem. None of the concepts listed above are an accurate reflection of the real human world. Instead, they seek to make the outliers into the mainstream, and they seek to take normal human biological and psychological standards and portray them as aberrant and wrong.

    Yes, there are cases where Hollywood is dabbling in fantasy and science fiction and this could be used to rationalize some of their odd depictions. That’s not what I am talking about here. I am talking about force feeding the public an obvious agenda across the full spectrum of storytelling. These are not just movies. These are not just TV shows. This is not just storytelling; this is brainwashing.

    Hollywood is not in the business of making art. They are not even in the business of making money anymore. Rather, they are in the business of indoctrination. Yes, it is a “conspiracy”. Not a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy reality.

    Their job is to make the public believe that leftist ideals (or in some cases globalist ideals) are the prevailing ideals. If you see the same lies everyday in every manufactured depiction of life, you might start to think that your more rational, traditional and grounded views are in the minority. You might begin to self censor for fear of being ridiculed. You might even join the other side just to avoid being attacked.

    In order to maintain control over the propaganda machine a very important factor is ensuring that the faces on the screen are never allowed to deviate from the party line. Your puppet and pet celebrities need to be kept under lock and key.

    Like most people, I recently watched Ben Shapiro’s interview with Gina Carano and it basically confirmed everything I already knew about Hollywood (my brief stint as a screenwriter 20 years ago exposed me to the underlying sell-out culture and I was repulsed by it).

    What was striking though was the extent to which the Hollywood corporate elites seek to rape the minds of their employees and force them to submit to the cult. It wasn’t that Carano was fired for posting a historical fact on Twitter, it was everything that happened before that.

    We see corporate diversity training such as Coca Cola’s “Be less white” seminars and we are disturbed by the cultism and manipulation. But listen to Carano’s story and you’ll realize that Hollywood is far ahead in their exploitation of social justice controls.

    Carano mentions that as soon as she began speaking her mind from a conservative position, Disney and Lucasfilm began to bombard her with representatives, publishing agents, etc. whose mission was to convince her to stay silent or apologize publicly for her personal statements. They even tried to force her to endure a mass admonition in front of 40 trans people because she refused to post her “pronouns” to her Twitter page.

    This is often referred to as a “struggle session” in communist circles, a crucible used to berate and destroy people who dare step out of line . It is also used to strike fear in the hearts of anyone else who might be thinking about voicing independent views.

    Struggle sessions were the primary tactic employed during the Cultural Revolution in China as a means to pacify the citizenry and erase all ideas that opposed Marxism. The film ‘Red Violin’, produced in 1998, is one of the only films I have seen that accurately depicts the ravages of the communist social sterilization:

    This is what happens when big business or government align with the leftist cult. SJWs would have no power at all if it were not for the backing of corporations and government institutions.

    You want to know why so many celebrities these days seem desperate to virtue signal online all the time? It might not be because they agree with the leftists. They may just be trying to keep their jobs and avoid being suffocated by a weaponized mob. What the interview with Gina Carono really revealed to me was the extent to which Hollywood corporations are involved in that mob.

    Companies like Disney aren’t following the mob’s lead – Instead, they are USING the mob as a tool. They are LEADING the social justice cult, the cult is not leading them, as many wrongly assume.

    After finishing the Carano interview I could not stop thinking about a show from the 1960’s called ‘The Prisoner’ starring Patrick McGoohan. It portrays a man who works for the government and abruptly quits, only to be kidnapped by a nefarious unknown organization and transported to a place called “The Village”. The Village is a sprawling complex made to look like a happy seaside vacation town on the surface, but underneath it is a vast surveillance grid.

    All the people that live there are trapped, watched constantly and the group that runs The Village uses elaborate mind games to break the prisoners down. The Village operates by turning prisoners into informants and guards; its goal often has nothing to do with making people talk. Instead, the goal is to get prisoners to submit, to get them to love the village and become a part of it. The Village is not a prison, The Village is an experiment, a microcosm of what the elite want for the entire world.

    Hollywood IS The Village.

    The way Carano was essentially stalked by her own employers and prodded with struggle sessions and mind games, the way that Hollywood operates behind the scenes, is exactly what leftists and corporate elites intend for the rest of us. It is already happening to some extent. How often have we heard conservatives labeled as “insurrectionists, terrorists and racists” in the past year alone? How many conservatives have been censored by Big Tech platforms? How many have lost their jobs because of their opinions, or simply making factual statements?

    The social justice cult and the corporations that control them want the world to be Hollywood. They want that environment of oppression and fear to become the standard. They want everyone to be afraid to speak, or to disagree, or to step away from the agenda in any way. Everyone must play their part to perpetuate the fantasy world. Everyone must battle to appear virtuous and pure for the mob. Everyone is an actor, pretending they love their new totalitarian collective.

    There is a huge weakness to this strategy, though…

    All of it depends on people’s aversion to loss. If you are afraid to lose something, then that something can be used to control you. Carano was not afraid to lose and so she could not be controlled, and I commend her for that. The example she has set for others is far more valuable than any work that she might have done by submitting to the Hollywood Cheka. If only the majority of people would do the same, our civilization could change for the better overnight.

    All tyranny is an illusion predicated on fear within the minds of the enslaved. So, do not fear.

    *  *  *

    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
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 23:40

  • US Army Building World's Most Powerful Laser To Vaporize Drones 
    US Army Building World’s Most Powerful Laser To Vaporize Drones 

    The US Army appears to be developing a laser weapon that is a “million times stronger” than anything ever used before – instead of concentrating a beam of light to destroy a target, the new weapon will fire short pulses, sort of like laser beam weapons from science-fiction movies, according to New Scientist.

    The Tactical Ultrashort Pulsed Laser (UPSL) for Army Platforms will be designed to fire pulse-like bursts for a brief 200 femtoseconds or one quadrillionth of a second. The laser, firing bullet-like pulses of light would be enough to vaporize a drone, cruise missile, mortar, and or any other threat in its vicinity. UPSL can also function as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. 

    “The sheer amount of intensity in a terawatt pulse laser is able to cause a non-linear effect in the air resulting in a self-focusing filament,” according to the Small Business Innovation Research (or SBIR) posting titled Tactical Ultrashort Pulsed Laser for Army Platforms. 

    Laser weapons are beneficial when combating enemy drones and missiles. The cost per round depends on the amount of energy available, which is far cheaper than launching costly interceptor missiles. 

    A UPSL prototype model could be ready by 2022. Under the Trump administration, funding dramatically increased for laser weapon development. Multiple types of continuous-wave laser weapons have been fielded in the past couple of years. 

    We’ve outlined some of those laser systems that have been fielded, including the high-energy laser (HEL) weapon with various energy output levels measured in kilowatts

    The Navy is expected to install the High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler (HELIOS) with surveillance sensors aboard an unspecified Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA destroyer in the early 2020s.

    The Air Force has mentioned a roadmap to laser weapons for this decade. It plans to mount lasers on stealth jets. 

    Instead of continuous-wave lasers already in deployment among various services, the Army is preparing to test laser, firing bullet-like pulses as early as 2022.

    Lasers, hypersonics, fifth-generation fighters, and autonomous war machines are some of the new technologies already entering some modern battlefields. 

    Bank of America’s equity strategist Haim Israel recently told clients that the next frontier between major superpowers could outer space. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 23:20

  • "Makes Absolutely No Sense" – Biden Cancels Trump's 'Operation Talon' Program Targeting Immigrant Sex Offenders
    “Makes Absolutely No Sense” – Biden Cancels Trump’s ‘Operation Talon’ Program Targeting Immigrant Sex Offenders

    Via HumanEvents.com,

    Biden has made it clear that his number one mission as president is to undo everything the Trump administration accomplished over the last four years. 

    His newest cancellation simply does not make sense. 

    Biden’s administration recently cancelled Operation Talon, a Trump administration program aimed at removing convicted sex offenders living in the United States illegally.

    Though the program seems to be something everyone should support, it clearly isn’t. Why would anyone want sex offenders to remain in the country? 

    South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson joined a coalition of 18 state attorneys general to urge Biden to reverse the cancellation, according to ABC 4 News. 

    “We’re working hard to fight human trafficking and sex crimes in South Carolina and allowing convicted sex offenders who are here illegally to remain in our country makes absolutely no sense,” Wilson said.

    “These trafficking and sex crimes are repugnant to human decency generally and to children specifically,” he added. 

    The letter, directed to Joe Biden, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Acting Director of ICE Tae Johnson, pointed out the problems with this cancellation. The attorneys general argued that canceling Operation Talon could encourage sexual predators to attack. 

    “The United States’ population of illegal immigrants includes disturbingly large numbers of criminals with prior convictions for sexual crimes,” the letter reads.

    “According to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, during the period from October 2014 to May 2018 ICE arrested 19,572 illegal aliens with criminal convictions for whom the most serious prior conviction was a conviction for a sex-related offense.” 

    “Meanwhile, an increasing number of illegal aliens are entering the United States after having been previously convicted of sexual offenses,” it continues.

    “The cancellation of [Operation Talon] effectively broadcasts to the world that the United States is now a sanctuary jurisdiction for sexual predators. This message creates a perverse incentive for foreign sexual predators to seek to enter the United States illegally and assault more victims, both in the process of unlawful migration and after they arrive. It will also broadcast the message to other criminal aliens who have committed other offenses that any kind of robust enforcement against them is unlikely.” 

    The letter begs perhaps the most important question:

    “If the United States will not remove even convicted sex offenders, whom will it remove?” 

    In addition to South Carolina, the state attorneys general that signed on to the letter include: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 23:00

  • Maryland Set To Tax Online Ads From Facebook And Google
    Maryland Set To Tax Online Ads From Facebook And Google

    Look out, Google and Facebook.

    Maryland is now set to become the first state in the nation to tax online ads. It’s a trend, that if it catches on (and we predict it will), could likely sweep through the nation as money-hungry spend-o-crats look for more ways to finance their respective Green New Deals, government subsidized sex changes and racial equality seminars. 

    The state’s House of Delegates and Senate both voted to override a veto of a bill from last year that would place a tax on online ads, according to NPR. The tax would apply to companies like Facebook and Google and will range from 2.5% to 10% per ad, depending on the value of the company selling the ad. 

    It’s expected to net the state $250 million per year, which the state then says it will use to fund an overhaul of public education that is expected to cost $4 billion. 

    Those advocating for the tax say that it is simply Maryland’s tax code trying to catch up to where the economy has wound up. Gov. Larry Hogan has said it would raise operating costs for businesses, who would then pass the costs on to the state and customers. Hogan has been fighting for the state to uphold his veto of the tax. 

    Doug Mayer, spokesman for Marylanders For Tax Fairness, a coalition of businesses created to fight the tax, said on Friday: “In Senate President Bill Ferguson’s short tenure as a leader, he has managed to do what no other Senate President has ever done — raise taxes and costs on Marylanders in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. There is no doubt what took place today was a historic event, but not in the way President Ferguson hoped. This tax increase was historically shortsighted, foolish, and harmful to countless small businesses and employees, and Marylanders will remember it that way.”

    Ferguson pulled the solution for these criticisms directly out of the Democratic playbook last week: more regulation. He introduced “emergency legislation last week to prohibit Big Tech from simply passing along the costs of the new tax to local businesses,” NPR wrote. 

    The new tax is likely going to result in lawsuits, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said last year. And the tax isn’t just being considered in Maryland. Washington D.C. has also passed, and then repealed, a similar tax and more states are considering it, the report notes.

    Baltimore bookstore owner Benn Ray concluded: “Beyond their infiltration into our daily lives, these big digital firms are further exploiting us by failing to pay taxes on this advertising, grabbing and monetizing our data without just compensation. This legislation is about fairness, making sure those who reap enormous profits in our state help support public services here. It’s also about developing a tax code that keeps up with a changing economy. It’s about ensuring we recognize the value of our personal data – at least as much as corporations do. And it’s about ensuring that Marylanders — and not just large, global corporations – reap the benefits of the landmark economic changes happening around us.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 22:40

  • Is COVID-Derangement-Syndrome Real?
    Is COVID-Derangement-Syndrome Real?

    Authored by Donald Boudreaux via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Over the past two weeks I’ve received emails urging me to tamp down my criticism of restrictions imposed in the name of fighting Covid-19. Most of the correspondents are polite, sincere, and even warm. Each, however, is convinced that I underestimate the threat that Covid poses to humanity. Each correspondent hopes that I come to take this threat much more seriously.

    What follows here is part of my response to each of these correspondents. This essay isn’t meant to change their minds but, instead, to better explain why I hold the position that I do toward Covid, as well as toward the public’s and governments’ responses to Covid. For the record, I understand that different individuals have different risk preferences. I genuinely respect these differences.

    I understand also that different individuals even have different perceptions of reality. As with the understanding of reality achieved by blindfolded persons each touching a different part of the elephant, reality isn’t revealed to everyone in the same way. Yet I’m sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that there is an objective reality, and that it’s the duty of everyone who comments publicly on that reality to do his or her best to understand it as well as possible, despite the inaccessibility of perfect understanding.

    I believe also that, while the range of legitimate differences in this understanding is wide, this range isn’t unlimited. Some understandings are so detached from reality as to be illegitimate – as in, not to be taken seriously. It is for each reader to judge for himself or herself if my understanding of reality, as I express it here (and elsewhere), falls within or outside of the legitimate range.

    Below is a list of some of the facts, as I understand them, about Covid-19, as well as about the reaction to this disease. Although some of these facts are more firmly established than are others, I believe that each of the facts detailed below is legitimate, and that my interpretations of them are plausible.

    Further, I believe that my understanding justifies my relative lack of anxiety about Covid’s likely impact on me personally and about its impact on humanity. And I believe that the facts as I understand them warrant my description of the media’s, the public’s, and governments’ reactions to Covid as being hysterically excessive.

    The Overestimated Dangers of Covid and Underestimated Dangers of Lockdowns

    • Covid-19 is disproportionately lethal to the very old and ill, and heavily so. In the United States as of February 17th, 2021, nearly a third (31.8%) of “All Deaths Involving Covid-19” – as defined and reported by the CDC – were of persons 85 years old and older. Nearly 60 percent (59.6%) of these deaths were of persons 75 years of age and older. More than 81 percent (81.3%) were of people 65 years of age and older. Despite media-trumpeted exceptions, serious suffering from Covid-19 is largely an experience for very old people.

    • Although Covid-19 is indeed unusually dangerous to very old people, it’s still not close to being a death warrant. The infection fatality rate for 85-year-olds is estimated to be 15 percent; for 75-year-olds it’s estimated to be 4.6 percent. For 65-year-olds, Covid’s infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1.4 percent. For 55-year-olds it’s estimated to be 0.4 percent.

    • Covid’s overall lethality compared to that of the seasonal flu is no more than 10 times greater. (Some estimates have Covid’s lethality, compared to that of the flu, to be as low as 3.5 times greater.) Of course, because Covid’s lethality undeniably rises significantly with age, for the elderly Covid is far more than 10 times as deadly than is the flu, and for young people Covid is much less than ten times as deadly. (Keep in mind that the numbers in this and the previous two paragraphs come chiefly from before any vaccines were administered.)

    • In the Spring of 2020, hospitals in the U.S. had a financial incentive to inflate their Covid numbers. As reported on April 24, 2020, by USA Today, “The coronavirus relief legislation created a 20% premium, or add-on, for COVID-19 Medicare patients.” Covid inflation occurred outside of the U.S. as well. In Toronto, for example, officials admit that they are inflating the Covid death count: Here’s Toronto Public Health: “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.” (I encourage you to read the whole Twitter thread.)

    • Lockdowns themselves have negative health consequences. How could they not, even if the only such effect arises because of people’s increased difficulty of visiting physicians for non-Covid-related illnesses and injuries? But there is evidence that negative health consequences of lockdowns extend beyond those that arise from delayed or foregone medical treatments.

    • There is credible evidence that lockdowns do not significantly reduce people’s exposure to the coronavirus.

    • Lockdowns have negative personal and social consequences. Avoiding contact with family and friends, even during holidays. Inability to fraternize at your favorite gym, coffee shop, bar, or restaurant. Restrictions on travel. Even if you believe that these costs are worth paying, you cannot deny that these costs are serious.

    • Lockdowns have a severe negative impact on economic activity. How could they not, given that people are prevented from going to work and from engaging in much ordinary commercial activity? There’s debate about how much of the decline in economic activity is caused by voluntary action and how much is caused by the forcible lockdowns. Even in light of the likelihood that people’s fear of Covid is further stoked by the very fact that governments’ resort to the dramatic action of locking us down, evidence exists that a great deal of economic damage was caused by the lockdowns themselves.

    Misinformation and Misunderstanding are Rampant

    • I never recall the media giving running accounts of deaths from seasonal flu, from auto accidents, from heart disease, or from any other major sources of death. But the media do give such accounts of Covid. The false impression is thus created that the dangers posed by Covid differ categorically from the dangers posed by other of life’s serious risks. I find it incredible to suppose that such out-of-context and biased reporting does not give the general public a terribly distorted and outsized impression of Covid’s dangers – an impression that is then reinforced by people communicating with each other.

    • Panic itself is contagious. As Gustave Le Bon observed in 1895, “Ideas, sentiments, emotions, and beliefs possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes.” Social media and other sources of 24/7/365 contact with hordes of strangers is a new phenomenon, one that seems to me to have created an unprecedentedly large crowd through which panic spreads.

    Panic, in turn, corrupts human decision-making abilities. This corruption is worsened by the echo-chamber feedback within the crowd. Combine these two realities with a third – namely, the difficulty the typical person experiences in expressing disagreement with a dominant narrative – and the overwhelming acceptance of the official fear-ladened account of Covid is unsurprising. But this overwhelming acceptance does not imply its own validity.

    • I have encountered in major media outlets too many egregiously misleading accounts about Covid – see, for example, here and here – for me not to severely discount what the media (and government officials) ‘report’ about Covid.

    • Decades of following media reports on, and politicians’ statements about, economic reality long ago convinced me that the proportion of misinformation to information is appallingly high. Because I know that most people in the media and in government are pathetically uninformed about economic reality – because I know that these people are largely innumerate and, in many cases, intellectually lazy – because I know that pundits and politicians often ignore facts and explanations that don’t fit their priors – I have every reason to doubt the reports on the numbers, to question the explanations, and to reject the spins that are issued by the media and by politicians.

    Justification for my skepticism of the popular narrative about Covid is only enhanced by the resulting panic. Aware that the public is in a state of panic, pundits and politicians who are prone to play fast and loose with the truth in normal times feel even less constrained to speak carefully and accurately during times of panic.

    • The reaction to the Great Barrington Declaration alone proves the gross carelessness of too many mainstream voices. This carelessness puts me on yet higher alert against the popular perception of Covid.

    For example, Paul Krugman attacked the Declaration with an ad hominem. This Nobel-laureate thinker asserted that the Declaration should be dismissed because of the organization that brought together the three acclaimed scientists who wrote it. That organization, of course, is AIER which – Krugman bizarrely thinks this fact is relevant – is said by Krugman to be “linked to the Charles Koch Institute.” (Not that it matters, but this ‘fact’ is not close – not remotely close – to what Krugman’s wording implies.)

    Nor, by the way, does the Great Barrington Declaration advocate a strategy of “let it rip.” But you’d never know this fact by reading many ‘descriptions’ of it. (Googling “Great Barrington Declaration” and “let it rip” – with each of the two terms in quotation marks – pulled up on February 21, 2021, 34,200 results.)

    Covid Derangement Syndrome

    I could list many other reasons for why I’m convinced that humanity’s fear of Covid-19 springs from profound misinformation about this disease. I could also expand my list of reasons why I believe the public’s precautions are grossly disproportionate to this disease’s actual dangers, and for why I regard the lockdowns, mask mandates, quarantine ‘hotels,’ and other restrictions to be tyranny that is wholly unjustified by the facts. But already I’ve overtaxed readers’ patience.

    One doesn’t have to have Covid in order to have a life that’s meaningful and to suffer a death that’s mournful. Yet most of the public, media, and governments have reacted to Covid as if the only deaths that matter are Covid deaths – as if the only lives that matter are the lives of people with Covid – as if the only risk that matters and, hence, the only risk worth reducing is the risk of suffering from Covid. 

    This lack of proportion – this sudden ignorance that our lives are inescapably filled with many different risks that must be traded off against each other – this treatment of Covid deaths as being categorically worse than are non-Covid deaths – all combined with a blind faith that politicians and bureaucrats will use vast powers wisely, prudently, and effectively – is what I call “Covid Derangement Syndrome.” 

    I believe this syndrome to be real and deserving of a name that grabs attention. Such attention-grabbing is warranted, because I further believe that this syndrome poses a dangerous risk to humanity that dwarfs the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 22:20

  • Watch: Flying-Robo Harvester Picks Ripe Fruit, Set To Displace Humans
    Watch: Flying-Robo Harvester Picks Ripe Fruit, Set To Displace Humans

    It’s no secret by now that the rise of automation and robots is projected to displace millions of jobs in the coming years. Many low-skilled jobs will be wiped out because of robots, sending technological unemployment, the loss of jobs caused by technological change, through the roof. 

    The latest installment of technological change leading to short-term job loss could soon be seen in the fruit harvesting industry. 

    Israeli company, Tevel Aerobotics Technologies, has developed a flying autonomous robot (FAR) that works day and night to pick fruit. Artificial intelligence embedded within the FAR determines the ripest fruit to pick through sensors and computer vision. 

    “The FAR robot can work 24 hours a day and picks only ripe fruit. It uses AI perception algorithms to locate the trees and vision algorithms to detect the fruit among the foliage and classify its size and ripeness. After choosing the right fruit, the robot then works out the best way to approach the fruit and remain stable as its picking arm grasps the fruit,” said Inceptive Mind. 

    “There are never enough hands available to pick fruit at the right time and the right cost. Fruit is left to rot in the orchard or sold at a fraction of its peak value, while farmers lose billions of dollars each year,” the company’s website said.

    Below, FAR robots pick ripe apples instead of humans. 

    The automated system provides farmers with real-time updates on harvesting progress, time completion, quantity picked, and overall costs. At the end of Tevel’s promotion video, it says, “this is our future.” 

    Expanding more on the “future” as described by Tevel, one where robots will displace low-skilled workers, a “great transformation” is underway where upwards of 20 million jobs could be lost due to robots by 2030. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 22:00

  • Conversation With BLS About Price Mismeasurement For Housing
    Conversation With BLS About Price Mismeasurement For Housing

    Submitted by Joseph Carson, former chief economist at AllianceBernstein

    Recently, I shared my concerns about price mismeasurement for owner-occupied housing with a senior official who works in the Division of Consumer Prices at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The senior official agreed with me, “That, in theory, treatment of owner-occupied housing in a CPI measure sounds easy, but in practice, it is not.” Here’s a summary of the main points of the conversation.

    First, the senior official noted the International Labor Organization (ILO) manual of Consumer Prices states: The treatment of owner-occupied housing in consumer price indices (CPIs) is arguably the most difficult issue faced by CPI compilers.

    I used to share that view, but no longer. The most challenging problem in price measurement is the pervasiveness of item replacements. It isn’t easy to get a continuous price series when products have a short shelf-life. Technology products create a problem for price measurement as the characteristics of items change frequently. The stock of housing does not change much from year to year, so it’s not an issue.

    Moreover, the quality of house price statistics has dramatically improved in the past few decades. Repeat sales series adjusted for the time between sales provides government statisticians with price information that was not available in the past. In the early 1980s, BLS cited poor data quality on house prices as one reason to change the measurement of owner housing costs. Nowadays, there is better data on prices for owner housing than there is for rents.

    Second, according to ILO, “Depending on the proportion of the reference population that are owner-occupiers, the alternative conceptual treatments can have a significant impact on the CPI, affecting both weights and, at least, short-term measures of price change.”

    But the hard evidence shows that alternative measures have had a significant short-term and long-term influence on reported inflation.

    In 1999, BLS adopted an alternative measure for owner-occupied housing. Due to an inadequate sample of homes for rent, BLS decided to use rent data to gauge the owner-occupied housing implicit rents. Before the change, the rate of inflation for owner-occupied rent ran consistently above rent inflation. But after the change, that pattern flipped. Since 1999, the inflation rate for rent for primary residences has always run above what BLS estimated for owner-occupied housing.

    That pattern of rents runs counter to market fundamentals. During periods of economic expansion, the vacancy rate for owner-occupied housing is falling, while the rental market’s vacancy rate often moves in the opposite direction. Shrinking supply with rising prices for homes should yield a rent-inflation rate for owner-occupied housing that is much faster than the rent for a primary residence.

    BLS data shows that the cumulative increase in rents for a primary residence is 20% greater than that of owners-occupied over the past two decades. It would seem improbable that based on market fundamentals alone, the owner’s rent rate would run below that of primary rents.

    The weight of owner-occupied housing accounts is substantial, accounting for approximately 30% of the core CPI. And given its vast scale, the continuous understatement of rent-inflation for owner-occupied housing has created the false impression that cyclical inflation is “flat”. But in reality, it’s not.

    Third, the senior official stated that it is not “impossible” to measure owner-occupied implicit rents from rental markets. I said it is.

    The two markets are separate. Research has shown that location is an essential factor for housing price, and it makes sense it would also influence rents. Owner housing is of a much higher quality than renter housing. Over 80% of owner homes are detached single-family versus less than 30% for rentals, and owner-occupied homes are much larger in scale. Five states, including two of the largest rental markets (New York and California), have rent control or rent stabilization policies. Trying to match the inflation rate from a partial-regulated rent market with one that is not regulated creates the potential for large-scale price mismeasurement.

    Janet Norwood, the legendary BLS Commissioner, stated, “The goal of a government statistical agency must be to produce data that are objective, relevant, accurate, and timely.” BLS measure of owners’ housing costs fails all four.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 21:40

  • Goldman Sachs Says Urban Flight To Last For Years 
    Goldman Sachs Says Urban Flight To Last For Years 

    Goldman Sachs expects the exodus from cities to weigh on shelter inflation. Goldman’s Jan Hatzius told clients that it could take years for urban vacancies to normalize. 

    Hatzius’ note, titled “Inflation Signal, Healthcare Noise (Hill),” had some excellent commentary on the urban exodus, aligning with our thoughts from last July when we said city dwellers fleeing metro areas could last for the next 18-24 months. 

    Here’s what he told clients:

    We expect a waning drag from urban flight on shelter inflation by next year. However, we don’t expect upward pressure from this channel (relative to the pre-crisis period), because we believe it is the level of rental vacancies that is the primary determinant of shelter inflation. 

    We also expect at least some of the suburban relocation to prove permanent. The advent of work from home and the fact that second homes represent less than a third of 2020 home sales growth suggest it could take several years for urban vacancy rates to normalize—even with the relatively quick return to full employment that we forecast. 

    … and there it is: “several years for urban vacancy rates to normalize.” The hope and hype of urban revivals in a post-pandemic world could get squashed as suburbanization becomes more permanent – hybrid work for white-collar workers is pushing this trend into hyperdrive. 

    Last month, in a note titled “Rental-Exodus Sparks Surge In Single-Family Housing Starts & Permits,” we continued to outline the supporting trends of booming starts and permits for single-family homes as folks sought shelter in suburbia. 

    While the boom in the suburbs is still intact but could be experiencing some headwinds, especially with rising mortgage rates, housing recoveries in major metro areas will likely wane as housing supply tops demand.

    Hatzius shows rents in suburban zip codes are experiencing upwards pressure due to the exodus. Meanwhile, downtown and high-density zip codes are seeing downward pressure. 

    Because of the social-economic chaos last summer across major metro areas, violent crime surging, and hybrid work trends due to the pandemic, the shift to suburbia will become more permanent. It will take people some time to realize that the economy will never return to pre-COVID times – a lot of structural changes have already happened in a short period. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 21:20

  • Why Not Make The Minimum Wage $150 Per Hour?
    Why Not Make The Minimum Wage $150 Per Hour?

    Authored by PF Whalen via TheBlueStateConservative.com,

    The periodic debate regarding raising the minimum wage has resurfaced once again, only this time the argument is connected to the larger discussion surrounding a sprawling, $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill; for some inexplicable reason. In the bill unveiled by House Democrats last Friday, if passed, the minimum wage would increase incrementally from the current $7.25 per hour to $9.50 per hour this year, and eventually escalate to $15 per hour by 2025. Prominent Democrats across the board have supported the idea, including President Joe Biden.

    If we deep-dive the issue in trying to understand its full impact, we can learn a great deal about the pros and cons of increasing the minimum wage; particularly with the cons. But there are two pieces of information that are difficult to come by. How, specifically, did we arrive at the number of $15? And, based on the Democrats’ reluctance to acknowledge the negative impacts of a minimum wage increase, why don’t we just add a zero to the number and increase the minimum wage to $150 per hour?

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was the first influential public figure to float the idea of a $15 minimum wage, having proposed the idea all the way back in 2015. Sanders’ plan pointed out his perceived benefits for those who are being paid the minimum wage. Beneficiaries would see an improved standard of living; the burden on taxpayers from food stamps and Medicaid would be reduced; and an increase in available income would spur economic growth. It sounds like a wonderful plan.

    Sanders’ pitch also included the obligatory attacks on salaries for corporate CEOs (because, after all, socialism is the ideology envy), as well as the store everyone on the left loves to hate, Wal-Mart. But if we dissect the details of Sanders’ idea, there’s one critical piece of information missing: how did Sanders arrive at $15 per hour? Would a $14 per hour minimum wage be insufficient to reach those goals? Would a $16 per hour minimum wage be too much, for some reason?

    The only conclusion we can draw from Sen. Sanders’ brainchild is that the number ‘fifteen’ was chosen because it’s a nice, round number. Choosing the target of a $15 minimum wage just sounds better than asking for a $13.85 minimum wage. It’s simpler and rolls off the tongue more easily, and is more likely to stick in folks’ heads. But such justification is a lousy way to go about deciding public policy.

    Therefore, if the objective is to improve people’s lives, which is a noble endeavor regardless of which party you belong to, why not choose another round number? Why not make it higher, say $20 per hour? Or $50? Or $150? Those are nice round numbers as well, are they not?

    Just think of how much those workers would improve their standard of living making $150 per hour. If the burden on taxpayers would be lessened with a $15 minimum wage, imagine how much it would decrease if we multiplied it by ten. And if economic growth would jump with a bump to $15, what’s stopping us from making it $150 so we can see an economic boom? The issue, of course, is that there are substantial negative consequences to increasing the minimum wage; though if we only listened to the leftist Democrats we would think there are no downsides.

    The far-left Center for American Progress is fully onboard with a minimum wage increase, contending that such an increase will “boost communities and the national economy and also reduce federal spending.” According to Rosemary Boeglin, one of Biden’s spokeswomen, “ raising the minimum wage reduces poverty and has positive economic benefits for workers, their families, their communities, and local businesses.” And President Biden’s Treasury Secretary Nominee Janet Yellen claims that the increase would have a “minimal” impact on job loss.

    The question, therefore, remains: why are they only looking to raise the wage to $15? Why not double or triple it? Or increase it by a full order of magnitude? The answer is obvious… because increasing the minimum wage nationally will cause extensive damage to small businesses, to taxpayers, and to the very individuals the effort is intended to help; minimum wage workers.

    According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, approximately 900,000 Americans would be lifted out of poverty with the wage hike; which is good news. But 1.4 million jobs would be lost in the process. More people would see their wages totally eliminated than those that would see a wage increase. The National Restaurant Association is urging Congress to sit tight on the minimum wage, explaining the measure would “cut jobs, decrease hours, increase menu prices, and close down [restaurants] altogether in some cases.” Increasing the minimum wage would be devastating to small businesses, particularly restaurants.

    Perhaps the best argument against a nationwide increase to the minimum wage is the country’s disparities in costs of living (COL) by state. America is a big country, and what makes sense in Oregon doesn’t always make sense in Tennessee.

    On average, the state with the highest COL is Hawaii with a COL rating of 196.3, which is more than double that of Mississippi’s 84.8 rating. It’s more than twice as expensive to live in Hawaii as it is to live in Mississippi, so how does it make sense to apply the same national minimum wage? The answer is: it doesn’t. Government is not the solution to all of our problems, and that statement is especially true when it comes to the federal government. A minimum wage increase applied equally across all fifty states will result in an increase in wages for some, but a total elimination of wages for even more.

    Labor is a commodity, and commodities are subject to the law of supply and demand. As the supply of labor (workers available) is decreased, the prices or demand for that labor (wages to be paid) is increased. That equation varies by industry, which means it varies by skill set. For example, making sandwiches at the local delicatessen is a low-skill job. There are plenty of people who can perform it, so the supply of labor is very high and the wages are low. Welding machinery to be used at a local factory is a high-skill job. There are not a lot of people who can perform it, so the supply of labor is very low and the wages are high.

    Therefore, if someone working at a small town deli is looking to increase their income, they may want to consider improving their skill set by entering a trade school to learn how to become a welder. And if government is intent on improving people’s lives, perhaps they should consider helping that sandwich-maker gain access to that trade school instead of trying to artificially inflate the demand for his or her sandwich-making skills.

    No one aspires to work for the minimum wage, except perhaps for a teenager looking to land their first job. For those who are working such a job because of a limited skill set, the key is for them to improve their skills and thereby make themselves more marketable. The solution to lifting people out of poverty is not for the government to intervene by applying a one-size-fits-all minimum wage across fifty, widely varying states. Help those Americans make themselves more marketable by improving their ability to provide value to prospective employers. And help those employers increase their demand for such laborers by giving them a robust economy in which to conduct business.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 21:00

  • "Door Is Always Open": China Invites UN Rights Chief To Investigate Uighur Genocide Charge
    “Door Is Always Open”: China Invites UN Rights Chief To Investigate Uighur Genocide Charge

    While vehemently rejecting widespread reports from the US and Western allies as well as various Europe-based human rights groups of a systematic campaign to ethnically cleanse Uighur Muslims, China is now “welcoming” a United Nations team to come and investigate the allegations.

    Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva at the start of this week via video call. Calling the allegations “slanderous attacks” he later at a news conference touted that “China has sent invitations to the high commissioner of the UN for human rights about a trip to China and Xinjiang.”

    ​​​​​​Via AFP

    “The two sides have maintained close communication on this matter,” Wang added. He had told the UN human rights session on Monday that “basic facts show that there has never been so-called genocide, forced labor or religious oppression in Xinjiang.”

    It follows the US formally designating it as such during the tail end of the Trump administration, something which Biden has signaled is up for review. There’s long been widespread allegations of on million Uighurs forcibly detained in either labor or ‘reeducation’ camps under Communist authorities. 

    Wang said he’s issued a personal invitation to UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet, after the UN team has long sought access to Xinjiang, where most of the detention camps are said to be. But much like the recent WHO trip to investigate the origins of coronavirus, such an endeavor is likely only to end in further accusations of a highly ‘stage managed’ and choreographed max obfuscation PR exercise.

    “The door to Xinjiang is always open. People from many countries who have visited Xinjiang have learned the facts and the truth on the ground. China also welcomes the High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Xinjiang,” Wang said in reference to Bachelet.

    Wang’s defense before the UN body centered on “Xinjiang-related issues” ultimately being about “countering terrorism and separatism”, touting further that there’s been zero terror attacks in the region for almost the last half-decade. He also claimed the Uighur population has actually grown, not decreased as would be expected if there were an ongoing “genocide”.

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

    Meanwhile on Tuesday Canada’s parliament unanimously passed a non-binding motion on the heels of the prior controversial US designation, calling China’s policy toward Xinjiang and its ethnic minorities “genocide”. Canada is also seeking to boycott the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics over the issue, something which UK’s Johnson has said his country won’t jump on board with (i.e.: London does not plan to boycott the Olympics). “Genocide is clearly defined in international law which cannot be pinned to China,” China’s embassy in Canada shot back in reaction to what it called a “disgraceful” vote.

    The vote was 266-0 in favor of the motion, however PM Trudeau and his cabinet abstained – yet it’s likely the further damage to trade relations is already “done” in Beijing’s eyes on the mere symbolism of the vote.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 20:40

  • Ohio Public School Orders Teachers And Students To Lobby For LGBT Legislation
    Ohio Public School Orders Teachers And Students To Lobby For LGBT Legislation

    By Joseph Backholm of the Family Research Council,

    An assistant principal at a Hilliard, Ohio high school sent an email to faculty telling teachers to endorse a controversial piece of legislation and encouraged students to do the same. The Hilliard City Council is currently considering legislation that would include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as protected classes in the city.

    Similar legislation has been debated around the country for more than a decade, and the flagship piece of SOGI legislation — the Equality Act — was reintroduced in Congress this week.

    While the ideas represented in the Hillard City Council legislation are not new, they are highly controversial. Aaron Baer, President of Citizens for Christian Values in Ohio, was on Washington Watch this week to explain the problem. “Not only are they turning students into lobbyists, using taxpayer dollars to force teachers to do something that violates their conscience and students to do the same, but they’re not even telling students what they’re really advocating for.”

    Mr. Baer pointed out that the call for activism did not even include a discussion of why the bill was controversial.

    “The implications of this bill for women’s privacy and the safety of children are massive. And the teachers and the script that they were given, literally a literal script that they were given to read to students, says nothing about the implications of this bill.”

    To their credit, Hillard City Schools has already released a statement recognizing that the actions of the principal were “not appropriate.”

    The incident raises questions about where else schools are being turned into progressive political action centers without the awareness of parents. Since the story broke, Mr. Baer acknowledged hearing from other teachers in Ohio Schools who had seen similar communications from their school but were reluctant to object out of concern for their careers.

    It also provides a great opportunity for parents to reflect on whether the people they are entrusting with the education of their children are worthy of the trust they’ve been given.

    It’s worth noting that the signature block of the principal who sent the email includes the principal’s “preferred pronouns,” which are functionally a public statement of agreement with a set of ideas that are anti-truth, anti-science, and anti-God.

    When Christian parents see this from “educators” in their schools, it should serve as their cue to remove their children as quickly as possible.

    Think of it as a form of social distancing. When a child is developing their immune system, you don’t put them in situations where they are likely to be exposed to a lot of dangerous viruses. So it is with worldview formation.

    Bad ideas function just like a virus, but the consequences are much more serious. The education of your children should expose them to bad ideas, but like a vaccine, they should be exposed to them in ways and in doses that allow them to build up an immunity. The goal of a vaccine is not simply to expose someone to a virus — the goal is to expose them in ways that allow them to defeat the virus anytime they are exposed to it.

    Understanding and demonstrating the emptiness of bad ideas should be a primary goal of your child’s education, but this cannot be accomplished by people who have embraced bad ideas.

    Once your kids are properly formed, there’s less risk in them being surrounded by people who believe things that aren’t true because they recognize bad ideas when they see them and understand both why people believe those things and why they aren’t true.

    In that case, no matter how emotional the appeal or how well-intentioned the messenger, your child will be less likely to be affected because they understand the larger context of the debate and are anchored to reality. That should be the goal of our child’s education, not “getting into a good college.”

    But until they have developed that capability, they’re vulnerable. You cannot “fix” in a couple hours a week what your child absorbs for seven hours a day for 12 years, plus college.

    The good news is, it’s becoming easier to see where these ideological viruses are in their most advanced stages. Listing preferred pronouns is just one of the symptoms.

    Continue to be kind and help if you can. Of course, befriend people who don’t think like you, both because it’s a good example for your kids and because the people most committed to bad ideas are often unhappy and want to figure out why they’re so miserable despite doing everything they’ve been told to do that will make them happy. No one is beyond the reach of the truth, and you’re there to be a depository of truth.

    But don’t let them teach your kids. Anything.

    Citizens for Christian Values is encouraging families in Hilliard, Ohio to contact their school board to demand an immediate apology for this violation of the public trust, and rightly so.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 20:20

  • 68% Of Brazilians Think COVID Vaccines Should Be Mandatory
    68% Of Brazilians Think COVID Vaccines Should Be Mandatory

    The regional government of Galicia, a region in northwestern Spain, has announced plans to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for all of its 2.7 million inhabitants, threatening hefty fines for “unjustified” refusal to be inoculated. The controversial step was announced by the region’s president Alberto Nuñez Feijóo on Tuesday and is subject to approval by the Galician government.

    The subject of how to handle mass vaccinations best in face of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a lively debate across the globe in recent weeks, but, as Statista’s Feliz Richer notes, no country has issued a nationwide vaccination mandate yet. While it seems likely that fully vaccinated people will eventually enjoy certain privileges, forcing people to take the jab could backfire dramatically as it would play in the hands of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who suspect foul play behind the global inoculation campaign.

    Infographic: Should COVID-19 Vaccination Be Mandatory? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    As the chart above, based on data from Ipsos’ Global Attitudes survey, shows, support for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations ranges widely across countries.

    While a majority of respondents in France and Germany opposes such a policy, people in Brazil and South Korea would be widely in favor of mandatory vaccination.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 20:00

  • If America Splits Up, What Happens To The Nukes?
    If America Splits Up, What Happens To The Nukes?

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Opposition to American secession movements often hinges on the idea that foreign policy concerns trump any notions that the United States ought to be broken up into smaller pieces.

    It almost goes without saying that those who subscribe to neoconservative ideology or other highly interventionist foreign policy views treat the idea of political division with alarm or contempt. Or both.

    They have a point. It’s likely that were the US to be broken up into smaller pieces, it would be weakened in its ability to act as a global hegemon, invading foreign nations at will, imposing “regime change,” and threatening war with any regime that opposes the whims of the American regime.

    For some of us, however, this would be a feature of secession rather than a bug.

    Moreover, the ability of the American regime to carry out offensive military operations such as regime change is separate and distinct from the regime’s ability to maintain an effective and credible defensive military force.

    Last month, we looked at how even a dismembered United States would be more than capable of fielding a large and effective defensive military force. A politically divided America nonetheless remains a very wealthy America, and wealth remains a key component in effective military defense. In other words, bigness is not as important as the extent to which a regime can call upon high levels of wealth and capital accumulation.

    That analysis, however, concentrated on conventional forces, and this leaves us with the question of how the successor states to a post-secession United States would fare in terms of nuclear deterrence.

    In this case, there is even less need for bigness than in the case of conventional military forces. As the state of Israel has demonstrated, a small state can obtain the benefits of nuclear deterrence without a large population or a large economy.

    In other words, an effective military defense through nuclear deterrence is even more economical than conventional military forces.

    After Secession, Who Gets the Nukes?

    But how would secession actually play out when nuclear weapons are involved?

    One example we might consider is Ukraine’s secession from the Soviet Union the early 1990s.

    In 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly to secede and set up an independent republic. At the time, the new state of Ukraine contained around one-third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. This means there were literally thousands of nuclear warheads within Ukraine’s borders, making Ukraine’s arsenal the third largest in the world. In 1994, Ukraine began a program of denuclearization and today is no longer a nuclear power.

    The relations between Ukraine and the new Russian Federation were acrimonious in the early nineties—as now—so this means that the lessons of the Ukraine situation are limited if applied to American secessionist movements. American pundits may like to play up the red-blue division in America as an intractable conflict of civilizations, but these differences are small potatoes compared to the sort of ethnic and nationalist conflicts that have long existed in Eurasia. 

    Nevertheless, we can glean some insights from that separation.

    For example, the Ukrainian secession demonstrates that it is possible for nuclear weapons to pass into the control of a seceding state without a general conflict breaking out. Indeed, Ukraine was not alone in this. Kazakhstan and Belarus “inherited” nuclear arms from the Soviet Union as well. If Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus can all peacefully negotiate a resolution on how to deal with a suddenly decentralized nuclear arsenal, the Americans can pull it off, too.

    Nonetheless, the Ukraine situation highlights some of the technical and logistical problems involved in working out who exactly controls nuclear weapons in a postsecession situation.

    For example, it was never a simple matter for the Ukrainian regime to assert technical control over land-based nuclear missiles. It is unlikely that Ukraine ever obtained all the tools necessary to actually launch the nuclear missiles within its territory.

    It is likely, however, that Ukraine could have eventually gained this power, as it was already developing its own control system for the arsenal in 1993. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Russian regime was unenthusiastic about helping the Ukrainians in this respect.

    When it came to using nuclear-capable bombers, on the other hand, it appears Ukraine’s regime had total control.

    It is likely the successor states of the US would face similar issues. The use of land-based missiles would be heavily reliant on authorization from whichever faction most recently controlled access and launching authority, even if those missiles are physically located within the borders of a separatist state. It must be noted, however, that the state within which land-based nuclear missiles exist has the ability to prevent usage in most cases. This is because even if the missiles themselves cannot be directly controlled, the personnel that maintains and controls the sites can far more easily be traded out for personnel loyal to the new regime.

    When it comes to submarines and bombers, a secessionist US region might find itself better able to assert control in the short term. Where those bombers and subs end up would have a lot to do with the likely chaotic situation in the wake of the independence movement and shifting borders.

    Separatist Regions May Be Unwilling to Give Up Nukes

    Ukraine had denuclearized in part due to bribes and pressure from both the United States and Russia. Russia wanted Ukraine’s arsenal for obvious reasons. The United States was obsessed with deproliferation, although it naturally insisted on keeping its own massive stockpile. 

    Neither the US nor Russia had the ability to force Ukraine to denuclearize—short of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, of course. However, Ukraine capitulated to pressure when the Russian Federation, the US, and the UK (and to a lesser extent China and France) pledged in the Budapest Memorandum to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. 

    In 2014, many interpreted this move as a grand folly when Russia annexed the Crimea from Ukraine and none of the other parties to the memorandum intervened. Ukraine had given up its best guarantee against Russian intervention—its nuclear arsenal—in exchange for weak “assurances” from foreign states.

    Some foreign policy scholars—most notably John Mearsheimer—had predicted this and advised against denuclearization in Ukraine. Indeed, in 1993, Mearsheimer doubted that Ukraine would cave to denuclearization pressure precisely because reliable assurances from outsiders were unlikely. Even after the Budapest Memorandum became a reality a year later, it was nonetheless a rather weak reed on which to hang denuclearization. As Mearsheimer pointed out, should the Americans fail to provide an effective defense for Ukraine—as ended up being the case with the Crimea crisis—the Americans “would not have to live with the consequences of a Russian attack.” Nonetheless, some Ukrainians insist the Crimea crisis is not evidence of a need for a nuclear deterrent. 

    Many, Americans, however, may be much less sanguine—even to the point of unwarranted paranoia—about the prospects of foreign intervention on American soil. This is why it is best to proceed assuming that at least some successor states to the current US would insist on retaining a nuclear arsenal. After all, while the Ukraine might have been betting on the US as the enforcer of the international order, such guarantees would be even more unlikely in the wake of an American secession crisis. Postsecession American states, in other words, would need to rely on a self-help system of deterrence.

    On the other hand, we should not assume that all successor states to the United States would seek permanent nuclear arsenals. Some would likely give up nuclear programs, just as Sweden and South Africa have abandoned nuclear programs that were well advanced toward assembling arms (Sweden) or had already completed the construction of functioning warheads (South Africa). While the Ukrainian example of voluntary denuclearization may appear to be a blunder to many now, the situation in North America is different. North America is not eastern Europe with its long history of interstate conflict. In North America, Canada and the United States have been at peace for more than two centuries, and Canada has never made much effort to move toward assembling a nuclear arsenal. Rather, Canada’s proximity to the United States shields it from nuclear threats from outside North America. Any conventional or nuclear arrack on Canada from, say, China or Russia is likely to be interpreted as an attack on the United States, with disastrous consequences for the initial aggressor.

    In other words, Canada benefits from what Baldur Thorhallsson calls “shelter” in the international arena. Canada requires no nuclear arsenal of its own, because it can use its close alliance with the United States as a substitute.

    So long as some successor states of the United States maintain a functioning arsenal, other nonnuclear states in North America will be able to function similarly. It stands to reason that just as the United States in its current form has been at peace with all other former British colonies, it is likely that new North American republics will share a similar fate.

    Big States Are Not Necessary: A Deterrent Nuclear Force Is Entirely Feasible for Small States

    A new American republic need not be especially large to maintain a working arsenal.

    While a sizable economy and population are extremely helpful in terms of building a large conventional military, these factors are not nearly as important when it comes to a nuclear force capable of deterring foreign powers.

    As Kenneth Waltz has explained, “Nuclear parity is reached when countries have second-strike forces. It does not require quantitative or qualitative equality of forces.” That is, if a regime can plausibly hide or move around enough nuclear warheads to so as to survive a nuclear first strike, it is able to deter nuclear aggression from other states altogether. Moreover, the number of warheads necessary to achieve this number “not in the hundreds, but in the tens.”

    This is why Waltz has concluded that “deterrence is easier to contrive than most strategists have believed” and that “some countries may find nuclear weapons a cheaper and safer alternative to running economically ruinous and militarily dangerous conventional arms races. Nuclear weapons may promise increased security and independence at an affordable price.” In other words, deterrence “can be implemented cheaply.”

    The Israeli state is an important and illustrative case. This is a country with a GDP smaller than Colorado’s and a population smaller than that of the US state of Georgia, yet Israel is thought to maintain a nuclear triad of sea, air, and land-based warheads. In other words, this is a small state which has taken full advantage of the relatively economical nature of a small nuclear arsenal (estimated to include approximately eighty assembled warheads).

    Clearly, claims that even medium-sized American states—such as Ohio with 11 million people and a GDP nearly as large as that of Switzerland—are too small to possibly contemplate functioning as independent states are quite detached from reality. Moreover, there is no reason to assume any postsecession American state would seek to act alone in the realm of international relations. Kirkpatrick Sale has pointed out what should be regarded as obvious: “Historically, the response of small states to the threat of … aggression has been temporary confederation and mutual defense, and indeed the simple threat of such unity, in the form of defense treaties and leagues and alliances, has sometimes been a sufficient deterrent” (emphasis added).

    On the other hand, a continuation of the current trend toward political centralization in Washington—and the growing political domination of every corner of the nation by central authorities—is likely to only harm future prospects for amicable separation and peaceful cooperation on the international stage. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 19:40

  • Tanden Pounded By Progressives Over Potential 'Conflicts Of Interest' After Senate Delays Votes
    Tanden Pounded By Progressives Over Potential ‘Conflicts Of Interest’ After Senate Delays Votes

    On Wednesday, two Senate committees delayed Wednesday votes on President Biden’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Neera Tanden, after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and several GOP senators announced they wouldn’t vote for her – in what the Washington Post described as “probably dooming her selection in an evenly divided Senate.”

    Tanden, president of the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress, has come under fire for a series of now-deleted tweets promoting the Russia hoax as fact, denigrating political foes, and other statements which Manchin deemed ‘overly partisan.’

    That’s not all, Tanden reportedly punched a progressive journalist in 2008 who had the audacity to ask then-Sen. Hillary Clinton about voting in favor of the Iraq war.

    “Ms. Tanden responded by circling back to Mr. Shakir after the interview and, according to a person in the room, punching him in the chest,” the New York Times reported in 2019, describing the alleged incident from when Tanden served as a top Clinton adviser.

    Tanden claims she ‘pushed him.’

    On Wednesday, Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed concerns over Tanden, saying ” suggested to the White House that my colleagues were being very critical of the statements, and rightly so and I think some of (the tweets) were clearly over the top,” adding “Apparently I’m going to have to do more looking into what she thinks about me,” after a tweet recently resurfaced in which Tanden attacked Murkowski.

    What’s more, a progressive advocacy group, RootsAction, says they’re “heartened” that Tanden’s nomination has stalled and ‘may soon be withdrawn.’

    “We are heartened that Tanden’s nomination has stalled. Mainly due to her well-documented coziness with corporate elites, she is the wrong choice to head a federal agency that is vital in the regulatory process. It strains credulity to contend that she would be a true advocate for the public interest after many years of dutifully serving corporate interests,” the group said in a statement.

    Why doesn’t RootsAction like Tanden?

    “RootsAction opposed her OMB nomination from the outset. With our encouragement, many thousands of constituents wrote to their senators and urged them to vote against confirmation — not because of her ‘mean tweets’ but because of her close funding relationships with corporate titans and foreign governments. What’s stunning is the silence from Senate Democrats about the potential conflicts-of-interest raised by her decade of aggressive fundraising from powerful interests,” according to co-founder Jeff Cohen.

    Meanwhile, RootsAction national director Norman Solomon said “Business-as-usual in Washington means that elite donations are inundating think tanks and members of Congress. Tanden epitomizes a pay-to-play view of governance, which helps to explain why the anti-regulation, anti-union U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting her nomination. We need an OMB director without corporate ties that bind. Neera Tanden just doesn’t qualify.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 19:20

  • Students Demand Removal Of George Washington Statue… At University Of Washington
    Students Demand Removal Of George Washington Statue… At University Of Washington

    Authored by Angela Morabito via Campus Reform,

    The University of Washington’s Black Student Union has garnered nearly 8,000 signatures on a petition that demands the school remove a statue of George Washington, the school’s – and the state’s – namesake. 

    The petition claims the statue “perpetuates white supremacy and preserves its historical imposition,” because George Washington owned slaves. 

    The offending statue is part of the university’s history: It is the product of a years-long campaign by the Daughters of the American Revolution, which raised $6,000 by “encourag[ing] schoolchildren from all over the state to contribute their pennies, no more than five cents apiece.” The statue has stood on campus since 1909.

    The petition also proposes cutting ties with the Seattle Police Department, disarming the university police, increasing funding for the American Ethnic Studies Department, and hiring more Black faculty members, among other policies.

    University leadership responded with incremental measures at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year, including cutting the campus police force by 20 percent and reiterating existing hiring initiatives aimed at bringing diverse talent to campus. But it did not pledge to remove the statue – and the BSU isn’t backing down.

    The university “commissioned a group of faculty experts to recommend wording for a plaque or other such display that would provide a broader context on the life and impact of George Washington,” which “would include an explicit acknowledgment of his role as a slaveholder.”

    The BSU says a plaque isn’t enough.

    The University did not comment further on if, and how, it will respond to increasing calls to remove the statue. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 19:00

  • Round 2 Of Face-Ripping Short Squeeze Arrives Just As Hedge Funds Pile Into Shorts
    Round 2 Of Face-Ripping Short Squeeze Arrives Just As Hedge Funds Pile Into Shorts

    One of the key catalysts behind the original round of meme stocks such as GME and AMC surging in late January in “rip your face off” rallies, was targeting companies that were heavily short, in some cases – such as Gamestop – with a synthetic short position that was 140% of the float. Since then, the short interest in all of these original meme companies has collapsed dramatically as hedge funds that were short suffered tremendous, and in some cases, irreparable losses forcing them to cover at any cost (and price).

    What is remarkable is that the targeted WallStreetBets raids of heavily shorted stocks took place in an environment where marketwide shorts were actually at the lowest level on record as a result of the endless levitation in the S&P500 thanks to the trillions of Fed monetary generosity, with most industries ranking in the 0 percentile vs history in terms of short interest as a % of market cap (with the exception of energy, where the short squeeze has yet to come at the industry level).

    But is that really true? Well, it may have been until about two weeks ago when things changed drastically.

    As JPMorgan wrote on Tuesday, while hedge funds were quite positive on markets especially in the US, over the past 6+ months (JPM had seen net buying most days since late July 2020), “following the recent weakness and rotation, we’ve seen HFs react by adding more shorts, which are picking up after the large covering in late Jan”, and remarkably Monday was the largest day of short additions in North America since late June 2020!

    Meanwhile, as JPM notes today in its summary of the furious rip higher in Gamestop and AMC, “we may be seeing the beginning of the Retail impulse returning.” Translation: the WallStreetBets “incels” are back for round two and are trying to make lightning strike twice, by focusing on the two more popular shorts of the latest round of short squeezes. That said, we expect all the same mega-squeeze companies that ripped higher a month ago are all set to explode in the coming days.

    This means that just as hedge funds reloaded on their shorts expecting a rapid acceleration in the recent market correction… the reddit rippers are back and set to squeeze all those millions in newly layered shorts which are not being picked up in the latest data  which is as of two weeks ago, or just as the short flush peaked and a new layer of shorting was starting.

    And while one can only dream, it would be truly remarkable if – expecting that lightning will not strike twice – the likes of Melvin Capital doubled down on their GME shorts after suffering catastrophic losses on the same position. While we doubt god can be that cruel, here is an artist’s rendering of “what if”…

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

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 18:40

  • A Year Later, There's Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control The Spread Of COVID-19
    A Year Later, There’s Still No Evidence Showing Governments Can Control The Spread Of COVID-19

    Authored by Anthony Rozmajzl via The Mises Institute,

    As we approach the one-year anniversary of fifteen days to flatten the curve, we have yet to acquire any data suggesting that the past year of life-destroying lockdowns and politicized behavioral mandates has done anything to keep us safe from covid-19. While discussions surrounding the reintroduction of nationwide lockdowns seem to have ceased—it’s impossible to ignore the lockdowns’ disproportionately deadly effects and the numerous studies demonstrating their futility—the media still retain their grip on the narrative that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mask mandates, curfews, capacity restrictions, gathering restrictions, and others remain necessary to prevail in our fight against covid-19.

    Government officials, in lockstep with big tech and nearly all major news outlets, have controlled the NPI narrative to such an extent that its proponents have simply sidestepped the burden of proof naturally arising from the introduction and continued support of novel virus mitigation strategies, happily pointing to the fact that their ideas enjoy unanimous support from the corporate media and government officials all over the world. This seemingly impenetrable narrative rests, of course, on the critical assumption that NPIs, or behavioral mandates, have protected us from covid-19.

    The One Chart That Covid Doomsdayers Can’t Explain

    If there is one visualization the reader should become familiar with to highlight the ineffectiveness of a nearly a year’s worth of NPIs, it would be the following chart comparing hospitalizations and deaths per million in Florida with those in New York and California, however we will be focusing solely on the comparison between Florida and California.

    In light of everything our officials have taught us about how this virus spreads, it defies reality that Florida, a fully open and popular travel destination with one of the oldest populations in the country, currently has lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California, a state with much heavier restrictions and one of the youngest populations in the country. While it is true that, overall, California does slightly better than Florida in deaths per million, simply accounting for California’s much younger population tips the scales in Florida’s favor.

    Florida has zero restrictions on bars, breweries, indoor dining, gyms, places of worship, gathering sizes, and almost all schools are offering in-person instruction. California, on the other hand, retains heavy restrictions in each of these areas. At the very least, Florida’s hospitalizations and deaths per million should be substantially worse than California’s. Those who predicted death and destruction as a consequence of Florida’s September reopening simply cannot see these results as anything other than utterly remarkable. Even White House covid advisor Andy Slavitt, much to the establishment’s embarrassment, had no explanation for Florida’s success relative to California. Slavitt was reduced to parroting establishment talking points after admitting that Florida’s surprisingly great numbers were “just a little beyond our explanation.”

    Does Compliance Explain the Discrepancy?

    Invariably, the above graph will invoke responses pointing to Californians’ supposed lack of compliance relative to Floridians as justification for their poor numbers. On its face, this claim is patently absurd given that Florida has been fully open since September. But if we dig into the data a bit more, we find some relevant metrics that shed light on how frequently Floridians and Californians are engaging in behaviors that allegedly fuel covid-19 transmission. The following survey data—California is shown in blue, Florida in gray—is taken from Carnegie Mellon University’s Delphi Research Group. Beyond the red vertical line, Florida has had consistently lower hospitalizations and deaths per million than California.

    Mask Compliance

    Bar Visits

    Traveling

    Restaurant Visits

    We can see that, relative to Floridians, Californians have consistently been doing a better job of avoiding social behaviors that allegedly fuel the spread of covid-19. Moreover, at no point was there a drastic change in behavioral patterns after December 17 indicating that Floridians had suddenly begun avoiding activities purportedly linked to covid transmission.

    A quick glance at each state’s “social distancing score” also indicates, yet again, that Californians have been doing a better job avoiding activities meant to facilitate the spread of covid-19. Additionally, Google’s covid mobility reports, as of February 16, 2021, show that Californians partake in fewer retail and recreational visits—restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, theme parks, museums, libraries, and movie theaters—as well as fewer grocery store and pharmacy visits, which include farmers markets, food warehouses, and speciality food shops. Evidently, the whole “noncompliance” schtick is nothing more than a fraudulent excuse for explaining away undesirable trends.

    More Metrics Rebutting the Mainstream Covid-19 Narrative

    Moving on from the Florida-California comparison, national metrics also highlight the lack of correlation between the intensity of states’ NPIs—methodology for determining this can be found here—and deaths per million.

    In fact, if we visualize case trends across all fifty diverse states, each state having varying levels of restrictions, you’ll quickly notice a pattern that presents itself quite similarly across all fifty states: a bump in cases early to midway through the year followed by a much bigger surge in cases during winter months. The following data was retrieved from Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

    Similar case patterns across fifty states is hardly an indicator of a government capable of influencing the course of the virus. Instead, research published in Evolutionary Bioinformatics shows that case counts and mortality rates are strongly correlated with temperature and latitude, a concept known as “seasonality,” which, once recognized, largely explains the failure of the past year’s NPIs.

    Meanwhile, we can look at seasonally congruent regions to see whether or not varying degrees of behavioral mandates have had any noticeable impact on cases. What we find, thanks to seasonality, is that regardless of the timing or existence of mask mandates and other behavioral mandates, similar regions follow similar case growth patterns.

    For the firm believer in NPIs, these simultaneous and nearly identical fluctuations between cities within the same state and states having similar climates are inexplicable. After accepting seasonality as one of the driving factors behind case fluctuations, we can start speaking of “covid season” as pragmatically as we speak of “flu season.” A helpful visual of what covid season might look like, based on the Hope-Simpson seasonality model for influenza, can be found here.

    Update on the Holiday Surge and Recent “Superspreaders”

    Some of you may be wondering about the “holiday surges” that were supposed to have ravaged our hospitals following Thanksgiving and Christmas. Well, they never happened. Not only did the rate of covid-19 hospitalization growth decline after Thanksgiving, hospitalizations peaked less than two weeks after Christmas and have been sharply plummeting since! At the very least we should have seen a rapid increase in the hospitalization growth rate in the few weeks following Christmas.

    As a bonus for those who like to keep up to date with the latest installments of The Media Who Cried Superspreader, Alabama recently came under heavy fire after thousands of maskless football fans took to the streets to celebrate their team winning the national college football title. FanSided, among others, was quick to label the large celebration as a superspreader event, and health officials were worried that the Alabama superspreader was going to result in a huge case spike. Here’s what really happened.

    Miraculously, cases immediately plummeted after Alabama’s “superspreader” event and continue to plummet to this day. If that wasn’t enough, Mississippi, Alabama’s next-door neighbor, followed a nearly identical case pattern despite hosting no superspreader events.

    Finally, in our most recent installment of The Media Who Cried Superspreader, we see that two weeks—two weeks being the establishment’s baseline lag time between superspreaders and their consequences—after millions of people gathered with friends and family to watch Superbowl LV, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths continue to plummet.

    Despite the scary warnings and grim predictions of Superbowl gatherings, we find, yet again, a gaping hole in the mainstream covid-19 narrative. It would appear safe to conclude that the worst of covid season is behind us.

    Data show that from the few weeks prior to February 4, cases have fallen 45 percent in the United States—cases are still declining at a rapid pace despite mid-January warnings that the new variant would create a surge in cases—30 percent globally, and hospitalizations have dropped 26 percent since their mid-January peak. Yet there appears to be a general confusion as to how we’ve achieved these numbers. Did populations around the world unanimously begin complying with covid regulations? Did governments finally get serious about enforcing their mandates? These are some explanations we might hear, but only so long as cases and hospitalizations continue to trend downward.

    It is very unlikely, however, that health officials will start pointing to seasonality as an alternative explanation for our continually improving numbers. To do so would be a tacit admission that nearly a year’s worth of heavily politicized behavioral mandates, life-destroying lockdowns, and devastating business closures were all for naught. But the data have spoken, and it is abundantly clear that attempting to socially engineer a respiratory virus out of existence is nothing short of a fool’s errand.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 18:20

  • Fed Investigating Massive Outage Of Its Interbank Payment System
    Fed Investigating Massive Outage Of Its Interbank Payment System

    The Federal Reserve’s critical system for interbank payments which serves as the backbone of virtually all money transfers in the US, went down Wednesday afternoon as trillions in payments suddenly ground to a halt.  The outage, similar to two significant disruptions suffered by the Fed in 2019, was widespread across all payment systems maintained by the central bank, including the vital automated clearinghouse system known as FedACH, and the Fedwire Funds interbank transfer service.

    ACH is a national system that processes batches of electronic funds transfers such as payroll, social security benefits, tax refunds, corporate payments to vendors and utility payments, according to the Fed’s website. The commercial service handled 62.1 million transactions a day on average in 2019 with an average value of $1,802, the latest year for which data are available.

    “A Federal Reserve operational error resulted in disruption of service in several business lines,” Jim Strader, a spokesman for the Richmond Fed, said in an e-mailed statement. “We are restoring services and are communicating with all Federal Reserve Financial Services customers about the status of operations.”

    Around 230 pm, FRBservices.org reported that after a roughly hour-long outage, the Fed’s central bank services and FedCash were back to normal operations. While the little used FedMail did not suffer a disruption, all other services are still listed as “service disruption.”

    “We are in process of restarting the Fedwire Services and National Settlement Service and expect to resume normal processing this afternoon,” the website says

    So… the Great reset, eh?

    * * *

    Earlier

    Update (1400ET): The Fed issued a brief statement:

    “The Federal Reserve Bank staff is currently investigating a disruption to multiple services. We will continue to provide updates as soon as they are available.”

    Is this The Great Reset?

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

    *  *  *

    It appears that The Fed is “down” as all FRB Servcies are currently offline including ACH and FedWire…

    Translation: the official establishment-sanctioned method of transferring money in America is currently offline!

    Source

    If only there was an alternative method to transfer value over the internet… for free?

    The question is – what is broken at The Fed (and was it the Russians?)

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

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 18:12

  • "Mistakes Were Made": Plan To Rename 44 San Francisco Schools Placed On Hold
    “Mistakes Were Made”: Plan To Rename 44 San Francisco Schools Placed On Hold

    The San Francisco Board of Education has halted its plan to rename 44 schools until students and teachers are able to return to classrooms, after serious errors were made in the selection process, which was based on cursory Google searches and Wikipedia entries. 

    “I acknowledge and take responsibility that mistakes were made in the renaming process,” said board Commissioner Gabriela Lopez. in a Sunday night statement, according to the Sacramento Bee.

    Separately on Twitter, Lopez said “I also acknowledge and take responsibility,” adding that community input is needed.

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

    Lopez’s comments come days after parents began circulating a petition to recall her, along with Vice President Alison Collins and Commissioner Faauuga Moliga for politicizing education, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    “We are parents, not politicians, and intend to stay that way,” said organizer Siva Raj in a statement to the Chronicle. “We are determined to ensure San Francisco’s public schools provide a quality education for every kid in the city.”

    On January 26, the board announced that dozens of public schools must be renamed for failing to meet their standards. The mostly historical figures on their no-no list include; Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, Robert Louis Stevenson, Paul Revere, and Dianne Feinstein..

    As The Atlantic noted in January, the decision process was a joke:

    The committee’s research seems to have consisted mostly of cursory Google searches, and the sources cited were primarily Wikipedia entries or similar. Historians were not consulted. Embarrassing errors of interpretation were made, as well as rudimentary factual errors. Robert Louis Stevenson, perhaps the most beloved literary figure in the city’s history, was canceled because in a poem titled “Foreign Children” in his famous collection A Child’s Garden of Verses, he used the rhyming word Japanee for Japanese. Paul Revere Elementary School ended up on the renaming list because, during the discussion, a committee member misread a History.com article as claiming that Revere had taken part in an expedition that stole the lands of the Penobscot Indians. In fact, the article described Revere’s role in the Penobscot Expedition, a disastrous American military campaign against the British during the Revolutionary War. (That expedition was named after a bay in Maine.) But no one bothered to check, the committee voted to rename the school, and by order of the San Francisco school board Paul Revere will now ride into oblivion.  

    The committee also failed to consistently apply its one-strike-and-you’re-out rule. When one member questioned whether Malcolm X Academy should be renamed in light of the fact that Malcolm was once a pimp, and therefore subjugated women, the committee decided that his later career redeemed his earlier missteps. Yet no such exceptions were made for Lincoln, Jefferson, and others on the list.

    According to CA governor hopeful Kevin Faulconer, the board’s decision to halt the renaming is a “huge victory.”

    “The San Francisco Board of Education’s decision to halt the renaming of its schools is a huge victory not just in the fight against cancel culture, but most importantly for our children,” he told Fox News in a statement. “Now that we’ve stopped this misguided revisionism, we must get our children back in school immediately, something our elitist governor Gavin Newsom refuses to do.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 24

Today’s News 24th February 2021

  • CJ Hopkins: The Vaccine (Dis)Information War
    CJ Hopkins: The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

    Authored (mostly satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

    So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

    OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use – that process normally takes several years – so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

    This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly a historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive, the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

    Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want … cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,” “oppositional defiant disorder,” and other “conduct disorders” and “personality disorders.”

    Who knows?

    In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains. The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders.

    But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile, but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare. And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!

    OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, “critical thinking isn’t helping.” In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above. Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative and deplatform the authors of such content, or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”

    For example, Children’s Health Defense, which has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines” and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.” In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable!”

    Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database and other such systems around the world. Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe, repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary.

    Here are just a few examples of their handiwork …

    And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example …

    OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda … even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts. But there’s an information war on, folks! You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

    No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination!

    The fate of the human species depends on it!

    And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 02/24/2021 – 00:05

  • Saudi Arabia Sued By Families Of Pensacola Terror Attack Victims
    Saudi Arabia Sued By Families Of Pensacola Terror Attack Victims

    Saudi Arabia is once again facing a major lawsuit in the US filed by the families of victims killed in a terror attack perpetrated by a Saudi citizen.

    The attack in question occurred at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. on Dec. 6, 2019. On that morning, a 21-year-old member of the Saudi military opened fire on Americans staying at the Naval base, carrying out a shooting rampage that led to the deaths of 3 Americans with 13 others wounded. The perpetrator, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, is believed to have posted his justification to social media before the attack. He was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force staying in the US as part of a program whereby the US military offers training to military pilots from certain geopolitical ‘partners’.

    Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attack weeks later, a claim that was corroborated by the FBI, which ruled the attack was motivated by Jihadist ideology. And while it had little discernible impact on US-Saudi relations at the time, that may soon change. Because family members of the deceased and wounded are now suing Saudi Arabia for civil damages.

    The complaint filed in federal court in Pensacola on Monday alleged that the Saudi Arabian government had known about the gunman and his increasing radicalization, and could have prevented the killing.

    According to Reuters, the Saudis didn’t respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz condemned the attack as a “heinous crime” and said it “does not represent the Saudi people” during a statement made shortly after it happened.

    Although several of Alshamrani’s fellow Saudi Naval officers reported attending a dinner party thrown by Alshamrani shortly before the attack where they all watched videos of US mass shootings, it was determined that Alshamrani was the sole shooter, and that he acted alone.

    President Joe Biden and his administration are already embracing a more distant approach to handling America’s allies and adversaries in the Middle East, particularly when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Whether or not this lawsuit further sours relations between Washington and Riyadh remains to be seen.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:45

  • 60 Years After Eisenhower's Warning, Distinct Signs Of A 'Digital-Intelligence Complex'
    60 Years After Eisenhower’s Warning, Distinct Signs Of A ‘Digital-Intelligence Complex’

    Authored by Eric Felten via RealClearInvestigations.com,

    In June 2019, Susan Gordon stood on a stage at the Washington Convention Center. Behind her loomed three giant letters, “AWS,” the abbreviation for Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing division of the giant Internet retailer.

    After three decades at the Central Intelligence Agency, Gordon had risen to one of the top jobs in the cloak-and-dagger world: principal deputy director of national intelligence. From that perch she publicly extolled the virtues of Amazon Web Services and the cloud services the tech giant provides the CIA.

    She told the crowd that the intelligence community’s 2013 decision to sign a multi-year, $600 million contract with AWS for cloud computing “will stand as one of those that caused the greatest leap forward. … The investment we made so many years ago in order to be able to try and harness the power of the cloud with a partner who wanted to learn and grow with us has left us not only ready for today but positioned for tomorrow.”

    The agreement was also a “real game-changer,” said André Pienaar, founder and CEO of a tech firm called C5 Capital, whose business includes reselling AWS services.

    “When the CIA said they were going adopt the AWS cloud platform,” Pienaar said at another AWS event.

    “People said if the U.S. intelligence community has the confidence to feel secure on the AWS cloud, why can’t we?”

    U.S. intelligence official Susan Gordon, top photo, extolling Amazon Web Services in 2019 and, just above, at a “FedTalks” in 2015 with AWS Vice President Bill Vass. He spoke glowingly of the government-AWS partnership. She agreed: “… If you believe in the engine of a great society, you’ve just described it.” YouTube/AWS

    Gordon left government in August 2019, two months after her  AWS summit talk. In November 2019  she became senior advisor to a consultancy with close Amazon connections and in April joined the board of  defense contractor with extensive AWS business.

    Gordon is one of scores of former government officials who have landed lucrative work in Big Tech.

    The synergy between Washington and Silicon Valley can be seen as the latest manifestation of the Beltway’s revolving door. But the size and scope of Big Tech – and the increasing dependence of government on its products and talent – suggest something more: the rise of a Digital-Intelligence Complex. Like the Military-Industrial Complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in 1961, it represents a symbiotic relationship in which the lines between one and the other are blurred.

    Ike’s televised 1961 farewell address presciently warning of the “miltary-industrial complex.” Now it appears to have evolved. Wikipedia

    Gordon’s history illustrates this development. Her endorsement of Amazon was important to the company: AWS touted the success of the CIA deal as a prime reason it believed the Pentagon should award the company a 10-year, $10 billion contract for cloud computing for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. That bid has been mired in litigation as competing tech companies have accused the government of insider dealing, political interference, and other improprieties in considering and awarding the contract.

    The web services side of Amazon is believed to be the most profitable part of the mammoth company. Illustrating the pride of place AWS enjoys within Amazon, Jeff Bezos recently announced he is stepping aside from his role as CEO, making room for Andy Jassy, who has been in charge of the AWS subsidiary. It’s also a prime reason Amazon chose the D.C. suburbs for the company’s new HQ2: “The D.C. tech sector is one of the fastest growing in the world,” Teresa Carlson, AWS vice president for Worldwide Public Sector and Industries, told Washington Life magazine last year. That growth is “largely driven by big U.S. government projects,” she added.

    Jeff Bezos recently relinquished the role of Amazon CEO to Amazon Web Services boss Andy Jassy, right, ilustrating the pride of place AWS enjoys within Amazon. AWS Vice President Teresa Carlson, left, says growth is “largely driven by big U.S. government projects.” YouTube/AWS

    As Amazon has built that government business, AWS has had no bigger cheerleader than Gordon, who has made repeated presentations praising Amazon. In 2018, she  appeared at a government/industry confab called “FedTalks.” She shared the stage with AWS Vice President for Engineering Bill Vass, who interviewed her about the work they had done together.

    “Can you talk a little bit about the partnership that you’ve had with the cloud provider in this case?” Vass asked, and then added, “It’s been very tight.”

    “Throughout my career, which is long, all the great advances we’ve made have been in partnership with industry,” Gordon replied.

    “We’ve had a partner who is as committed to our needs as we were.”

    Vass said that the work with government had made AWS more attractive to private sector companies buying cloud services: “I’ve found it very satisfying to also take input from the intelligence agencies and put that into our commercial products. So, our commercial products–”

    “We’re demanding,” Gordon interjected with a laugh.

    “Yes, you are demanding, and that’s a good thing because it causes us to raise the bar continuously and I think that has enabled us to put those features into our commercial products,” Vass said. “And a lot of the security requirements that you’ve had just exist on our commercial products that our commercial customers can now leverage.”

    “Right,” said Gordon.

    “Right,” agreed Vass. “So, they sort of had that same level of security that you have, which is pretty exciting for all of our customers. 

    “Yeah,” Gordon enthused, “so, if you believe in the engine of a great society, you’ve just described it.” 

    ‘I Cannot Wait to See What We Do’

    Gordon also appeared in a “customer spotlight” on Oct. 7, 2015, at a gathering called the AWS re:Invent conference, where she provided Amazon with a testimonial: “With the help of partners like AWS, I cannot wait to see what we do.”

    A former top federal ethics official says that if he had been asked to okay Gordon’s participation in AWS events, he would have required that she explicitly tell the audience she was not endorsing Amazon. The former official told RCI that executive branch employees have to be careful not to run afoul of regulations that prohibit “the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise.”

    RealClearInvestigations attempted to contact Gordon multiple times for comment; she did not reply. RCI also asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence whether Gordon’s speech had been approved by government lawyers. “ODNI has a process in place to ensure that all engagements … are appropriately reviewed and vetted, including by ODNI ethics officials,” an ODNI spokesperson said. ODNI did not make available any materials documenting such review or vetting.

    For years, AWS has been making the same argument for its cloud services that Gordon repeatedly offered: that the intelligence community’s choice of the product showed the way forward for adoption by the public and private sector alike. But Gordon was hardly the only person connected to government with strong ties to Amazon.

    Sally Donnelly: Helped guide both the Defense Secretary and Amazon. Pallas Advisors

    Sally Donnelly is a former Time magazine reporter who left journalism and who would become director of the Washington office of U.S. Central Command. She left the Department of Defense in 2012 and formed a consulting practice called SBD Advisors. One of her first clients was C5 Capital, the tech firm founded and run by André Pienaar. Soon, SBD added Amazon Web Services to its roster of customers. Donnelly’s SBD advised AWS on how to sell its services to the Pentagon. 

    Donnelly helped guide Secretary of Defense nominee James Mattis through his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017, and was offered a position as senior adviser to Mattis. To accept, she had to sell her business. Also joining Mattis, as his deputy chief of staff, was Tony DeMartino, who had worked on the Amazon account at Donnelly’s consultancy.

    Donnelly found a ready buyer for her consultancy in Pienaar’s C5 Capital, which already owned 20% of SBD. Donnelly was paid $1.56 million for her remaining 80% stake. Donnelly received the payments in $390,000 chunks, the majority during  her time at the Pentagon.

    Trump Defense Secretary Jim Mattis: Attended a private dinner in London replete with Amazon connections. AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

    While Donnelly and DeMartino were working for Defense Secretary Mattis, the Pentagon was considering and comparing the companies competing for all or part of the $10 billion JEDI contract. Among the competitors was AWS. Two of the other companies vying for JEDI business, Oracle and IBM, each complained to the Government Accountability Office that they had been cut out of a fair chance at the contract. That would lead to an investigation by the DoD’s inspector general, the details of which were published last April.

    “The complaints we received alleged, among other issues, that Secretary Mattis and Ms. Donnelly provided preferential treatment to Amazon,” the IG said.

    One of the events Amazon’s cloud computing competitors complained about was a March 31, 2017, private dinner Mattis attended in London. Hosted by retired British general Graeme Lamb at 5 Hertford Street (a private club regularly described as “secretive”), the dinner had fewer than a dozen guests. Among them were Donnelly, Amazon Web Services V.P. Carlson, and C5 Capital’s Pienaar.

    Interviewed by the inspector general about the dinner, Mattis described Pienaar as a “friend.” As for Carlson, he said he had never met her before the London gathering and was “not certain why Teresa Carlson was included,” but offered that “Sally [Donnelly] knew Teresa.”  Donnelly told the IG that she had no “insight” into why Carlson was at the dinner.

    Tony DeMartino: Mattis aide helped opened the door to Amazon, and soon Mattis was meeting Jeff Bezos. Pallas Advisors

    But the notion that Carlson was an unknown mystery guest is not supported by sworn testimony given to the DoD Inspector General, transcripts of which have been acquired by RealClearInvestigations. Six weeks before the London dinner, DeMartino had emailed Carlson, writing, “We obviously would like all our friends around us going forward.” Asked by the Inspector General what he had meant, DeMartino explained the Secretary had “a list of the people to fill jobs in the Department of Defense.” The White House had its own list, and “there was a negotiation” going on. “So,” DeMartino answered the I.G., “that note to Teresa was that she was on Secretary Mattis’ list for a potential job.” RCI reached out to Mattis, asking why Carlson was on his list for a “senior position” at the DoD if he did not know her and had never met her. Mattis did not respond. 

    The dinner’s host, Lamb, is a partner at C5 Capital. The dinner opened the door to Amazon with Mattis. A few weeks later, someone from Amazon called Mattis’ staff and told them that at the dinner in London, the secretary of defense had “expressed interest in meeting with [Jeff] Bezos.” 

    There was a question among the military bureaucrats whether Mattis should meet with Amazon’s founder. So Donnelly prepared an internal memo  listing reasons for going ahead with the proposed get-together. Among them: “Bezos owns the Washington Post.” Donnelly touted his accomplishments:

    “Amazon is one of the most successful start-ups in the history of the US economy,” she wrote.

    “Amazon has revolutionized delivery and consumer service.”

    And then there was the product: “The Amazon cloud is the foundation of all Amazon’s businesses and allows unprecedented speed.” She also made the argument top intelligence official Sue Gordon repeated at Amazon sales conventions — that the CIA uses Amazon’s cloud. 

    Jeff Bezos: His private meeting with Defense Secretary Mattis drew the DoD inspector general’s scrutiny. Los Angeles Air Force Base

    Mattis met with various tech executives, including Bezos, on a West Coast trip. But he also met privately again with Bezos, over dinner in Washington the evening of Jan. 17, 2018. The only others at the dinner were Carlson and Donnelly.

    The inspector general concluded in April 2020 that, even with their connections to Amazon, neither Donnelly nor DeMartino had acted unethically. The IG seemed more persuaded that illegitimate influence, if there had been any, had come from a Bezos-hating President Trump, who reportedly told Mattis to “screw Amazon.”

    By the time the IG report came out, Mattis was no longer secretary of defense. And Sally Donnelly and Tony DeMartino had already left the Pentagon to start up a new consulting firm, Pallas Advisors. Teresa Carlson subsequently married André Pienaar.

    The JEDI contract was eventually awarded to Microsoft. Amazon is asking a federal court to overturn the Pentagon’s decision. An AWS spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations that the DoD is attempting “to avoid a meaningful and transparent review of the JEDI contract award.” 

    In August 2019, Sue Gordon resigned as principal deputy director of national intelligence. Her private sector career has flourished. Last April, she joined the board of defense contractor CACI. According to its website, “CACI is an Amazon Web Services (AWS) Premier Consulting Partner, Public Sector Partner, and Authorized Reseller.” The company brags of its “healthy revenue-generating consulting business on AWS.”

    It’s arguable that, given the far reach of AWS in Washington, it would be hard for Gordon to find post-government employment without there being some connection with Amazon or AWS. That said, Gordon is not entirely in the AWS orbit. She consults with Microsoft. Still, the most interesting private company Gordon has gone to work for is one founded by “consultants” with longstanding AWS connections. Gordon is now a senior adviser for the company Sally Donnelly and Tony DeMartino formed after they left the Pentagon: Pallas Advisors.

    If it appears there is a steadily revolving door between tech companies and national security workers and officials, it may be because Gordon is in favor of exactly that. In an interview with Wired magazine when she was still in office, Gordon advocated what Wired described as “more of a revolving door.” Gordon was characterized as envisioning “a new paradigm for sharing talented workers between the government and the private sector.” According to Wired, she claimed that techies should start in government where they can learn what the problems and challenges are. They should move over to the private sector where they will have more freedom to innovate. “And then when they are ready to slow down and leave the rat race,” Wired quotes her as saying, “they can return to government.”

    Gordon calls this “cross-pollination” and “talent-sharing.”

    Critics of tech industry power and influence point out that Big Tech is now among the biggest employers of lobbyists, hiring primarily those who formerly worked for government. In 2010 Amazon fielded eight lobbyists. Last year the company flooded the zone with 118, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    This may or may not be good for government, which can’t afford to fall behind on the latest technologies. But it is clearly good for government workers who leave for the private sector, especially those who had been vocal “partners” and advocates of tech.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:25

  • Amnesty International Rescinds Navalny's 'Prisoner Of Conscience' Status After Discovering His Past
    Amnesty International Rescinds Navalny’s ‘Prisoner Of Conscience’ Status After Discovering His Past

    In a surprise twist on the Alexei Navalny saga, and on the very day that it’s being widely reported Biden is preparing sanctions on Russia as punishment for his alleged poisoning by nerve agent last August, the human rights organization Amnesty International has withdrawn its formal designation of Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience”. 

    US state-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports the following on Tuesday:

    Amnesty International has reportedly withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny’s as a “prisoner of conscience” over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech.

    Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog’s media manager for Russia and Eurasia, confirmed the decision to Mediazona on February 23 after the news was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate.

    Alexei Navalny, via AP

    And just like that it appears the narrative which cast Navalny and his supporters as some kind of ‘anti-Putin freedom fighters’ has been deflated. 

    The early February street protests following Navalny’s arrest after he arrived from Berlin where he’d been recovering from an alleged poisoning were widely supported by officials in the West, including by the US and some European embassies in Moscow.

    This created tensions leading to the Kremlin expelling a handful of European diplomats, citing their stoking unrest related to ‘illegal’ protests. US mainstream media also gave the large pro-Navalny protests close coverage. 

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

    Here’s how Amnesty International previously described Navalny and his plight in a January press release:

    “He has previously been tried and convicted in two separate, politically-motivated criminal cases. On 29 December, the Russian Investigative Committee levelled new charges against Navalny, accusing him of embezzling 356 million rubles (£3.6m) in donations to the Anti-Corruption Foundation and affiliated non-profit organisations. Amnesty believes these charges are trumped-up.

    Navalny has been deprived of his liberty for his peaceful political activism and for exercising free speech. Amnesty considers him a prisoner of conscience and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.”

    This “prisoner of conscience” designation is what Amnesty has now walked back in a clearly humiliating and devastating blow to his cause and his supporters.

    In the wake of the initial reports, an Amnesty official confirmed to independent Russian news outlet Meduza: “Yes, we will no longer use the phrase ‘prisoner of conscience’ when referring to [Navalny], insofar as our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and determined that they qualify as hate speech.”

    As an example of Navalny’s “newly uncovered” hate speech (though long well-known inside Russia), see this…

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

    He was recently sentenced by a Moscow court to serve over 2.5 years in prison for probation violation stemming from a prior embezzlement case.

    Amnesty’s dramatic change in designation is related to the “jailed Russian opposition politician’s past statements about migrants from Central Asia and the North Caucasus [which] constitute hate speech,” Meduza writes. But the question now remains how quickly he’ll be dropped as a darling of Western media coverage which has included a recent flurry of ‘romanticized’ reports on the anti-Kremlin activist, if at all.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:05

  • Capitol Riots Were A Dark Day For American Journalism
    Capitol Riots Were A Dark Day For American Journalism

    Authored by Patrick Cockburn via Counterpunch.org,

    The invasion of the Capitol on 6 January now stands alongside 9/11 as an act of war against American democracy. Unsurprisingly, news coverage of the incursion has come to resemble war propaganda. All facts, true or false, are pointed in the same direction with the aim of demonising the enemy and anybody who minimises its demonic nature.

    The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump. The five who died during the events are seen as evidence of a violent, pre-planned plot to overturn the result of the US presidential election. Film spliced together and shown by prosecutors during the impeachment proceedings gives the impression that what happened resembled a battle scene in Braveheart.

    Does it matter what really did occur?

    Many people feel that anything damaging to Trump and his fascistic followers is all right by them. They may suspect privately that accounts of Trump’s plot against America are exaggerated, but the fabricator of 30,573 falsehoods over the last four years is scarcely in a position to criticise his opponents for departing from the strict truth. They argue that he is an unprecedented threat to American democracy, even as it becomes clear that what actually happened in the Capitol on that day was radically different from the way elements of the media reported it.

    But what is reported matters and particularly so when it risks exaggerating violence or deepening fear and a sense of threat. If the US government really was the target of an armed insurrection, then this will be used to justify repression, as it was after 9/11, and not just against right wing conspiracy theorists. By becoming partisan instruments for spreading fake news, the media undermines its own credibility.

    A problem with a giant news story like the Capitol invasion is that at first it is over-covered before we know the full facts, and then it is under-covered when those facts begin to emerge. This has been true of US media coverage. But even at the time it seemed to be a very peculiar armed insurrection.

    Only one shot appears to have been fired and that was by a police officer who killed Trump supporter Ashil Babbitt who was involved in the storming of the Capitol.

    In a country like the US awash with guns, this absence of gunfire is remarkable.

    Five people died during the takeover of the Capitol building and this is the main proof of deadly intent by the rioters. But one of the dead was Babbitt, killed by the police, and three of the others were members of the pro-Trump mob, who died, respectively, from a stroke, a heart attack and from being accidentally crushed by the crowd.

    This leaves just one person, Capitol policeman Brian Sicknick, as the sole victim of the Trump supporters who allegedly beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. On 8 January, the New York Times ran two stories about his death, quoting anonymous law officers as describing how pro-Trump rioters had struck him on the head with a fire extinguisher causing “a bloody gash on his head”. He is then reported to have been rushed to hospital, placed on life support but to have died the following day.

    This graphic story went around the world and was widely picked up by other news outlets – including The Independent, the BBC and USA Today. It was also separately reported by the Associated Press. It gave credibility to the idea that the pro-Trump mob was willing to kill, even if they only killed one person. It also gave credibility to the idea that vice president Mike Pence, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and senator Mitt Romney had only escaped being lynched by seconds.

    Yet over the last seven weeks – without the world paying any attention – the story of the murder of Officer Sicknick has progressively unravelled. Just how this happened is told in fascinating detail by Glenn Greenwald, the investigative journalist and constitutional lawyer, who concludes that “the problem with this story is that it is false in all respects”.

    It was always strange that, though every event that took place during the riot was filmed, there is no video of the attack on Sicknick. He texted his brother later that day and sounded as if he was in good spirits. No autopsy report has been released that would confirm his alleged injuries. Conclusively, the New York Times quietly “updated” its original articles about the murder of Sicknick, admitting that new information had emerged that “questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police”.

    Since these officials were the only source for the original story, this – though readers might not guess it – amounts to an admission that it is untrue.

    The misreporting of the Capitol invasion also included: a man carrying zip ties – that were taken to be evidence of a possible organised plan to detain political leaders – were in fact, according to prosecutors, picked up from a table within the Capitol, likely to ensure police could not use them. It is significant because it is part of a decline in media reporting everywhere, but particularly in the US. Trump is both a symptom and cause of this decline since he is a past master of saying and doing things, however untruthful or absurd, which are usually entertaining and always attention-grabbing. He guarantees high ratings for himself and the television channels, Trump haters and Trump-lovers alike, to their mutual benefit.

    This symbiotic relationship between Trump and the media means that they do less and less reporting, allowing Trump and his supporters to provide the action while they provide the talking heads who thrive on venomous confrontation. Even American reporters on the ground have turned themselves into talking heads, willing to waffle on endlessly to meet the needs of 24/7 newscasts.

    Events on Capitol Hill provided damning evidence of this decline in American journalism when Robert Moore, ITV News’s Washington correspondent, was the only television correspondent to make his way into the Capitol in the middle of the turmoil. He later expressed astonishment that, given the vast resources of US television and the thousands of journalists in Washington, that it should be “a solitary TV crew from Britain that was the only one to capture this moment in history – it’s bizarre”.

    Bizarre, but not surprising. As a news event, the Capitol invasion showed that when it comes to spreading “fake facts”, the traditional media can be even more effective than the social media that is usually blamed.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:45

  • It Now Only Costs $350 To 3D-Print An Entire Gun
    It Now Only Costs $350 To 3D-Print An Entire Gun

    The next round of COVID-19 relief could bring up to $1,400 direct payments to millions of Americans. Some people will buy food, save money, pay rent or bills. Others will gamble in the stock market. Some may take the free money and print an entire 3D gun at home. According to Futurism, it now only costs $350 to print to a firearm, including the printer’s cost. 

    Deterrence Dispensed, an online group that promotes and distributes open-source 3D-printed firearms, has designed a fully functional 3D-printable semiautomatic pistol caliber carbine. Designs for the FGC-9, which stands for “f**k gun control 9 mm,” were made widely available on the internet in late 2020. 

    The FGC-9 eliminates the need for factory-made gun parts. Its design was created with careful consideration for anyone, at any skill level, to produce the firearm at home with a 3D-printer. From the body of the weapon to the magazine, much of the gun can be printed. The FGC-9’s barrel, which is metal and cannot be printed with a typical 3D printer, is created through electrochemical machining. 

    Futurism states that the total cost of the weapon is $350, including a $250 printer and $100 in parts. 

    But the days of people sharing 3D printed gun designs on the internet could be limited. The Biden administration has repeatedly warned they will “stop ghost guns.” Here’s what Biden’s website says:

    One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed, reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the internet.

    As for now, Deterrence Dispensed and Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed, another open-source website that develops firearms in CAD files, still operate, but we assume a crackdown is nearing.  

    US lawmakers could cite Baltimore’s massive increase in ghost gun seizures as one reason why these untraceable weapons need to be regulated or banned. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:25

  • Mysterious $111 Billion Payment Gap Is "Talk Of The Town"
    Mysterious $111 Billion Payment Gap Is “Talk Of The Town”

    A bizarre disconnect between yuan settlement data and the PBOC’s balance sheet has generated much interest among economists and market participants, according to Bloomberg’s Ye Xie who notes that until recently, when China Inc. posted a trade surplus, corporates sold the dollar proceeds to commercial banks. The PBOC then bought the dollars from banks and sold yuan to them, as part of its intervention to slow the yuan’s appreciation.

    As a result, there used to be a tight relationship between the net yuan settlement – corporates selling dollars to banks – and changes in foreign-currency funds outstanding at the PBOC, a proxy for its intervention activities.

    However, as the chart below shows, the relationship started to fray some time in 2017 and the decoupling has become quite grotesque in recent months. As we first discussed yesterday, the latest settlement data released over the weekend showed Chinese banks bought a net 691 billion yuan ($107 billion) of foreign currency from clients in December and January, the most on record (since 2014). The surge suggest – to Xie – that exporters rushed to convert their dollar revenues to yuan ahead of the New Year Holiday and to take advantage of a stronger exchange rate.

    However, as the red line above shows, the PBOC’s FX funds outstanding barely changed, something we highlighted yesterday, and in fact, they declined by 24 billion yuan ($4 billion) during the two-month period. Combined, this $111 billion payment gap has become the “talk of the town” according to Xie.

    While it is not entirely clear what’s going on, there are at least two conclusions we can draw according to the Bloomberg macro strategist:

    • First, the central bank has stayed away from heavy-handed direct intervention.
    • Second, the banking system as a whole has accumulated a large amount of dollar assets, with an unknown purpose.

    What does this all mean, Xie asks? Well, as we touched on earlier this week, if dollars keep coming in – and they are doing just that at a record pace…

    … demand for the yuan will become so high that – without the PBOC adding money supply – liquidity will tighten. Therefore, the PBOC has to accumulate foreign reserves again to add money supply, as it used to do. Others say it’s difficult to return to the old policy when the exchange rate is under scrunity from the U.S.

    It may also explain why, as the SCMP reported last week, China is mulling cracking open its monetary firewall, and “allowing investment in overseas stocks, insurance” and maybe even housing (and while we are at it, why not bitcoin?)

    Chinese individuals cannot directly invest in overseas stocks and bonds unless they are through banks or qualified institutional investors. Citizens are also banned from exchanging the yuan to buy property overseas.

    Guan Tao, a former division director at SAFE, said Beijing had flagged the idea now because the yuan has been appreciating and foreign exchange supply has exceeded demand, meaning the country’s trade surplus had grown but there were few channels for capital outflows.

    “There is not an effective hedging mechanism, and there are three ways to deal with the current situation: increase the exchange rate flexibility, control capital inflows to some extent, and expand capital outflows in an orderly manner,” said Guan, who is now chief economist at BOC International.

    It would be remarkable if, as a result of the record recent inflows of dollars which may be behind this “mystery” $111 billion payment gap, Beijing would be forced to liberalize its currency. This is how Rabobank’s Michael Every explained the challenge facing China (a loose recap of the impossible trinity, also known as the trilemma, according to which it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time: i) a fixed foreign exchange rate, ii) absence of capital controls and iii) an independent monetary policy_.

    … As in the 1930s, no country wants to see a stronger currency and become a larger net importer of goods (and exporter of jobs). That includes China. To avoid excess FX appreciation on the back of its huge trade surpluses and the rising capital inflows from global markets happily shrugging off any Biden appeals to trans-Atlantic values, Beijing may not only allow easy access to the promised USD50,000 in per capita annual FX outflows, but permit this for buying foreign financial assets or property! Let’s see if this is actually delivered, but if it is, more levitation for all assets outside China seems assured. Ta-dah! Let’s just try not to think of the risks involved from the asset-liability imbalances as foreign capital flows into China, and those FX flow back out again rather than boosting its FX reserves – especially if that FX flows into US assets, helping to push up US real yields even faster

    Others, such as Larry Hu, head of China economics at Macquarie Group, agree that a gradual restart of FX outflows may be in the cards: “what is clear is that policy makers will likely open up more channels for outflows to ease the appreciation pressure” and while it remains to be seen if the hard retail cap of $50,000/year is expanded, already the QDII quota – which allows domestic institutions to invest abroad – has been increased again. Certainly relaxing limits on individuals’ overseas investment could be the next step.

    And whether Chinese households – who as a reminder have a financial system that is 150% bigger than its US counterpart…

    … end up buying US stocks (sending real rates even higher), US real estate or just bitcoin, the consequences for global capital flows will be massive.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:05

  • Apple Reclaims Top Smartphone Maker, First Time Since 2016 
    Apple Reclaims Top Smartphone Maker, First Time Since 2016 

    Apple reigned supreme in the fourth quarter as it shipped more smartphones than any other company in the fourth quarter. Still, in the full year, Samsung emerged as the top smartphone vendor, according to a report released by market research firm Gartner on Monday.

    Apple shipped 80 million phones in the final three months of 2020, surpassing rival Samsung to become the world’s top smartphone maker. The last time this happened was in 2016. Apple’s growth was primarily driven by the release of the 5G iPhone 12 series. 

    Due to the US government’s sanctions, Huawei suffered a massive slide in smartphone sales for the quarter, down 41%. The Chinese technology company sank to fifth place in the table below, beneath other domestic rivals Xiaomi and Oppo. 

    Anshul Gupta, senior research director at Gartner, wrote in the report that “sales of more 5G smartphones and lower-to-mid-tier smartphones minimized the market decline in the fourth quarter of 2020.” 

    Gupta said, “even as consumers remained cautious in their spending and held off on some discretionary purchases, 5G smartphones and pro-camera features encouraged some end users to purchase new smartphones or upgrade their current smartphones in the quarter.” 

    Gartner’s numbers indicate Apple has weathered the pandemic storm much better than its competitors. 

    Even though Apple led the fourth quarter, on a full-year basis, Samsung was the top smartphone vendor. Samsung posted a 14.6% decline year-on-year in 2020. However, the highest drop was suffered by Huawei.

    Overall, global smartphone shipments declined 5.4% in 2020 amid the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, according to Gartner. 

    Gupta believes affordable 5G smartphones could boost 2021 sales. 

    “In 2021, the availability of lower end 5G smartphones and innovative features will be deciding factors for end-users to upgrade their existing smartphones,” he said. “The rising demand for affordable 5G smartphones outside China will boost smartphone sales in 2021.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:45

  • Kentucky Police Officer Fired For Allegedly Giving Officers' Information To BLM Protesters
    Kentucky Police Officer Fired For Allegedly Giving Officers’ Information To BLM Protesters

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

    A police officer in Kentucky was fired on Feb. 19 over allegations he provided a Black Lives Matter organizer with information about other officers in the department during protests last year.

    Lexington Police Officer Jervis Middleton was fired after a unanimous vote by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, said local reports. The council found Middleton guilty on two of three counts of violating operational rules.

    “Officer Middleton’s conduct during a highly stressful and potentially vulnerable time during the history of our community – the most significant policing event in our community in 20 years – demonstrates that he should no longer be a police officer,” said Keith Horn, a lawyer with the city, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

    Middleton challenged his termination and said the information didn’t jeopardize officers’ safety and was free speech. Middleton, who is black, said he faced racial taunts and discrimination in the department.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) division in Kentucky also weighed in.

    “The ACLU of Kentucky is concerned (the) Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council fired Officer Jervis Middleton amidst longstanding calls for a radical transformation of policing and transparent relationships with the public,” said Executive Director Michael Aldridge in a statement to Kentucky.com.

    “While Officer Middleton’s actions may warrant some level of disciplinary action, it is particularly concerning he was more swiftly investigated and harshly punished for sharing non-critical information than officers who use excessive force against protesters or create the culture of racism and hostility Middleton reported to no avail.”

    Lexington Police Chief Lawrence Weathers said a police disciplinary board recommended that Middleton be fired after he shared information with the organization and allegedly lied about it, according to the Herald-Leader. The paper reported said that Middleton used police resources to look up information about a woman who he was allegedly involved with.

    “I felt like the discipline he received last time should have been a message to him and allow him to come back and become the officer that I know he can be,” Weathers said.

    “After this, I just can’t see him coming back. To me, it was a violation of trust and a violation of the position of a police officer. He was supposed to protect the public, but he should also protect his fellow officers.”

    Investigators wrote that Middleton advised Williams that “certain officers and command staff were ‘racists’ and directed her to call them out during the protests” last year.

    “He also provided her copies of sensitive ‘law enforcement only’ communications, including emails and text messages which outlined staffing, operational, and deployment plans. Based upon conversations between Ms. Williams and Officer Middleton, it is reasonable to believe that he knew what she would do and how she would use it against the officers and the agency once she received it,” they wrote. There are also incidents where Officer Middleton actively encouraged Ms. Williams [tp] curse out and use the personal information he provided in a manner to embarrass the officers involved.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:25

  • Japan Appoints "Minister Of Loneliness" After Disturbing Rise In 'Social Distancing Era' Suicides
    Japan Appoints “Minister Of Loneliness” After Disturbing Rise In ‘Social Distancing Era’ Suicides

    Japan like many other developed nations witnessed an alarming rise in suicides or attempted suicides over this past year of pandemic shutdowns and social distancing measures. The country was already at crisis levels even before the pandemic (though generally on a downward trajectory the prior decade), with recent studies showing it to be “the leading cause of death in men among the ages of 20-44 and women among the ages of 15 to 34.”

    To tackle the crisis, especially in the midst of this COVID-induced period of greater social isolation, Japan’s government has appointed a “Minister of Loneliness” after the UK became the first country to establish such a position in 2018.

    Via AFP

    The most recent numbers cited in Japanese media reports say that 879 women killed themselves in the country during the month of October, a figure that marks a whopping 70% increase compared to the same month from 2019. Officials have noted that the pandemic and oftentimes mandated social distancing measures have appeared to have a harsher impact on women.

    According to Japan Times, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga earlier in the month appointed as the new Minister of Loneliness a 70-year old veteran politician named Tetsushi Sakamoto. It is a cabinet level position which aims to alleviate social isolation among citizens. 

    He’ll head up an ’emergency taskforce’ to battle the disturbing spike in suicides nationally as his first order of business. “With isolation tied to an array of social woes such as suicide, poverty and hikikomori (social recluses), the Cabinet Office also established a task force Friday that seeks to address the problem of loneliness across various ministries, including by investigating its impact,” Japan Times writes.

    “According to preliminary figures released by the National Police Agency, 20,919 people took their own lives in 2020, up 750 from the previous year and marking the first year-on-year increase in 11 years. The surge is largely attributed to a noticeable rise in suicides among women and young people,” the report pointed out.

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

    Perhaps ironically, Japan also a has minister in charge of tackling Japan’s sharply declining birthrate, which has also been subject of much reporting in recent years. 

    We wonder if these ministers will tackle some of the underlying problems related to both the suicide and low birthrate crisis. As an example recall that Japan has seen whole high-tech industries and supposed ‘solutions’ arise, including ‘loneliness’ bots that provide AI-based “companionship” and even sex robots. 

    One UK media report recounts for example, “Experts have suggested that the popularity of love dolls and sex robots might be to blame for Japan’s declining birth rate. One even warned that Japanese people had become ‘an endangered species’ as the nation falls in love with silicon women.” These bizarre trends only look to perpetuate the problems. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:05

  • Biden Administration Rejects China's Calls For Better Relations
    Biden Administration Rejects China’s Calls For Better Relations

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    In the wake of the Trump administration, US-China relations are at their lowest point in decades. For weeks now, Chinese officials have been calling for better relations, and on Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi continued the call.

    “We stand ready to have candid communication with the US side, and engage in dialogues aimed at solving problems,” Wang said. He also called on the US to lift trade restrictions and stop interfering in China’s internal affairs. The US responded sharply to Wang’s remarks.

    Xi Jinping and Joe Biden in 2012, AFP via Getty Images

    “I think his comments reflect the continued pattern of Beijing’s tendency to avert blame for its predatory economic practices, its lack of transparency, its failure to honor its international agreements, and its repression of universal human rights,” US State Department spokesman Ned Price said in response to Wang.

    “You’ve heard us speak before about the way in which we will approach China, through the prism of competition from a position of strength,” Price added.

    So far, President Biden’s China policy is looking a lot like his predecessor’s. US warships continue to frequently sail into the South China Sea, trade restrictions are still in place, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said tariffs on Chinese goods will remain, at least for now.

    Biden’s Pentagon is currently reviewing the US military’s posture in Asia and its overall China policy. The review is being led by Ely Ratner, a China hawk who co-authored an article last September titled, “Trump Has Been Weak on China, and Americans Have Paid the Price.” Ratner was appointed to advise Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who Republican China hawks feared was too inexperienced on Asia.

    Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last week, President Biden said the US and its allies must prepare for “long-term strategic competition with China.” Working with regional allies to confront China seems to be the focus of Washington’s Asia strategy. Even NATO is looking to get in on the action in the Pacific.

    Also speaking at the Munich Conference, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg echoed Biden and said the “rise of China” is a “defining issue” for the alliance. “This is why NATO should deepen our relationships with close partners, like Australia and Japan, and forge new ones around the world,” he said.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:45

  • First Batch Of Russian COVID Jab Arrives In Mexico
    First Batch Of Russian COVID Jab Arrives In Mexico

    The first shipment of Russia’s Sputnik V COVID jab has arrived in Mexico just days after the Russian government moved to approve another experimental vaccine developed by Russian entities.

    In a statement, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon said that the Russian vaccine has shown “very good results” and is “one of the best-evaluated in the world,” adding that more batches would land in the future. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (which financed the development of the vaccine) praised the cooperation between Russia and Mexico as “a great example of pooling efforts to jointly fight the pandemic and save lives.”

    Last night, WHO head Dr. Tedros urged the developed world not to order more vaccine doses than its population will need, as it might divert supplies away from poorer nations who need the vaccines.

    Mexico has greatly lagged the US and Europe in terms of its vaccination rollout.

    The Russian jab was approved for emergency use in Mexico back on Feb. 3. Mexico is one of some 30 countries, including Argentina and Brazil, that have moved to embrace the Russian vaccine. And why not? The Russian jab is cheaper than western-developed shots, and even the Lancet acknowledged that the Gamaleya-developed jab is more than 90% effective at preventing viral symptoms.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:25

  • Rochester Cops Avoid Charges In Death Of Mentally Distressed Black Man Placed In 'Spit Hood'
    Rochester Cops Avoid Charges In Death Of Mentally Distressed Black Man Placed In ‘Spit Hood’

    A New York Grand Jury has voted not to indict several Rochester police officers involved in the death of 41-year-old Daniel Prude last March, according to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who launched an investigation into the fatal encounter.

    In a viral video released nearly six months after his death, Prude could be seen sitting handcuffed and naked in the street, wearing a “spit hood” which had been placed around his head after he reportedly smashed store windows and ranted about having COVID-19. The officers could be seen laughing and smiling as Prude made delusional comments, at times shouting incoherently in what a lieutenant later described in police documents as Prude having “acted in a fashion consistent with an individual in some form of mental distress.”

    Rochester police arrested Prude in the early hours of March 23 while responding to a 911 call made by his brother, who was concerned about Prude’s safety during an apparent mental health crisis.

    Prude had been released from Rochester’s Strong Memorial Hospital earlier that evening after expressing suicidal thoughts and had left his brother’s house wearing long johns and a tank top in below-freezing temperatures. Police found him naked and acting irrationally, allegedly smashing storefront windows and ranting about having the coronavirus. –NPR

    According to police reports, Prude lost consciousness and stopped breathing – only to die a week later after being taken off life support.

    Prude’s family, which obtained the bodycam footage through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Rochester police department attempted to cover up the true nature of his death.

    Joe Prude, brother of Daniel Prude, right, and his son Armin, stand with a picture of Daniel Prude in Rochester, N.Y. (Ted Shaffrey/AP)

    According to the Chicago Tribune, officers Troy Taladay, Paul Ricotta, Francisco Santiago, Andrew Specksgoor, Josiah Harris and Mark Vaughn, along with Sgt. Michael Magri were cleared of wrongdoing by the Grand Jury, after their attorneys argued that the officers were strictly following their training that night, and had employed a restraining technique called “segmenting.”

    They claim that Prude’s use of PCP was the “root cause” of his death, while the county medical examiner cited the drug as a “contributing factor.”

    Following Prude’s death, Democratic Mayor Lovely Warren fired police chief La’Ron Singletary, the latter of whom claims that Warren told him to lie to support her claim that she didn’t know about Prude’s death until months later, and that he was fired for refusing to do so.

    Warren announced a run for a third term in January and pleaded not guilty in October to an unrelated indictment alleging she broke campaign finance rules and committed fraud. The city’s public integrity office found no ethical lapses by the mayor in a narrow review of Prude’s death.

    The city halted its investigation into Prude’s death when James’ office began its own investigation in April. Under New York law, deaths of unarmed people in police custody are typically turned over to the attorney general’s office, rather than handled by local officials. –Chicago Tribune

    Cover photo via the Daily Mail.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:05

  • Variable Rate Electricity Plans Under Scrutiny After Texas Power Bill Chaos 
    Variable Rate Electricity Plans Under Scrutiny After Texas Power Bill Chaos 

    There are a couple of types of electricity plans for commercial and residential customers. Some power companies offer fixed-rate electricity plans, while others provide variable-rate electricity plans. It’s up to the customer which plan they select – not knowing the difference can be financially painful when power rates rise, as many in Texas found out last week. 

    More than a dozen states allow power companies to offer variable rate plans, which fluctuate with power prices. As of 2019, about 11 million homes and businesses nationwide were enrolled in variable-rate programs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

    Scrutiny of dynamic pricing comes as last week’s power grid chaos in Texas resulted in rolling blackouts for days. Power prices spiked to unprecedented levels as various power generations froze due to the polar vortex dumping Arctic weather into the state. 

    As the energy crisis unfolded, we were one of the first to note variable rate plans would go to the “moon” as power prices spiked. We then provided shocking accounts of some residents who were slapped with multi-thousand dollar energy bills. 

    In particular, Texan resident Ty Williams told local news WFAA that his average electric bill is around $660 per month. After the rolling blackouts, his power bill jumped to $17,000. 

    John Howat, a senior energy analyst with National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy group, told Reuters that electric suppliers in other states pushed customers to join variable-rate style plans. 

    Since the Texas energy crisis, multiple states have opened probes into surging utility bills. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter told reporters Monday that his team will be investigating whether power companies violated Oklahoma laws that cap prices of goods to a 10% rise after an emergency is declared.

    “The goal there is to, in as substantive and productive a way as possible, figure out ways to mitigate the impact of this utility bill phenomenon we’re expecting to see in the next couple of months,” Hunter said.

    Texas utility regulators have said a temporary ban is in place from billing customers or cutting off their power for non-payment. 

    Catherine Webking, a partner at Austin-based law firm Scott Douglass & McConnico, said there is some good news among residential power customers; most do not have variable-rate plans.

    “It’s important to understand that is such a small, small sliver,” Webking said.

    Unfortunately, when energy demand is high, the wholesale price of power can be quite expensive. Certainly, scrutiny is building across multiple state governments about how some energy companies charge their customers. 

    One Texas resident was slapped with a multi-thousand dollar power bill. She said:

    “I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to do – should I take from my 401K? Should I get a loan?”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:45

  • Case Study Shows Cannabis Led To Remarkable Improvement In Childhood Autism Symptoms
    Case Study Shows Cannabis Led To Remarkable Improvement In Childhood Autism Symptoms

    Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

    An extremely promising case study was recently published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports illustrating the positive effects of cannabis extract and its association with improved autism related behavioral symptoms.

    According to the authors, “the pharmacological treatment for autism spectrum disorders is often poorly tolerated and has traditionally targeted associated conditions, with limited benefit for the core social deficits. We describe the novel use of a cannabidiol-based extract that incidentally improved core social deficits and overall functioning in a patient with autism spectrum disorder, at a lower dose than has been previously reported in autism spectrum disorder.”

    The case study focused on a child with autism who was switching out prescription seizure medicine for his epilepsy with a very low cannabidiol-based extract dose. The study found that not only did the cannabidiol extract help with his seizures, but he also “experienced unanticipated positive effects on behavioral symptoms and core social deficits,” according to the study.

    Researchers pointed out that to modify disruptive behaviors and improve social communication skills, often times children with autism are prescribed psychopharmacologic medications that target specific ASD core behaviors (for example, repetitive behaviors) and associated behaviors (for example, hyperactivity, aggression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances), but do not treat core social communication deficits. They explain that these medications are known for producing “substantial side effects.”

    For example, aripiprazole and risperidone, the only two medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat irritability and agitation in ASD, frequently cause somnolence, increased appetite, and weight gain.

    These factors have led to families seeking alternative treatments outside of the psychopharmacologic realm. One of the newest forms of these alternative medicines is cannabidiol-based extract.

    Researchers reported that the patient’s symptoms improved within six-months of treatment, and that he has maintained “positive effects on his behavioral symptoms, anxiety, sleep, and social deficits” since that time.

    The results of CBE treatments, according to the case study, were nothing short of remarkable.

    He became more motivated and energetic, starting his own vegetarian diet and exercise programs, ultimately losing 6.4 kg after starting CBE for a calculated BMI of 21.33 kg/m2. He was able to start his first part-time job helping customers and interacting with them. He was instructed to fill out the self-administered Adult AQ which resulted in a normal score of 10. His mother stated he now also has a girlfriend.

    “This case report provides evidence that a lower than previously reported dose of a phytocannabinoid in the form of a cannabidiol-based extract may be capable of aiding in autism spectrum disorder-related behavioral symptoms, core social communication abilities, and comorbid anxiety, sleep difficulties, and weight control,” authors concluded. “Further research is needed to elucidate the clinical role and underlying biological mechanisms of action of cannabidiol-based extract in patients with autism spectrum disorder.”

    According to a report in Norml, these finding back up previous research published last year by investigators at Tufts University in Boston who similarly reported that the oral administration of cannabis-based products is associated with improvements in autistic symptoms in patients with self-injurious behaviors and co-morbid epilepsy, Several small clinical trials – such as those reported here, here, here, and here – have also previously reported that plant-derived cannabis extracts are effective and well-tolerated in mitigating various symptoms in patients with ASD, including hyperactivity, seizures, anxiety, and rage attacks.

    Knowing these incredible effects, imagine the obstinance, cruelty, and sheer lunacy that it takes for those in Washington to keep cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug – claiming it has no medical use whatsoever.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:25

  • Softbank Reportedly Eyes Billion-Dollar Biotech Bet
    Softbank Reportedly Eyes Billion-Dollar Biotech Bet

    Though SoftBank has denied it, rumors are circulating Tuesday that the Japanese telecom/venture capital giant is planning to invest billions of dollars in the biotech sector.

    The booming SPAC trend has amplified curiosity about Softbank’s next big investment idea, especially amid rumors that the company might pursue a SPAC as the vehicle for its second “Vision Fund”, and according to Bloomberg’s sources, SB is looking to focus on biotech, a sector that has already been embraced by Wall Street Bets and others betting on microcap biotech stocks.

    Biotech has been a hot sector for the SPAC trend: this past week alone, Foresite Capital’s second SPAC raised $175 million in its IPO, while two other biotech SPACs, European Biotech Acquisition and Frontier Acquisition, filed to raise a total of $300 million in their Nasdaq debuts.

    Japan’s aging population offers fertile ground for biotech companies looking to solve myriad problems linked to aging. Softbank has already made a series of equity investments in the sector, including a $312MM stake in Pacific Biosciences of California, an American DNA-sequencing company whose stock has risen almost 9x over the past year. 

    And now, the Japanese firm is reportedly planning to spend billions investing in public biotech companies, according to Bloomberg and its sources. The trades will reportedly be housed in the company’s SB Northstar, which houses some of the company’s Nasdaq “whale” trades. One Softbank rep told Bloomberg that the report about Northstar’s role were inaccurate.

    “This is misleading and inaccurate,” said a SoftBank spokesperson.

    “SB Northstar continues to consider investment opportunities across the entire technology spectrum and is not specifically focused on one particular sector.”

    Softbank has already made a number of investments in health-care startups, primarily through its Vision Fund, such as 10x Genomics and Roivant Sciences. The Japanese investor also has a $298MM equity stake in Canadian antibody-drug discovery platform AbCellera Biologics, a small investment in 4D Molecular Therapeutics, and is planning a further $900MM convertible debt investment in a company called PacBio, according to Bloomberg.

    Still, analysts and investors have been speculating about whether founder Masayoshi Son will spend more than $80B in assets, after the Softbank CEO last year unveiled plans to sell off $43B in assets and buy back 2.5 trillion yen of its own stock. Shares in the Japanese billionaire’s company have since surged, reaching the highest close since the company went public in 1994, and flying past a long-standing record two decades ago. This has helped Softbank’s post-WeWork turnaround, and will continue to enable Masa Son to trawl about for a new strategy.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:05

  • Chicken Sandwich Craze Draws In More Competition
    Chicken Sandwich Craze Draws In More Competition

    Submitted by Market Crumbs,

    We wrote just last month about McDonald’s and KFC rushing to capitalize on the popular crispy chicken sandwich as they each announced they’ll introduce versions of their own.

    Once again, the last week has seen a slew of quick service restaurants announce they’ll offer their own take on the popular chicken sandwich as Wendy’s, Burger King and Taco Bell all prepare to steal market share in the category.

    In a press release titled We Won’t Half A** a New Chicken Sandwich, Burger King announced last week that it will introduce a new hand-breaded chicken sandwich later this year. Promising no more “burger-joint-quality” chicken, Burger King said it’s been working on the sandwich since 2019 and testing it since last September.

    The sandwich, which will be available in original or spicy, contains breaded thick cut white meat chicken breast, crisp deli pickles and signature sauce on a toasty potato bun.

    “What if hand-breading were to chicken what flame-grilling is to burgers? That’s been our guiding filter to bring a delicious chicken sandwich to guests in a way only BK can,” Burger King North America chief marketing officer Ellie Doty said.

    On the same day that Burger King announced its chicken sandwich, Wendy’s unveiled the Wendy’s Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich and Salad. The Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich is stacked with ingredients including Wendy’s spicy chicken fillet, creamy jalapeño cream cheese, six slices of jalapenos, three strips of bacon, and cheddar cheese and shredded pepper jack cheese on a toasted bun.

    “While everyone else is playing catch up and distracting consumers with stale chicken drops, we are listening and bringing exciting flavors and bold ingredients forward to help fans avoid the McStake of settling for the same boring chicken sandwiches from other fast-food joints,” Wendy’s Chief Marketing Officer Carl Loredo said. “Our new Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich casts a big shadow across the competition and really delivers an enhanced chicken sandwich experience.”

    Taco Bell announced yesterday that it would join the chicken wars by introducing the Crispy Chicken Sandwich Taco, which will be available in Nashville, Tennessee and Charlotte, North Carolina on March 11 before a wider rollout later this year.

    The Crispy Chicken Sandwich Taco features white-meat chicken marinated in jalapeño buttermilk, spices and a crust made from tortilla chip crumbs, along with creamy chipotle sauce and jalapeño slices on a taco-shaped “puffy bread.”

    “It’s a sandwich AND a taco,” a Taco Bell spokesperson told Thrillist. “And it doesn’t have to explain itself to be this delicious.” The spokesperson added it won’t be the only “chicken innovation” that Taco Bell releases this year.

    As quick service restaurants rush to introduce a chicken sandwich, or taco, it looks like the chicken sandwich craze is far from over.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:45

  • Board Leaders Of Texas Power Grid Resign After Blackout Outrage
    Board Leaders Of Texas Power Grid Resign After Blackout Outrage

    The chair of Texas’s power grid operator and four other board members have resigned in the wake of the widespread outrage resulting from the energy crisis that crippled the state’s electrical system.

    According to a filing by the PUC of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Chair Sally Talberg resigned along with Vice Chair Peter Cramton and board members Raymond Hepper, Terry Bulger, Vanessa Anesetti-Parra,/

    In their resignation letter, the member cited recent concerns raised about out-of-state board leadership at the grid operator. “To allow state leaders a free hand with future direction and to eliminate distractions, we are resigning from the board effective after our urgent board teleconference meeting adjourns on Wednesday, February 24, 2021.”

    The resignations come as the Texas grid operator ERCOT and state regulators scramble to contain the catastrophic fallout from last week’s blackouts that left millions of homes without heat and light during a severe cold snap. The resignations also come after Texas Governor Greg Abbott last week called for Ercot leadership, including board members, to step down, and one day after the mother of an 11-year-old Texas boy who died during the power outage sued ERCOT and Entergy.

    “We look forward to working with the Texas Legislature, and we thank the outgoing Board Members for their service,” Ercot spokesperson Leslie Sopko said in a statement.

    Craig Ivey also submitted a letter to withdraw his petition for approval as an unaffiliated director, citing concerns stakeholders recently expressed of having out-of-state directors.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:25

  • Can Governments Stop Bitcoin?
    Can Governments Stop Bitcoin?

    Authored by Alex Gladstein via Quillette.com,

    Since its creation more than 12 years ago, Bitcoin is undefeated. Its price has leaped from $5 to $50 to $500 to $5,000 to now past $50,000. The number of global users has eclipsed 100 million. The system’s network security, number of developers, and new applications are at all-time highs. Dozens of companies including Tesla and Square have started to add Bitcoin to their corporate treasuries.

    This worldwide success doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to stop Bitcoin. The digital money project has in fact survived a variety of attacks which in some cases threatened its existence.

    There are two main vectors: network attacks on the software and hardware infrastructure, and legal attacks on Bitcoin users.

    Before we explore them and consider why they failed, let’s start at the beginning.

    In January 2009, a mysterious coder going by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, an open-source financial network with big ambitions: to replace central banking with a decentralized, peer-to-peer system with no rulers. It would use a programmable, highly-fungible token that could be spent like electronic cash or saved like digital gold. It would be distributed around the world through a set-in-stone money printing schedule to a subset of users who would compete to secure the network with energy and in return, get freshly minted Bitcoin.

    Initially, most were understandably skeptical, and very few paid attention. There had been attempts at creating “ecash” before, and all had failed. No one had been able to figure out how to create a decentralized, incorruptible mint, or how to grow a system that couldn’t be stopped by governments.

    But a small community grew around Bitcoin, which promised just that. Led by Satoshi and Hal Finney, this group of iconoclasts discussed, tinkered with, and improved the software in its first year, using their computers to mine1 50 worthless Bitcoin every 10 minutes. Eventually, someone decided these virtual tokens were worth enough to accept in return for a real-world good. On May 22nd, 2010, a developer named Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 Bitcoin for two Papa John’s pizzas, at an exchange rate of .1 cents per Bitcoin. No one could have predicted that Laszlo’s pizza order would one day be so costly: today, this order is worth more than $500 million.

    Since the early days of PC mining and the Silk Road, Bitcoin has become a global phenomenon. No one knows who Satoshi is, but if their creation was a company, it would be one of the world’s top 10 most valuable. Its fan base has grown from a few pseudonyms on Cypherpunk messageboards to including the likes of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, Fidelity CEO Abby Johnson, actress Lindsay Lohan, singer Soulja Boy, skateboarder Tony Hawk, and investor Paul Tudor Jones. It has its own unicode character, the ₿. An industry conference held this month focusing on how to add Bitcoin to corporate treasuries drew more than 6,000 companies. MIT boasts a research center contributing to long-term Bitcoin security.

    Bitcoin markets have popped up in virtually every country and major urban area on Earth, with local traders eager to buy Bitcoin in exchange for local currency everywhere from Caracas to Manila to Moscow. Millions of people in Nigeria, Argentina, Iran, Cuba, and beyond are now using Bitcoin to escape their local currency system, and opt into something with a better track record as a store of value than the naira, bolivar, rial, or peso. They can control their Bitcoin with a private key (think: password) that they can store on a phone, USB stick, on paper, or even with memorized wordlists, and send the currency to family or friends anywhere on Earth in minutes, with no permission from any authority required.

    The mainstream media typically portrays Bitcoin as a penny stock gone wild, or a new kind of digital tulip mania. But the reality is Bitcoin is a political project that threatens to fundamentally disrupt the Davos-led economic system, with everyone from Janet Yellen to Christine Lagarde expressing fear about its rise and demanding it be regulated.

    Governments retain their power in part by issuing and controlling money. Bitcoin is a new model that mints and secures money without governments. So the big question is: Why haven’t governments or megacorps stopped it? And if they try to attack Bitcoin in the near future, what would that look like?

    There is an enormous amount of speculation on the Internet about how Bitcoin might be attacked, but few stop to think about why it hasn’t already been destroyed. The answer is that there are political and economic incentives for more and more people to push the system forward and strengthen its security, and strong political, economic, and technical disincentives that discourage attacks.

    Certainly, Bitcoin isn’t too small to draw the attention of governments. Previous attempts at parallel online digital currencies, like e-Gold and Liberty Reserve, were shut down by the US government before even making it to $10 billion in market capitalization. Bitcoin now has a market cap north of $1 trillion. Every day Bitcoin survives, it becomes stronger, and for many attack vectors, the windows are rapidly closing.

    One reason that Bitcoin is so tenacious is that it is a globally-distributed phenomenon. The vast majority of mining takes place outside of the US in China and central Asia. But the vast majority of Bitcoin holders and buyers appear to be US and EU entities, and the software’s core developers and node-runners (who host Bitcoin’s servers) are scattered throughout the world. The most important person in Bitcoin—its inventor—is no longer relevant, and could even be dead.

    Coding, mining, infrastructure, and markets are all independent, happening in competing jurisdictions and geopolitical rivals, often done by anonymous or pseudonymous actors, all with different philosophies and goals, but with one uniting motivation: to keep Bitcoin going.

    Unlike every other cryptocurrency, there is no central point of failure. Bitcoin has no Vitalik Buterin, no Ethereum Foundation, no Deltec bank like Tether, no fancy offices in San Francisco, no team of lawyers, no governance token, no VC-backing, no pre-mine, no small council, and no whales able to manipulate the system. This decentralized architecture has already insulated Bitcoin from attacks at the highest levels. No matter how much Bitcoin you own, you can’t change the rules, print more, censor, steal or prevent others from using the network.

    Arguably the most powerful financial force in the world—the US government led by then-Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin—just launched an attack on Bitcoin in December 2020. It was not a particularly strong one, but still, an attack nonetheless, which would have forced US exchanges to gather more information about individuals withdrawing their Bitcoin to wallets they control than even mainstream banks collect, handing the surveillance state much more intricate knowledge of Bitcoin’s flow of funds. But the crackdown failed, stymied by a broad coalition of opposition, and Mnuchin is now gone.

    The new US regulatory regime might be less aggressive. In fact, incoming SEC chairman Gary Gensler once taught a class about Bitcoin. Cynthia Lummis, a freshly elected Senator from Wyoming and passionate Bitcoin supporter, has been named to the Senate Banking Committee. That means one of the most powerful bodies in the US financial system now sports a member who recently tweeted about Bitcoin: “I came for the store of value. I stayed for the censorship-resistance.” Lummis joins Warren Davidson and others in Congress who have vowed to defend Bitcoin.

    The biggest attack in Bitcoin’s history came in 2017 at the software level. That spring a handful of the most important industry actors gathered and signed what is called the New York Agreement. The authors boasted more than 83% of the global mining hashpower, more than 50 total companies, more than 20 million wallets, and a huge share of the payment infrastructure. It was an alliance between Chinese miners, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street, and their goal was to change Bitcoin to allow it to process more transactions per second, at the cost of sacrificing decentralization and the ability of users to audit the monetary supply from home.

    Despite the odds, a handful of grassroots activists ended up building a movement that stunningly defeated this New York alliance. By November 2017, the corporate “SegWit2X” plan was dead, and Bitcoin remained decentralized. The lesson from these “scaling wars” is that neither miners nor corporations control Bitcoin. Yes, miners process transactions, and developers propose upgrades to the software, but tens of thousands of users running nodes actually decide what transactions are valid and what software version is adopted.

    Even if a government took control of a majority of the Bitcoin hashrate, this doesn’t enable them to change the Bitcoin consensus rules or print more Bitcoin or steal anyone’s holdings. The worst they could do is use their power to mine new versions of Bitcoin (which, in the case of BCH or BSV, has failed spectacularly), or burn billions of dollars to temporarily damage the network in what’s called a “51% attack.” In such an attack, a majority of miners could team up and use their superior hashrate to momentarily overwhelm the network. The price of the hardware required would exceed $5 billion.

    Even if a government did want to risk that much on such an exotic assault, it is unlikely that they would divert the precious fabrication capacity of the world’s few semiconductor manufacturers to this very speculative purpose. For China or the US, disrupting existing semiconductor orders during a global shortage could put national security at stake. An alternative would be to seize a majority of the world’s mining equipment in a military operation. But the logistics of trying to locate and violently capture hundreds of thousands of 5-pound machines owned by often pseudonymous actors across dozens of jurisdictions would be hugely prohibitive.

    Speculation about other technical attacks on Bitcoin abounds: mining pools censoring transactions (miners make more money from not censoring, can quickly switch to non-censoring pools, and may adopt software that makes censorship impossible), a global internet shutdown (could be disruptive, but not fatal), mining hardware backdoors (this actually happened, but was not exploited, and the threat is now fading), quantum computers breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography (not to be taken seriously according to experts), and even bad actors making harmful updates to the codebase (this wouldn’t stand a chance against hundreds of watchful developers).

    The fact is, despite constant fear-mongering about how Bitcoin could fail, all users have always been able to transact. There have been no significant acts of censorship. Attempts to disrupt the protocol or the network infrastructure would be incredibly difficult and costly to attempt, and have no guarantee of success. As we saw in 2017, even if powers are able to amass a super-majority of the hashrate, they could be defeated by the network’s decentralized architecture. Far easier and far more likely are attacks on users themselves.

    There are several nightmare scenarios that Bitcoiners fear that don’t involve science fiction around governments teaming up in a Mission Impossible-style mission to seize billions of dollars of energy and mining equipment.

    One such fear is four numbers: 6102.

    In 1933, the FDR administration passed Executive Order 6102, which banned citizens from holding gold and forced them to turn in any gold to the authorities. The US government, or any other government, could try doing the same, giving citizens a window to declare and sell their Bitcoin to the government, or else face jail time.

    The Bitcoin community is already preparing for such an attack. One reason 6102 was so successful is that the government could just go to banks who held gold on behalf of citizens, and seize at point of custody. So every January 3rd, users celebrate “proof of keys” day, where it is customary to withdraw any Bitcoin they own on exchanges or in the custody of third parties to wallets that the end users control. “Not your keys, not your coins,” first popularized by Bitcoin educator Andreas Antonopoulos, is a community mantra. With more than 10 percent of the American population using Bitcoin, if enough people self-custody, then a 6102 attack would be of limited effect. Given that the keys to your Bitcoin account are typically in the form of 24 seed words that can be written down, hidden, encoded, or memorized, a military home-by-home raid couldn’t work very well and would constitute a mass set of human rights violations.

    Another regulatory threat would be a new unrealized gains tax on Bitcoin, which would be devastating to long-term savers, or new strict “know your customer” rules making it a crime to buy Bitcoin through an unauthorized issuer. But such rules have many obstacles: first and fourth amendment protections; numerous senators and congressmen pushing for a more Bitcoin-inclusive policy; and a large and growing cryptocurrency industry that would vigorously lobby against such rules.

    Governments could try to marginalize Bitcoin by introducing a competitor: a Central Bank Digital Currency. Most central banks worldwide are experimenting with the idea of replacing banknotes with digital tokens that citizens could hold in mobile wallets. One argument that promoters of these systems make is that they could help check the thirst for Bitcoin. Ultimately, however, CBDCs like China’s DCEP can’t compete because their floating global price will be tied to the existing fiat currency, which will inevitably fall in relative purchasing power. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s purchasing power continues to rise over time, and it offers a level of transactional freedom and privacy from the state that no CBDC could ever boast.

    Another attack vector could be a ban on the act of Bitcoin mining itself inside democracies. Today, many mainstream media articles describe Bitcoin as an environmental disaster. In reality, it relies heavily on renewable energy (estimates range from 39 percent to 74 percent), consumes a lot of stranded or excess energy, and could very well have a mostly green future. But given the poorly-informed narratives around the subject, one could imagine a world in which the Biden Administration restricts Bitcoin mining as part of a Green New Deal.

    The “two-Bitcoin” problem is perhaps the biggest existing threat to Bitcoin users today. If the top 25 global exchanges in the US, EU, and East Asia agreed to end user withdrawals, then that would effectively bifurcate the system. Bitcoin inside the bubble would be “whitelisted” and Bitcoin outside could be “blacklisted” — meaning, if a merchant accepts Bitcoin from you that is not on a certain list, they’d be running a risk. No matter how private you are with your Bitcoin, it wouldn’t matter. You’d need to find people willing to accept your Bitcoin with no trail. Such laws would force users into peer-to-peer markets, where buyers don’t care about coin history.

    Even still, there are lots of barriers to this attack. Exchanges would lose millions of customers and billions of dollars of business. The “DeFi” ecosystem would potentially collapse, given it relies on users being able to purchase ETH with dollars on big exchanges and then withdraw to trading platforms like Uniswap. Companies in this space would vigorously resist any change that would prevent citizens from withdrawing Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to self-controlled wallets.

    As these examples show, there are plenty of kinds of regulatory attacks that should concern Bitcoin users, and they are much more likely than cryptographic or hashrate attacks on the network, but the reality is that many legal attacks have already happened, and they have been ineffective.

    In 2017, the Chinese Communist Party restricted the ability of its citizens to exchange RMB for Bitcoin. Shortly thereafter, the Indian government did the same, followed by the Pakistani government and several others. In other words, the two largest governments in the world tried to cut off Bitcoin access to their citizenry at the most obvious point: the on and off ramps where citizens exchange local currency for Bitcoin through exchanges.

    Last year, the Indian Supreme Court reversed this rule, and Bitcoin is no longer restricted. The government is again seeking to pass a bill prohibiting Bitcoin and all non-state cryptocurrencies, while also launching a digital currency to be issued by the Reserve Bank of India, but in the meantime, local usage grows. In China after the 2017 restrictions, some companies moved to other countries in east Asia, but continued to do business with Chinese customers. Two of the biggest exchanges for the Chinese market, Huobi and OKCoin, still service millions of Chinese. In Pakistan, Bitcoin is de facto banned, but adoption is exploding.

    In Nigeria, the government is currently promising to freeze the bank accounts of any citizens who are identified as buying or selling Bitcoin. This regime has tried similar tactics before, but all have failed. What these actions actually accomplish is to drive citizens into harder to control peer-to-peer markets, and into the arms of risk-tolerant entrepreneurs committed to helping their fellow citizens access a better financial system.

    In the United States, the recent last-minute attack by Secretary Mnuchin aside, American financial activity is increasingly monitored under laws like the Bank Secrecy Act. In line with this trend, cryptocurrency exchanges have introduced more stringent identification requirements for their customers, as well as increasingly small withdrawal limits. So far though, Americans are still easily able to buy Bitcoin and withdraw it to wallets they control, and this will be defended by new powerful allies.

    Senator Lummis and Congressmen Davidson, McHenry, Emmer, and Soto, as well as state leaders like Miami mayor Francis Suarez, have all come out in support of Bitcoin, whether by hosting the whitepaper on their websites, promising to fend off overly-restrictive regulation, or pledging to make their jurisdictions hotspots for Bitcoin entrepreneurial activity and innovation. Mayor Suarez, for example, is pushing for employees of the city of Miami to earn a percentage of their salary in Bitcoin, for residents to be able to pay taxes in Bitcoin, and to include Bitcoin as part of the city’s investment portfolio.

    Some argue that corporate America will try to attack Bitcoin. But so far, it seems that big companies are instead trying to join the party. In the past few months, Tesla, Microstrategy, Square, Grayscale, and others are buying up billions of dollars more Bitcoin than the amount being produced through mining. And, as savvy investors will realize, ultimately you can’t separate Bitcoin from its cypherpunk nature. Bitcoin is only valuable as an asset because of its decentralization, since no one can arbitrarily change its rules or decide to print more. Driven by self-interest, Wall Street may ironically end up being one of the biggest cheerleaders of this new technology that Washington can’t control.

    So far, it seems that when governments try to ban or restrict Bitcoin, it ends up merely accelerating the adoption of the currency inside their countries. Governments that have failed miserably with their Wars on Drugs may find stopping people from holding something that’s invisible, borderless, and teleporting much more difficult. In democracies, governments will face major obstacles from the tech and financial industries, but also from the fact that restrictions on Bitcoin ownership can clash with free speech, privacy, and private property protections. Confiscation will require brutality, and it’s not clear that all governments have the stomach or ability.

    In the end, Bitcoin’s biggest defense is human nature itself. We are greedy and self-interested, and this applies to our governments. Already, some authorities are starting to mine or are encouraging mining. This is happening everywhere from Beijing to Kentucky to Siberia to Ukraine. As the price rises, more and more are buying into Bitcoin’s value as a long-term store-of-value and inflation hedge. Just as some governments with weak currencies have been forced to dollarize, others in the future could be forced to accumulate Bitcoin. It’s a rivalrous planet.

    Why would a government attack Bitcoin if it could gain more from using its energy monopoly or ability to print fiat to buy some? The rich and powerful will always design systems that benefit them before everyone else. The genius of Bitcoin is to take advantage of that very base reality and force them to get involved and help run the system, instead of attacking it.

    In a world with friendly US regulators, rogue regimes mining Bitcoin to print dollars, and citizens of the world demanding an asset that can’t be inflated away, the incentive to attack Bitcoin is dwindling.

    In the end, the only way to kill Bitcoin may be to make it so that people don’t need it anymore. If no one wants a devaluation-proof, censorship-resistant, permissionless, borderless, non-discriminatory, teleporting financial asset, then no one will feed it energy, and it will die. Perhaps humanity can come up with another technology that addresses these needs.

    But until then, Bitcoin will thrive.

    *  *  *

    Alex Gladstein is chief strategy officer at the Human Rights Foundation, a non-profit that supports civil liberties in authoritarian societies. You can follow him on Twitter @gladstein.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Feb 23

Today’s News 23rd February 2021

  • Turkey's Eternal Crusade On PKK Continues
    Turkey’s Eternal Crusade On PKK Continues

    Via SouthFront.org,

    Turkey is unrelenting in its crusade against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and the People’s Protection Units, as two parts of a whole.

    Ankara’s forces carry out frequent operations within and without the country, targeting both the Kurdistan Worker’s Party’s (PKK) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG)’s interests and members. The Turkish government dubs both groups as terrorists, and does not shy away from invading the sovereign territory of other countries to pursue and “eliminate” their members and positions.

    As a result, Turkey frequently encroaches on Syrian and Iraqi territory, and even has observation posts set up to target its Kurdish enemy.

    It strongly opposes the Syrian Democratic Forces, a group whose core is comprised of the YPG, and receives heavy US support.

    Most recently, between February 10th and the 14th, Turkey began its most recent operation in northern Iraq. In particular, it took place on the Gara Mountain in the Duhok Governorate of the Kurdistan Region. The result was such that both the PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces claimed victory, following the operation. The accounts of what transpired vary.

    Turkey said it killed 53 PKK members, and captured 2. It admitted to losing 3 soldiers, while 4 of its troops were wounded in battle. According to the PKK, Turkey lost at least 30 soldiers, and dozens more were injured. A sort of collateral damage involved 13 Turkish hostages whose corpses were discovered in a cave network in the mountain area. Turkey and the US claimed that these were largely civilians, and some intelligence officers. The PKK claimed these were 13 Turkish military hostages. Turkey’s Defense Minister claimed many weapons and ammunition, as well as other equipment were seized.

    In the aftermath, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to expand military operations which showed progress to other regions where threats are still significant.

    Ankara’s aggressive and assertive actions are making many of the involved parties dissatisfied. Regardless it keeps carrying them out and shows no intention of stopping.

    In Iraq, the Al-Nujaba Islamic Resistance Movement issued a warning to the Turkish Army against invading the country any longer. It said that it would suffer the same fate as the American Army whose convoys and positions continue to be targeted. Iraq maintains the posture that Turkey must withdraw fully from its sovereign territory. It should simply pack up its bases in the north of the country and vacate the premises.

    In response, Turkey maintains that the West, and Iraq’s government aren’t doing enough to counter the alleged terrorist threat. Ankara claims it has its right of self-defense, even if it requires invading other countries.

    Operation Claw Eagle 2 was of questionable success, if the numbers by the PKK are to be considered, against those provided by Turkey. These operations, however, are unlikely to stop, both in Iraq and Syria.

    Erdogan seems hell-bent on solving all “security issues” and expanding Turkish activities in regions that are deemed threatening to Ankara’s interests.

    *  *  *

    DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK:

    Donation Alerts (PayPal, Visa, Master Card etc): https://www.donationalerts.com/r/southfront

    Gumroad: https://gumroad.com/southfront

    Or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

    BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, 

    BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, 

    ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 02:00

  • WeWork's Neumann Nears Deal To Settle With Softbank For $500MM, Retain 'Major' Ownership Stake
    WeWork’s Neumann Nears Deal To Settle With Softbank For $500MM, Retain ‘Major’ Ownership Stake

    The former CEO and co-founder of WeWork, the tech/real-estate private company which saw its IPO implode back in 2019 (before talk of a possible second bite at the apple resurfaced in recent weeks) is reportedly nearing a settlement with Softbank in a closely-followed case.

    Per WSJ, Neumann could be nearing a settlement with Softbank, the Japanese telecom giant/VC behemoth, which takes out long-term leases and then divvies it up on shorter terms after completing hip renovations, cut thousands of jobs and withdrew from dozens of buildings around the world. The settlement would allow SoftBank to avoid paying some of the money it agreed to pay to Neumann back in the fall of 2019, while still allowing Neumann to walk away with $500MM, and retain his status as a major shareholder in WeWork.

    For those who haven’t been closely following this legal saga, Softbank rescued WeWork when it came to the company’s rescue after WeWork’s IPO fell apartment in 2019. But one of the strategies it used to recapitalize the company involved buying back, or rather, promising to buy back, shares owned by insiders, including Neumann, which left the firm with a majority stake, and the freedom to make sweeping management changes.

    Originally, the deal struck between Softbank and WeWork back in late 2019 involved a commitment to spend $3B to buy shares from Neumann and other WeWork insiders.

    But, according to terms being discussed currently, Softbank would spend roughly $1.5B to buy the shares of early WeWork investors and employees, including nearly $500MM to purchase shares from Neumann. Neumann – who was widely panned for the $185MM golden parachute consulting agreement he pocketed during the chaos of 2019 – would only walk away with half of what Softbank initially promised him, meaning his hopes for regaining billionaire status have  potentially been snuffed out – at least, unless the WeWork SPAC becomes a reality and a success.

    That’s right: Instead of $1B, Neumann would only walk away with $500MM, according to WSJ’s sources. Bloomberg points out that the price of the shares that Neumann has agreed to sell hasn’t changed since 2019. However, SoftBank will only walk away with half the original number.

    Under the terms of the potential settlement, SoftBank would purchase half of the WeWork shares it originally agreed to buy in 2019, said one the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are still private. That means Neumann would be able to sell close to $500 million in stock, and that SoftBank would pay about $1.5 billion overall. The shares are being sold at the same price agreed upon in 2019, the person said.

    The deal would mean Neumann sells about a quarter of his position in WeWork and remains a major shareholder in the company, the person said, while noting the agreement isn’t finalized and could still change. The agreement could also pave the way for a second attempt at a WeWork public listing, the person added. A spokesman for Neumann and a spokeswoman for SoftBank declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks earlier.

    Despite the comity once shared between Softbank and WeWork, negotiations have reportedly been tense, and the relationship between Neumann and his former patron, billionaire Softbank Chairman Masayoshi Son, has reportedly soured.

    As the SPAC boom rolls on, WeWork has been in talks with a SPAC called BowX Acquisition and the two sides could reach a deal in the coming weeks, the people said.

    WeWork is infamous for seeing its private-market valuation implode over the span of a few weeks during the summer of 2019 as WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters and others reported on a stream of leaks purportedly emanating from the investment bankers working on the deal and their clients, who were seriously dissatisfied with the price that the bankers were purportedly demanding for the shares.

    There is no guarantee WeWork will reach a deal with BowX, and other financing and SPAC options are still on the table, the people cautioned. But with the SPAC boom rolling on seemingly with no end in sight, few would be surprised, at this point, if WeWork does eventually trade in the public markets.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 01:00

  • Escobar: The Art Of Being A Spectacularly Misguided Oracle
    Escobar: The Art Of Being A Spectacularly Misguided Oracle

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    The late Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski for some time dispensed wisdom as an oracle of US foreign policy, side by side with the perennial Henry Kissinger – who, in vast swathes of the Global South, is regarded as nothing but a war criminal.

    Brzezinski never achieved the same notoriety. At best he claimed bragging rights for giving the USSR its own Vietnam in Afghanistan – by facilitating the internationalization of Jihad Inc., with all its dire, subsequent consequences.

    Over the years, it was always amusing to follow the heights Dr. Zbig would reach with his Russophobia. But then, slowly but surely, he was forced to revise his great expectations. And finally he must have been truly horrified that his perennial Mackinder-style geopolitical fears came to pass – beyond the wildest nightmares.

    Not only Washington had prevented the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia, but the competitor is now configured as a strategic partnership between Russia and China.

    Dr. Zbig was not exactly versed in Chinese matters. His misreading of China may be found in his classic A Geostrategy for Eurasia published in – where else – Foreign Affairs in 1997:

    Although China is emerging as a regionally dominant power, it is not likely to become a global one for a long time. The conventional wisdom that China will be the next global power is breeding paranoia outside China while fostering megalomania in China. It is far from certain that China’s explosive growth rates can be maintained for the next two decades. In fact, continued long-term growth at the current rates would require an unusually felicitous mix of national leadership, political tranquility, social discipline, high savings, massive inflows of foreign investment, and regional stability. A prolonged combination of all of these factors is unlikely.

    Dr. Zbig added,

    Even if China avoids serious political disruptions and sustains its economic growth for a quarter of a century — both rather big ifs — China would still be a relatively poor country. A tripling of GDP would leave China below most nations in per capita income, and a significant portion of its people would remain poor. Its standing in access to telephones, cars, computers, let alone consumer goods, would be very low.

    Oh dear. Not only Beijing hit all the targets Dr. Zbig proclaimed were off limits, but the central government also eliminated poverty by the end of 2020.

    The Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping once observed, “at present, we are still a relatively poor nation. It is impossible for us to undertake many international proletarian obligations, so our contributions remain small. However, once we have accomplished the four modernizations and the national economy has expanded, our contributions to mankind, and especially to the Third World, will be greater. As a socialist country, China will always belong to the Third World and shall never seek hegemony.”

    What Deng described then as the Third World – a Cold War-era derogatory terminology – is now the Global South. And the Global South is essentially the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on steroids, as in the Spirit of Bandung in 1955 remixed to the Eurasian Century.

    Cold Warrior Dr. Zbig was obviously not a Daoist monk – so he could never abandon the self to enter the Dao, the most secret of all mysteries.

    Had he been alive to witness the dawn of the Year of the Metal Ox, he might have noticed how China, expanding on Deng’s insights, is de facto applying practical lessons derived from Daoist correlative cosmology: life as a system of interacting opposites, engaging with each other in constant change and evolution, moving in cycles and feedback loops, always mathematically hard to predict with exactitude.

    A practical example of simultaneously opening and closing is the dialectical approach of Beijing’s new “dual circulation” development strategy. It’s quite dynamic, relying on checks and balances between increase of domestic consumption and external trade/investments (the New Silk Roads).

    Peace is Forever War

    Now let’s move to another oracle, a self-described expert of what in the Beltway is known as the “Greater Middle East”: Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, certified warmongering neo-con, and one-half of the famous Kaganate of Nulands – as the joke went across Eurasia – side by side with his wife, notorious Maidan cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, who’s about to re-enter government as part of the Biden-Harris administration.

    Kagan is back pontificating in – where else – Foreign Affairs, which published his latest superpower manifesto. That’s where we find this absolute pearl:

    That Americans refer to the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq as “forever wars” is just the latest example of their intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats. In both cases, Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their ability to gain control of difficult situations.

    So let’s get this straight. The multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars are “relatively low-cost”; tell that to the multitudes suffering the Via Crucis of US crumbling infrastructure and appalling standards in health and education. If you don’t support the Forever Wars – absolutely necessary to preserve the “liberal world order” – you are “intolerant”.

    “Preserving a general peace” does not even qualify as a joke, coming from someone absolutely clueless about realities on the ground. As for what the Beltway defines as “vibrant civil society” in Afghanistan, that in reality revolves around millennia-old tribal custom codes: it has nothing to do with some neocon/woke crossover. Moreover, Afghanistan’s GDP – after so much American “help” – remains even lower than Saudi-bombed Yemen’s.

    Exceptionalistan will not leave Afghanistan. A deadline of May 1st was negotiated in Doha last year for the US/NATO to remove all troops. That’s not gonna happen.

    The spin is already turbocharged: the Deep State handlers of Joe “Crash Test Dummy” Biden will not respect the deadline. Everyone familiar with the New Great Game on steroids across Eurasia knows why: a strategic lily pad must be maintained at the intersection of Central and South Asia to help closely monitor – what else – Brzezinski’s worst nightmare: the Russia-China strategic partnership.

    As it stands we have 2,500 Pentagon + 7,000 NATO troops + a whole lot of “contractors” in Afghanistan. The spin is that they can’t leave because the Taliban – which de facto control from 52% to as much as 70% of the whole tribal territory – will take over.

    To see, in detail, how this whole sorry saga started, non-oracle skeptics could do worse than check Volume 3 of my Asia Times archives: Forever Wars: Afghanistan-Iraq, part 1 (2001-2004) . Part 2 will be out soon. Here they will find how the multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars – so essential to “preserve the peace” – actually developed on the ground, in total contrast to the official imperial narrative influenced, and defended, by Kagan.

    With oracles like these, the US definitely does not need enemies.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 02/23/2021 – 00:00

  • Supposedly Retired, F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Jets Spotted Over Los Angeles
    Supposedly Retired, F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Jets Spotted Over Los Angeles

    Defense Blog reports a pair of Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft were spotted above Los Angeles last Friday. The F-117s are supposedly retired but were spotted flying with a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker. 

    AP Freelance photographer Matt Hartman tweeted a picture of the stealth aircraft on Sunday. He said:

    “So one day at ⁦ @flyLAXairport ⁩ I get a tip about something special… I look up ……. USAF KC-135R in-flight w/ 2 F-117 Stealth Fighter’s! Well I guess their NOT retired after all?? 02-19-21 2.”

    Two F-117 Nighthawks

    After 25 years in service, the Air Force retired the F-117 fleet in April 2008, but in September 2017, the service received special permission to keep 51 in Type 1000 storage, meaning the planes could swiftly return to active service. 

    In October, we reported two F-117s were spotted at the Miramar Naval Base in San Diego.

    It appears the Pentagon is bringing some of these legacy stealth aircraft back to active duty. 

    Four decommissioned F-117s were secretly deployed to the Middle East in 2017 to launch surgical strikes. The reason for the deployment was simple; Russia and Syria had shut down Syrian airspace by mid-2016. The U.S.-led coalition was unwilling to lose a fifth-generation aircraft to Russia’s S-400 missile systems in Syria. 

    With a great power competition unfolding between the US and China – may be the Pentagon is prepping these planes for future Pacific warfare. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 23:40

  • Flight Audio Captures Pilot's Frantic Reaction To "Fast-Moving Cylindrical Object" Over New Mexico
    Flight Audio Captures Pilot’s Frantic Reaction To “Fast-Moving Cylindrical Object” Over New Mexico

    Multiple news sources including The Drive and The Daily Mail are detailing a mysterious encounter between an American Airlines flight and what the pilot has described as a mysterious, “long cylindical object” which was fast-moving over New Mexico on Sunday.

    AA Flight 2292 had been en route between Cincinnati and Phoenix when the crew was startled by the strange object which “almost looked like a cruise missile” – according to the audio – flying over their aircraft which was at an estimated 36,000 feet at the time of the sighting, according to details in The Drive. 

    Getty Images

    Amazingly the pilot’s reaction to the strange encounter was actually recorded, with the radio transmission subsequently published to the space and aviation analysis blog, Deep Black Horizon.

    A startled pilot can be heard radioing to Albuquerque Air Traffic Control: “Do you have any targets up here? We just had something go right over the top of us!” 

    The pilot is then heard saying: 

    “I hate to say this but it looked like a long cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing – moving really fast right over the top of us.”

    Here’s a recording of the event via Daily Mail: 

    At the moment of the ‘cruise missile-like’ object’s sighting, the airliner was doing about 460 miles per hour. There’s yet to be official comment from either the FAA, American Airlines, or the US military.

    Below are the flight details and transcript of the audio snippet as picked up by Deep Black Horizon:

    At approximately 1:19 CST on the Albuquerque Center frequency of 127.850 MHz or 134.750 MHz (recording wasn’t frequency stamped) the pilot reported: “Do you have any targets up here?  We just had something go right over the top of us – I hate to say this but it looked like a long cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing – moving really fast right over the top of us.”

    According to Flight 24 and Flight Aware AAL 2292 was over the northeast corner of New Mexico west of Clayton, New Mexico. No reply was monitored by Albuquerque Center because local (Amarillo) air traffic walked on top of it. AAL 2292 was near flight level 370 (37k) at the time of the report. 

    No significant military aircraft presence was noted on ADS-B logs. 

    The AA flight later landed in Phoenix, Arizona without incident and according to schedule. 

    The Drive speculates on what the pilot might have seen, while saying it’s unlikely to have been a simple case of a military flight that civilian aviation authorities weren’t warned about or notified of: “As to what the pilots aboard American Airlines Flight 2292 could have actually seen, we really cannot say at this time. Many will point out that New Mexico is home to the sprawling White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) along with a bevy of other military facilities, installations, and restricted areas,” the report notes.

    “Still, the chances that a missile could have ‘gone off the reservation’ during a test or some other standard military explanation seems unlikely,” according to The Drive’s analysis. “There are procedures in place for this sort of thing and pilots would have been alerted to the safety hazard.”

    White Sands Missile Base, file image via Pinterest 

    As is also detailed in The Drive report, this is certainly far from the first time such an bizarre, close encounter took place between an airliner an unidentified flying object. Indeed New Mexico and the southwest US in general seems to have recorded more such strange flights and sightings than other parts of the country both in recent years and historically in the 20th century.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 23:20

  • Bill Gates Bashes Twitter Over Trump Lifetime Ban
    Bill Gates Bashes Twitter Over Trump Lifetime Ban

    Even Bill Gates, a longtime proponent of big tech taking steps to unilaterally eliminate “disinformation” on its platforms, believes Twitter’s lifetime ban for former President Donald Trump isn’t appropriate, and might actually be making things worse.

    After unloading his argument about what might happen if the world doesn’t achieve net-zero carbon emissions within the next 30 years, Gates warned that the blowback could be many multiples worse than it was during COVID-19.

    But toward the end of the interview, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Gates about Trump and ‘Big Tech’.

    Gates replied that while Trump said many things “about the illegitimacy of the 2020 election that were corrosive,” the US doesn’t want to divide social networks along political lines.

    “We don’t want to partition and have one social network for one party, then another social network…” Gates said. “There’s got to be some way between the government and the well-meaning actors where we draw a line, and we keep the debate…without the corrosive parts.”

    “But the idea that you end up with a lifetime ban – that, it seems like we should discuss.”

    This follows remarks from Gates late last week where he said in an interview that it would be “a shame” if Facebook followed through with plans to ban President Trump. Facebook is still waiting for its advisory committee to decide Trump’s future on the platform.

    Twitter permanently suspended the @realDonaldTrump account last month, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence,” after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a bid to disrupt the Senate’s certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election.

    Watch Live:

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6234101150001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 23:00

  • America's Plot For World Domination
    America’s Plot For World Domination

    Authored by Robert Merry via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    Probably the most profound geopolitical development of the Twentieth Century was the rise of America as the world’s preeminent power during and after World War II. We’re still living in what Henry Luce called the American Century some eighty years after the publisher proclaimed its inception. Historians have put forth various interpretations for how and why this happened: that America was always an irrepressible nation whose expansionist impulses presaged its hegemonic ambitions; that with all of its resources and power, the country had no choice but to embrace the challenge of global stability.

    Now Stephen Wertheim, of the Quincy Institute and Columbia University, propounds a provocative new thesis: that the hegemonic temptation was the product of a coterie of strategic planners from the American foreign policy elite who crafted the notion and sold it to the country by distorting America’s distinct and “foundational” philosophy of internationalism.

    Tomorrow the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy, by Stephen Wertheim, (Belknap Press: October 2020), 272 pages.

     

    There’s some excellent history here as Wertheim traces the perceptions and recommendations of prominent thinkers struggling to keep up with a world in flux. No sooner would they craft a grand strategy for the future they foresaw than the perceived future would be washed away by powerful new developments. Ultimately they concluded that their options narrowed to a single vision: world primacy.

    “Six years after global supremacy was all but inconceivable,” writes Wertheim, “it was now indisputable.”

    Wertheim goes awry a bit, though, in tracing the broad sweep of U.S. international relations from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt. His interpretation elides significant elements of that rich story while interpreting others in questionable ways.

    In Werthheim’s view, America was born as an internationalist nation, “promising and incarnating a world governed by reason and rules, not force and whim.” George Washington’s famous farewell call for America to avoid “entangling alliances” was actually a broader admonition against engaging in any form of power politics in the world. That concept, “premised on the ability of peaceful interaction to replace clashing politics,” became a central element of the American ethos.

    Ultimately it found expression in the Wilsonian enthusiasm that emerged most powerfully during World War I, when intellectuals and politicians (led by Wilson himself) formulated the concept of eliminating war through disarmament, marshalled of antiwar public opinion, and created global organizations such as Wilson’s cherished League of Nations. Peaceful discourse and adjudication of transnational disputes would replace nationalist impulses and balance-of-power maneuvering, and the world would bathe in comity and peace.

    As Wertheim tells it, this was America’s fundamental foreign policy outlook throughout its first century and a half, right up to Wilson’s decision to take America into World War I alongside the Allies.

    But wasn’t that decision a violation of Washington’s farewell warning? No, writes Wertheim, because Wilson’s League was designed to “transform the balance of power into a ‘community of power’ in which ‘all unite to act in the same sense and with the same purpose.”’ Wertheim explains that, under the Wilson plan, the United States would  “Americanize Europe” by creating a universal alliance with American participation. This would be a “disentangling alliance” that would “forever end the capacity of European alliances to ensnare the United States.”

    The key here is that the increasingly powerful U.S. would not seek “to counterbalance or dominate any rival but instead to render counterbalancing and domination obsolete.” America would be the progenitor of endless peace.

    Of course America declined to join Wilson’s League and rejected his broader vision, whether entangling or disentangling. The country entered what most historians have considered an “isolationist” phase (a term that Wertheim abhors, as we will see).

    Then came World War II in Europe, which set American planners to the task of developing a grand strategy for what seemed like a new global order. When Hitler conquered France and unleashed his bold effort to destroy Britain’s defensive air power so he could invade, the planners promptly grappled with the American response to a Europe fully dominated by Nazi Germany. Perhaps America could confine its sphere of influence and central trading zone to the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland and Canada and encompassing all or most of South America. It didn’t take long to see, however, that such a zone would hardly sustain the U.S. economy.

    Even adding a vast section of Asia, perhaps including a powerful and aggressive Japan (a daunting diplomatic challenge), wouldn’t solve the economic problem while also posing new geopolitical difficulties. The planners seemed stymied.

    After Hitler failed to gain dominance over British skies, thus ending any immediate prospect of an invasion and seemingly preserving the British Empire, a new concept emerged: combine the Western Hemisphere with the Pacific basin and the British Empire into a vast area encompassing nearly all of the non-German world. As Wertheim puts it, “Finally, after months of study, the planners had discovered that if German domination of Europe endured, the United States had to dominate almost everywhere else.”  This “everywhere else” became known as the Grand Area, and it was based on the imperative that Germany must be confined to continental Europe and that only American leadership could ensure the success of that enterprise.

    This dealt a fearsome blow to what Wertheim considered America’s foundational internationalism, the Wilsonian concept of peaceful dispute adjudication. He writes: “Out of the death of internationalism as contemporaries had known it, and the faltering of British hegemony, U.S. global supremacy was born.” But it still had to be sold to the American people, and that led to two new developments. First, partisans of hegemony demonized opposition thinkers as “isolationists,” a new term of opprobrium designed to put naysayers on their heels. “By developing the pejorative concept of isolationism,” writes Werthheim, “and applying it to all advocates of limits on military intervention, American officials and intellectuals found a way to make global supremacy sound unimpeachable.”

    They also conceived the idea of a United Nations to gather other states into the fold and thus “convince the American public that U.S. leadership would be inclusive, rule bound, and worthy of support.” In other words, it was a ruse to help the elites supplant the old notion of placid internationalism with armed supremacy.

    Thus do we see, in Wertheim’s telling, how a small group of wayward intellectuals, back in the chaos years of World War II, hijacked the country’s intrinsic internationalist philosophy and reshaped it into something else entirely, inconsistent with traditional Americanism, namely a credo of power politics and global supremacy.

    No doubt many opponents of the foreign policy aggressiveness of today’s Republican neocons and Democratic humanitarian interventionists will embrace Wertheim as a sturdy ally in their cause. But they should note that he builds his thesis upon a foundation of dubious history.

    George Washington was not a forerunner to Woodrow Wilson, and warning against entangling alliances circa 1797 can’t be logically equated to advocating world government in 1919. Neither can one draw an accurate picture of American foreign policy thinking without noting the force of American nationalism, which played a major role (though of course not the only role) in the formulation of U.S. international relations throughout American history. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago calls it “the most powerful ideology in the modern world.” Wertheim hardly mentions it.

    He argues that we shouldn’t consider America’s expansionist zeal under James Polk in the 1840s as representing power politics because, after all, the United States was simply consolidating its position on its own continent while eschewing the acquisition of Cuba or all of Mexico (as opposed to gobbling up merely half of Mexico in an aggressive war). But when in history did a major power, after consolidating its position in its own neighborhood, stop there? Did Rome? Did the Ottomans? Did the British? Neither did America.

    Similarly, Wertheim disputes any link to power politics on the part of the United States at the turn of the last century by noting that America “continued to stay politically and militarily apart from the European alliance system while intensifying efforts to transform power politics globally.”

    The latter part here is false. America built up its navy just in time to destroy Spain’s Pacific and Atlantic fleets, kick that waning empire out of the Caribbean, free Cuba from Spanish dominion, and take the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. If that wasn’t power politics, the term has no meaning. For that matter, why did the United States annex the globally strategic islands of Hawaii, from which America could project power far into Asia? And why did it build the Panama Canal, which allowed it to concentrate more naval firepower more quickly in more places?

    No, America wasn’t born as a benign instrumentality of peace destined to calm the waters of international conflict through means never before seen in any successful guise in the annals of human history. America was born like every other nation, into a world of conflict and danger, buffeted by swirls of power, ambition, and potentially hostile forces. The country proved remarkably adept, like its mother nation, in the arts of self-reliance, self-defense, popular government—and expansionism.

    It was therefore natural that when the world turned upside down and power interrelationships got tossed into the air like confetti, those U.S. planners would perceive American power as the greatest hope for stability in the world as well as the greatest hope for U.S. security. For the first 45 years of the new era, the Cold War, America played its role largely with aplomb. Then it went awry when the world changed and the country’s elites could neither see the transformation nor adjust to it.

    Wertheim is correct in positing that America’s current foreign policy follies are a product of its leaders’ insistence on clinging to the same ideas that emerged from the minds of those strategic planners back in the 1940s. But in his effort to tell the story of how we got here, he gets it only partially right.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 22:40

  • Defense Firms Unveil New Weapons At IDEX 2021 
    Defense Firms Unveil New Weapons At IDEX 2021 

    The International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX 2021) kicked off on Sunday and runs through the 25th of the month at the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre. All sorts of new weapons are being featured at the first COVID-era defense show. 

    According to Breaking Defense, IDEX 2021 features more than 900 exhibitors from 59 nations with 35 national pavilions. 

    “84% of companies exhibiting will be internationally based, while 16% will be UAE based entities which demonstrate the vast international interest in IDEX and NAVDEX,” said Humaid Matar Al Dhaheri, managing director and group CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Exhibitions Company (ADNEC), the shows’ organizers.

    Staff Brig. Gen. Mohammed Al Hassani, an official spokesman for IDEX, said the first day, about $1.37 billion worth of deals were signed with seven international firms while 78% went to 12 local companies.

    Here are some of the weapons being featured at IDEX 2021:

    UAE’s HALCON unveiled its first anti-ship cruise missile. 

    The Kalashnikov Group revealed the AK-19 assault rifle. 

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

    Chinese defense companies featured drones, a fighter jet, a shoulder-fired missile, and a tiny spy drone. 

    South African Paramount Group signed deal with Bharat Forge to produce Kalyani M4 MRAP armor vehicles in India. 

    UAE’s Milanion Group unveiled an unmanned ground vehicle with a machine gun turret on top. Their exhibit also featured a drone battery capable of launching three unmanned aerial vehicles.

    France’s Arquus (previously Renault Trucks Defense) featured a new remote control turret for ground vehicles. 

    China Defense unveiled the “Chinese King Dragon 680 mm and Fire Dragon 750 mm” rockets, said one Twitter user.

    UAE’s CARACAL featured the CSA338 Semi-Automatic rifle. 

    Turkish company Otokar showed off its ground-based vehicles and a tank. 

    Armenian defense firm Pride Systems unveiled their new drone that can be armed with high-explosive or high-explosive antitank warheads at IDEX 2021.

    More scenes from the defense conference that will last all week. 

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

    This UAE-made tank appears to be very futuristic in design. 

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

    Many of these weapons will be used on the modern battlefield as a great power competition between the US and China deepens. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 22:20

  • Ayatollah Khamenei Says Iran Might Pull Trigger On 60% Uranium Enrichment
    Ayatollah Khamenei Says Iran Might Pull Trigger On 60% Uranium Enrichment

    With all eyes on the big question of whether Iran and the United States will actually sit down at the same table in EU-sponsored talks to restore the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal (JCPOA), Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has just upped the ante with statements that surely also raised the alarm in Tel Aviv. 

    Khamenei declared on Monday that Tehran might continue enriching uranium up to 60% – which would blow far past the current 20% and put the country on the cusp of being able to produce a nuclear weapon. He further vowed the Islamic Republic will “never” yield to US pressure over what Iran has long claimed is actually a peaceful nuclear energy program. 

    Via Reuters

    “Iran’s uranium enrichment level will not be limited to 20%. We will increase it to whatever level the country needs… We may increase it to 60%,” state media quoted Ayatollah Khamenei as saying. He added that if Iran “wanted to” pursue a nuke, then “no one could stop Tehran from acquiring it.”

    He still stressed his longtime position that Iran is not in fact pursuing nukes, which he’s previously said violates “Islamic principles”, but that neither the US nor “Zionist clown” – a reference to Israel – to do anything about it if Tehran wanted to.

    If indeed Iran does eventually pull the trigger on 60% enrichment, this would likely provoke Israel into mounting some kind of preemptive attack.

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

    Over the past year Israel was believed behind multiple ‘mysterious’ and unexplained explosions and fires and Iranian nuclear facilities. 

    In the recent past Israeli military leaders have threated to take action militarily if intelligence believed Iran was close to obtaining a nuke. Likely the Biden administration would intervene to warn against such action, however, especially given Washington now appears ready to engage in EU-brokered talks toward restoring the nuclear deal. 

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

  • US Arrests Beauty Queen Wife Of El Chapo On Drug Charges, Accused Of Plotting Two Prison Escapes
    US Arrests Beauty Queen Wife Of El Chapo On Drug Charges, Accused Of Plotting Two Prison Escapes

    Emma Coronel Aispuro, a former US beauty queen and wife of the world’s most notorious living drug kingpin – Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman, the former leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel who is currently serving a life sentence – was arrested on Monday in the US over her alleged involvement in international drug trafficking, the US Justice Department reported on Monday.

    Coronel, 31, a dual US-Mexican citizen and a regular attendee at her husband’s trial two years ago, was arrested at Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia “on charges related to her alleged involvement in international drug trafficking” is expected to appear in a federal court in Washington on Tuesday. It was unclear why Coronel was in the Washington area.

    Her arrest came two years after a trial in Brooklyn where Guzman, now 63, was convicted of trafficking tons of drugs into the United States as Sinaloa’s leader. Prosecutors at the trial said Guzman amassed power through murders and wars with rival cartels. He was sentenced in July 2019 to life in prison plus 30 years, which the sentencing judge said reflected Guzman’s “overwhelmingly evil” actions. Guzman was sent to ADX Florence in Colorado, the nation’s most secure “Supermax” prison.

    Coronel and Guzman have been married since 2007, when they wed in an ostentatious ceremony in a village in Durango state. At the time, Coronel was an 18-year-old beauty queen.

    Coronel was charged on Monday in a one-count complaint with conspiring to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, five kilograms or more of cocaine, 500 grams of more of meth and a whopping 1,000 kilograms or more of cannabis for unlawful importation into the United States. The DOJ also accused Coronel of conspiring to aid her husband in his July 2015 escape from the Altiplano prison in Mexico, when he dug a mile-long tunnel from his cell.

    She was also allegedly among those behind another of Guzman’s escape attempts from the same jail after his recapture by Mexican authorities in January 2016. The plot failed to materialize after prison officials uncovered an entrance to yet another would-be underground tunnel outside of the facility. Then, with his hopes for reaching freedom dashed, the Sinaloa Cartel co-founder asked the authorities to fastrack his extraction to the States, complaining of dire conditions in the Mexican prison.

    El Chapo was eventually handed over to the US in January 2017, where he is currently serving a life sentence plus 30 years, after being convicted on 10 charges related to large-scale drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder.

    //www.instagram.com/embed.js

    Before her arrest, Coronel capitalized on Guzman’s notoriety, launching a clothing line named after her husband, ‘El Chapo Guzman,’ and became a reality star after she was featured on Season 2 on VH1’s ‘Cartel Crew’ series.

    U.S. and Mexican efforts to fight drug trafficking became strained in October when the DOJ brought drug charges against former Mexican Defense Minister Salvador Cienfuegos.  However one month later the Justice Department unexpectedly dropped that case the following month and let Cienfuegos return to Mexico, a move Mexico said would restore trust in the countries’ strained security ties.  Cienfuegos was exonerated two months later when Mexico dropped its own case.

    Tomas Guevara, an investigator in security issues at the Autonomous University of Sinaloa, said Coronel’s arrest might be part of a “pressure strategy” to prompt cooperation from Guzman.

    According to Reuters, a Mexican official familiar with Coronel’s case, who asked not to be identified, said her arrest appeared to be solely a U.S. initiative, and that Coronel was not wanted in Mexico. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 21:55

  • Coca Cola Confirms Training Employees To "Try To Be Less White"
    Coca Cola Confirms Training Employees To “Try To Be Less White”

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Is Coca Cola sponsoring racism? That’s the claim. You be the judge.

    ‘Try To Be Less White’

    When I first saw this story I was highly skeptical. 

    However, the training course is available online and Coca Cola is doing its best to try to back down from the course.

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

    Here’s the course Confronting Racism, with Robin DiAngelo

    In this course, Robin DiAngelo, the best-selling author of White Fragility, gives you the vocabulary and practices you need to start confronting racism and unconscious bias at the individual level and throughout your organization. There’s no magic recipe for building an inclusive workplace. It’s a process that needs to involve people of color, and that needs to go on for as long as your company’s in business.

    The free into above does not show the ending slide “Try to be less white” but what you can see is galling enough.

    The video Tweet by @DrKarlynB shows more of the damning slides.

    Coca-Cola Whitewash

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

    Backlash

    Late Sunday evening NewsWeek reported Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says ‘Be Less White’ Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion

    Coca-Cola, facing mounting backlash from conservatives online, has responded to allegations of anti-white rhetoric after an internal whistleblower leaked screenshots of diversity training materials that encourages staff to “try to be less white.”

    A Coca-Cola spokesperson confirmed that the course is “part of a learning plan to help build an inclusive workplace,” but also noted that “the video circulating on social media is from a publicly available LinkedIn Learning series and is not a focus of our company’s curriculum.”

    Coca-Cola Logo

    The Coca-Cola logo is on training snapshots in the video Tweet.

    If Coca-Cola did not authorize and pay for the the training, the slides would not have their logo, Karlyn would be in deep legal trouble, and Twitter would have removed the Tweet.

    Who in the hell is reviewing their training materials? 

    Candance Owens

    Best selling author Candance Owens had this to say. 

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

    Owens is Founder of the @BLEXIT  organization. “Black people don’t have to be Democrats— still.”

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

    Coke Is Racist

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

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

    The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Salon, and Washington Post have no coverage of this. 

    All the top sites plus Coca-Cola all want to sweep this under the rug.

    Why Trump Nearly Won

    Please recall Politically Correct Educators Vote to Rename 44 SF Schools Including Washington and Lincoln

    Also note The Dumbing Down of America is Poised to Accelerate. 

    If you are looking for a reason why millions of people voted for Trump, look no further.

    I intended to do a post on why Trump nearly won but this post will suffice. 

    Every bit of this is a complete outrage. It is why Trump won in 2016. Had he toned things down a bit in 2020 he probably would have been reelected.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 21:45

  • Russia Says Jihadists Are Planning "Simulated" Chemical Attack In Idlib To Get Biden's Attention
    Russia Says Jihadists Are Planning “Simulated” Chemical Attack In Idlib To Get Biden’s Attention

    In what feels like a throwback scenario to 2017 which marked the first time Trump bombed Syria over al-Qaeda’s unverified claims of a government chemical attack on a “rebel”-held town in Idlib province, Russia’s military is now warning that anti-Assad jihadists are planning a new “false-flag operation against civilians” involving chemical weapons in Idlib.

    The allegation of a major ‘provocation’ in the works originated in official comments days ago from the deputy chief of the Russian de-escalation mission in Syria, Rear Admiral Vyacheslav Sytnik. The statements are being featured predominantly in Russian and Iranian state media sources, which say the incident will be blamed on Damascus, ultimately in order to gain the attention of the newly in office Biden administration. 

    Via Reuters

    “According to our information, militants of illegal armed groups are plotting a provocation to blame Syria’s government forces for delivering strikes at settlements in thee Idlib de-escalation zone,” Admiral Sytnik said.

    At a moment it’s widely believed the Biden White House is internally divided over Syria and Mideast policy in general, with little future strategy having been announced publicly, any level of ‘mass casualty incident’ is sure to gain Washington’s attention. 

    Here are the details of Adm. Sytnik’s statement via Russian media sources and their translation:

    Citing intelligence reports, Rear Admiral Vyacheslav Sytnik, deputy chief of the Russian de-escalation mission in Syria, claimed that militants belonging to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have transported containers with toxic agents to the settlement of Tarmanin. The Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists plan to use the chemicals, believed to be chlorine, to “simulate” an attack resulting in casualties among local residents, Sytnik said. He added that the militants hope to then blame the incident on Syrian government forces. 

    HTS is formally designated as a terrorist organization by the US government as well as internationally. Yet despite this, the US and Western allies have frequently condemned any attempts of Syrian or Russian military forces to take back the northwestern province of Idlib.

    Idlib has been held by HTS and other al-Qaeda factions since its takeover in 2015, reportedly with CIA help via an operations room in Turkey.

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

    Assad with Russia’s help has been the clear victor over most of Syria, with a northeast oil-and-gas concentrated chunk of the country occupied by the US and its Kurdish allies (SDF), and the northwest (Idlib) occupied by al-Qaeda (HTS), and northern towns now under Turkish control.

    The Russians have been getting increasingly vocal over the past month that some level of ‘provocation’ is coming soon, despite Syria having long been out of international headlines. 

    “The warning comes several weeks after the reconciliation center revealed that it had been tipped off that HTS militants and members of the ‘White Helmets,’ a self-styled civil defense group, were planning to stage a chemical attack in a town 11 kilometers (seven miles) northwest of Aleppo,” RT summarizes of recent allegations.

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

    Meanwhile, despite the Syrian government under Assad being the ‘victor’ over the conflict, loyalist areas are now being smashed by US-led sanctions that are meant to choke the economy. Thus the economic war was greatly ramped up the moment that Western-led regime change efforts were acknowledged as having ultimately failed. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 21:40

  • Thousands Of Unaccompanied Minors Face 'Cages' As HHS Shelters Hit 93% Capacity
    Thousands Of Unaccompanied Minors Face ‘Cages’ As HHS Shelters Hit 93% Capacity

    Thousands of migrant children face ‘the cages’ built by the Obama-Biden administration, after the child-shelter network run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reduced its capacity by 40%, leaving them 93% full.

    Children sleeping in cages built by the Obama-Biden administration (2014)

    Once the HHS shelters reach capacity, migrants will be housed in facilities run by the Border Patrol – a.k.a. ‘the cages,’ described by the Wall Street Journal as “stark cells – with just a bench and a toilet – that are designed to hold single adults for a few hours rather than children for days.”

    Over 700 children were in Border Patrol custody as of Friday, up from 150 on Tuesday, according to the report, which cites “a person familiar with the numbers.”

    “A jail cell is no place for a child, even for the shortest possible duration,” said former US Customs and Border Protection spokesman, Andrew Meehan, who served during 2019.

    “They’ve seen very large growth in a very short period of time,” said Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, who was in charge of the HHS shelter network during the Obama administration. “The closer you get to 100% capacity, the harder the system is to manage.”

    On Monday, the government plans to reopen an emergency shelter in Carrizo Springs, Texas—a converted encampment that once hosted oil-field workers—to house 700 additional children. That facility, which opened in 2019 to manage the surge of children, and other emergency shelters had come under criticism from Democrats, in part because they didn’t follow standards governing care at permanent government shelters.

    Unaccompanied children enjoy unique protections under immigration law that forbid the government from quickly deporting them. They are required to be sent to HHS shelters, where the government cares for them until they can find a suitable sponsor, typically a family member or family friend living in the U.S. –Wall Street Journal

    According to the report, the flood of migrants is likely because of “sagging economies and gang violence in Central America, exacerbated by the pandemic and a pair of hurricanes last year which hit the region.”

    It could also be the brand new US president that’s promised a ‘pathway to citizenship’ and just started letting migrants enter the United States while they await their immigration hearings they’re sure to attend.

    “If we were not in the middle of a pandemic, we wouldn’t be facing the situation that we are in right now,” said one HHS official.

    In November, government shelters began filling up with migrants after a federal court ordered the Trump administration to halt the practice of sending children back to their home countries without an adult – while the Biden administration has opted to continue housing them while they apply for asylum, despite an appellate decision overturning the lower court’s November decision.

    Biden has also halted the practice of sending children back to their country of origin if they were traveling with an adult who isn’t their parent – a policy which sends more children to HHS shelters.

    “It’s certainly not ideal,” said Jennifer Podkul, vice president for policy and advocacy at Kids in Need of Defense, an immigrant advocacy organization. “But for now, it’s better than having kids remain in [border patrol] custody.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 21:20

  • Trump Offered North Korea's Kim A "Ride Home" On Air Force One, Adviser Reveals
    Trump Offered North Korea’s Kim A “Ride Home” On Air Force One, Adviser Reveals

    A newly released BBC documentary entitled “Trump Takes on the World” has revealed the former president offered Kim Jong Un a ride back to North Korea on Air Force One after the Hanoi summit two years ago, which came at the height of the temporary breakthrough in relations between Washington and Pyongyang. 

    Former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, who had an unusually long stint under Trump helping to formulate Asia policy for the administration, told the BBC: 

    “President Trump offered Kim a lift home on Air Force One. The president knew that Kim had arrived on a multi-day train ride through China into Hanoi and the president said: ‘I can get you home in two hours if you want.’ Kim declined.” 

    Getty Imags

    The BBC documentary narrated that the US president “stunned even the most seasoned diplomats” by making the offer.

    Presumably both sides were indeed shocked by the gesture given that if it had actually happened, serious “security concerns” would be raised by the spectacle of Kim and his entourage riding on an official US government aircraft (which features ‘Top Secret’ technology, layout and protocol) while entering North Korean airspace. 

    Both the US and North Korean sides have formal laws against such “enemy” aircraft and officials violating airspace.

    As BBC recounts further of the unlikely “bromance” of that period:

    During the Singapore summit, Trump gave Kim a glimpse inside his presidential state car — a $1.5 million Cadillac also known as “The Beast” — in a show of their newly friendly rapport.

    At the Hanoi summit in Feb.2019, via AFP.

    Ultimately the historic thawing of tensions and relaxation of ‘war-footing’ didn’t outlast the Trump administration, given Pyongyang and Washington are now essentially right back where they started.

    Currently it remains unclear what Biden’s North Korea policy will be – only that as US state-funded VOA News describes Biden is “likely to reverse the Trump administration’s North Korea policies”. But ultimately there won’t be a denuclearization of the peninsula anytime soon.

    “As the new Biden administration gears up to formulate policies toward North Korea, experts think the administration will probably return to the incremental approach to denuclearization that was the norm before former President Donald Trump’s term in office,” VOA concludes.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 21:00

  • Deconstructing "WokeThink"
    Deconstructing “WokeThink”

    Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

    It Bears a Striking Resemblance to Cognitive Distortions

    This post was originally going to be another one about dangers of techno-utopian thinking, which is supposed to be the subject matter of my next book . That one is going slowly for the time being, but I described it a bit in a previous piece on transhumanism-as-religion here.

    It was originally inspired by Tristan Greene’s “Why developing AI to defeat us may be humanity’s only hope” because at first glance I thought that was going to be another “AI will fix everything” piece along the lines of Fully Automated Luxury Communism (which is TL,DR: a full blown Marxist version of The Singularity is Near)

    But as I read it I found myself unable to even parse out the rationale behind what the author was proposing.  The suggestion was that because “[t]he rational end game for humanity is self-wrought extinction” we should intentionally create an existentially threatening AI and then turn it loose against ourselves, in order to unite humanity…

    “with concentrated redirection, maybe our passion for adversity could become a strength for our species.

    Maybe we need an AI adversary to be our “Huckleberry” when it comes to the urge for competition. If we can’t make most humans non-violent, then perhaps we could direct that violence toward a tangible, non-human opponent we can all feel good about defeating.”

    The singular premise upon which he scaffolded his logic is that “the entire history of humanity is evidence against [world peace] ever happening. We are violent and competitive”

    That had been “proved” citing a single study out of which he had plucked flawed statistic:

    Since World War II, homicide rates have actually increased rather than decreased in a number of industrialized countries, most notably the United States.

    The US homicide rate did increase after the end of WWII until it peaked in 1980, it has been coming down ever since and has dipped below the end of WWII rates at 4.5 per 100,000. In fact it may surprise many that the US is toward the lower end of the spectrum at 0.7% when it comes to the national homicide rate. But when you listen to some people talk about this, you would think it’s murder and mayhem everywhere, perhaps at the level of their southern neighbour Mexico, where the homicide rate is a staggering 6.07%

    It was understanding these statistics that interjected some reality over Greene’s underlying premise that apparently justified his over-the-top idea. It was so devoid of intellectual rigour as to be a non-sequitur (not to mention that even if humanity accepted and went ahead with this idea, there’s no recognition of the possibility that it might not work and we end up being exterminated by an AI we invented to unite us.  Unintended consequences abound.)

    What the piece did do was make me think of one of the cue cards I carry around with me in my pocket journal at all times.

    This is a list of the Big Ten Cognitive Distortions.

    Cognitive distortions are biased perspectives we take on ourselves and the world around us. They are irrational thoughts and beliefs that we unknowingly reinforce over time. 

    When somebody is depressed or suffering from a full blown depressive episode, their thinking can be distilled down to these cognitive distortions.

    Depression is a characteristic of being human that probably everybody struggles with at one time or another. When it intensifies or persists, it can cross into the realm of mental illness and it can be devastating. Like its close cousin, alcoholism, of which I’m personally all too familiar with, depression is pernicious in that it’s a type of mental illness that tells you you’re not sick.

    The mind folds in on itself and spins out a hall of mirrors to convince you that reality is objectively hopeless and foreboding.

    What struck me was that the author was succumbing to more than one of the Big Ten Cognitive Distortions in putting forward a pretty extreme policy (intentionally creating an adversarial AI and unleashing it against humanity) because of a conclusion he had arrived at that probably seems perfectly objective and beyond refute to him (that the human race was irredeemably violent and regressive).

    But when you run down the list of these cognitive distortions you realize not only this particular idea, but on examination, what I call The Four Horsemen of the Woke-pocalypse (systemic racism, climate alarmism, anti-capitalism and cancel culture) – in other words Wokethink in its totality, actually relies on and is defined by these cognitive distortions.

    The other thing I realized about all this was that in normal depressive or anxiety episodes, the sufferer is in effect irrationally brainwashing themselves that they are flawed, unworthy, alone or overwhelmed. In some way they feel inferior or incomplete. In the extreme woke, the überwoke, these same 10 cognitive distortions are oddly inverted in order to convince themselves that it is the world outside that is irredeemable, unworthy and doomed. Meanwhile they The Woke, are attempting to save it.

    The Woke are not flawed. They are not even suffering from normal human uncertainty or healthy doses of self-doubt and skepticism. They have no need for introspection because they have their hands full taking everybody else’s inventory and Literally Saving The World™.

    Here are the 10 cognitive distortions that comprise #wokethink,

    We can riff off a quick example or two for each one, but as we step through them, we’ll realize the current MSM driven zeitgeist is saturated with it.  It actually gets pretty creepy when you look at it.

    #1 All or Nothing Thinking

    My personal view of left vs right thinking comes from a book about the human brain by Ian McGilchrest called The Master and the Emissary. He examines the two different hemispheres of the brain as “two whole, coherent, but incompatible ways of experiencing the world.”

    But despite those ways of experiencing the world being incompatible, most people are able to integrate them in order to unify both sides of their brain into our subjective experience of “I”. (In McGilchrist’s analogy one side will act as an “emissary” for the dominant side, the “master”).

    I am probably guilty of  mangling this book to make a tortured analogy about the political spectrum. Right and left thinking may very well be whole and incompatible strains of political thought. But a healthy society needs both sides of the political spectrum, functioning coherently. Both. At different times throughout history they may trade the roles of master and emissary, one may be dominant, the other may be ahead of the curve and setting the overall agenda or identifying the imperatives. But the important point is that they co-exist and cannot function without each other. To the degree that one side, left or right, is marginalized or persecuted,  society becomes unhealthy.

    In today’s environment I will accuse the Woke Left of dominating the narrative and operating on the basis that anything right of center is not only wrong, but morally and ethically impermissible to exist. Any conservative thought or libertarian leanings will in due course become negatively branded by being hitched to narratives of white supremacy or climate denialism and genuine dissent is in danger of being criminalized.

    Under Wokethink, everything society has accomplished until now (if you’re reading this it means “you’re soaking in it”), is not an accomplishment at all but an affront and a crime against humanity. Everything has to be dismantled, deconstructed and decolonized.

    It all has to be burned down.

    #2 Overgeneralization

    The famed “Critical race theory in one image”. Which I thought was satire, but apparently not.

    Moving right along…

    #3 Mental Filter – Dwelling on the Negative

    Without this cognitive bias the whole “capitalism has failed us” thing would be a bust. We usually hear a lot of this either via hipsters tweeting about it from iPhones in the back of an Uber on their way to art gallery openings, or otherwise – from super rich celebrities, industrialists or monarchs hectoring us about our carbon footprints.

    It seems as though it’s the people ensconced within the very cushiest enclaves of our erstwhile free enterprise, liberal democratic system who are ruminating the loudest about how much better things would be under socialism and the only way that can be done with a straight face is to very deliberately ignore the myriad benefits that capitalism has delivered for nearly everybody in the modern era.

    #4 Disqualifying the Positive

    While it’s true that capitalism and classical liberal democracy hasn’t yet solved everything, and there has been a lot of shitshows and injustice along the way, that doesn’t mean we should completely reject the foundational basis of civilization entirely.

    Despite the central banks best efforts to undermine capitalism via central larcenous Cantillon Effect interventions, capitalism has delivered in a few hundred years what the monarchs, emperors and feudal lords of the previous millennia couldn’t: a world wherein everyone was free to select their goals and work toward finding their own station in life atop a rising tide of technological advancement and productivity gains resulting in previously undreamt of living standards.

    Sites like HumanProgress would be very educational (possibly jarringly so) to those who think we wallow under the jackboots of an irredeemably oppressive system.

    In the year before she died I gave my mom (an incorrigible pessimist) a copy of Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist and she asked me if I really believed what he said in it. I told her that even with my own misgivings about the current policy tracks we’re on, and the unavoidable disastrous consequences they will cause, they will in the overall scheme of things be temporary chapters in time and humanity will most likely forge ahead and keep on iterating and improving.

    On a similar note when my daughter was in grade 6 she came home one day asking me if it was true that the world was going to end in 12 years because of climate change (thanks Greta). I gave her a copy of  Hans and Ann Rosling’s Factfulness and it made such an impression on her she made it her speech topic that year.

    #5 Jumping to Conclusions

    Two words: Kavanaugh Hearings. Two episodes during those are forever etched in the public mind. The first was when Zina Bash, sitting behind Kavanaugh in frame of the TV cameras, scratched her forearm, and the entire population of Never-Trumpers went batshit crazy for days.

    Bash, a Hispanic Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors, was accused of flashing a symbol of white supremacy, in the “OK” sign. Amy Siskind, tweeted that it should have been grounds for disqualifying Kavanaugh from the SCOTUS post. The idea that an innocuous hand gesture was a symbol of white supremacy originated as a troll from the bowels of 4chan and has been refuted as such by the Anti-Defamation League. It is precisely because of this cognitive distortion that Wokethink can propel trolls to such spectacular success.

    The other was the #BelieveAllWomen reaction to what remain unsubstantiated, and in later iterations, provably manufactured claims of sexual misconduct  that were motivated entirely by political calculus. #BelieveAllWomen became mantra. A rule. One that violates fundamental legal principles and codifies a cognitive bias. (At least until arguably more credible claims of actual sexual assault were made against Joe Biden. Then #BelieveAllWomen suddenly became less of a thing in the Western media).

    #6 Magnification and Catastrophizing

    If I had to pick just one cognitive thinking bias and limit my comparison of Wokethink to it, I would choose this. It’s the one where everything from a tweet, or a smirk, to a standard-issue inconvenience or inevitable negative outcome in the world is made out to be either something steeped in cosmic injustice or a civilization-ending existential threat.

    This happens via judicious mis-application of CNN panels, bluecheck tweetstorms, “think pieces” in the left media and all amplified via Big Tech platforms run by woke social media barons.

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

    #7 Emotional Reasoning (Feelings == Reality)

    I have to mentally restrain myself from at least figuratively slapping anybody who makes the argument whenever somebody is being deplatformed or canceled that it’s because “they make others feel unsafe”. Speech is not violence, silence is not complicity.

    One time I saw a clip of a reporter trying to interview Kanye West asking him to remove his MAGA hat because “it made him feel unsafe”. West basically told the guy to fuck off.

    Statistically you have a higher probability of being killed by your own furniture than an act of terrorism, let alone being attacked by anybody in a MAGA hat.

    The reality is that you face more physical danger from Teslas than you do from people with opposing political views.

    #8 Should Statements

    This one captures that outer-directed inversion of the cognitive bias that makes Wokethink so aggravating.

    When normal self-examining individuals struggle with these cognitive distortions, we think of them in terms of “should” statements : we should be better people. In those moments our perceptions of our own failings can become exaggerated and threaten to overwhelms us.

    There have been periods in my life when I was convinced that I was lousy husband, shitty father, incompetent CEO, clueless investor, mediocre guitar player, inconsiderate to my pet (and a windbag of a writer).

    When I feel any of these coming on, especially more than one at the same time, that’s when I realize I’m being overrun by these cognitive distortions and I have trained myself to break out the cognitive biases cue card and walk through all the ones I am falling prey to in that moment. Journaling them out can be therapeutic.

    But because of the “othering” of the cognitive distortion around Wokethink, none of it ends up being about  “I should try to be a better person” and the existential angst we all struggle with around measuring ourselves to our own ideals and aspirations. Most of us are our own harshest critics. That is, until some überwoke comes along.

    Under Wokethink it’s you! YOU should be a better person! You are the problem! The collective you, the specific you, it’s always about you.

    You shouldn’t be this, you shouldn’t say that, you shouldn’t like that,

    YOU SHOULD NOT THINK THAT

    It’s all should, it’s all outer directed and there is a complete lack of self-awareness around any of it.

    In the course of getting sober one of things other sober people taught me was to always ask “what was my part in this?”

    The überwoke don’t do that. They may instruct the rest of us to examine our part in whatever it is they’re droning on about this time. But it will never occur to them to examine themselves or their premises. They are operating from a perch of higher morality and advanced evolution, handing down pronouncements from an exalted state.

    We should listen to them, apparently.

    #9 Labeling and mislabeling

    Where would Wokethink be without labels and mislabeling?

    As you can see in the cue card, my struggle with these biases is that ever since my hellish existence as an awkward nerdy pipsqueak in middle school, I’ve never been able to fully shake that voice in my head that tells me, incessantly “I am a loser”.

    Your voice may tell you something different, but as is our theme today, these are internal struggles many of us face with our own ghosts and demons. In the normal course of the human condition are lives are largely about facing and overcoming these internal voices.

    But under Wokethink, once again it’s outward directed: You are problematic in some way that violates some self-referential norm that for these people, that may not even have existed yesterday. But somehow you are offside of something they find offensive and they expect you to accept their labeling of you and to do something about it that suits them.

    #10 Personalization

    Again, in our own personal struggles we may succumb to the temptation to ascribe responsibility to ourselves for negative externalities that we objectively could not have foreseen, let alone have impacted in any meaningful way.

    Sometimes I suffer from this one and my therapist reassures me that this is simply a form of grandiosity and that I need to get over myself.

    For the woke, the pattern by now is clear: You personally and you collectively are responsible for crimes that occurred before any of us here today were even born, and you will also be held responsible for things that didn’t go their way in the present…

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

    …and you are definitely on the hook for whatever imagined catastrophes their own neuroses have projected into the future.

    That’s on you.

    And that’s #WokeThink.

    *  *  *

    To receive future posts in your mailbox join the Bombthrower mailing list. In this post I talked a bit about alcoholism. If you have concerns around your drinking and want somebody to talk to, my Twitter DM’s are open. Or use a throwaway email account to email me at markjr@myprivacy.ca. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 02/22/2021 – 20:40

  • "Extremely Dramatic Increase" – Ghost Gun Seizures Up 400% In Baltimore City
    “Extremely Dramatic Increase” – Ghost Gun Seizures Up 400% In Baltimore City

    A homemade or improvised firearm that lacks commercial serial numbers is becoming a significant problem across Baltimore City. These weapons are commonly referred to as “Ghost Guns,” are untraceable and can either be made from 80 percent lower kits or 3D-printers.

    The Baltimore Sun reports Baltimore City Police said a sharp increase in ghost guns in the metro area had been seen. 

    Baltimore Police Lt. Col. John Herzog told lawmakers this week that city police seized 126 ghost guns in 2020, up from 29 in 2019. The number of untraceable firearms seized in the city last year was more than all ghost guns seized statewide in 2019.

    “That’s an extremely dramatic increase,” Herzog said. “We know they are becoming more popular for criminals and gun traffickers.”

    Maryland lawmakers introduced a bill earlier this month to regulate the ability to purchase or manufacture untraceable firearms. 

    “Untraceable firearms are not just guns with serial numbers crossed off,” said Sen. Susan Lee (D-Montgomery), “they also include guns that have been designed to get around state laws and the federal definition of ‘firearm.'”

    Herzog said 21 of the ghost guns sized last year were linked to violent crime, including 15 tied to homicides or shootings. 

    Baltimore City has face five years of homicides over the three hundred mark, ever since the 2015 riots after Freddie Gray, a young black man, died in police custody; since then, mistrust of police among people in the community has resulted in a city that continues to descend into chaos. 

    Years ago, more specifically in 2014, we noted, “3D-printing, like decentralized cryptocurrencies, have the potential to change the world in which we live in extraordinary ways.” 

    Over the years, US lawmakers have called ghost guns a threat to communities. 

    Now entering the Biden administration era, who has repeatedly warned they will “defeat” the National Rifle Association (NRA). In response, the NRA filed for bankruptcy last month by dumping New York to incorporate in Texas. 

    More specifically, Biden’s website makes it clear that he will “stop ghost guns.” Here’s what his website says:

    One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed, reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the Internet.

    Meanwhile, in anticipation of a crackdown on guns and ghost guns, Americans, for months, have been panic searching and or buying ghost gun kits before new regulations are passed. 

      Tyler Durden
      Mon, 02/22/2021 – 20:20

    • Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: 'We Need to Make It Clear'
      Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: ‘We Need to Make It Clear’

      Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

      Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion regarding the high court’s decision not to take up a case challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results.

      The court on Monday announced it won’t take up lawsuits challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that relaxed ballot-integrity measures, including a move to extend the ballot-receipt deadline during the November election by three days due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania’s GOP urged the court to take up a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

      “This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas wrote on Monday, adding that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.” Thomas, considered by many to be the most conservative justice, said the court should have granted a review.

      “That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas wrote (pdf). “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

      Other than Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

      “If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic,” Thomas, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, also wrote.

      Thomas also appeared to make a reference to allegations of fraud and irregularities during the Nov. 3 election.

      “We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” Thomas wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.”

      The Supreme Court on Monday also declined to review a bid by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others who asked the court to strike down a policy that expanded mail-in ballots.

      A lawyer for Kelly, Greg Teufel, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week that “it’s important the court should take an interest in whether Pennsylvania’s election laws are administered constitutionally or not, and in accordance with the Pennsylvania constitution and with the federal constitution.” Teufel noted that before the court’s decision on Monday, there was a slim chance of the justices taking it up.

      Trump still has a request on the Supreme Court docket regarding his challenge to changes that the Wisconsin Election Commission ordered last year.

      Tyler Durden
      Mon, 02/22/2021 – 20:00

    • World's Largest Hedge Fund Manager Warns Emerging Tech Stocks In "Extreme Bubble"
      World’s Largest Hedge Fund Manager Warns Emerging Tech Stocks In “Extreme Bubble”

      Authored by Ray Dalio via Bridgewater.com,

      I’ve seen a lot of bubbles in my time and I have studied even more in history, so I know what I mean by a bubble and I systemized it into a “bubble indicator” that I monitor to help give me perspective on each market. We now use it to look at most markets we are in. I want to show you how it works and what it is now showing for US stocks.

      What I mean by a bubble is an unsustainably high price, and how I measure it is with the following six measures.

      1. How high are prices relative to traditional measures?

      2. Are prices discounting unsustainable conditions?

      3. How many new buyers (i.e., those who weren’t previously in the market) have entered the market?

      4. How broadly bullish is sentiment?

      5. Are purchases being financed by high leverage?

      6. Have buyers made exceptionally extended forward purchases (e.g., built inventory, contracted forward purchases, etc.) to speculate or protect themselves against future price gains?

      Each of these six influences is measured using a number of stats that are combined into gauges. In the stock market we do it for each stock that we are looking at. These gauges are combined into aggregate indices by security and then for the market as a whole. The table below shows the current readings of each of these gauges for the US equity market as a whole, and the chart below it shows the aggregate reading derived by combining these gauges into one reading for the stock market going back to 1910. It shows how the conditions stack up today for US equities in relation to past times.

      In brief, the aggregate bubble gauge is around the 77th percentile today for the US stock market overall. In the bubble of 2000 and the bubble of 1929 this aggregate gauge had a 100th percentile read.

      There is a very big divergence in the readings across stocks. Some stocks are, by these measures, in extreme bubbles (particularly emerging technology companies), while some stocks are not in bubbles. The charts below show the share of US companies that these measures indicate being in a bubble. It is about 5% of the top 1,000 companies in the US, which is about half of what we saw at the peak of the tech bubble. The number is smaller for the S&P 500 as several of the most bubbly companies are not part of that index.

      We took the stocks that are in bubbles and created a basket of the “bubble stocks” to keep a close eye on them. The chart below shows their performance and the performance of our basket of the top 500 companies. This market action is reminiscent of the “Nifty Fifty” in the early 1970s and the dot-com bubble stocks in the late 1990s, both of which I remember well. It scores similarly to the bubble stocks of the late 1920s, which I can’t remember because I wasn’t alive then.

      While I won’t show you exactly how this indicator is constructed because that is proprietary, I will show you some of the sub-aggregate readings and some indicators.

      1. How High Are Prices Relative to Traditional Measures?

      The current read on this price gauge for US equities is around the 82nd percentile, shy of what we saw in the 1929 and 2000 bubbles.

      2. Are Prices Discounting Unsustainable Conditions?

      This measure calculates the earnings growth rate that is required to produce equity returns in excess of bond returns. This is derived by looking at individual securities and adding up their readings. Currently this indicator is around the 77th percentile for the aggregate market. This indicator shows that while stock prices in aggregate are high in relation to the absolute returns they are to provide, they are not extremely high in relation to their bond market competitors. In both 1929 and 2000 this measure was at the 100 percentile.

      3. How Many New Buyers (i.e., Those Who Weren’t Previously in the Market) Have Entered the Market?

      A rush of new entrants attracted by rising prices is often indicative of a bubble. That is because they are typically entering the market because it is hot and because they are unsophisticated. This was the case in both the 1929 and 2000 equity bubbles. This gauge has reached the 95th percentile recently due to the flood of new retail investors into the most popular stocks, which by other measures also appear to be in a bubble.

      4. How Broadly Bullish Is Sentiment?

      The more bullish the sentiment, the more people have already invested, so the less likely they will invest more and the more likely that they will sell. Our aggregate market sentiment gauge is now around the 85th percentile. Once again, it is heavily concentrated in the “bubble stocks” rather than most stocks.

      As shown below, IPOs have been exceptionally hot—the hottest since the 2000 bubble.

      The current IPO pace has been brought about by the sentiment previously mentioned, as well as the SPAC boom, as these blank-check acquisition companies have lower regulatory hurdles and greater flexibility to bring more speculative companies into the public markets. The main reason the overall read on both sentiment and aggregate frothiness for the entire market is shy of what we saw in past bubbles is that not all players are showing the same degree of exuberance. For example, sentiment from professional equity managers has moderated recently to more average levels, and corporate financial engineering (in the form of buybacks and M&A) remains mediocre as they are still working through the hit from the pandemic.

      5. Are Purchases Being Financed by High Leverage?

      Leveraged purchases make the underpinnings of the buying weaker and more vulnerable to forced selling in a downturn. Our leverage gauge, which looks at the leverage dynamics across all the key players and treats option positions as a form of leverage, is now showing a read just shy of the 80th percentile. Like some of our other bubble measures, there is high leverage being deployed by the retail segment (using options) in “bubble stocks,” while there is much less leveraging by other investors and in non-bubble stocks.

      As shown below, volume in single-stock call options is at record highs. Retail purchases of options have been the big contributor to this surge. Outside the retail sector we aren’t seeing excessive leveraged buying.

      6. To What Extent Have Buyers Made Exceptionally Extended Forward Purchases?

      One perspective on whether expectations have become overly optimistic comes from looking at forward purchases. We apply this gauge to all markets and find it particularly helpful in commodity and real estate markets where forward purchases are most clear. In the equity markets we look at indicators like capital expenditure—whether businesses (and, to a lesser extent, the government) are investing a lot or a little in infrastructure, factories, etc. It reflects whether businesses are extrapolating current demand into strong demand growth going forward. This gauge is the weakest across all our bubble gauges, pulling down the aggregate read. Corporations are the most important entity in terms of driving this piece via capex and M&A. Today aggregate corporate capex has fallen in line with the virus-driven hit to demand, while certain digital economy players have managed to maintain their levels of investment. Similarly levels of M&A activity remain subdued so far.

      What one chooses to do with this is a tactical decision. Even if this gauge is perfectly accurate (which it is not) timing tops and bottoms based on it is precarious because while it shows what neighborhood these stocks are in, there is nothing precise about it. So it is tough to pick the levels and timing of tops and bottoms based on it. Having said that, we have found that it is a pretty good predictor of relative performance of stocks over the subsequent three to five years. As a result, while it contributes to our increasingly favoring non-bubble stocks, we need to combine it with timing indicators. I just wanted to pass this along to you because I found it helpful and thought you might too in light of what’s now going on in the markets.

      Tyler Durden
      Mon, 02/22/2021 – 19:55

    • Dollars Are Flooding Into China At A Record Pace
      Dollars Are Flooding Into China At A Record Pace

      The capital outflows from China that prompted the country to engage in a shock devaluation are a distant memory, at least according to Goldman’s preferred gauge of FX flows.

      Looking at the latest round of SAFE data, Goldman’s Chinese economists find net inflows of around US$35BN in January, vs US$93BN in December last year, cumulatively the highest on record. Goods trade related FX inflows remained strong, while foreign buying of onshore bonds rose further in January (even though there were modest outflows through the stock connect program).

      Key highlights:

      In January, there was $24BN in net inflows via onshore outright spot transactions, and another $16BN in net inflow via freshly entered and canceled forward transactions. Another SAFE dataset on “cross-border RMB flows” shows that domestic banks saw net RMB payment of $4BN from offshore to onshore. This means that according to Goldman’s “preferred FX flow measure” there was a total of $35BN in January inflows, somewhat slower than the record high level of US$93bn in December 2020, but still the second highest month since early 2014!

      So what did all this dollar flow go to? Looking at the components, foreign buying of Chinese bonds accelerated: Foreigners’ holding of bonds rose $34BN in January vs. a $25BN increase in December, which was offset by the net FX outflows related to the stock connect program. The stock connect program saw US$34bn outflows in January.

      Meanwhile, China’s goods-trade surplus related inflows remained strong at $42BN in January, vs $61BN in December last year. While the January goods trade data is not yet available, seasonality around the Chinese New Year holiday suggests trade surplus could be smaller in January as importers tend to front-load purchases ahead of the holiday. Services trade related FX outflow in January was $7BN, vs $9BN in December. Note that January trade data will be released as January-February combined in March, but Goldman’s analysis suggests exporter FX conversion ratio is likely to stay high in Q1.

      As an aside, last Friday, news reports said SAFE mentioned policymakers would “explore ways to allow individuals to utilize the annual 50K USD FX conversion quota to invest in offshore equities and insurance products”. This signals policymakers are leaning towards further liberalizing outflows in light of CNY appreciation and continued inflow pressures, but the mention of “exploration” suggests the actual implementation of this policy is probably still far away.

      As for China’s official FX reserves (released earlier in the month in a separate PBOC dataset), these stood at US$3,211bn in January, $6BN lower than December. However, according to Goldman all of the decline and then some was due to FX valuation effects which reduced FX reserves by $8BN in January so after adjusting for FX valuation effect, FX reserves rose by another $2Nn in January.

      Yet for all the FX inflows, perhaps the real story is what that “other” currency is doing. As Bloomberg Ye Xie notes, the latest yuan settlement data showed that China’s efforts to push for more use of yuan in cross-border trade and services — and reduce its reliance on the dollar –has set another milestone: “The percentage of the payments and receipts denominated in yuan in total FX transactions by banks for their clients surged to a record 44% in January, from 16% four years ago.” Meanwhile, in a mirror image, the usage of the dollar declined to 51% from 74%.

      On the other hand, global usage of the yuan still remains stubbornly low: while yuan payments have jumped, they accounted for 2.4% of the global market share, compared with the dollar’s 38%, according to an analysis from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

      Still, even if it still has a long way to go, the pandemic has accelerated China’s move to further internationalize the yuan, part of its ambition to challenge the U.S.’s economic dominance. As Xie concludes, “Beijing, which has been complaining about the U.S. abusing its privilege as the issuer of the reserve currency with unconventional policies, would be pleased to see what it has achieved so far.”

      Tyler Durden
      Mon, 02/22/2021 – 19:39

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Feb 22

    Today’s News 22nd February 2021

    • Leaked Docs Reveal Large-Scale Effort Of British Govt To Use Anti-Russian Media & Influencers To "Weaken Russian State"
      Leaked Docs Reveal Large-Scale Effort Of British Govt To Use Anti-Russian Media & Influencers To “Weaken Russian State”

      Via SouthFront.org,

      The usage of propaganda and disinformation by global and regional actors as a tool to promote their interests has been an open secret for a long time. However, the dominating mainstream narrative is that the main sources of propaganda and disinformation is Russia, China, Iran or at least North Korea, while the so-called West is innocent and all what Western special services and MSM do is fiercely trying to repel the Russia or China or Iran etc –led wave of disinformation. In fact, this narrative itself is a large-scale and rough propaganda construct as the dominance of the Western governments together with Big Tech is obvious for any neutral observer. Therefore, it is logical that the main source of propaganda, disinformation, likes, half-lies and other variants of media forgeries is Western states and mainstream media. The ongoing and unprecedented censorship campaign against sources of information that provide coverage and analysis that do not fit the Western mainstream is another proof of this situation.

      The text below was released by Russian state-run news agency RT and authored by Kit Klarenberg. Being funded by the Russian government, RT logically tries to make public to the general audience obvious facts of foreign meddling in Russian internal affairs. However, the British propaganda campaign covered in this text is just one of the numerous examples of similar clandestine and not very clandestine efforts.

      Leaked papers allege massive UK govt effort to co-opt Russian-language anti-Kremlin media & influencers to ‘weaken Russian state’ (source):

      For all its alarmism about Russian ‘propaganda’ and ‘misinformation’, the UK government appears to be behind a multi-million-pound push to boost negative coverage of the Russian state, both in Russia and neighbouring countries.

      At a European Union summit in November 2017, then-UK prime minister Theresa May announced plans to designate Russia a “hostile” state, and pledged to spend in excess of £100 million over the next five years on tackling the alleged threat of Kremlin “disinformation” internationally.

      Now, hacktivist collective Anonymous has released what appear to be internal UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) files that shed significant light on how vast and ominous these efforts can be.

      According to the papers, Whitehall has sought contractors to covertly infiltrate media and civil society at multiple levels – all under the aegis of schemes to, among other things, improve literacy, promote cultural activities, ensure “balance and plurality” in media reporting, and counteract propaganda.

      Supporting anti-Kremlin media

      One of these contractors, Zinc Network (more on them later) explained in its pitch documents that it was in the process of “delivering audience segmentation and targeting support for two of Russia’s leading independent media outlets – Meduza and MediaZona”.

      The former is a Russian-language online newspaper and news aggregator based in Riga, Latvia. The latter is an investigative platform focused on Russia’s judicial, law enforcement and penal system, founded by two members of controversial punk rock band Pussy Riot.

      As the pair “[lacked] the expertise and tools” to “promote content effectively to new audiences”, Zinc was working diligently to ensure their output reached as many eyes and ears as possible. In the process, the contractor conducted “weekly mentoring sessions with specialists from the outlets”, “adjusting their editorial and commercial strategy accordingly” and creating “common framings of issues.”

      Prior to the release of these documents, any suggestions that Meduza and MediaZona – which both consistently publish content highly critical of the Russian state – were not only privately coordinating to ensure a consistent editorial line, but receiving assistance from a UK government contractor to do so, would surely have been dismissed as Russian propaganda, conspiracy theory, fake news, or worse.

      It seems likely Meduza’s relationship with Whitehall, direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious, extends far further than this collaboration. Several contractors reference the outlet in the leaked files, in relation to numerous other FCDO-funded and directed projects.

      For instance, in pitch documents submitted by another contractor, Albany, Meduza is mentioned alongside ETV+, which is the Russian-language service of the Estonian broadcaster; Latvia’s LTV, Lithuania’s LRT Re:Baltica – the website of the Baltic Centre for Investigative Journalism – and other Russian-language platforms as a potential “long-term partner”, for which “new programming” could be funded and developed.

      That this programming was to be explicitly anti-Moscow in character is starkly underlined by a section on “creating narrative games which encourage participation through social media and mobile platforms.”

      “Meduza is a leading proponent of these games which, for the most part, embrace political themes (e.g. Putin Bingo, ‘help Putin get to his meeting with the Pope on time’ and ‘help the Orthodox priest get to his church without succumbing to earthly pleasures’),” Albany notes.

      These “satirical games” would make the “valid point” that “the offer of a fairer, respectful and caring society is better than that of an arrogant, nationalistic regime.” Proposed themes include helping “the whimsical Russian exile preserve his cultural identity in the face of British political correctness”, and “the oligarch’s son conceal his unseemly wealth on his first day at university”.

      Such surreal proposal excerpts would be laughable, were it not for the fact they amply underline the extraordinary lengths London is determined to go to in service of demonizing, destabilizing and isolating Russia nationally and internationally.

      The contractors

      The contractors involved – including the aforementioned Zinc and Albany – all boast staff possessed of such clearances, individuals who previously served at the highest levels of government, the military and security services. They furthermore have extensive experience in conducting information warfare operations on London’s behalf the world over. For instance, several shadowy companies named in the leaked papers feature prominently in leaked documents related to Whitehall’s far-reaching propaganda blitz in Syria.

      As such, the companies clearly wouldn’t be at all obvious candidates to lead programs genuinely concerned with strengthening civil society, improving journalistic standards, or combating disinformation – but of course, these programs aren’t.

      Zinc Network (previously known as Breakthrough Media) is a seasoned veteran of clandestine Whitehall-funded information warfare campaigns at home and abroad. It has a long, deplorable history of cynically co-opting genuine civil society voices to covertly further Whitehall’s interests, without their knowledge or consent, and often with serious real-world consequences.

      One programme Zinc bid for is Support for Independent Media in the Baltic States. The leaked papers include the FCDO’s statement of requirement for the project, as well as the details that were spelled out to contractors at a meeting convened June 2018 by FCDO Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) chief Andy Pryce, along with a parallel operation in Eastern Partnership countries.

      Stating openly the endeavor – set to cost up to £6 million in 2018-2021 – is ultimately concerned with “weakening the Russian state”, Pryce warned attendees against “unauthorised disclosures of activity”, and noted that “for security reasons”, some suppliers “will not wish to be linked to the FCDO.” 

      He went on to list numerous ways in which journalists and media organizations in target countries could not only be co-opted via funding, but outright “acquisition” of content. Sponsoring public broadcasters was said to provide “easy wins” given “light touch governance” locally, a euphemism for corruption and lack of regulation.

      He professed to be “audience agnostic” when asked about targeting people under-18, and said there was “scope for gender sensitivity in programming” – “Girls on HBO is the type of thing but in Ukraine.” 

      It’s a bizarre suggestion which amuses at first glance, until one considers at least five television serials in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were produced by Zinc Network under the auspices of the program, including the region’s first Russian-language kids’ show.

      It’s troubling in the extreme that millions of people – among them many children – may have watched this programming, without any idea it was created to surreptitiously extol anti-Russian, pro-Western propaganda, let alone that the UK government bankrolled its production as part of a dedicated psyops effort.

      Such disquiet is amplified by Albany specifically seeking to exploit “young Russian speakers” in the Baltics “as agents of change”, to “influence their parents’ and grandparents’ generations and amplify a distinct ‘Euro-Baltic’ identity” in a separate project.

      Co-opting social media influencers

      Other leaked documents reveal Zinc’s activities in the region were already sizable by the time it submitted proposals for the project, to the extent of maintaining“an in-house team of Russian speaking producers, digital researchers and digital growth strategists.”

      Zinc maintained a secret network of Russian-speaking social media influencers, to promote “media integrity and democratic values” – curiously, its relationship with these individuals is said to have involved “daily management”. 

      Recruited via YouTube, Facebook, VK and Instagram, the company “[helped] them build their brands and improve their content in order to grow their audience share,” and “[established] a co-owned channel on YouTube to host their content, help them access one another’s audiences, co-creating content that tackled complex social issues.”

      Moreover though, one file indicates Zinc taught these influencers how to “make and receive international payments without being registered as external sources of funding” and “develop editorial strategies to deliver key messages”, while minimizing their “risk of prosecution” and managing “project communications” to ensure the network’s existence, and indeed the UK government’s central role in creating it, were kept “confidential”.

      In other words, they appear to have operated, and may continue to, as effective paid agents of the British state, Zinc “assisting” them in crafting slick propaganda furtively propounding Whitehall-approved “key messages”, which was then broadcast globally under the guise of citizen journalism.

      The identities of the influencers, and their cognisance of the insidious role they were playing by collaborating with the company, is presently unknown. Although, unlike viewers, the influencers would’ve at least been aware their “independent” content was in fact co-produced in a London office.

      ENGAGE, ENHANCE, ENABLE, EXPOSE

      There are hundreds of papers in Anonymous’ leak, and the above is just scratching the surface. The FCDO’s wide-ranging, secret campaign apparently consists of four pillars, or ‘strands’ – ENGAGE, ENHANCE, ENABLE, EXPOSE. One document circulated to contractors pitching for the assorted, lucrative programmes therein – dubbed “Theory of Change” – sets out the activities, output, outcome, and impact of the respective strands, both in isolation and in tandem with one another.

      EXPOSE’s activities are defined as “real-time debunking, support to investigative journalism, capacity building, networking between NGOs” – yet its output, outcomes, and impact are redacted, hidden in an already classified document, indicating its operations and objectives are extremely sensitive indeed, and one requires a senior security clearance to know them.

      For all the mainstream media’s alarmist chatter of the threat of Kremlin “disinformation”, not a single example of anything even remotely comparable to the full-spectrum, multi-channel, on- and offline, global assault on perceptions outlined in this article has ever been attributed to Moscow, or any other “hostile” state.

      It is truly staggering that for all the documents’ references to transparency, truth and democracy, these mammoth, multi-million-pound initiatives have been conducted in total secrecy for years without any public oversight, or even awareness among British citizens – let alone target audiences overseas – of their operation.

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

    • 'A Tale Told By An Idiot': The Second Impeachment Of Donald Trump
      ‘A Tale Told By An Idiot’: The Second Impeachment Of Donald Trump

      Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The first impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019 was no tragedy. It was always a farce. The second impeachment, in which Trump was acquitted on the night of Saturday, February 13 did not even rise to that. It was a hiccup, a non-event. The most solemn procedure in the sacred constitutional process of the United States did not even rise to the entertainment value of a bout of naked mud wrestling.

      Washington during the week of the Second Great Impeachment Trial was a fascinating non-place to be. The skies were grey. It was quite cold: About minus Five Degrees Celsius most days.  There was a thin sprinkling of tired, dirty snow on the ground. The city was deserted. More virulent mutations of the COVID-19 virus from the United Kingdom and South Africa were said to be on the loose.

      The streets were empty. There were no protests, wall graffiti, slogans or demonstrations either for or against Trump. Nobody cared. It echoed the empty deserted ghostly state of the city during Joe Biden’s non-existent presidential inaugural on January 20. Once again, all that happened was that someone taped a badly handwritten note on the Capitol saying “impeachment” and everything that followed was just a badly acted chaotic play performed by autistic children.

      No real human being gave a second’s care for either convicting Trump or acquitting him. Not a single firework was fired off in celebrate his acquittal. Not a single liberal committed ritual suicide, tried to burn themselves to death in front of the Senate or even bothered to throw a rotten tomato or an egg at a single Republican Senator who voted for acquittal. It was never real. It didn’t matter. Nobody cared.

      Yet impeachment is supposed to Mean Something. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than melt into blubber beneath its merciless glare. Bill Clinton, who was widely suspected of being guilty of so much, beat an impeachment rap only for lying in public that he had slept with a naive young girl intern.

      George W. Bush surely rated impeachment for his unprecedented incompetence in so many areas: He bankrupted the country: He destroyed civil liberties. He failed to prevent the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. He ignored Mississippi flood defenses thereby drowning of the city of New Orleans, killing thousands more. He unleashed unnecessary, endless wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He got thosuands of youn g American soldeirs killed and ten thousands more hideously maimed for life – for nothing.

      Yet the Democratic majorities that ran both chambers of Congress during the last two years of Bush’s presidency never had the guts or decency to dare to impeach him for any of these terrible, shameful things.

      Bush’s successor Barack Obama blithely presided over the destruction of democracy in Ukraine, risking nuclear war with Russia. He locked the United States into a $1.5 trillion 30-years-long new nuclear arms race. He unleashed war, rebellion, anarchy and chaos in Yemen, Syria and Libya, killing untold millions more. The Republicans who controlled Congress never dared – or bothered – to impeach him either.

      This non-existent second failed impeachment of Trump confirms what the world already learned in his farcical first impeachment in 2019. Impeachment as a solemn tool to preserve democracy, depose an unworthy national leader or mean anything at all is stone cold dead in the United States of America.

      Like the rest of the Beloved, still so widely revered, more than 230-years-old US Constitution, impeachment has become a meaningless exercise in exhausted, archaic cliches. No one would ever dare to use it for anything that really mattered at all. Both Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly shown over the past 30 years that they are all too scared to.

      The aging, absurd, senile and drooling old Democratic political elite in Washington were led over the edge of a political cliff yet again by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and House congressional “expert” Congressman Adam Schiff. 

      They will still revere and mindlessly follow them. Gadarene Swine are incapable of doing anything else.

      The Democrats failed to discredit or even politically damage Trump. They revealed themselves as stupid, malignant fools, trying to impeach a powerless president who had already been cast out of office. They failed to plausibly document any of their charges against him. They made a mockery of President Biden’s half-hearted, dazedly delivered pledge of bipartisanship and burying of political enmities in his already forgotten Inaugural Address.

      They also handed to the Republicans a perfect precedent for impeaching Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris if they regain control of Congress in 2022, assuming the ramshackle US political system can even survive until then.

      The outcome of Trump’s second impeachment was therefore a catastrophe for the Democrats. It repeated Obama and Biden’s disastrous bungled start to their 2009 administration and it already heralds the rapid isolation and collapse of the Biden regime

      Nearly 2,000 years ago, the mad Roman boy-emperor Caligula declared war on the God Neptune by collecting sea shells on the beaches of France and Belgium. Caligula had more credibility and success than Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff: At least he got the sea shells.

      What we have just seen is another example of the compulsion of America’s liberal ruling elite to make a sick, discredited joke of what is left of their own collapsing and totally bankrupt political system.

      What was the Second Impeachment of Donald Trump? Shakespeare gave us the answer in his Scottish Play more than 400 years ago.

      It was a walking shadow, a poor player

      That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

      And then is heard no more. It is a tale

      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

      Signifying nothing.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 23:35

    • Watch: US Army Conducts First Autonomous Vehicle Test At New Facility Near Baltimore 
      Watch: US Army Conducts First Autonomous Vehicle Test At New Facility Near Baltimore 

      US Army researchers began experimenting with autonomous vehicles at a new testing facility within Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Middle River, Maryland. 

      APG allotted Army Research Laboratory (ARL) with 200 acres to prove and refine autonomous vehicles’ performance. The facility has been home to the service for nearly a century, where munitions and weapons have been tested. 

      “The one-of-its-kind research campus was established to advance Army knowledge of autonomy and intelligent systems through basic and applied research of unmanned technologies that integrate artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics and human teaming elements in complex environments,” Jeffrey Westrich, an ARL program manager said. 

      Last month, Army researchers performed the first fully-autonomous vehicle test at ARL’s new testing grounds. 

      Westrich said, “the tests served to preliminarily prove the performance of the ARL Autonomy Stack for future, extended field testing.” 

      ARL’s Autonomy Stack is a software framework and collection of algorithms that are the brains of an autonomous vehicle. 

      Before recent field testing, Army researchers relied on computer-based modeling and simulation. 

      A video published on YouTube captured the field test as the autonomous vehicle navigated through a wooded area. 

      ARL plans more tests this year of autonomous vehicles to evaluate their artificial intelligence-enabled systems. 

      The timing of the test and upcoming ones comes as the Army has been receiving prototype light, medium, and heavy robotic combat vehicles to prepare for eventual fielding on the modern battlefield. 

      Last month, the service received two Robotic Combat Vehicle-Light unmanned ground vehicle prototypes.

      In October, the Army said it was about to receive four 10-ton Ripsaw M5 Robotic Combat Vehicle prototypes. 

      Modernization of the service was supercharged under the Trump administration will likely continue under the new administration following a power struggle between the US and China for global dominance.

      Bank of America’s equity strategist Haim Israel recently updated clients in a note describing the latest geopolitical flare-ups between both countries. 

      While the Army prepares for a future conflict with the need for weaponized robots, will the next battlefield domain be space?

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 23:10

    • Canada To Follow Australia's Lead In Charging Facebook For Links
      Canada To Follow Australia’s Lead In Charging Facebook For Links

      Authored by Jazz Shaw via HotAir.com,

      After blocking links to all news content in Australia, Facebook has reportedly “friended” the country again by coming back to the negotiating table, at least according to Prime Minister Scott Morrison. That doesn’t mean that Mark Zuckerberg has dropped his objections to Austrailia’s pending legislation that would force the social media giant to pay for links to Australian news content, however. Neither side seems to be backing down at this point.

      Australia may not be in this battle alone, though.

      We’re learning this weekend that Canada is drafting a similar measure and basically daring Facebook to impose a blackout on them as well. (NY Post)

      Canada is poised to take on Facebook, following the example set by Australia, which began a war with the tech giant when the country’s publishers backed proposed legislation demanding payment for their content.

      Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault condemned Facebook’s actions as “highly irresponsible” last week when the social media giant removed all Australian news content from its sites in retaliation.

      Guilbeault warned that Canada would be next in making sure Facebook paid for news content from Canadian publishers. Guilbeault is charged with drafting legislation in the next few months that would require Facebook and Alphabet Inc’s Google to pay up.

      This whole “everyone hates Facebook” theme is turning into a trend. According to Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, he was recently in talks with representatives from Finland, France and Germany to discuss what to do about Facebook. He further indicated that the total number of nations considering joining such an alliance could quickly reach 15.

      This is pretty much what I was talking about when I suggested that Facebook might come to regret starting this staredown with Australia. The Aussies probably only represent a fairly small percentage of Facebook’s total audience and the same can be said for Canada. But if they start losing a significant number of European countries as well, Mark Zuckerberg may have to go back to the drawing board and rethink his strategy. At some point, the cart is going to become too heavy for the donkey to pull it.

      It’s not just fees for news content, either. More countries, including the United States, are discussing new regulatory action against the big social media companies and even the possibility of modifying antitrust laws. Facebook has managed to maintain some level of profitability, but its entire business model could evaporate if too many nations start cracking the whip in that fashion.

      Before anyone comes to the table with Zuckerberg (aside from Australia, anyway), we should know exactly what we expect from Facebook in terms of “better behavior.” I really don’t understand the desire to charge them for links to news sites showing up on users’ pages. If people are republishing entire articles instead of excerpts and stealing protected images, then they need to have those posts taken down. But if it’s really just links and summaries, that sort of activity drives more traffic to the news sites so Facebook is basically doing marketing work for those sites for free.

      It would be more beneficial if we could get Facebook, Twitter and all the rest to stop censoring conservative speech, but that would be pretty hard to build into legislation. And I somehow doubt that Congress would be interested in such a plan anyway, at least as long as the Democrats are in charge.

      Once we see how many more countries are seriously willing to enter into an anti-Facebook alliance with Canada and Australia we’ll have a better idea of whether or not Mark Zuckerberg truly feels compelled to come to the table. But I still don’t have an inkling of what he might offer to stave off the impasse.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 22:45

    • These Are The World's Most-Searched Consumer Brands
      These Are The World’s Most-Searched Consumer Brands

      Strong brands create an emotional link with consumers, and tech brands are no exception.

      In fact, Google, Amazon, Netflix, and even eBay rank as some of the most searched consumer brands worldwide. It’s hard to imagine life without these household names, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld asks (and answers below) how do brand preferences shift and change across internet searches worldwide?

      This graphic from Business Financing compiles 12 months of data from the Google Keyword Planner and other sources, to uncover the world’s most searched consumer brands.

      Note: Due to data constraints, a number of countries on the map do not have sufficient information available.

      In Tech We Trust

      By far, the world’s most searched consumer brand is Google, which seems very convenient.

      It ranks at the top in 100 countries—that’s nearly half of all countries on the planet. With over 90 billion visits monthly, Google has unparalleled dominance in brand loyalty and website traffic.

      Top 3 Most Searched Consumer Brands

      1. Google: 100 countries

      2. Netflix: 45 countries

      3. Amazon: 30 countries

      Netflix, falling in second, ranks highest in 45 countries including Turkey, Brazil, and South Korea. In third, Amazon is the most popular in 30 countries. The only non-tech company in the top five is IKEA, in fifth place, after eBay.

      Gaming the System

      When it comes to sub-sectors of consumer brands, the gaming space tells an interesting story.

      Namely, it is Epic Games—creator of Fortnite and Grand Theft Auto—that dominates global charts by a considerable margin. Founded in Potomac, Maryland, the company ranks at the top for 141 countries globally.

      View the high resolution of this infographic by clicking here.

      Additionally, Nintendo tops the list of 24 countries including Japan, Haiti, and Canada, while Paris-based Gameloft comes next in line.

      Fast Fashion: Shoe Dog At the Top

      Since its founding in 1964, Nike has become a remarkable brand builder. In fact, Nike is the most searched fashion brand among 49 countries.

      Interestingly, founder Phil Knight only began to fully understand branding power after the company reached $1 billion in revenues. After a series of failures and missteps in the mid-1980s, Nike switched its focus from marketing and manufacturing, to instead, zeroing in on the consumer.

      View the high resolution of this infographic by clicking here.

      Like Nike, Swedish retailer H&M has a long history dating back to 1947. Prior to the pandemic, the fast-fashion retailer operated 5,000 stores globally. Since pandemic tailwinds, however, H&M plans to close 250 physical stores in 2021 and focus more on online sales.

      Big Macs are Here to Stay

      When you look closer at the most searched fast food chains, McDonald’s ranks highest on a global level, but not by far.

      KFC comes in second, topping the list of 65 countries including Russia, Peru, and Thailand. Meanwhile, Pizza Hut, which is owned by the same parent company as KFC, attracted the highest number of searches in America.

      View the high resolution of this infographic by clicking here

      On the other hand, Antarctica curiously ranks Baskin Robbins at the top, but this could be influenced from a low volume of searches in the region.

      Consumer Brand Outliers

      If there’s one recurring trend across the top consumer brands, it’s that they are unsurprisingly dominated by big players concentrated in America.

      However, notable outliers are present. In China, search engine Baidu ranks as the top consumer brand on the internet. On the other hand, the Vatican’s most-searched gaming company is Canada-based BioWare, which developed the Mass Effect series (no pun intended).

      Meanwhile, in Saint Helena—the island where Napoleon was exiled and later died—has Burger King as its most searched fast food brand. As it happens, the remote island appears to have no Burger King, or any other fast food chains. Kenya’s top fashion brand is Louis Vuitton, while Turkmenistan’s is Gucci.

      Despite these differences, many consumer preferences, at least according to search volume, appear strikingly similar on global levels. As many of these multinational brands continue to gain even greater market share, the implications for the global consumer will be interesting to watch in the next year, or even decade.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 22:20

    • Biden's Post-Trump NATO-Reset Points To Fading US Global Power In Multipolar World
      Biden’s Post-Trump NATO-Reset Points To Fading US Global Power In Multipolar World

      Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      A month after his inauguration, President Joe Biden’s administration formally engaged on the international stage this week to set out key foreign policies.

      His Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin addressed a two-day NATO summit via video link in which he relayed the message from Biden that the US would re-engage with transatlantic European allies. Four years of Donald Trump’s abrasive America First policy was being jettisoned in place of a more smooth, consensual approach under Biden.

      President Biden would himself  address videoconferences of the Group of Seven nations held Friday, as well as the annual Munich Security Conference over the weekend. A major development is the Biden administration’s announcement that it is ready to rejoin the international nuclear accord with Iran, thereby repudiating Trump’s rejection of that deal. It remains to be seen, however, just what the Biden administration will want in exchange for honoring its signature to the treaty which was negotiated in 2015.

      Other policy reversals include US troops remaining in Germany in contrast to Trump’s plan to draw down numbers. That sounds like another exercise in repairing relations with the Europeans.

      Previously, Biden also announced he would negotiate with Russia on extending the New START treaty limiting nuclear weapons. The latter move is cautiously welcomed. But, again, it remains to be seen.

      There’s no doubt about the change in style. The Biden administration is promising to be collegiate about strategic decision-making with European allies. The bullying rhetoric used by Trump for hectoring European members to spend more on NATO military commitments has been ditched by Biden. The Washington establishment was acutely concerned that Trump’s transactional tirades were alienating European allies and undermining the 30-nation NATO alliance, which in turn was diminishing America’s authority and frustrating its interests.

      Historically, the United States relies on NATO as a conduit to project its power and influence over Europe. This was its fundamental objective when NATO was first set up in 1949 at the start of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In recent decades, NATO has assumed an ever-expanding purpose for American imperial power projection, encompassing not just Western Europe but all of Europe right up to Russia’s borders. NATO has become a vehicle for American hegemonic ambitions holding sway over the Balkans, Caucasia, North Africa and the Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.

      For an organization that nominally originated for maintaining security in the North Atlantic, it sounds rather odd indeed to hear its spokesmen talk now about the need for NATO to confront China. That oddly expanded global mission reflects the real but unspoken fact that NATO is all about serving American global ambitions.

      Former President Trump was too ignorant or obsessed with money-grubbing financial costs – “we’re being ripped off” he would repeatedly complain with regard to NATO – to realize the strategic bigger picture of what the alliance is really purposed to serve.

      Under a new man in the White House – an old-time establishment operative – there is seemingly a more consensual approach with allies. Nevertheless, underlying the liberal lexicon there is the same old mantra of hostility towards Russia and China.

      Lloyd Austin, the Pentagon chief, told European allies this week that there would have to be “more burden sharing” in order to confront the “threats” allegedly posed by Russia and China. Biden continued the same theme of confronting Russia and China during his G7 and Munich conferences over the weekend.

      American hegemonic ambitions required to satisfy its corporate capitalism are dependent on a zero-sum geopolitics. The globe must divided into spheres of influence as in the earlier Cold War decades. There must be antagonism to thwart genuine cooperation which is anathema to American capitalism. Indeed, it can be said that the Cold War never actually ended when the Soviet Union dissolved more three decades ago. America’s imperialist ideology continued under new guises of “fighting terrorism”, “democracy promotion and nation building”, or more recently “great power competition” with Russia and China.

      The bottom line is that NATO is more important than ever for enabling Washington’s global power ambitions given the demise of American capitalism and the rise of China and Eurasia.

      NATO provides a crucial political cover for what would otherwise be seen as naked American imperialism.

      The contradiction, however, is that the world is increasingly moving towards a multipolar realm where nations are more interdependent and integrated in economic relations. Russia and China are major trading and investment partners with Europe, not adversaries, and even less so enemies. The latter depiction is absurd.

      The only people claiming that Russia and China are a “threat” are the Americans, regardless of who is sitting in the White House, whether Republican or Democrat. (Well, not the only people. There are minor figures in Europe, such as the reactionary, rightwing Baltic politicians, who also spout Russophobia and Sinophobia in dutiful deference to their American mentors.)

      Thus it can be adjudged that there will be no fundamental post-Trump reset of NATO under Biden. The organization remains what it has always been, a war machine to advance American imperialist objectives of hegemony. The only difference is the Biden administration is more savvy about projecting a more palatable image and rhetoric about “consensus”, “diversity” and “burden sharing”.

      This revamped, yet in essence ideologically rigid, NATO suffers serious dissonance in practical relations with the real world of multipolar evolution. Biden will try to cohere NATO members to America’s global ambitions but those same members are inevitably aligning with the rest of the world out of their own political and economic self-interest. The more militaristic NATO tries to become at the goading of the Americans and their European flunkies like Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the more the alliance is likely to unravel. Its imperialist function is no longer fit for purpose nor viable in today’s world.

      The more the US pushes NATO as its vehicle, the more it is apparent that the battery of American power is running flat.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 21:55

    • Russian Stealth Jet Tests Realistic Mockup Of New "Intra-Fuselage Hypersonic Missile"
      Russian Stealth Jet Tests Realistic Mockup Of New “Intra-Fuselage Hypersonic Missile”

      The superpower rivalry, sparked by the Cold War between the US and Russia, continues to this day. If that’s in stealth fighter jets or hypersonic weapons, there’s a race between both countries to field these weapons. Russia appears to be ahead in hypersonic weapon development as the US has yet to field these weapons. Still, the US is ahead of Russia when it comes to fielding stealth jets. 

      The ultimate fighter jet is a fifth-generation fighter with a weapon bay that can carry hypersonic missiles. Both the US’ Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 weapon bays are too small to carry hypersonic missiles. 

      SU-57

      However, Russian defense industry sources told Sputnik News that the Su-57 is undergoing tests on its ability to carry hypersonic weapons internally. 

      “Russian media reported earlier this week that a realistic mockup of a new “intra-fuselage hypersonic missile” was being carried by an Su-57 for test flights. The details of the weapon are vague; however, it is likely the same weapon reported to have been developed in February 2020,” Sputnik said. 

      At the moment, Russia’s Mikoyan MiG-31 carries the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, an air-launched hypersonic missile that can travel at Mach 10, on its belly. The Tupolev Tu-160 supersonic bombers can also carry the Kinzhal.

      With the Kinzhal measuring 26 feet long, and the Su-57’s 14-foot-long internal weapons bay, Russia has embarked on a task to make the world’s smallest hypersonic missile. 

      SU-57’s Weapons Bay

      “No extant hypersonic weapon has been so small, as all have been the size of large cruise missiles or air-launched ballistic missiles,” Sputnik said, adding that “such a weapon might be powered by an air-breathing scramjet, a type of advanced rocket engine used to attain ultra-fast speeds, such as that currently being developed by India.”

      Ever since the Soviet Sputnik satellite entered orbit in 1957, both countries have been on a militarization path to gain an edge over one another. 

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 21:30

    • Hide And Seek: How Drug Traffickers Get Creative At Sea
      Hide And Seek: How Drug Traffickers Get Creative At Sea

      Authored by Katie Jones via InsightCrime.org,

      Drug traffickers engage in a creative game of hide and seek with coast guards and other security forces that board their ships at sea.

      Rubén Navarrete, a Mexican Navy captain based in the western state of Michoacán, told Televisa News last November that those dedicated to maritime smuggling could only be restricted by one thing: their own imagination. A spate of recent seizures prove his point as traffickers have been getting more inventive with hiding places both above and below deck.

      InSight Crime looks at some of the most popular and creative ways narcotics have been concealed aboard ships over the years and how this continues to evolve.

      1. Anchor

      In some cases, drugs have been stored in the same compartment as the anchor, to which few people would have access. In 2019, media reports shared how nearly 15 kilograms of cocaine had been found concealed in a vessel’s anchor compartment, as it was docked in the Dominican Republic’s Puerto Caldera.

      Otherwise, anchors have been used to facilitate the delivery of drugs once a ship has reached its point of arrival. In 2017, Spanish authorities announced the seizure of more than a ton of cocaine from a Venezuelan flagged vessel at high sea. The nation’s Interior Ministry detailed how law enforcement agents had observed around 40 suspicious packages onboard, that were linked by ropes and fixed to two anchors.

      This was reportedly so crew members could throw illicit loads into the sea in the shortest time possible, to avoid being detected. Authorities observed how two of the crew tried to achieve this before being caught out with four other people who were onboard.

      The anchor’s use in drug trafficking has been based on pragmatism, often attracting smugglers planning to make an express, maritime delivery.

      2. Containers

      One of the most common ways traffickers have attempted to smuggle drugs overseas has been through concealing illicit substances among supplies onboard, often located in the ship’s principal hold or hull. The “gancho ciego” or “rip-on rip-off” technique has commonly been used to send cocaine across the Atlantic, meaning smugglers regularly attempt to conceal drugs in containers which have already undergone checks carried out by customs officials.

      As InSight Crime reported last year, scrap metal shipments have posed a sizeable problem for authorities in this respect, due to scanners being unable to pick up on smaller quantities of drugs when they are hidden among vast volumes of scrap. Equally, authorities have found it more difficult to deploy sniffer dogs to detect drugs in such cases, as the animals may get injured when performing their duties.

      Otherwise, illicit substances have commonly been smuggled in among foodstuffs. In October of last year, Spain’s Civil Guard announced it had seized over a ton of cocaine at high sea. Authorities reportedly found the drug between bags of maize on a ship traveling from Brazil to the Spanish province of Cádiz.

      And at the end of 2019, authorities in Italy discovered close to 1.3 tons of cocaine within a refrigerated container carrying bananas, which had arrived from South America. This followed a record seizure made at the nation’s Port of Livorno earlier that year, where over half a ton of the drug was found concealed in a container seemingly carrying coffee from Honduras.

      Given the widespread use of this technique, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has worked with the World Customs Organization (WCO) to carry out a worldwide container control program, in an attempt to combat such efforts.

      3. Captain’s Cabin

      Drugs have previously been seized from inside the captain’s personal belongings. Such attempts are rarely revealed, requiring a significant level of corruption on a captain or crew’s behalf to work effectively.

      Last year, Uruguay’s naval forces seized five kilograms of cocaine in the front cabin of a Chinese flagged ship, which had reached Montevideo from Brazil, according to media reports. Subrayado revealed how the captain himself had denounced the illicit load on discovering it.

      On the other hand, in 2018, authorities in Paraguay detained a ship’s captain, after he was accused of smuggling drugs among his personal possessions in the cabin, Ultima Hora reported, citing the Attorney General’s Office. Officials reportedly seized over 150 kilograms of cocaine at the nation’s Port of Asunción, just as the drugs were about to be transported to Europe on behalf of a ‘known trafficker’ who allegedly worked for a Paraguayan criminal organization.

      4. Funnel

      Another potential hiding place for traffickers seeking to export illicit wares has been close to a given ship’s funnel. This is incredibly rare, however it has been known to occur.

      El Tiempo’s archives suggest that over two decades ago, in 1996, authorities found cocaine hidden in ships belonging to Peruvian armed forces. Following a spate of related seizures, just under 30 kilograms of cocaine were discovered in a compartment near to the funnel of a ship belonging to the navy, anchored three miles from the Lima port of Callao. Days later, another 25 kilograms of the drug were reportedly found in the hold of the same ship.

      This hiding place has rarely been used when reported seizures are considered, perhaps due to difficulties in smugglers being able to get close to a vessel’s funnel without being detected, and the limited quantity of illicit substances a given group would be able to conceal there.

      5. Vents

      Traffickers have been concealing drugs inside the vents along ship hulls, as smuggling below deck has taken off.

      In 2019, InSight Crime reported that a trafficking network headed by Colombians had been sending cocaine to Europe from the Peruvian ports of Pisco and Chimbote, principally through employing divers to weld sealed packets of the drug into vents located in the hulls of ships. Up to 600 kilograms were reportedly smuggled per ship, without the crew’s knowledge.

      In September of that year, Spanish authorities seized just over 50 kilograms of cocaine concealed in the submerged part of a merchant ship, after it reached the island of Gran Canaria from Brazil, EFE reported. According to the media outlet, officials detailed how part of the illicit load had been found inside a manipulated vent below deck.

      And months later, in December 2019, police in Ecuador revealed how divers had discovered over 300 kilograms of cocaine hidden in the lower vents of a maritime vessel. According to authorities, the cocaine was seized before it could be smuggled onward to Mexico and the Dominican Republic.

      When drugs are concealed below deck, ship vents are perhaps one of the most popular hiding places traffickers use, even if divers are typically required to facilitate this.

      6. Water Inlets

      Staying below deck, criminal actors have used water inlets to conceal drugs and facilitate trafficking operations. While this hiding place is less common than traditional favorites, sophisticated networks have been working with divers to store packets of illicit substances inside such valves.

      Last August, media outlets shared how authorities in Chile had detained a group of 15 suspects (including Chilean, Peruvian and Venezuelan nationals) after they had allegedly worked to transport drugs from Peru to the country’s northern region of Antofagasta and the western zone of its capital, Santiago. The organization had reportedly been concealing drugs within the water inlets of a Peru-flagged merchant ship.

      The vessel’s water inlets were reportedly used so a diver who formed part of the illicit network could extract concealed packets of drugs as the ship passed Chile’s northern port city of Mejillones. Reports from local media suggested the diver had been reaching the vessel on a boat with an electric motor which made little noise, to avoid being detected. On dismantling the group, authorities reportedly seized 1.7 billion pesos (over $2.3 million) worth of drugs, including over 20 kilograms of cocaine, more than 180 kilograms of marijuana, as well as smaller quantities of ketamine, LSD and MDMA.

      This method is more complex than simply hiding drugs in a container located in the ship’s hull in that it typically requires somebody reliable on the other end to dive down and collect clandestine packages, all while avoiding maritime authorities.

      7. The Hull

      An increasingly popular approach adopted by traffickers has been to hide drugs below deck, within or attached to a ship’s watertight hull. Divers are often employed by criminal groups to facilitate such operations.

      In 2019, InSight Crime shared how ship hulls have been increasingly used to facilitate drug trafficking, particularly by smugglers taking advantage of vessels disembarking from Ecuador and Peru. Criminal groups have picked up on how attaching drug shipments to the hulls of ships makes illicit substances near imposible to detect using standard inspection procedures.

      However, officials have been combatting such cunning attempts. In 2018, Chile’s navy detailed how authorities had detained members of a gang working to smuggle drugs in the hulls of ships headed from Colombia to the nation. Authorities seized over 350 kilograms of “creepy” style marijuana, after a ship which had originally disembarked from Taiwan arrived at Chile’s Port of San Antonio, following a stop in Colombia. At the port, maritime police intercepted three Colombian divers as they attempted to pass seven packages of the drug from the ship’s hull to a fishing boat manned by two Chilean nationals.

      In November of last year, Televisa News interviewed a naval diver based in Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico’s state of Michoacán, who claimed such methods have been putting authorities at risk, with trained divers searching for illicit substances in crocodile-filled waters, in some cases.

      8. Fuel Tank

      While we may be more used to seeing drugs concealed in car fuel tanks, smugglers on ships have replicated this tactic.

      Last April, the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian reported on how the island nation’s coast guard had intercepted a ship carrying an estimated $160 million worth of cocaine. Sources consulted by the media outlet revealed officials had discovered 400 kilograms of the drug in the vessel’s fuel tanks, adding that they had to perform a “destructive search” to reach the cocaine, as the hidden stash was kept in a secret enclosure, tightly wrapped in waterproof material.

      On a smaller scale, back in 2015, authorities in the Dominican Republic seized just short of 80 packets of presumed cocaine, onboard a vessel destined for Puerto Rico, according to Diario Libre. The drugs had been found spread across six buckets located in the boat’s fuel tank compartment.

      This method is far from the most common used by maritime smugglers and its intricacy has varied from case to case. However, through its ability to accommodate everything from drug-filled buckets to illicit packages wrapped in impermeable material, a ship’s fuel compartment should not be discounted as a hiding place.

      9. Torpedoes

      The so-called “torpedo method” has been highly popular among smugglers. Criminal groups have been filling makeshift tubes (also known as “torpedoes”) with drugs, tying such containers to the bottom of ship hulls with rope, so illicit loads may be cut off at high sea if authorities get too close.

      In 2018, police in Colombia discovered 40 kilograms of cocaine inside a sealed torpedo attached to a ship destined for the Netherlands. A police news release detailing the seizure explained how divers may take advantage of a vessel’s drainage level system to attach such containers with hooks, ahead of transatlantic journeys lasting up to 20 days.

      SEE ALSO: Peru Finds ‘Narco-Torpedo’ on Boat

      Two years earlier, InSight Crime reported on how this method had been applied extensively by traffickers based in Colombia.

      In 2015, authorities in the nation caught 14 people suspected of being in a gang dedicated to smuggling drugs in cylinders attached to ship hulls. To facilitate the group’s operations, illicit divers — one of whom was reportedly linked to the navy — bolted the containers to stabilizer fins of vessels, according to El Heraldo. The media outlet added that the cylinders were manufactured by a metal working expert, who also covered them with fiber glass.

      But torpedoes have not just been bolted to ships setting sail from Colombia. As far back as 2011, InSight Crime reported on how Peruvian police had found just over 100 kilograms of cocaine hidden inside a makeshift torpedo attached to the bottom of a boat in a Lima port.

      The torpedo method is intricate and often requires specialist involvement, from trained divers to metal workers producing the containers. However, this technique has become increasingly popular with traffickers who want to minimize the risk of being caught with illicit loads at high sea.

      10. Engine Room

      Drugs have been frequently hidden in rooms restricted to select crew members, often implicating those with inside knowledge in such cases.

      In 2014, police in Ecuador seized over 20 kilograms of cocaine, found in a ship which had arrived at the nation’s Port of Manta from Singapore. According to authorities, the drugs were discovered in the vessel’s engine room, in two packages: a suitcase and a jute sheath.  

      Three years later, authorities reportedly found just under 90 kilograms of cocaine in the engine room of a steamship docked at the Port of Palermo in Colombia, according to El Heraldo. Media reports suggested the load was ultimately headed for Brazil. But before the vessel could disembark, tip-offs led authorities to find the drugs in one of the ship’s most restricted places.

      Nearly two decades ago, a Colombian naval training ship was found with over 26 kilograms of cocaine and heroin in its engine room. At the time, media outlets said the drugs could have been linked to self-defense groups in Cúcuta.

      While this restricted room has been used to conceal smaller quantities of drugs, it is far from a popular place for smuggling to occur, particularly without some form of insider knowledge.

      11. Propellor

      In a particularly creative move, traffickers have been known to hide drugs under the propellors of maritime vessels.

      Last December 8, the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) shared how police divers in Puerto Rico’s port of San Juan had found just under 40 kilograms of cocaine worth approximately $1 million under a cargo vessel’s bow thruster, inside two marine net bags.

      Roberto Vaquero, assistant director of field operations for border security in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands stated that smugglers had been using “very creative means to conceal their illicit drug loads into the international supply chain”.

      Using a vessel’s propellors to do so is perhaps one of the most innovative albeit among the least reported ways in which smugglers have been moving illicit loads.

      12. Store Room

      A ship’s sail store room is out of bounds for most, but traffickers have found a way to use it to their advantage.

      Naval training ships have been mobile transit hubs for drugs in the past through the use of restricted spaces. Off limits storage rooms have been used to conceal illicit loads during transatlantic voyages.

      In August 2014, after a Spanish navy training ship arrived home following a six month cruise, authorities seized 127 kilograms of cocaine from a storage room where the folded sails were kept, El País reported. The media outlet suggested that very few people had access to this space.

      During its voyage, the ship had stopped off in Cartagena, Colombia and then in New York. Three of its crew members were accused of selling drugs to traffickers in the US state, according to El País.

      Such incidences are rare and usually rely on the direct involvement of corrupt officials or armed forces themselves.

      13. Nets

      Traffickers have been using nets attached to ships to their advantage, predominantly to bring drugs aboard.

      In June 2019, media outlets revealed how traffickers had snuck over 16.5 tons of cocaine onto a cargo ship, following a billion-dollar drug bust in the US state of Philadelphia. It was reported that the ship’s second mate told investigators he had seen nets near the ship’s crane that contained bags with handles for transporting the cocaine, confessing that he and about four others had hoisted the bags onto the ship and loaded them into containers, after being promised a paycheck of $50,000 by the vessel’s chief officer.

      This tactic has been used to facilitate the popular “gancho ciego,” or “rip-on, rip-off” technique.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 21:05

    • Watch Out, Chinese Money May Start Trickling Away
      Watch Out, Chinese Money May Start Trickling Away

      By Ye Xie, macro commentator at Bloomberg Markets Live

      Three things we learned last week:

      1. Beijing is considering relaxing restrictions on capital outflows.

      China will ease restrictions on investing abroad, including raising the QDII quota for institutions and studying the feasibility of allowing individuals to buy foreign securities within their annual limit, a State Administration of Foreign Exchange official said Friday. Currently, Chinese residents are allowed to purchase up to $50,000 a year of foreign currencies, but the funds can only be used for purposes such as traveling and studying, not for buying overseas property, securities or life insurance.

      The authorities have already taken a slew of steps since late last year to encourage outflows and temper inflows in a bid to slow the yuan rally. To underscore the appreciation pressure, Friday’s data showed China’s current account surplus surged to $130 billion in the fourth quarter, the most since 2008.

      The move also shows that PBOC is reluctant to directly intervene in the currency market, opting to let market flows determine exchange rates, according to Morgan Stanley.

      2. Rising real yields have yet to do much damage to markets.

      Ten-year real yields rose 20 bps last week, the most since the U.S. lockdowns in March. While global equities fell from a record, cyclical sectors such as industrial stocks outperformed along with metals. Both signal that markets are upgrading the growth outlook with fiscal stimulus and vaccine rollouts, and higher yields can be digested.

      3. Central banks are in no rush to withdraw stimulus.

      Fed officials signaled massive bond purchases will continue for “some time.” Australia’s central bank expects “very significant” monetary support will be needed as it’ll take years to meet its inflation and unemployment goals, according to minutes of the February meeting. In China, the PBOC showed a steady hand last week, signaling the small liquidity drain it conducted shouldn’t be taken as a sign of tightening.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 20:28

    • United Airlines Investigating Leak Of Ted Cruz's Cancun Flight Details
      United Airlines Investigating Leak Of Ted Cruz’s Cancun Flight Details

      Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov via The Epoch Times,

      United Airlines has confirmed that it is investigating a potential leak of the flight data on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) trip to Cancun, Mexico.

      “It’s against United’s policies to share personal information about our customers and we are investigating this incident,” the airline told The Hill in a statement. The Epoch Times has sent a request to confirm the statement.

      Politico was the first to report the internal investigation. An airline executive told the news outlet at the time that if the employee who leaked the data is found they could be fired and that no option is off the table.

      Cruz boarded a flight to Cancun as millions of Texans were left without power and heat amid a freak winter storm. He has since apologized and said the trip was “obviously a mistake.”

      Prior to Cruz’s return flight, Skift reporter Edward Russell cited a United Airlines source to disclose the departure time of Cruz’s Cancun-Houston trip.

      “Spoke to a source at United Airlines, Senator Ted Cruz rebooked his flight back to Houston from Cancun for this afternoon at around 6 a.m. today (Thursday). He was originally scheduled to return on Saturday,” Russell wrote.

      Leaks of flight information are rare even though tens of thousands of United Airlines employees have access to flight data, Politico reported.

      Beyond seeking a presidential emergency declaration, senators have virtually no official role to play in emergency response. Cruz nonetheless summoned a political firestorm by leaving the state while millions struggle.

      Cruz said in a statement on Feb. 18 that, “with school canceled for the week, our girls asked to take a trip with friends. Wanting to be a good dad, I flew down with them last night and am flying back this afternoon.”

      “My staff and I are in constant communication with state and local leaders to get to the bottom of what happened in Texas,” he added, referring to the power outages and, in some cases, loss of water.

      He said that Texans “want our power back, our water on, and our homes warm.”

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 20:15

    • 'Watch Your Back': Cuomo Accused Of "Gangster" Threats Against "Flood" Of People
      ‘Watch Your Back’: Cuomo Accused Of “Gangster” Threats Against “Flood” Of People

      A flood of politicians and other public figures have come forward to accuse New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) of gangster-like behavior, including multiple threats ranging from ‘watch your back’ to ‘bullying, mistreatment and intimidation,’ according to Forbes.

      Key allegations via Forbes:

      • Nate McMurray, a two-time House candidate in Western New York, told Forbes that after criticizing Cuomo for plans to attend a Buffalo Bills game, he received a call from a Cuomo aide on New Years Eve that began “you motherf***er,” before devolving into threats like “you’re done in politics.”
      • McMurray said he took down his tweet after the call because he was “scared” and looking for a job after his run, adding that he’s heard from people in both Cuomo’s staff and the New York legislature about a “pervasive culture of fear that has trickled down from his office.”
      • “We’ve all been yelled at by someone in that administration,” Marc Molinaro, a Republican county executive in upstate New York who ran against Cuomo in 2018, told Forbes, adding, “It’s unacceptable but how they operate.”
      • Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, tweeted that she was “flooded” with stories from people who said they were “bullied, mistreated, or intimidated” by Cuomo, a statement echoed by former Cuomo aide Lindsey Boylan, who has previously accused him of harassment.
      • Alessandra Biaggi, a Democratic state senator, told the New Yorker Cuomo once asked her to “tell me again how your grandfather’s career ended,” which she perceived as a threat given that her grandfather, Mario Biaggi, resigned over a corruption scandal – though a Cuomo spokesperson told the New Yorker it was about the “importance of integrity in government.”
      • Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean tweeted that she was told by someone close to the Cuomo family to “‘Watch my back,’” when she began speaking out against him prolifically over the coronavirus-related deaths of her parents, who were both nursing home residents.

      “It’s like gangster stuff,” said McMurray, who says Cuomo and team tried to push him out of a 2018 House race. “We’ve had three terms of Gov. Cuomo, I think it’s time to move on,” he added.

      According to Assemblyman Ron Kim, Cuomo demand he “cover up” for an aide who admitted to concealing COVID-19 nursing home deaths over fears that the Trump DOJ would use it against them.

      “I can destroy you,” Kim claims Cuomo told him – an allegation aide Rich Azzopardi says isn’t true, and that Kim is “lying.”

      Meanwhile, it appears even Biden spox Jen Psaki can’t find the words to condemn Cuomo’s actions which potentially resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths.

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

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 19:50

    • Coinbase Valued At $100 Billion, More Than CME, ICE, CBOE And Nasdaq
      Coinbase Valued At $100 Billion, More Than CME, ICE, CBOE And Nasdaq

      Bitcoin’s explosive price surge in the past year which has pushed its market cap well over $1 trillion for the first time, has not only benefited the cryptocurrency and its peers, but has sent shockwaves across downstream sectors which cater to providing access to the soaring demand for crypto exposure around the world.

      And few “conventional” companies have benefited more from bitcoin’s ascent than Coinbase, which according to The Block Crypto was valued at a stunning $100 billion in its latest private round sale ahead of the crypto exchange’s long-awaited direct listing.

      As The Block reports, the average clearing price for shares on Nasdaq Private Market continues to tick higher since the first secondary sale four weeks ago. As an aside, Axios notes that Coinbase launched a secondary share sale via Nasdaq Private Markets (f.k.a. Second Market) last month, offering up to 1.8 million shares in weekly batches. The goal was to help Coinbase determine a reference price for its public offering, which will be done via direct listing instead of IPO.

      The most recent cleared price was $373 a share, which would imply a valuation of about $100 billion. That’s an increase from the first average cleared price of $200 in January, when an initial batch of 75,000 shares was sold on Jan. 29.

      Coinbase launched a secondary share sale via Nasdaq Private Markets (f.k.a. Second Market) last month, offering up to 1.8 million shares in weekly batches. According to Axios, the goal was to help Coinbase determine a reference price for its public offering, which will be done via direct listing instead of IPO. That said, it’s “unclear if the secondary share sale is still useful to Coinbase for the purpose of determining a reference point for direct listing, given the upward surge.”

      In any case, the latest reference prices mean that the value of Coinbase has nearly doubled in less than two month; it also means that the crypto exchange is now more valuable than all incumbent exchanges such as NYSE parent ICE, the CBOE, the CME and the Nasdaq.

      When compared to its traditional equity peers, the Coinbase valuation is absolutely staggering, as its $100BN valuation represents a 132X Fwd EBITDA multiple compared to a 17.8x average for its peer group.

      According to Axios, the $100BN price tag means that Coinbase could go public at a higher initial valuation than any other U.S. tech company since Facebook.

      If Coinbase is worth a staggering $100 billion, we wonder what that means for crypto-focused fintech names such as Silvergate Capital, which is the leading bank for crypto startups (its clients include the Winklevoss twins’ Gemini exchange, Paxos, bitFlyer and Kraken) and which at last check had a market cap of just $4 billion.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 19:33

    • Remember When Fauci Called Ebola Quarantines "Draconian", Warned Of "Unintended Consequences"
      Remember When Fauci Called Ebola Quarantines “Draconian”, Warned Of “Unintended Consequences”

      Authored by Jordan Schachtel via The Dossier substack,

      When it came to a proposed mandatory quarantine for his colleagues, and not the American general public, Dr. Fauci was singing a very different tune on quarantines, which the government health bureaucrat has now been championing in the United States for the better part of an entire year.

      In 2014, at the height of the Ebola outbreak in Africa, concerns were rising in America about the possibility of the disease spreading across the country. With a genuinely horrifying 40 percent case fatality rate (which is at least 40 times higher than the CFR of COVID-19), and a several week incubation period for infectees, state governors acted to pursue mandatory quarantines for healthcare workers returning to the U.S. from regions where the virus was spreading. 

      At the peak of the epidemic, governors in several U.S. states initiated a very targeted quarantine that only applied to healthcare workers who were arriving back into the country from impacted areas.

      Dr. Fauci wasn’t happy about the fact that his colleagues were being subject to quarantines.

      He went on a media blitz and hammered the quarantine policies that had been issued in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia and Florida, declaring them “unscientific” and “draconian.”

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

      “The primary goal is to protect the American people, but there are ways to do that that may not necessarily have to go that far at all,” Fauci told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

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

      “We have to be careful that there are [not] unintended consequences,” Fauci continued.

      “We need to treat them, returning people with respect,” he added, in describing the quarantine orders as unnecessarily “draconian.”

      “Go with the science,” Fauci advised. “You can monitor them in multiple different ways. You don’t have to put them in a confined place.”

      The government health bureaucrat continued on his media mission, delivering a similar message to ABC’s Martha Radditz.

      “We appreciate the fears of the American people, but you don’t want to have policy that would have negative unintended consequences… The scientific evidence is what needs to drive us,” Fauci said.

      “If you put everyone in one basket, even people who are clearly no threat, then we have the problem of the disincentive of people that we need,” he added, in describing his colleagues as “heroes” who are “protecting America.”

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

      Fauci, who had personally been in close contact with an infected Ebola patient, did not quarantine prior to his television appearances.

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

      As we’ve discovered, the 50-year-tenured government health bureaucrat wasn’t always a fan of quarantines. As recently as 2014, he was emphatically against them.

      Has “the science” changed that much in the last 6 years, or is something else afoot?

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 19:25

    • Stunning Levels Of Air Toxins Found In New York's Subway System
      Stunning Levels Of Air Toxins Found In New York’s Subway System

      The air quality in the subway systems across the U.S. is almost downright toxic. 

      New research published last week shows high levels of pollution for subway riders, with the worst air quality coming from places like New York and New Jersey, according to The Guardian. 

      The report notes that tiny specks of pollution called PM2.5 were well above nationally determined safe daily levels of 35 micrograms per cubic meter in cities like New York, Washington and Philadelphia. The particles are likely “thrown up by train brakes or the friction between train wheels and rails”. 

      In New York, these particles measured 251 micrograms per cubic meter. Terry Gordon, a professor at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, who co-authored the research, said: “New Yorkers in particular should be concerned about the toxins they are inhaling.” 

      The level was even higher, coming in at 1,499 micrograms per cubic meter at Christopher Street in the West Village. This is about 77 times higher than above-ground air pollution and is a level “more commonly found near a large wildfire or during a building demolition”. 

      Gordon continued: “It was the worst pollution ever measured in a subway station, higher than some of the worst days in Beijing or Delhi. It just wasn’t believable. My colleague went down there and his airways were feeling tight after an hour or so.”

      “People should be highly alarmed by these high levels,” he said. Pollutants were composed of iron and organic carbon produced “from the breakdown of fossil fuels or decaying plants and animals.” Gordon says more research is necessary to explain why pollution is so bad in some areas, and to figure out the health impact on commuters and transit workers. 

      The research found that people conducting a daily commute using Christopher Street were increasing their risk of an adverse cardiovascular event by 10%. And despite subway ridership falling due to the pandemic, many of the people who still use mass transit are frontline workers, on their way to help fight a virus that is known for attacking the lungs. 

      Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, commented: “This is an important contribution, especially to our understanding of the disproportionate burden of air pollution faced by low-income communities and communities of color. As the scientific community works to better understand exposure and potential health effects of air pollution in the urban environment, I hope local decision makers use this valuable work to inform the best ways to address the known racial and socioeconomic inequities in air pollution exposure in US cities.”

      Broadway in Boston, Second Avenue in New York City and 30th Street in Philadelphia also scored among the top polluted stations in the Northeast. 

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 19:00

    • FAA Orders Emergency Inspections Of Boeing 777s After United Engine Failure; Japan Grounds 777 Fleet
      FAA Orders Emergency Inspections Of Boeing 777s After United Engine Failure; Japan Grounds 777 Fleet

      Another day, another fiasco in the life of Boeing.

      Just days after it started to appears that Boeing may finally emerge from its 2-year old debacle when the combination of the 737MAX crash and the covid travel slump cratered Boeing stock when the company reported solid earnings despite guiding to another “unexpected” delay in the rollout of 777X, on Sunday night U.S. aviation regulators ordered emergency inspections of fan blades on the type of engine that failed Saturday over suburban Denver, spraying metal debris over a wide area.

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

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

      FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement late Sunday that officials ordered the inspections after examining the hollow fan blade that failed, triggering the failure Saturday; the directive covers Boeing 777 airplanes equipped with certain Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines and it “will likely mean that some airplanes will be removed from service.”

      Dickson said the initial review of Saturday’s engine failure shows “inspection interval should be stepped up for the hollow fan blades that are unique to this model of engine, used solely on Boeing 777 airplanes.”

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

      According to Reuters, United Airlines is the only US operator with Boeing 777 airplanes that use the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines covered in the directive. Shortly after the FAA directive, United published a statement saying that “out of an abundance of caution” it would ground 24 B777 aircraft powered by P&W 4000 engines.

      Meanwhile, Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau ordered operators of the Boeing 777 involved in Saturday’s incident to halt operations, according to the FAA. This means that ANA Holdings and Japan Airlines will ground Boeing 777 planes they operate indefinitely. ANA operates 19 planes and JAL 13 with Pratt & Whitney’s PW4000 engine that saw a failure with United Airlines plane.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 18:57

    • White House Says HFT Tax "Worth Studying" After GameStop Debacle
      White House Says HFT Tax “Worth Studying” After GameStop Debacle

      In the aftermath of last week’s Robinhood hearing, the only quasi tangible policy proposal that emerged was the vague threat that democrats may consider implementing a transaction tax to slowdown the runaway expansion of HFTs which have bastardized modern market structure. To wit, House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters said she’s “very interested” and “certainly looking at” a financial transaction tax.

      Needless to say, having criticized HFTs since 2009, we have been pushing for just such a “tobin tax” as it is also known, and on Friday we asked – jokingly – “If Dems pass a tobin tax will Virtu and Citadel threaten to uproot and take their microwave towers to Somalia?”

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

      But maybe it wasn’t a joke because according to CNN, in a move that could have seriously adverse consequences for artificially inflated markets, the White House supports studying the merits of a financial transaction tax – a move favored by progressives and despised by so called “market makers” on Wall Street who really just use HFT algos to frontrun traditional orderflow- in the wake of the GameStop trading frenzy.

      The GameStop situation highlights the serious issues of investor protection and market integrity, a White House spokesperson told CNN Business on Sunday. The potential impact of a financial transaction tax on GameStop-like trading deserves additional study and can be part of a greater evaluation of such a tax for revenue and market stability, the spokesperson said.

      For Democrats, most of whom are completely clueless on such arcane concepts as fragmented market structure, lasers and microwave towers at the New York Mahwah Stock Exchange, and latency arbitrage, a tobin tax would serve a far more tangible purpose: it would allow them to raise badly needed revenue, while also pretending to care about the health of financial markets.

      A 0.1% tax on stock, bond and derivative transactions could raise $777 billion for the federal government over a decade, according to a 2018 estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

      More importantly, a 0.1% transaction tax would also put such HFT giants as Virtu and Citadel Securities (if not the Citadel hedge fund) out of business overnight. Which is why such a tax would face fierce opposition from Wall Street and it’s unclear whether moderate Democrats would support it. Opponents warn it would backfire on retail investors by raising costs and making financial markets less liquid.

      This means that centrist democrats are on collision course with the progressive socialist fringe, and very soon it will be revealed that whatever Wall Street want, Wall Street gets, even if it means socialists end up with nothing again.

      “This approach has a long history of unintended consequences that will penalize workers, pensioners and American families,” a spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent the Taxing of Retirement Savings told CNN Business. That coalition includes the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and UBS. Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial, two high-speed trading firms that would be hurt by a financial transaction tax, are also members.

      “An FTT will increase trading costs for investors — including individuals — undermine the competitiveness of our capital markets and harm the U.S. economy just as we work to recover from this pandemic,” the spokesperson said.

      Then again, maybe Wall Street has a right to be worried: the level of populist anger and fury in the aftermath of the Gamestop debacle which has now shifted to nearly two decades of broken market structure made possible by Reg NMS could mean that maybe, just maybe, a transaction tax has a shot at passing: during a heated exchange at a hearing last week, Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib pushed back against Citadel Securities founder Ken Griffin’s concerns about a tax.

      “Let’s not gaslight the American people. Y’all will be fine with the tax,” she said. “Our folks are tired of bailing you all out when you screw up.”

      One way to see just how serious Wall Street takes the threat is to keep an eye on markets: if a 0.1% tobin tax is truly close, the first thing to go in freefall – before Ken Griffin’s net worth of course – will be the S&P500.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 18:43

    • US Electricity Markets 101: All You Need To Know How Electricity Prices Are Set In The US
      US Electricity Markets 101: All You Need To Know How Electricity Prices Are Set In The US

      By Kathryne Cleary and Karen Palmer, from Resources for the Future

      In the United States, how electricity is bought and sold varies by region of the country. While many cities, including Austin, Texas, Los Angeles, California and Nashville, Tennessee are served by municipally owned utilities and some rural areas are served by customer-owned rural cooperatives, the majority of electricity customers in the use are served by utilities that are owned by investors. These investor-owned electric utilities can be either regulated and operate as vertically integrated monopolies with oversight from state public utility commissions, or they can operate in deregulated markets where electric energy prices are set by the market with some federal oversight of wholesale market operations. These regulatory constructs determine how retail and wholesale electricity prices are set and how power plants are procured. This explainer discusses the different types of US electricity markets, how they are regulated, and implications for the future given ongoing changes in the electricity sector.

      For definitions of bolded terms and other concepts related to the electricity grid and industry, check out “Electricity 101.”

      Traditional Regulated Markets

      Prior to the 1990s, most investor-owned electric utilities were regulated and vertically integrated, which means they own electricity generators and power lines (distribution and transmission lines). Today, while many states have abandoned this system in favor of deregulation, utilities that serve about one third of US electricity demand still operate under this construct.

      Utilities in these traditionally regulated regions operate as a monopoly in their territories, which means that customers only have the option to buy power from them. In order to keep electricity rates reasonable for customers, state regulators oversee how these electric utilities set electricity prices. Retail electricity prices in these areas are set based on recovering the utility’s operating and investment costs including a “fair” rate of return on those investments (collectively called a revenue requirement). This revenue requirement must be approved by the state’s public utilities commission, which prevents utilities from overcharging customers for electricity.

      Regulated utilities must also seek state approval for investments in power plants. Vertically integrated utilities decide which generators to build and then recover the costs of these investments through electricity rates. Because a utility’s investments determine its revenue requirement and thus its potential profit, many state regulators require utilities to demonstrate the necessity of future investments through an integrated resource planning (IRP) process. This process is used for long-term planning and requires each utility to demonstrate how it plans to meet customer electricity demand going forward and to justify any future investments. Notably, under this structure, customers bear the risk of investments because utilities can recover their costs through rates, regardless of how the power plant performs (for example, South Carolina electricity customers paid for nuclear plants that were never constructed).

      Even though vertically integrated utilities generate their own electricity, many trade with other utilities during times of need. For example, during certain times of the year it may be cheaper for some utilities to purchase excess hydroelectric power from others rather than generate power using their own facilities. This type of wholesale bilateral trading is especially common in the west and southeast where most utilities are still regulated. These wholesale market transactions are subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

      Deregulated Markets

      Beginning in the 1990s, many states in the US decided to deregulate–also known as restructure–their electricity systems to create competition and lower costs. This transition required electric utilities to sell their generating assets and led to the creation of independent energy suppliers that owned generators. Because power lines are a natural monopoly, electric utilities held onto these assets to become transmission and distribution utilities, and those natural monopoly functions continue to be regulated.

      The biggest impacts resulting from deregulation were changes to retail and wholesale electricity sales, with the creation of retail customer choice and wholesale markets.

      Retail Deregulation: Customer Choice

      In deregulated areas, electricity customers have the option of selecting an electric supplier (known as customer choice) rather than being required to purchase electricity from their local electric utility, which introduces competition for retail electricity prices. Since many electric suppliers can exist within a region with customer choice, electric retailers offer competitive prices in order to acquire customers (contracts with generation suppliers typically offer the customer a fixed charge—dollars per kilowatt-hour of power—over a certain amount of time).

      For consumers, there are pros and cons to selecting a supplier other than their local utility company. Retail competition can help lower a customer’s electric bill and also allow them to tailor their energy to their preferences, such as selecting a clean energy supplier. However, independent companies often require customers to sign contracts, which can lock them into a set electricity price for multiple years. While fixed rates could be beneficial for some customers, they could also negatively impact others if the rate they agree to ends up being more expensive than the rate set by the local utility. Also, it is important to note that customer choice is only applicable for the generation portion of a customer’s utility bill because transmission and distribution services are still provided by the local utility company, since these services are a natural monopoly (as discussed above). Consequently, only a portion of electric rates in these areas are set competitively.

      For customers who choose not to select an independent power supplier, their local utility is still obligated to provide them with electricity that the utility will purchase from generators.

      Wholesale Deregulation: Creation of Competitive Wholesale Markets

      Unlike regulated states that plan for investment, deregulated states use markets to determine which power plants are necessary for electricity generation. As utilities and competitive retailers in deregulated regions do not generate their own electricity, they must acquire power elsewhere for their customers. Centralized wholesale markets—in which generators sell power and load-serving entities purchase it and sell it to consumers—provide an economically efficient method of doing so (discussed more in the next section). Notably, under this structure, investment risk in power plants falls to the electric suppliers and not to customers, unlike in regulated markets.

      Following deregulation, regional transmission organizations (RTOs) replaced utilities as grid operators and became the operators of wholesale markets for electricity. These RTOs have evolved over time.

      Regional Transmission Organization Map

      Since many RTOs operate wholesale markets that encompass multiple states, they are regulated by FERC (with the exception of ERCOT, the Texas RTO). FERC has oversight of all wholesale power transactions on the two large interconnected grids: the eastern and western interconnects.

      While regulated utilities base retail rates on a regulated rate of return on investments (as described above), deregulated retail utilities purchase electricity at market-determined wholesale prices and then sell that electricity to customers at market-determined retail prices, given competition from other retailers. RTOs typically run three kinds of markets that determine wholesale prices for these services: energy markets, capacity markets, and ancillary services markets.

      Energy Markets

      Energy markets are auctions that are used to coordinate the production of electricity on a day-to-day basis. In an energy market, electric suppliers offer to sell the electricity that their power plants generate for a particular bid price, while load-serving entities (the demand side) bid for that electricity in order to meet their customers’ energy demand. Supply side quantities and bids are ordered in ascending order of offer price. The market “clears” when the amount of electricity offered matches the amount demanded, and generators receive this market price per megawatt hour of power generated.

      RTOs typically run two energy markets: the day-ahead and real-time markets. The day-ahead market, which represents about 95 percent of energy transactions, is based on forecasted load for the next day and typically occurs the prior morning in order to allow generators to prepare for operation. The remaining energy market transactions take place in the real-time market, which is typically run once every hour and once every five minutes to account for real-time load changes that must be balanced at all times with supply.

      RTOs use energy markets to decide which units to dispatch, or run, and in what order. In the day-ahead market, RTOs compile the list of generators available for next-day dispatch and order them from least expensive to most expensive to operate. For example, since wind plants operate without fuel, they are able to bid $0 into the energy market and get dispatched first. Dispatching units by lowest cost allows the market to meet energy demand at the lowest possible price. During periods of high demand, wholesale prices rise accordingly because more high-cost units need to be dispatched in order to meet electric load.

      Base wholesale market prices typically reflect the price for power when it is able to flow freely without transmission constraints across the RTOs territory. When that is not possible, RTOs account for congestion on transmission lines by allowing prices to differ in different locations. As a result, areas with high demand and scarce electric resources typically have higher prices than those with abundant generation relative to load.

      Capacity Markets

      Electricity retailers are required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), an independent organization that ensures grid reliability, to support enough generating capacity to meet forecasted load plus a reserve margin to maintain grid reliability. Some RTOs run a capacity auction to provide retailers with a way to procure their capacity requirements while also enabling generators to recover fixed costs, i.e. those costs that do not vary with electricity production, that may not be covered in the energy markets alone.

      The capacity market auction works as follows: generators set their bid price at an amount equal to the cost of keeping their plant available to operate if needed. Similar to the energy market, these bids are arranged from lowest to highest. Once the bids reach the required quantity that all the retailers collectively must acquire in order to adequately meet expected peak demand plus a reserve margin, the market “clears”, or supply meets demand. At this point, generators that “cleared” the market, or were chosen to provide capacity, all receive the same clearing price which is determined by the bid price of the last generator used to meet demand.

      Payments to generators in the capacity market are essentially a reward for that generator being available to operate and provide electricity if needed. Consequently, if generators are unavailable to operate during a time when they are called upon, they may face fees under capacity performance requirements.

      Ancillary Services Market

      RTOs use the ancillary services market to reward other attributes that are not covered in the energy or capacity markets. Ancillary services typically include functions that help maintain grid frequency and provide short-term backup power if a generating unit stops.

      Variation Across Regions

      Not all states fall neatly into one of these categories. Participation in RTOs and wholesale markets does not require retail customer choice or divestment of generation assets, and many states have chosen to embrace certain aspects of deregulation while maintaining some parts of regulation.

      Some regulated states with vertically integrated utilities still join an RTO for grid services. In West Virginia, for example, utilities are rate-regulated and own their own generation, but the state still participates in wholesale markets in PJM, the mid-Atlantic RTO.

      Some states have deregulated their wholesale markets but not retail markets. California, for example, is partially deregulated and formed its own RTO, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which operates the grid and wholesale markets. However, the state does not offer individual customer retail electricity choice, although communities can opt out of the local utility through community choice aggregation under which a company hired by the community buys power in wholesale markets for all residents who do not opt out of this arrangement.

      The structure of wholesale markets varies across regions as well. For example, ERCOT, the RTO of Texas, does not run a capacity market and instead relies on price signals in the energy market alone to ensure reliability. High prices in the energy market, typically caused by low supply and high demand, provide an economic signal for more generators to enter the market, which can then lower energy prices and provide a signal that enough generating capacity is available to meet demand. CAISO similarly does not run a capacity market and relies on retailers to ensure resource adequacy to meet NERC reliability requirements.

      The Future of Electricity Markets

      Many states have policies in place that promote a long-term transition to cleaner renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power. As renewable generators become a larger portion of the grid’s resources, complications may arise with the existing wholesale market structure in deregulated states. Renewable energy sources do not require fuel inputs to run since they use energy from the sun, wind, and other natural sources. Consequently, they are able to offer bids of $0 into the energy and capacity markets. As these sources make up a larger portion of the grid over time, these $0 bids can significantly reduce wholesale prices for energy and capacity and could discourage long-term investment for all resources. As a result, wholesale markets may need to adapt in the future to better accommodate different types of resources.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 18:35

    • Dem Rep. Ro Khanna: 'We Don't Want' Small Businesses That Can't Pay $15 Minimum Wage
      Dem Rep. Ro Khanna: ‘We Don’t Want’ Small Businesses That Can’t Pay $15 Minimum Wage

      Trying to live the American dream but can’t pay $15 an hour minimum wage? Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California doesn’t think your business should exist.

      During a Sunday discussion on CNN‘s “Inside Politics,” Khanna said that “low-wage businesses” who can’t pay $15 an hour are “underpaying employees” and suggested that “If workers were actually getting paid for the value they were creating, it would be up to $23.”

      As Breitbart notes, however, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would cost 1.4 million Americans their jobs over the next four years, while reducing the number in poverty by 0.9 million. Specifically:

      • The cumulative budget deficit over the 2021–2031 period would increase by $54 billion
      • From 2021 to 2031, the cumulative pay of affected people would increase, on net, by $333 billion—an increased labor cost for firms considerably larger than the net effect on the budget deficit during that period.
      • That net increase would result from higher pay ($509 billion) for people who were employed at higher hourly wages under the bill, offset by lower pay ($175 billion) because of reduced employment under the bill.
      • Employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers, or 0.9 percent
      • The number of people in poverty would be reduced by 0.9 million

      Fast food ordering kiosk companies and burger-flipping robot manufacturers must be salivating right now…

      Watch (relevant portion at ~1:30):

      Transcript via Breitbart:

      Anchor Abby Phillip: “I know that you feel very strongly like many progressives about the minimum wage issue. Right now, at the same time, businesses, both large and small, are struggling in this pandemic economy, more than 9 million jobs have been lost in the last year, and they still aren’t back, and the problem is particularly acute in industries like retail and foodservice, which are more likely to pay minimum wage. I think the question that a lot of Republicans are posing and perhaps some moderate Democrats is timing. Is now the right time to increase it to $15? I should say the bill has stages, of course, but immediately it would go up about 30% right now. Is now the right time to do that?”

      Khanna: “Abby, it’s absolutely the right time to give working Americans a raise. Let’s look at the facts. Amazon raised their wage to $15 nationally, not regionally. They have more jobs today. It didn’t hurt job creation or business. Target followed. They also did it nationally, more jobs.”

      Phillip: “Large businesses like Amazon and McDonald’s, for example, can and perhaps should pay more, but I’m wondering what is your plan for smaller businesses? How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on pate roll right now?”

      Khanna: “Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages. We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage. If you look at the minimum wage, it increased with worker productivity until 1968, and that relationship was severed. If workers were actually getting paid for the value they were creating, it would be up to $23. I love small businesses, I’m all for it, but I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees. It’s fair for people to be making what they’re producing. I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

      *  *  *

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 18:10

    • Are Yields About To Blast-Off: Here Are The 3 Things To Watch
      Are Yields About To Blast-Off: Here Are The 3 Things To Watch

      For many months, traders and strategists have been warning – and dreading – a sharp spike higher in both nominal yields and real rates, and last week they finally got it with Real Yields finally surging the most since March…

      … and joining the historic post-covid rally in Breakevens…

      … sent 10Y yields to 1.36% the highest level since the pandemic and just 14bps away from the 1.50% level that Nomura predicted would hammer stocks as systematic, quant and CTA funds start actively shorting 10Y futures.

      And, with Treasury yields finally busting out of long-held ranges to levels last seen in the early days of the pandemic Bloomberg writes today that “the obstacles to higher yields in the world’s biggest debt market are slowly melting away” a theme echoed by Morgan Stanley which writes in its Sunday Start that there are three catalysts for a reflationary overshoot loom over the next month: i) Falling COVID-19 cases/hospitalisations; ii) Passage of US fiscal stimulus; and iii) Accelerating global growth.

      Of course, the question is how much higher, and will growth names in particular, or the broader market in general, get hammered?

      “The threat of higher borrowing costs is already looming over risky assets, from U.S. shares to emerging-market securities. So far, the pace of increase doesn’t appear to be alarming Federal Reserve officials, but traders will be monitoring Chair Jerome Powell’s testimony to Congress next week for any sign that he’s troubled by steeper long-term borrowing costs. Barring any such hint, the market is left to ponder the extent to which the reflation trade will drive up yields.”

      “Before the pandemic, the 10-year yield was trading at about 1.6%, and if we are going to get back to what the economic situation was – give or take – back then, then there’s no reason why yields should be lower than that,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities. Stanley, together with many of his peers, forecasts the 10-year yield will end the year at 2%, a level last seen in August 2019.

      While the biggest driver of rising nominal yields in the past year has been the surge in breakevens – buoyed by rising commodity prices and, more recently, surging CPI, in the last week the market has also started watching real yields, which strip out inflation and are seen as a purer read on the growth outlook. As we showed on Friday, real rates reached an important milestone, with 30Y real yields rising above zero for the first time since June.

      This, as Bloomberg’s Liz Capo McCormick writes, “is potentially an issue for risky assets as real rates are viewed as a gauge of companies’ capital costs.”

      Putting the move in context, the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey is for 10-year Treasury yields to reach 1.45% in the fourth quarter (although the average is well higher due to several notably higher outlier predictions). Zachary Griffiths of Wells Fargo sees the rate between 1.3% and 1.5% by mid-year, with the low end possible if vaccine distribution falters or additional Covid-19 challenges surface.

      To be sure, not everyone believes that the surge in yields will be a one way street. In the past two months, the record net short interest in Treasury futures and options across the leverage fund community has fizzled somewhat…

      … while several prominent big bond bulls still expecting lower yields. Robert Tipp, chief investment strategist at PGIM Fixed Income warns the 10-year yield could sink back to around 1% by year-end. He also said that inflation expectations have risen too far (although if we are indeed at the start of a commodity supercycle, inflation expectations will rise much, much higher) and markets may also be ignoring that the economic boost from government stimulus will eventually fade, he says.

      Here it is also worth pointing out that any time 30Y yields have sold off as aggressively as they did this week in the post-Covid era, they have always retraced much if not all of the move.

      In any case, as Bloomberg further notes, bears have to watch various other bond market dynamics starting with international investors, who may step in to buy at some point, especially given currency-hedged returns have jumped, making it more attractive for Japanese investors to now buy US paper than, say, Italian debt. There is always the nuclear wildcard: any violent surge in long-term borrowing costs that tightens financial conditions or sparks illiquidity, would almost certainly see the Fed intervene and either boost asset purchases or implement Yield Curve Controls (which is essentially the same).

      To be sure, so far there has been little hint of concern from the Fed (although the Fed is notorious at being dead wrong about everything, and then reacting to market moves long after they should have acted proactively). Take the always clueless New York Fed President John Williams who on Friday said rising yields show optimism toward the recovery.

      Others echoed Williams’ view: “The reflation trade is going to stay,” said Chris McReynolds, head of U.S. inflation trading at Barclays Plc. “We’ll of course continue to see volatility around inflation expectations and actual inflation prints themselves. But you have to take the Fed completely at their word, that they are going to be behind the curve” in tightening policy even as the economy and inflation pick up.

      There’s a clear market signal backing the view that the Fed is ominously behind the curve: as Capo McCormick writes, the sharp rise in the ratio between the prices of copper and gold, which has a solid track record predicting yields. The relationship typically works because copper is a cyclical commodity, and gold is a haven that’s sensitive to inflation and rates. A quick look at the chart below suggests that 10Y yields should be at whopping 3.0%!

      In a Friday note from Morgan Stanley’s Andrew Sheets, the cross-asset strategist writes that the debate of “how much of a risk are higher rates” has been at the top of investors’ minds, and will remain so, although he is not forecasting a major rate move because in falling back to a traditional Wall Street justification, Sheets writes that “higher yields and breakevens suggests better growth, providing a potential offset of a higher discount rate. In Gordon Growth Model terms, better growth can allow investors to imagine ‘g’ rising faster than ‘r’.”

      It would be one thing if our global macro strategists thought that our above-consensus growth forecasts would lead to a major overshoot in yields. But they don’t. They forecast the US 10yr at 1.45% by year-end. That’s higher from current levels, but not wildly so, as they think that ample liquidity and ‘cash on the sidelines’ will pull in bond demand at (modestly) higher yields.

      That sanguine outlook certainly looks out of step with the recent rise in market fears about higher yields as demonstrated by the spike in the MOVE bond volatility index, which after trading near all-time lows has broken out in the past week.

      Amid all these conflicting signals for where bond yields go next, Morgan Stanley listed 5 signposts to follow that would provide some early indication if “a much larger move in yields or Fed policy was afoot.”

      • The inflation curve: One catalyst for this could be a scenario where inflation rose in a larger, sustained way. At the moment, this is not what US inflation expectations suggest. Markets expect (CPI)inflation to run at ~2.3%Y for the next five years, but 2.1%Y for the next 30 years. This would seem ideal from the Fed’s perspective; inflation rising in the near term, and then moderating. It is the opposite of a scenario where inflation spins out of control. This inversion is ‘unusual’, i.e., it’s not simply a function of quirks in the usual market pricing.
      • Rate volatility: Expected volatility in interest rate markets also remains historically low (even after the recent rise show above in the MOVE chart). For non-rates investors, two reasonable questions are “will inflation get out of hand?” and “will rates get unusually volatile?” For the time being, the answer to both appears to be “no.”
      • Investor fund flows: A third channel of risk would be higher yields causing investors to sell fixed income holdings, driving a cycle where weakness brings more weakness. So far, however, ETF fund flow data suggest little such activity. Focusing on US aggregate bond and US investment grade bond ETFs, cumulative flows remain near the highs.

      Of the three list above, the first and last are slow-moving indicator, leaving the aptly named MOVE index as the best real-time measure of potential runaway yields.

      So for all those concerned about a liquidation keep a close eye on the MOVE: should the current spike accelerate higher, not only are even higher yields coming, but should the 1.50% barrier be breached, the selloff will then quickly shift over into stocks.

      Tyler Durden
      Sun, 02/21/2021 – 17:45

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Feb 21

    Today’s News 21st February 2021

    • Once Upon A Presidency – From Populist To Dissident
      Once Upon A Presidency – From Populist To Dissident

      Authored by Joshua Hochschild via AmericanMind.org,

      Let’s say you’ve long been disaffected with political parties. You don’t trust them. You care about politics, but you don’t see much promise in the standard candidates.

      Let’s even say you have suspicions the two parties are more interested in their own power than in helping the country.

      Occasionally you see promising people come forward, challenging the conventions. Maybe your interest is piqued by an Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, a Marianne Robinson or Bernie Sanders. Or perhaps by a Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ron Paul, or Herman Cain.

      Whoever they are, interesting people with interesting ideas show up, and somehow they speak to you. They seem to share some of your interests. But they never get a foothold in the game of national politics.

      Maybe you don’t understand politics, and these candidates always lose fairly on the merits. But you suspect the deck is stacked against them. They criticize Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, corruption in politics. You’ve heard them called “populists,” but they always end up getting labeled something like “fascist” or “socialist,” and cast aside.

      Or maybe you do understand politics. You long for an outsider, populist candidate, not because you are naïve, but because you are well-read. You’ve studied history and political theory. You don’t care much for pundits or journalists; you read thoughtful, literate writers who provide historical and philosophical perspective—thinkers most pundits and journalists have never heard of and wouldn’t understand.

      Or maybe you are a sincerely religious person and you know your beliefs are not, will never be, embodied in a political party. You know all politics is compromise. But you also feel an obligation to help improve the world through politics, and this only makes you all the more frustrated at the narrow range of options presented by the two parties.

      For whatever reason—naïve disaffection, intellectual aloofness, religious detachment—you don’t feel at home in mainstream partisan politics, and you suspect that the system, the two parties themselves, are stacked against you.

      There are economic and political explanations of why they might be stacked against you. Whether you are aware of these explanations or not, the evidence is clear: candidates who challenge them, candidates who are too “populist,” are always marginalized, ridiculed, suppressed.

      Then along comes Trump.

      The Renegade

      Is his candidacy a joke? Is he worth paying attention to? Is this a publicity stunt?

      He says things that seem to make sense to you, and moreover he says them effectively. He inspires followers. He beats opponents. He doesn’t put up with establishment bullshit. You don’t like him—almost everybody says this—but he shows an attractive charisma, a fighting spirit. Even his imperfections—“incivility,” strange mannerisms, shamelessness, a less than respectable past—seem to be part of his energy, his dynamism.

      And his actual policies? The things he says he wants to do? Well, maybe you don’t agree with every single one, but there is actually a coherence to them, a sense of priority and pragmatism. Energy independence. Non-interventionism. Revitalizing manufacturing. In substance, as well as style, he seems, well, populist.

      Sure he’s rich (maybe) and a celebrity (certainly), and so not what you expect as a populist. But unlike a lot of rich people, he’s not owned. He doesn’t seem to defer to anybody or anything. He doesn’t owe anything to anyone, least of all to the party whose nomination he seeks or the powerful interests that seem to pull the strings in Washington.

      So you find yourself one of tens of millions willing to give him a chance. What’s the worst that can happen?

      You notice he’s usually attacked not for his policies, but for his style. They say he is “dark.” They say he is “scary.” They say he’s a racist and misogynist. They even say he doesn’t have a sense of humor, or that he’s psychologically ill. You don’t see any of this—but you do see who is saying these things: his enemies in the two parties who would be threatened by his success. You don’t think the charges are fair—but even if they are, it’s what he’d do in office, not his style or his tweets, that matters.

      Maybe you see a rally on TV, or maybe you attend one yourself. It doesn’t seem “dark.” The tone is cheerful, patriotic. He’s funny, and also substantive. And the crowd—it’s diverse and friendly. Normal people. Truckers and plumbers and builders. Lawyers and dentists and accountants. Teachers and engineers, restaurant owners and waitresses, moms and grandmothers, people who haven’t been inspired by politics before, all sorts.

      The Unthinkable

      And then: Trump wins.

      Everybody is surprised. Some people even seem genuinely scared. You wonder if the media emphasis on how “scary” he is might be harming people’s mental health.

      The opponents obviously overplay their hands. They are hearing “dog whistles” that aren’t there (and they would only signal “dogs” if they were there, anyway). Maybe some of your friends call you a racist for supporting Trump, but you know you aren’t a racist, and you don’t think he is either.

      The racism charge is so common and people are so scared that a few smart liberals who opposed Trump beg for people not to lose perspective, to give him a chance, and to stop “crying wolf” about his racism.

      You wonder, “Why aren’t people more interested in understanding why Trump won?” They assume that since Trump is “dark,” his widespread support must be “dark.” Trump is a racist, they say, so his supporters must be racist. Or his supporters are brainwashed, the victims of manipulation. Or maybe there was foreign interference. Maybe the election was rigged.

      If you haven’t given up on the biggest media outlets by now, perhaps you find some traditional journalists that avoid this cheap, simplistic narrative—journalists doing serious work to explain the political landscape. Perhaps you find one of the honest, anti-Trump journalists, like Tim Carney or John Miller or Chris Arnade, covering Trump’s actual populist appeal, seeking to understand the kinds of people who voted for him, the real civic and economic conditions that Trump appealed to.

      But these hardworking, gumshoe journalists seem the exception, not the rule. And their stories, the ones that have a ring of truth to you, are subtle, complicated, and under-the-radar. They don’t play well on social media. They don’t make good memes. It’s outrage that sells. People who are afraid don’t want to be told not to be afraid. They want to be told they have good reasons for their fear.

      So cooler heads do not prevail. Trump is never given a chance. Though he evidently wants to work with Democrats—on major issues, like immigration, health care, and tax reform—the Democrats refuse to work with him.

      Then, at one point, there is supposedly proof that Trump is a racist. In the wake of tragedy in Charlottesville, he said that white nationalists, white supremacists, Neo-Nazis were “fine people.” Shocking. Smoking gun.

      But it’s not. You see it’s a lie, a lie started and propagated by journalists. Clever editing, willful misreadings, bad faith, outright dishonesty. You read the transcript, you watch the video, and it’s obvious: Trump said there were “fine people” on both sides of the debate about statues, but he clearly, unequivocally, and multiple times condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The “smoking gun”…isn’t.

      The Lies

      Half the country never heard about this though. They fell for a hoax. They believed they really had “evidence” that Trump was an unashamed racist. Crazy, huh? Why? Why would this hoax be perpetuated? Political gain? Outrage clicks? Have the journalists convinced themselves? Who knows the motive: in any case, it proved a useful myth for politicians, an easy talking point. Joe Biden believed the “fine people” lie (or claimed to). Eventually, he identifies it as the basis of his campaign against Trump.

      Meanwhile, Trump’s very legitimacy as president has been challenged from the beginning. His opponents accused him of stealing the election. Foreign interference. “Russian collusion.”

      These charges are leveled for years. No evidence. Just allegation. Conspiracy mongering. No proof. For years, they say the election was rigged, illegitimate. But no evidence.

      Eventually the evidence that does come out is that the whole thing was made up. It’s not just a false allegation, but a contrived hoax, a political con-job. People high up in the FBI lied about it, fabricated evidence, entrapped people on false charges, testified falsely in Congress, hid evidence, and coordinated with the press to leak false information. It was an egregious abuse of surveillance powers. Maybe you see a popular documentary about it, or maybe you were able to put enough pieces together after seeing it argued about and dissected all over social media.

      You’ve long known that the media manipulates and lies, and you’ve seen it exacerbated on social media. The media has become masterful at manipulating narrative, framing things, hiding things. Maybe you also watched a documentary about that too (one of the top documentaries of the year, even after being suppressed by Amazon).

      You know your disaffection with “the establishment” isn’t partisan: Democrats and Republicans seem corrupt, liberals and conservatives are fed up with “the system.” The media seems systematically dishonest. These are basic civic and human rights you care about: the right to the rule of law, the right to a free press, the right to free and fair elections, the right not to be manipulated.

      Big journalism itself seems to be part of the problem, coordinating with the established interests in the two parties to push their narrative. Did they help dispel the “Fine People” hoax? No, they magnified it. Did they properly cover the collusion allegation? No. Did any evidence ever emerge that Trump stole the election? No. But it made for clickable headlines for four years. 

      “Trump stole the election”: it was literally a conspiracy theory, but it had traction because, of course, we all know about corruption and fraud in politics. We expect it. Heck, Kennedy’s theft of the election from Nixon was a plot-point in Mad Men.

      Perhaps you’ve also done a little digging and you know that there are questions about voting machines and how trustworthy they are. This was even a major Democratic complaint following the 2004 election. You’ve always wondered how those machines worked, how they could be secure. Potential for fraud has been widely recognized. Maybe you saw one of numerous stories, or even caught the HBO documentary, about how these machines are not only vulnerable, but suspiciously, intentionally vulnerable.

      You’ve also noticed that social media plays a role in manipulating people—not only bad actors on social media, but the social media companies themselves: they tweak their algorithms to manipulate your behavior. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature—it’s the business model.

      Twitter and Facebook and Google knew they had power to influence elections. People from these companies promised to use it more “responsibly” in 2020. Anti-Trump and pro-Trump politicians and pundits pressured big tech to wield their power more “responsibly.” How much could they influence? How many votes could they swing? Who knows, but these are questions worthy of study and political consideration. They are certainly not “partisan.”

      The Race

      So by now you don’t trust establishment politicians or establishment media. You don’t trust Big Tech. All of these institutions have shown a willingness to manipulate information.

      In September 2020, journalists lie about Trump’s executive order banning racial discrimination and scapegoating, saying (not only without evidence, but contrary to evidence) that it “bans diversity training” or “bans sensitivity training.” In October, right before the election, establishment media outlets cover up revelations about corruption in the Biden family. You are used to this now: the official press will hide truths if they’re embarrassing to Biden and make up lies to embarrass Trump.

      As the election nears, Trump seems more popular than ever before. After four years, people aren’t just taking a risk on an unknown quantity, they are voting for someone who presided over a robust economy, created jobs, reduced minority unemployment, kept us out of wars, brought troops home, reduced energy prices, reframed diplomacy in the Middle East, and so on. His opponent (who typifies the establishment choice) is uncharismatic and frail.

      Most polls say Trump doesn’t have a chance, but the polls were wrong last time, and most of them are connected to media sources you already don’t trust. The best poll (Rasmussen, the one that will turn out to be closest to the actual results, as in 2016) has it very tight.

      But another thing you don’t trust by the time of the election is the electoral process itself. You are aware of an unprecedented opportunity to rig or steal an election, unprecedented vulnerabilities in an already complicated system, magnified by controversial rule changes allegedly intended to accommodate a national health scare.

      Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the election, mainly by making it easy for Democratic ballots to get cast and counted. Changing rules about mail-in ballots, voting early, and collecting ballots are justified as promoting access to voting, but are all known for increasing the chances for fraud.

      An early case about the constitutionality of rule changes even makes it to the Supreme Court, in response to which several justices acknowledge that there are serious constitutional questions which need to be resolved somehow. But you don’t need justices to tell you that you can’t change the rules in the middle of a game.

      So leading up to the election, you are aware of issues with questionable rule changes, all of which magnify the problems endemic to ballot harvesting, signature matching, unclean voter rolls, vulnerabilities in voting machines, and disputes about when and how ballots have to be returned.

      Still, you think Trump can win—that he could outperform the “margin of fraud.” That’s clearly his goal: not only to win by enough, but to win big.

      The Steal

      After the election, as news trickles in, you hear reports about:

      • Suspicious timing of ballots arriving.

      • Reports of suspicious ballots.

      • Suspicious treatment of election monitors.

      • “Software glitches” and “user errors” in voting machines.

      • Apparent anomalies in timing and distribution of vote tallies.

      • Anomalies in Trump’s performance relative to downballot Republicans.

      • Anomalies in swing counties.

      There are so many allegations that keeping up with them would be too much even if it were a full-time job. Will journalists try? Their common response to anyone raising questions about election integrity is to insist that “experts” say there is “no evidence” of election fraud. It is hard to even find serious non-partisan coverage of the allegations. “Fact checks” appear glib, vaguely citing “experts” and “courts” and “no evidence.” But you know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      And even trying to find out information on your own, you notice Big Tech aggressively flagging any news that suggests irregularities. During the extended counting of ballots, for instance, any post on Twitter suggesting skepticism about election integrity triggers this warning:

      Voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare in the US, election experts confirm. With ballot counting continuing and the presidential race being called for Joe Biden, experts and officials say there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 US election. The election process is secure and voter fraud of any type is incredibly rare according to The Associated Press and Reuters. Officials and experts warn that the most interference in US elections, whether from foreign or domestic players, comes in the form of misinformation campaigns, many of which are intended to create distrust in the US’s electoral process.

      You find the rhetoric conspicuously odd. Technically correct, but also evasive. “The election process is secure” (sounds confident!) “according to…” two newswires? The constant repetition of “experts” and “no evidence” is the opposite of reassuring; in fact, it makes you more suspicious. (It reminds you of when you knew early on in the pandemic that masks were a reasonable step to slow spread of disease. “Experts” at the World Health organization said there was “no evidence” supporting mask-wearing, only to change their messaging weeks later.)

      You aren’t the only one to notice that social media flags and warnings don’t seem so much about debunking the stories or helping you analyze them as about hiding them, not so much about leading to more information but stigmatizing skepticism.

      Maybe you keep trying to read deeply about this. Maybe you give up and rely on your intuition. Maybe you catch bits and pieces and assume that somewhere, lawyers and legislators and investigators are doing the work to actually figure out what is going on. But what you can’t miss is that supposedly authoritative media outlets (which you don’t trust) keep complaining about “conspiracy theories” and disinformation on social media. You know not to trust everything you read, but you also know you can be a judicious reader. It’s not all crazy trolls writing about the problems. There are liberal and conservative voices, independent journalists, thoughtful commentators, specialist experts in polling or election law or statistical analysis or Constitutional jurisprudence.

      You suppose you could ask a political scientist to explain why it all adds up to reasonable suspicion of an irregular election, but it’s intuitive, isn’t it? It’s intuitive—and yet hard to summarize. Do we even have a single word to capture it? Is it fraud? Is it ballot harvesting? Is it rigging? Is it stealing? Is it hacking? Is it vote-switching? Is it gaming the system? General lawlessness? Illegitimacy? Is there even a single word that can cover the multi-layered suspicion that has now accumulated about how the powers-that-be might seek to undermine a straightforward, legal, democratic process?

      Later, much later, when “the secret history” can be reported, you will learn that it can in fact be called an “unprecedented conspiracy” and “shadow campaign,” that they were not “rigging” the election, they were “fortifying” it.

      The Rally

      Stories about all these individual elements weren’t secret; they were so numerous they were aggressively “fact checked” by respectable media outlets, the same media outlets that propagated false storylines like the “fine people” hoax or hid the news about Hunter Biden’s corruption. Maybe here and there individual fact checks were right. Maybe they all were. But who knows? The problem by now is that, even with “fact checks,” each allegation of irregularities still seems plausible, and the fact-checkers, well—at this point you just don’t think they have much credibility.

      We can at least agree to trust the courts, but did the courts really adjudicate these questions? Did they even look at the evidence? Rarely. You know that, for good reason (usually), courts are loath to get involved in deciding elections. So most courts that received cases found procedural grounds not to hear them.

      If the courts wouldn’t review and consider the evidence, then the state legislatures themselves, those who certified electors, had to hear them. Sometimes they did. But sometimes they claimed they didn’t have to because “the courts” hadn’t been willing to.

      Meanwhile, Trump is doing his best to keep pressing these obvious, important questions—but in doing so, he is accused of trying to “steal” the election, though he was trying to use the very legal political processes intended to ensure election integrity that opponents had done four years earlier. At one point, for instance, it is reported as fact that Trump was trying to manufacture votes, as if he were caught openly soliciting fraud; of course independent thinkers could see through the spin, go back to the transcripts, and find he was only asking the Georgia secretary of state to acknowledge that a substantial number of votes are questionable.

      Then you hear that Trump’s last effort to address these questions, after the courts and state legislatures have failed him, is to endorse a rally in Washington. He and his supporters will seek to petition Congress to review evidence about whether the certified electors should be accepted. Trump is still playing the game that people say he’s not been playing: pointing out problems, asking questions, allowing democratic, Constitutional processes to take place. Taking advantage of basic rights to petition political bodies for justice.

      Scores of thousands of people attend, from all over the country. They are cheerful and patriotic, generous and civic-minded, orderly and polite. Responsible, proud citizens. They love their country and respect its lawful processes. They know that, even if the rally does not actually help Trump politically, it promises to draw attention to problems with our electoral system, and to testify to the importance of peaceful democratic protests. Maybe there will be a resolved will to reform the system, and to ensure that people can trust elections next time. The country can’t keeping having its winners suspected of “stealing” elections.

      Maybe you were there. Maybe you heard the speeches, were caught up in the peaceful, patriotic mood of the day, and then walked with most of the crowd from the rally at the Ellipse to the gathering at the Capitol, to petition Congress to take the possibility of fraud seriously.

      The Climax

      If you are close enough to the front of the very large crowd at the Capitol, you might see people scuffling with police, but you also see many more people asking them to be peaceful. You notice there aren’t that many police, and you assume it’s because Trump crowds are known to be peaceful. You might have seen people trying to get past police lines, but you also saw police letting people get closer to the Capitol building, letting people gather on the steps, letting them into the building.

      It was a protest, and some people apparently took it too far. On the way home, you hear about violence and arrests. Vandalism and thievery in the Capitol building. You hear about a woman, apparently unarmed, shot and killed. It is a sobering, gut-wrenching end to the day. Out of a massive crowd, it seems that a fraction was stupid, shameful, lawless. Hardly representative of the kinds of people who were there, or the purpose for which they gathered. A small fraction of a large civil rights event turned into a lawless mob. You are disheartened that a respectable event should be so stained.

      But you wake up the next morning to something far worse. Slanderous headlines. By your very presence in DC, you are accused of being a traitor, part of a dangerous movement. Every outlet is calling it an “insurrection.” The lawlessness was “incited” by Trump. There was a violent attempted “coup.” Obviously they have pushed too far. They will have dial this back. Won’t they? The words are wildly disproportionate: nobody had a strategy or opportunity for seizing power. Oh, and it was a racist insurrection, a manifestation of white nationalism. Despite the sea of American flags, news stories seem to always run a picture of a Confederate flag.

      You are used to ignoring the lying, outrage-seeking, politically manipulative media. But this time, they are spinning lies directly about you. They are exploiting the awful travesty of some people’s inexcusable violence to delegitimize and shame every responsible citizen who took reasonable and lawful means to raise legitimate questions about election integrity.

      Perhaps you hope you can offer some perspective, tell your side of things. But it’s too late. The media spin is overwhelmingly effective. Nobody will listen, they have made up their minds. They sincerely believe the lies, the disinformation, the emotional manipulation. They sincerely believe you are a dangerous traitor simply for going to DC and voicing reasonable skepticism.

      No, they won’t even acknowledge it is reasonable skepticism. They insist you are a foolish traitor. Your beliefs are unfounded, your questions misplaced. Your skepticism about the election is not only unpatriotic but irrational. It doesn’t even deserve to heard. It isn’t based on rightly-credentialed “evidence.” It doesn’t have properly authorized “sources.”

      The End?

      In a healthy democracy, populist skepticism could lead to bipartisan reform efforts to restore confidence in election procedures. But the powers that be do not even acknowledge the legitimacy of any skepticism. Even after Trump is out of office, they stage a show trial, a second impeachment. The idea is to shame Trump, but also to shame anyone who supported his efforts to highlight weaknesses in our system. Taken for granted in the article of impeachment is that challenging the legitimacy of the election is itself disloyal, an effort to overthrow the American government.

      The allegation that Trump “incited” an “insurrection” implies that anyone in the crowd that day was, if not actually criminal, at least dangerously stupid. Whose idea of unifying is this? Whose idea of political courage? In democratic political contests, winners need the losers to trust the fairness of the system. So why would winners demonize losers as disloyal and dangerous?

      This isn’t how you envisioned any political drama, much less your own role in one. In the story you imagined, skepticism and populism are not partisan issues, and protest and argument are messy but welcome. These are a regime’s natural mechanisms for improvement. But what happens when they are not accepted and addressed, when instead they are slandered and suppressed? That is not the story you imagined. And you aren’t sure where that kind of story can end.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 23:30

    • Erik Prince Busted In Illegal Libya Gun-Running Scheme That Included 'Assassination For Hire'
      Erik Prince Busted In Illegal Libya Gun-Running Scheme That Included ‘Assassination For Hire’

      Erik Prince is the wealthy scandal-plagued mercenary who seems never go away from the headlines. The founder of the notorious Blackwater private security company has since been involved in shady schemes and arms dealing everywhere from China to UAE to Syria to Venezuela. He currently heads the Hong Kong-listed Frontier Services Group, providing ‘security services’ across the globe.

      And now it’s been revealed that he’s deeply involved in the still-raging war in Libya. No less than the United Nations is alleging he’s overseeing a major arms dealing program in support of eastern Libya warlord Khalifa Haftar who has for years waged war to take over Tripoli. The findings are detailed in a confidential UN report.

      “The confidential report to the Security Council, obtained by The New York Times and The Washington Post, and partly seen by Al Jazeera, said on Friday that Prince deployed a force of foreign mercenaries and weapons to renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar, who has fought to overthrow the UN-recognized Libyan government, in 2019,” according to the latest reporting.

      While Prince has typically avoided legal consequences for the past scandals he’s been at center of, the UN findings could bring potential international travel restrictions or even sanctions by the world body. This scenario is likely given there is currently a strict UN arms embargo on the country (something however that’s repeatedly violated by governments like France and the UAE and others).

      “The $80m operation included plans to form a hit squad to track and kill Libyan commanders opposed to Haftar – including some who were also European Union citizens,” The New York Times found in reviewing the UN report.

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

      “The UN report raises the question not only of whether or not a close associate of the [former] president violated an international arms embargo, but also of whether or not the president himself was complicit in defying stated US policy,” Al Jazeera’s Kristen Saloomey explained. 

      It was well-known that despite the US long formally recognizing the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, President Trump was personally supportive of Gen. Haftar. The UN report suggests Prince is complicit seeking to overthrow the GNA Tripoli government.

      Haftar actually holds dual US citizenship and lived for decades near CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Trump had previously touted he was helping to “secure Libya’s oil” in controversial statements.  It’s expected that the UN, and likely now the US Justice Dept. will explore links between Prince’s activities in Libya and Trump administrative operatives. 

      This past week marked ten years since the start of unrest which eventually led to US-NATO military intervention to topple longtime strongman Moammar Gadhafi. The country has since been broken into competing warlords and governments vying for the oil-rich territory, and is still in a state of proxy war where rival external powers have lined up on either side. 

      * * *

      To review the US and NATO’s role in destroying the North African Arab country, see author Scott Horton’s short film “Enough Already: Libya”:

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 23:00

    • Greenwald: Congress Escalates Pressure On Tech Giants To Censor More, Threatening The First Amendment
      Greenwald: Congress Escalates Pressure On Tech Giants To Censor More, Threatening The First Amendment

      Authored by Glenn Greenwald via. greenwald.substack.com,

      For the third time in less than five months, the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them, with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms. On March 25, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will interrogate Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Facebooks’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai at a hearing which the Committee announced will focus “on misinformation and disinformation plaguing online platforms.”

      CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey (R) and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (L) are sworn in to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 5, 2018. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

      The Committee’s Chair, Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of the Subcommittees holding the hearings, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), said in a joint statement that the impetus was “falsehoods about the COVID-19 vaccine” and “debunked claims of election fraud.” They argued that “these online platforms have allowed misinformation to spread, intensifying national crises with real-life, grim consequences for public health and safety,” adding: “This hearing will continue the Committee’s work of holding online platforms accountable for the growing rise of misinformation and disinformation.”

      House Democrats have made no secret of their ultimate goal with this hearing: to exert control over the content on these online platforms. “Industry self-regulation has failed,” they said, and therefore “we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.” In other words, they intend to use state power to influence and coerce these companies to change which content they do and do not allow to be published.

      I’ve written and spoken at length over the past several years about the dangers of vesting the power in the state, or in tech monopolies, to determine what is true and false, or what constitutes permissible opinion and what does not. I will not repeat those points here.

      Instead, the key point raised by these last threats from House Democrats is an often-overlooked one: while the First Amendment does not apply to voluntary choices made by a private company about what speech to allow or prohibit, it does bar the U.S. Government from coercing or threatening such companies to censor. In other words, Congress violates the First Amendment when it attempts to require private companies to impose viewpoint-based speech restrictions which the government itself would be constitutionally barred from imposing.

      It may not be easy to draw where the precise line is — to know exactly when Congress has crossed from merely expressing concerns into unconstitutional regulation of speech through its influence over private companies — but there is no question that the First Amendment does not permit indirect censorship through regulatory and legal threats.

      Ben Wizner, Director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told me that while a constitutional analysis depends on a variety of factors including the types of threats issued and how much coercion is amassed, it is well-established that the First Amendment governs attempts by Congress to pressure private companies to censor:

      For the same reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from dictating what information we can see and read (outside narrow limits), it also prohibits the government from using its immense authority to coerce private actors into censoring on its behalf.

      In a January Wall Street Journal op-ed, tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Yale Law School’s constitutional scholar Jed Rubenfeld warned that Congress is rapidly approaching this constitutional boundary if it has not already transgressed it. “Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats,” the duo wrote, “Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.”

      That article compiled just a small sample of case law making clear that efforts to coerce private actors to censor speech implicate core First Amendment free speech guarantees. In Norwood v. Harrison (1973), for instance, the Court declared it “axiomatic” — a basic legal principle — that Congress “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” They noted: “For more than half a century courts have held that governmental threats can turn private conduct into state action.”

      In 2018, the ACLU successfully defended the National Rifle Association (NRA) in suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York State on the ground that attempts of state officials to coerce private companies to cease doing business with the NRA using implicit threats — driven by Cuomo’s contempt for the NRA’s political views — amounted to a violation of the First Amendment. Because, argued the ACLU, the communications of Cuomo’s aides to banks and insurance firms “could reasonably be interpreted as a threat of retaliatory enforcement against firms that do not sever ties with gun promotion groups,” that conduct ran afoul of the well-established principle “that the government may violate the First Amendment through ‘action that falls short of a direct prohibition against speech,’ including by retaliation or threats of retaliation against speakers.” In sum, argued the civil liberties group in reasoning accepted by the court:

      Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.

      In explaining its rationale for defending the NRA, the ACLU described how easily these same state powers could be abused by a Republican governor against liberal activist groups — for instance, by threatening banks to cease providing services to Planned Parenthood or LGBT advocacy groups. When the judge rejected Cuomo’s motion to dismiss the NRA’s lawsuit, Reuters explained the key lesson in its headline:

      Perhaps the ruling most relevant to current controversies occurred in the 1963 Supreme Court case Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In the name of combatting the “obscene, indecent and impure,” the Rhode Island legislature instituted a commission to notify bookstores when they determined a book or magazine to be “objectionable,” and requested their “cooperation” by removing it and refusing to sell it any longer. Four book publishers and distributors sued, seeking a declaration that this practice was a violation of the First Amendment even though they were never technically forced to censor. Instead, they ceased selling the flagged books “voluntarily” due to fear of the threats implicit in the “advisory” notices received from the state.

      In a statement that House Democrats and their defenders would certainly invoke to justify what they are doing with Silicon Valley, Rhode Island officials insisted that they were not unconstitutionally censoring because their scheme “does not regulate or suppress obscenity, but simply exhorts booksellers and advises them of their legal rights.”

      In rejecting that disingenuous claim, the Supreme Court conceded that “it is true that [plaintiffs’] books have not been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale.” Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that Rhode Island’s legislature — just like these House Democrats summoning tech executives — had been explicitly clear that their goal was the suppression of speech they disliked: “the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed ‘objectionable,’ and succeeded in its aim.” And the Court emphasized that the barely disguised goal of the state was to intimidate these private book publishers and distributors into censoring by issuing implicit threats of punishment for non-compliance:

      It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that [the book distributor] was “free” to ignore the Commission’s notices, in the sense that his refusal to “cooperate” would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact — and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us — that [the book distributor’s] compliance with the Commission’s directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and [the distributor’s] reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule. The Commission’s notices, phrased virtually as orders, reasonably understood to be such by the distributor, invariably followed up by police visitations, in fact stopped the circulation of the listed publications ex proprio vigore [by its own force]. It would be naive to credit the State’s assertion that these blacklists are in the nature of mere legal advice when they plainly serve as instruments of regulation.

      In sum, concluded the Bantam Books Court: “their operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.”

      Little effort is required to see that Democrats, now in control of the Congress and the White House, are engaged in a scheme of speech control virtually indistinguishable from those long held unconstitutional by decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. That Democrats are seeking to use their control of state power to coerce and intimidate private tech companies to censor — and indeed have already succeeded in doing so — is hardly subject to reasonable debate. They are saying explicitly that this is what they are doing.

      Because “big tech has failed to acknowledge the role they’ve played in fomenting and elevating blatantly false information to its online audiences,” said the Committee Chairs again summoning the social media companies, “we must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.”

      The Washington Post, in reporting on this latest hearing, said the Committee intends to “take fresh aim at the tech giants for failing to crack down on dangerous political falsehoods and disinformation about the coronavirus.” And lurking behind these calls for more speech policing are pending processes that could result in serious punishment for these companies, including possible antitrust actions and the rescission of Section 230 immunity from liability.

      This dynamic has become so common that Democrats now openly pressure Silicon Valley companies to censor content they dislike. In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 Capitol riot, when it was falsely claimed that Parler was the key online venue for the riot’s planning — Facebook, Google’s YouTube and Facebook’s Instagram were all more significant — two of the most prominent Democratic House members, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), used their large social media platforms to insist that Silicon Valley monopolies remove Parler from their app stores and hosting services:

      Within twenty-four hours, all three Silicon Valley companies complied with these “requests,” and took the extraordinary step of effectively removing Parler — at the time the most-downloaded app on the Apple Store — from the internet. We will likely never know what precise role those tweets and other pressure from liberal politicians and journalists played in their decisions, but what is clear is that Democrats are more than willing to use their power and platforms to issue instructions to Silicon Valley about what they should and should not permit to be heard.

      Leading liberal activists and some powerful Democratic politicians, such as then-presidential-candidate Kamala Harris, had long demanded former President Donald Trump’s removal from social media. After the Democrats won the White House — indeed, the day after Democrats secured control of both houses of Congress with two wins in the Georgia Senate run-offs — Twitter, Facebook and other online platforms banned Trump, citing the Capitol riot as the pretext.

      While Democrats cheered, numerous leaders around the world, including many with no affection for Trump, warned of how dangerous this move was. Long-time close aide of the Clintons, Jennifer Palmieri, posted a viral tweet candidly acknowledging — and clearly celebrating — why this censorship occurred. With Democrats now in control of the Congressional committees and Executive Branch agencies that regulate Silicon Valley, these companies concluded it was in their best interest to censor the internet in accordance with the commands and wishes of the party that now wields power in Washington:

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

      The last time CEOs of social media platforms were summoned to testify before Congress, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) explicitly told them that what Democrats want is more censorship — more removal of content which they believe constitutes “disinformation” and “hate speech.” He did not even bother to hide his demands: “The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down; the issue is that they are leaving too many dangerous posts up”:

      When it comes to censorship of politically adverse content, sometimes explicit censorship demands are unnecessary. Where a climate of censorship prevails, companies anticipate what those in power want them to do by anticipatorily self-censoring to avoid official retaliation. Speech is chilled without direct censorship orders being required.

      That is clearly what happened after Democrats spent four years petulantly insisting that they lost the 2016 election not because they chose a deeply disliked nominee or because their neoliberal ideology wrought so much misery and destruction, but instead, they said, because Facebook and Twitter allowed the unfettered circulation of incriminating documents hacked by Russia. Anticipating that Democrats were highly likely to win in 2020, the two tech companies decided in the weeks before the election — in what I regard as the single most menacing act of censorship of the last decade — to suppress or outright ban reporting by The New York Post on documents from Hunter Biden’s laptop that raised serious questions about the ethics of the Democratic front-runner for president. That is a classic case of self-censorship to please state officials who wield power over you.

      All of this raises the vital question of where power really resides when it comes to controlling online speech. In January, the far-right commentator Curtis Yarvin, whose analysis is highly influential among a certain sector of Silicon Valley, wrote a provocative essay under the headline “Big tech has no power at all.” In essence, he wrote, Facebook as a platform is extremely powerful, but other institutions — particularly the corporate/oligarchical press and the government — have seized that power from Zuckerberg, and re-purposed it for their own interests, such that Facebook becomes their servant rather than the master:

      However, if Zuck is subject to some kind of oligarchic power, he is in exactly the same position as his own moderators. He exercises power, but it is not his power, because it is not his will. The power does not flow from him; it flows through him. This is why we can say honestly and seriously that he has no power. It is not his, but someone else’s.

      Why doth Zuck ban shitlords? Is the creator of “Facemash” passionately committed to social justice? Well, maybe. He may have no power, but he is still a bigshot. Bigshots often do get religion in later life—especially when everyone around them is getting it. But—does he have a choice? If he has no choice—he has no power.

      For reasons not fully relevant here, I don’t agree entirely with that paradigm. Tech monopolies have enormous amounts of power, sometimes greater than nation-states themselves. We just saw that in Google and Facebook’s battles with the entire country of Australia. And they frequently go to war with state efforts to regulate them. But it is unquestionably true that these social media platforms — which set out largely for reasons of self-interest and secondarily due to a free-internet ideology — have had the censorship obligation foisted upon them by a combination of corporate media outlets and powerful politicians.

      One might think of tech companies, the corporate media, the U.S. security state, and Democrats more as a union — a merger of power — rather than separate and warring factions. But whatever framework you prefer, it is clear that the power of social media companies to control the internet is in the hands of government and its corporate media allies at least as much as it is in the hands of the tech executives who nominally manage these platforms.

      And it is precisely that reality that presents serious First Amendment threats. As the above-discussed Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates, this form of indirect and implicit state censorship is not new. Back in 2010, the war hawk Joe Lieberman abused his position as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to “suggest” that financial services and internet hosting companies such as Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, Amazon and Bank of America, should terminate their relationship with WikiLeaks on the ground that the group, which was staunchly opposed to Lieberman’s imperialism and militarism, posed a national security threat. Lieberman hinted that they may face legal liability if they continued to process payments for WikiLeaks.

      Unsurprisingly, these companies quickly obeyed Lieberman’s decree, preventing the group from collecting donations. When I reported on these events for Salon, I noted:

      That Joe Lieberman is abusing his position as Homeland Security Chairman to thuggishly dictate to private companies which websites they should and should not host — and, more important, what you can and cannot read on the Internet — is one of the most pernicious acts by a U.S. Senator in quite some time.  Josh Marshall wrote yesterday:  “When I’d heard that Amazon had agreed to host Wikileaks I was frankly surprised given all the fish a big corporation like Amazon has to fry with the federal government.”  That’s true of all large corporations that own media outlets — every one — and that is one big reason why they’re so servile to U.S. Government interests and easily manipulated by those in political power.  That’s precisely the dynamic Lieberman was exploiting with his menacing little phone call to Amazon (in essence:  Hi, this is the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee calling; you’re going to be taking down that WikiLeaks site right away, right?). Amazon, of course, did what they were told.

      (Along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras and others, I co-founded the Freedom of the Press Foundation in part to collect donations on behalf of WikiLeaks to ensure that the government could never again shut down press groups that it disliked through such pressure campaigns and implicit threats, precisely because it was so clear that this indirect means of attacking press freedom was dangerous and unconstitutional).

      What made Lieberman’s implicit threats in the name of “national security” so despotic was that they were clearly intended to punish and silence a group working against his political agenda. And that is precisely true of the motives of these House Democrats in demanding greater censorship in the name of combating “misinformation” and “hate speech”: their demands almost always, if not always, mean silencing those who are opposed to their ideology and political agenda. As but one example: one is perfectly free to opine online, as many Democrats do, that the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections (won by Republicans) were the by-products of electoral fraud, but making that same claim about the 2020 election (won by a Democrat) will result in immediate banning.

      The power to control the flow of information and the boundaries of permissible speech is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. It is a power as intoxicating as it is menacing. When it comes to the internet, our primary means of communicating with one another, that power nominally rests in the hands of private corporations in Silicon Valley.

      But increasingly, the Democratic-controlled government and their allies in the corporate media are realizing that they can indirectly and through coercion seize and wield that power for themselves. The First Amendment is implicated by these coercive actions as much as if Congress enacted laws explicitly mandating censorship of their political opponents.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 22:30

    • Meet The Columbia Professor Who Says He Does Heroin For "Work-Life Balance"
      Meet The Columbia Professor Who Says He Does Heroin For “Work-Life Balance”

      Columbia University professor Dr. Carl Hart has an unusual way of unwinding after a tough day at work. While some may be out at happy hour and others may enjoy playing tennis or a jog, Hart, a professor of psychology and neuroscience, says he has a “fondness for heroin”. 

      His interest in the drug isn’t just for research, however – it’s also for personal use, according to the NY Post. The 54 year old has said she has snorted “small amount of heroin” for as many as 10 days in a row in his new book “Drug Use for Grown-ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear”. Hart says he experiences withdrawal symptoms 12 to 16 hours after the last dose. 

      He writes in his book: “There aren’t many things in life that I enjoy more than a few lines by the fireplace at the end of the day.”

      He claims the drug use leaves him “refreshed” and “prepared to face another day” and compares his use of heroin to be as normal as someone using alcohol. “Like vacation, sex and the arts, heroin is one of the tools that I use to maintain my work-life balance,” he writes.

      As an academic, Hart studies the effects of psychoactive drugs on humans. His push in the book is for decriminalizing possession of recreational drugs. “The demonization of drug use – not drugs themselves – [has] been a tremendous scourge on America, not least in reinforcing this country’s enduring structural racism,” he writes.

      He is hoping that President Biden can work toward federal regulation and licensing of substances like heroin, arguing that since people are going to do them anyway, they might as well do them safely and educated about the risk. 

      He said in a recent interview with Insider: “If you’re going to use opioids, don’t use alcohol as a background … [the combination] increases the likelihood of respiratory depression and death.”

      Hart also says he is “a fan” of MDMA and methamphetamine. “When I’m rolling, I just want to breathe deeply and enjoy it. The simple act of breathing can be extremely pleasurable,” he said of his use of MDMA. He even writes in his book about snorting bath salts, the NY Post writes. 

      The medical and addiction community’s take on Hart’s approach is skeptical. Christian Hopfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told the NY Post: “Smoke a couple times a day and marijuana will knock off your memory. That is pretty certain. And there is no question that legalization has a normalizing effect on something that used to be against the law.”

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 22:00

    • The Trustees Have Failed
      The Trustees Have Failed

      Via Techno Fog substack,

      A Story of Generations

      I often reflect on the concept of generational responsibilities. That each generation, whether mine or yours, has the same type of supportive role to the other for the common good, although the obligations may be different. Let me put this another way:

      Every generation is the caretaker of the generations that came before, and the trustee of those who will come after. 

      To explain by example: a child enters this world under the care of their parents. And the parents leave this world being cared for by their children. These are general observations (and aspirations) that leave out everything in between and all those little moments that define care.

      To be more specific, and to hopefully state the obvious, caring for a child isn’t just a roof over their head and three meals a day. It’s teaching them values, being an example for them to follow, making them feel safe. It is making a marriage work for the benefit of the children and not divorcing for the convenience of the adults. Ensuring, as best we can, their future.

      Then as we age, we see our parents start to fight with the parts of their daily lives they once did with ease. Their struggle is our struggle, though the struggles are different. Each day a brush more diminished until we say goodbye.

      Both stages are touched by sadness, as if a gentle hand squeezed yours. Dare I say acute melancholy. Parents watching their children slowly grow up and children watching their parents slowly grow old.

      I say all that for a reason. Take the relationship of a parent and a child and put it in generational context: being a trustee of those who are here, and for those to come, means ensuring that the younger generations have the tools to build their future. The institutions established by our ancestors serve the same purpose. The common good endures when we pass.

      Do we judge trustees and institutions – and by extension, generations – by what they preserve and pass on?

      It’s dangerous to criticize a whole group in these times (accusations of stereotypes or whatever) and I hope you understand that a generation can be criticized even if every member of the generation didn’t do wrong. If the one generation sold out younger generations (and they did sell them out), it doesn’t mean they’re all greedy. It’s the forest and not the trees, the big picture and not each individual pixel. I’ll even concede this is the flaw of all generations, though perhaps some did it better than others.

      Greed and the Price of College

      With that said, turn your eyes to the trustees who abused their power. Over the past 30+ years the cost of attending college – both private and public – has grown exponentially. The numbers below are 2019 figures from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics and reflect the increase of the cost of higher education.

      Per these Department of Education figures, students are now paying anywhere from approximately $72,000 to $170,000 to get a four-year degree. An increase of $39,000 to nearly $90,000 without taking into consideration the interest on the loans. Put into simple terms, a student may be billed $100,000 for college but over the long term the cost can double.

      Meanwhile, wages haven’t kept up.

      The Cost of Student Loans: The Numbers and Beyond

      The student loan horror stories are everywhere if you care to look. You probably know people struggling with student loans who endure in silence. These are college graduates giving plasma to pay for groceries. One woman I spoke with documented how her husband has paid twice the original balance of the student loan – and still owes an amount so large that they will likely pay through retirement.  These are debts that are never meant to end.

      There’s the story of a 1990s law school graduate borrowed around $55,000. He struggled to make ends meet and now owes “well over $300,000.” Maybe the servicing companies can rob his corpse when he dies. This is what happens when you start viewing people as objects: you extract from them everything you can and leave them to deal with the fallout. Servitude until death.

      Debt and Misery

      If you haven’t faced crippling student loan debt then it’s hard to understand what these young people face. Economically, they can’t buy homes because their savings – which would go towards a down payment – are paying the interest on the student loans. If we get creative with a driving metaphor, plans for the future take a backseat to high balances and high interest. In the worst cases the future is locked in the trunk, being driven beyond the city limits to be shot and burned in some remote field.

      Psychologically, the results of loan debt can be devastating. Hope is for the young – except for those with student loans. They just have resignation. It’s the anxiety of drowning, fighting to stay near the surface as the $100,000 weight around their neck pulls them down. It’s the hopelessness and despair of paying everything you can afford month after month after month and watching the principal barely move. It’s a week’s worth of bologna sandwiches and eggs and instant oatmeal so you can pay your bills or treat yourself to an actual meal at an actual restaurant. It’s walking outside and praying your car hasn’t been repossessed.

      The Greed Starts at the University

      All of this is a great profit machine for the colleges. The University of Texas at Austin has an endowment of $31 billion. An in-state student at that school can graduate with over $75,000 in debt, counting tuition and living expenses. The trustees – those running the universities – are doing well for themselves.

      Over on the east coast, Harvard’s endowment is an obscene $40.9 billion. It appears that the purpose of the endowment is to serve itself – to eat and grow to as large a size as possible, to expend as little as possible and get as fat as the market allows. Gluttony.

      Costs are only cut when the cuts serve their interests. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Harvard instituted austerity measures and caused quite the controversy within its student body when it considered laying off its dining workers (technically contractors) without some sort of compensation. It took a bit of protest for Harvard to cut them something – the school wasn’t exactly volunteering to help those workers living paycheck to paycheck. While this went on, Harvard’s president and investment team continued to earn millions of dollars a year. True compassion from a liberal institution where only 1% of its professors call themselves (perhaps privately, if not publicly) “conservative.”

      The United States government has been no help. In fact, they helped feed this monster – and have failed to stop students from being consumed by its appetite. In 2005, Congress exempted “all forms of student debt, public or private . . . from discharge in bankruptcy, absent a showing of ‘undue hardship.’” Not an easy task in bankruptcy court.

      The Blame Goes Around – and Comes Back to the College

      Contrary to popular belief in some conservative circles, however, all the blame for the increased cost of a college education doesn’t lie on Congress or the government as a whole. Certainly, the availability of guaranteed and loans allowed costs to increase and the student loan crisis to flourish. But the greed starts with the schools. The availability of loans didn’t require prices to rise.

      To this you may say that the students took out these loans and should be on the hook for their debt: “Personal responsibility!”

      I don’t necessarily disagree with that. There’s a moral duty to pay debts that we all recognize. Perhaps we should also consider there are moral duties governing lenders. If we continue on the path of personal responsibility, here’s another question to consider: What is the responsibility of those who created and benefit from this perverse system?

      I’ll also add that there’s danger in the extreme. We allow for credit card debt to be discharged at bankruptcy. We allow for corporations to go through bankruptcy and be restructured. Personal or corporate bankruptcy all involve bad decisions with debt or in some cases an economic downturn. Sometimes both. Sometimes shit just happens.

      Why treat student loans so different? Could it be to protect not the debtor, but the colleges making obscene profits and the institutions financing and collecting the debt?

      This isn’t to say that I’m proposing the answer right now, though the answer requires some concerns to be addressed. This is a societal problem that requires an equitable solution. One that allows for balances to be paid without the punishing interest. A solution that puts some of the burden on the colleges and not just the students. An easier forgiveness of debt for those who absolutely need it. There must be a better way to solve the problem the trustees created.

      Debt: The Inheritance of Future Generations

      Now consider that all generations have a duty to preserve our inheritance for those yet to be born. What will their inheritance be?

      Reckless government spending and the accumulation of national debt is the best example of a breach of that duty that will be paid by future generations. The U.S. national debt (as of February 2021) is nearly $28 trillion dollars. That comes out to $84,000 per citizen and $222,000 per taxpayer. The US federal debt to GDP ratio has increased from 34.72% in 1980 to 128.89 in 2020. And it continues to grow, as seen in these December 2020 figures.

      What costs will future generations bear for the extravagance of today? We have an idea of the answer, even if there are disagreements on the specifics. Those with forked tongues undoubtedly advancing the interests of their masters or their political allies take the counter-intuitive position that debt doesn’t matter.

      We know otherwise. The ancients told us debt is slavery. (Proverbs 22:7: “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”) It is death: “To die is a debt we must all of us discharge.”

      Many experts at least agree that these dangerous levels of debt can lead to inflation, prolonged recessions, high unemployment, and in quite possibly the ruin of America. And our mediocre ruling class, those who are good at getting elected and bad at governance, continue to spend. They get all the benefits and incur none of the costs.

      A Contrast

      Yet as the younger generations get much grief (some of it being deserved) for taking loans and selfies, for entitled behavior, for demanding promotions with little experience, look what happens when they are asked give things up for the benefit of others. The COVID-19 pandemic and shutdowns, which are ongoing as I write this, have been a real-time demonstration of generational priorities and sacrifices. It is a generational contrast.

      The offerings of ordinary folks made during the pandemic– the sacrifices of the cooks, the janitors, the servers and bartenders, the small business owner – are substantial. This isn’t just a couple missed paychecks. This is about people getting no income when they already have so little. It’s auctioning restaurant equipment and locking the doors. This is paying half the month’s rent because you need the rest of your money for gas and groceries. It is the generation without wealth – in large part, the younger generation – making the sacrifices.

      And the sacrifices are for whom? The older generation, the generation that is most at risk from COVID-19. The “greater good.”

      When considering the sacrifices of the young during COVID – those sacrifices made for the “greater good” – how much worse is the older generation’s refusal to sacrifice small economic gains so younger generations wouldn’t be burdened with student loan debt for the next 20+ years?

      Where do we go from here?

      Things need to change. These are policies not based on the common good, or dare I say love, but on greed and cynicism. A country has no future if the future spends its life paying for the past.

      A hope emerges from this: that we one day relate to younger generations in the same way parents relate to children. That we look to ourselves as trustees. That we see ourselves as guardians of an inheritance. That we look to others not as objects but as fellow citizens.

      That we remember we are caretakers of those who came before and trustees for those who will come after.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 21:30

    • First Human Cases Of H5N8 Bird Flu Reported In Russia
      First Human Cases Of H5N8 Bird Flu Reported In Russia

      With reports of Ebola and bubonic plague now competing with COVID-19 as the next potential trigger for trillions in unrelated stimulus, bird flu has returned just in time for President Biden to confront his old nemesis, should it spread beyond Russia’s borders (and become even moderately deadly in humans).

      Russian authorities report that seven employees at a poultry farm in southern Russia have contracted H5N8 bird flu, however they stress that there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. The cases have been described as “mild” according to Interfax – however in birds symptoms can range from “asymptomatic and sub-clinical to highly lethal in some populations.”

      “Today, I want to inform you about an important scientific discovery made by scientists at the Vector scientific center,” said Anna Popova, head of Russia’s consumer health watchdog. “The first cases of human infection with [avian influenza A(H5N8)] have been laboratory confirmed.“

      “The virus can be transmitted from birds to humans, it has overcome the interspecies barrier,” she added. “As of today, this variant of the influenza virus is not being transmitted from person to person. Only time will tell how quickly future mutations will allow it to overcome this barrier.”

      In chickens, typical symptoms of respiratory illness include sneezing, coughing, wheezing or labored breathing and fewer eggs. H5N8 in particular has a 75% mortality rate in chickens.

      Popova says the discovery will help researchers prepare in case the disease mutates and becomes transmissible between humans, according to BNO News, which added that “detailed information about the seven cases has been submitted to the World Health Organization.”

      H5N8 has been found in birds since at least 1983 and outbreaks have occurred frequently since 2014, when it was found in breeding ducks in South Korea. Numerous outbreaks have been reported during the last 6 months, including in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, China, Japan, and South Korea. -BNO News

      “The H5N8 type influenza is regarded as pathogenic and is currently manifesting itself in a variety of ways, from asymptomatic and sub-clinical to highly lethal in some populations,” according to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in a recent update.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 21:00

    • Newsweek 'Fact Check' Claims India Vaccine Ban "Mostly False" While Admitting De Facto Ban
      Newsweek ‘Fact Check’ Claims India Vaccine Ban “Mostly False” While Admitting De Facto Ban

      Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

      Newsweek published a “fact check” which labeled claims that India had banned the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as “mostly false” despite admitting in the article that India has in fact temporarily banned the vaccine.

      Last week, discussion around the issue intensified after it was revealed that Indian health authorities had refused to give permission for the vaccine to be distributed.

      “On February 3, 2021, India’s Subject Expert Committee (SEC), a panel that advises the nation’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), a national regulatory body focused on pharmaceuticals and devices, ruled that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not be recommended for an EUA in the country “at this stage,” reports Newsweek.

      The report quotes India’s Subject Expert Committee (SEC), which ruled, “The committee noted that incidents of palsy, anaphylaxis and other SAE’s have been reported during post marketing and the causality of the events with the vaccine is being investigated. Further, the firm has not proposed any plan to generate safety and immunogenicity data in Indian population.”

      In response, after the meeting with the regulator, Pfizer Inc. withdrew its application for the vaccine’s use in India.

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

      The Newsweek report admits all this, including but then asserts that that the claim India banned the vaccine is “mostly false.”

      Indian authorities refused to allow the vaccine to be distributed in India. That’s also known as a “ban”.

      The ban might be lifted at a future date, but it’s a ban nonetheless.

      For Newsweek to claim that this is “mostly false” is completely erroneous.

      The Newsweek fact check itself is “mostly false.” The fact checkers have been fact checked.

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

      But it gets worse.

      Bill Gates owns stock in Pfizer Inc. and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated significant sums of money to help Pfizer’s development of vaccines.

      Interesting to note therefore that a message which originally appeared at the bottom of the Newsweek ‘fact check’ article has now disappeared.

      The message read; “Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.”

      It is not known why that message has now vanished.

      This is yet another example of how ‘fact checks’ are often completely devoid of facts and are merely a way of legacy media institutions and giant corporations shutting down narratives they don’t like.

      *  *  *

      New limited edition merch now available! Click here. 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, 02/20/2021 – 20:30

    • Texas Blackouts Spark First Lawsuit; AG Vows Probe
      Texas Blackouts Spark First Lawsuit; AG Vows Probe

      A Corpus Christi man has accused the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state’s primary electric grid, of ignoring repeated warnings that the state’s electric power infrastructure had weaknesses, according to a new lawsuit. In a statement by the Dallas law firm which filed the suit, ERCOT and American Electric Power utility are also accused of causing property damage and business interruptions as last week’s cold snap shattered water pipes and caused widespread power outages to millions of Texans, according to NBCDFW.

      Power lines in Houston (photo: David J. Phillip/AP)

      “This cold weather event and its effects on the Texas energy grid were neither unprecedented, nor unexpected, nor unforeseen,” states the lawsuit, filed by Donald McCarley. “In fact, similar cold weather events in 1989 and 2011 led to exactly the same type of rolling blackouts that have affected and continue to affect Texas residents and businesses.” The lawsuit also cites a clause in the Texas Constitution which holds that “no person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made.”

      “The rolling blackouts ordered by Defendant ERCOT took, damaged, or destroyed Plaintiff’s property without adequate compensation,” the suit claims.

      The lawsuit filed Friday in a Nueces County court at law in Corpus Christi alleges the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, manager of the state’s main electric grid, ignored repeated warnings of weaknesses in the state’s electric power infrastructure. –NBCDFW

      “The resulting widespread property damage from blackouts was caused by their negligence and gross negligence. In addition, the disruptions rendered private property unusable and amounted to an illegal `taking’ of private property by the government,” the law firm said in a statement.

      The lawsuit also claims that utility companies should have winterized their plants and increased generation to meet skyrocketing demand, “but consciously chose not to do so.” Of course, frozen wind turbines in the middle of Texas may fall in the ‘unforseen’ category.

      Temporary outages began occurring last week and in the days and hours before the storm actually hit as temperatures across Texas began plummeting well below freezing. AEP Texas has not yet commented about the litigation but did post a series of tweets beginning Feb. 10 and continuing through the emergency offering winter storm preparation tips and urging energy conservation.

      ERCOT held numerous news briefings throughout the emergency to explain that the outages, intended to be temporary with power switching off and on for affected customers, were needed to prevent a catastrophic collapse of grid. Several giant generators tripped off line late Sunday and early Monday as demand for power spiked. –Caller Times

      Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has issued civil investigative demands to ERCOT, and says he’ll get “to the bottom of this power failure.”

      According to the report, the investigation will address power outages, emergency planning, energy pricing and other issues related to the winter storm.

      “The large-scale failure of Texas power companies to withstand the winter storm left multiple millions of Texans without power and heat during lethal, record-low temperatures across the state,” Paxton’s office said in a statement.

      Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called on ERCOT leadership to resign, and has vowed to reform the way the Texas grid operates.

      ERCOT says it’s reviewing the lawsuit and would not comment on specific allegations.

      “Our thoughts are with all Texans who have and are suffering due to this past week,” said spokesperson Leslie Sopko in a statement. “However, because approximately 46% of privately-owned generation tripped offline this past Monday morning, we are confident that our grid operators made the right choice to avoid a statewide blackout.”

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 20:00

    • Trump To Make First Public Speech Since Leaving White House At CPAC
      Trump To Make First Public Speech Since Leaving White House At CPAC

      Authored by Allen Zhong via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

      Former President Donald Trump likely will make his first post-White House appearance at the end of February.

      President Donald Trump speaks at the CPAC convention in National Harbor, Md., on Feb. 29, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

      He will be a keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2021 in Orlando, Florida, CPAC Communications Director Ian Walters confirmed to The Epoch Times.

      The former president’s speech is scheduled for the afternoon of Feb. 28, the last day of the conference, Walters said.

      It will likely be Trump’s first public appearance since he left the White House on Jan. 20.

      American Conservative Union (ACU), the host of the conference, invited the former president to speak at CPAC.

      “I’d love to see him come to CPAC,” CAU Chairman Matt Schlapp told the Washington Examiner. Schlapp said he extended the invitation personally.

      “I think he deserves to be heard. I think even people who disagree with him will agree that he deserves to be heard. He should be uncanceled,” he added.

      An official close to the planning process told The Epoch Times that the invitation was sent out last year.

      Trump appears to be more active in the political arena after the conclusion of his second impeachment trial. He issued a lengthy statement confronting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s speech against him and appeared on several media outlets to saluting Rush Limbaugh after the death of the iconic conservative radio commentator.

      The Senate acquitted the former president with a 57-43 vote in his second impeachment trial. Sixty-seven votes are needed to reach an impeachment conviction.

      Most Senate Republicans, 45 out of 60, regarded the second impeachment trial as unconstitutional mostly because Trump has left the White House and no longer holds any official position at that time, The Epoch Times reported.

      President Trump hugs the American flag as he arrives to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC 2019, in Oxon Hill, Md., on March 2, 2019. (Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo)

      Trump is frequent of the CPAC, an annual event.

      He issued a dire warning to Americans about socialism in his 2020 CPAC speech.

      “Far-left radicals have become increasingly desperate and increasingly dangerous in their quest to transform America into a country you would not recognize—a country in which they control every aspect of American life,” he said. “Just as socialist and communist movements have done all over the world, they’re cracking down on all dissent and demanding absolute conformity. They want total control.”

      Trump warned that the result of implementing such policies would “turn America very quickly into a large-scale Venezuela.”

      CPAC describes itself as the largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world.

      Top conservatives regularly appear at the conference. Scheduled speakers for this year’s conference include a number of officials from Trump’s administration, including former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

      Trump allies like South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former acting national security adviser Richard Grenell are also slated to speak.

      The lineup also includes some lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and Rep Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).

      With reporting from Jan Jekielek.

      Zachary Stieber, Bowen Xiao, and Emel Akan contributed to the report.

      Follow Allen on Twitter: @AllenZM

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 19:30

    • New Regulations Mean Japanese Whiskey Now Actually Has To Come From Japan
      New Regulations Mean Japanese Whiskey Now Actually Has To Come From Japan

      Nothing is more popular in the world of trendy alcohol right now than Japanese whisky.

      And the funny thing is that while normal whisky is usually revered for where it is casked and prepared – with local climates and soils often playing a role in helping shape the unique tastes that come with it – Japanese whiskey doesn’t even have to be made in Japan, as long as it is bottled in the country. 

      Stefan van Eycken, author of Whisky Rising: The Definitive Guide to the Finest Whiskies and Distillers of Japan, told Bloomberg: “To say that whisky-­making regulations in Japan are loose is a major understatement. If they were any looser, you’d be able to sell tap water as Japanese whisky.”

      But this is all about to change. The Japan Spirits & Liqueurs Makers Association (JSLMA), a nongovernmental trade group of the country’s major producers is about to make sure consumers have a clear understanding of what Japanese whisky is – and, of course, it will mean whiskey actually produced in Japan. 

      The new regulations, which take effect on April 1 and are expected to be adopted widely by the Japanese government, is already making shockwaves. Whiskey maker Nikka came right out already and said: “Certain Nikka products don’t meet the requirements of ‘Japanese whisky,’ as some blends contain whiskies from outside Japan, most notably Scotland. Nikka’s priority is creating distinguished and consistent taste profiles, which is likely why they’re deciding not to alter the liquid to fit the new standards.”

      Nikka has been popular in Japanese bars for nearly 40 years. It just arrived in the U.S. in 2018 and was almost immediately named the year’s best whisky by Whisky Advocate. 

      For some, the news that Nikka whisky didn’t all come from Japan was surprising. Shawn Kim, owner of 58 Wines in Midtown Manhattan, told Bloomberg: “I had no idea it contained whisky from outside of Japan. I was able to get 10 cases at a time before it got popular. I hate whenever something I love is named ‘whisky of the year,’ because then people start treating it like a trophy, and they stop actually drinking it.”

      Nikka’s experience with coming to the U.S. has matched that of many other Japanese whiskies. Products from Suntory has been praised for its single malts and blends.

      Hideki Kanda, chairman of the JSLMA, said that all major brands sold in the U.S. conform to the new standards. If they don’t they will have to remove the word “Japanese” from their label and will also have to “excise all references to the country, its culture, and language”. For example, a bottle won’t be able to have a photo of a Japanese flag on it. 

      In Japan, there isn’t a ton of grain distilleries, making it sometimes easier to import whisky. 

      Eli Raffeld, who used to live in Japan before making back to the U.S. to start an importer-exporter for craft beer, said: “In Japan, nobody is really misled by any of this. It’s common practice in Japan, he says, to be bottling and selling whiskies that include a component imported from another country, almost to the point of tradition. So people don’t really think about it.”

      Emiko Kaji, international business development manager for Nikka, concluded: “We do not make superior or inferior distinctions of flavor based on geographical indications. If using imported whiskies as a part of the formula is beneficial to create or maintain the flavors of our unique expressions, we will continue this practice.”

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 19:00

    • The High Cost Of Using The Minimum Wage As A Form Of Welfare
      The High Cost Of Using The Minimum Wage As A Form Of Welfare

      Authored by Martin Jones via The Mises Institute,

      In recent years a number of economic studies have concluded that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage do not necessarily cause a discernible decline in employment. Social activists have seized on these findings to argue that there are no job losses and that it is possible to increase mandated wages by almost any amount without ill effects.

      The result has been a rush to raise the minimum wage to $15 in a number of states and cities and now at the national level.

      The reality is that there is little consensus among economists about the effects of the minimum wage on aggregate employment.

      In their 2014 book What Does the Minimum Wage Do? Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson survey over two hundred minimum wage studies and conclude that moderate increases can raise the wages of low-income workers without significant employment effects.

      A 2019 paper by economist Jeffery Clemens is a shorter survey of many of the same studies. It concludes that the case for large increases (an increase from $7.25 to $15 would qualify) “is either mistaken or overstated” and adds that “[i]n contrast to the research emphasized by advocates, the broader body of work regularly finds that increases in minimum wages cause job losses for individuals with low skills.”

      In a January 2021 study, economists David Neumark and Peter Shirley assembled “the entire set of published studies in this literature” and conclude that “there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates“ and that the evidence is particularly strong for teens, young adults, and the less educated—exactly the results economic theory would predict.

      In the face of competing complex statistical analyses that may reach contradictory conclusions, voters and legislators should be aware that findings about the effects of wage increases on the unemployment rate often ignore or obscure other significant consequences. For example, small increases don’t always have a discernible effect on employment, because employers try to make other adjustments before laying off workers they are happy with and need. One of the first adjustments is to raise prices, the success of which depends on the competitive environment and the flexibility of demand for their products or services.

      Along with price increases, employers may reduce hours, and Belman and Wolfson note that “[i]t has long been suggested that employers may respond to minimum wage increases by reducing spending on training, fringe benefits and working conditions valued by employees.”

      Another important finding is that employers often respond to higher mandated wages by replacing low wage workers with those who have more education, skills and experience which make them more productive. This adjustment may have little effect on the observable employment numbers, but the effect is devastating for those who are replaced. Employers can be forced to pay higher wages, but they can’t be forced to hire or retain employees whose contributions don’t match the higher wage.

      Some studies (see Clemens 2019) suggest that the pace of job creation slows when mandated wages rise. The increases also accelerate automation, which reduces the number of entry-level jobs and further penalizes those whom the increases are meant to help. In coming years, the combined effect of substitution, slower job creation, and accelerated automation is likely to be a growing core of workers, many of whom are young and poorly educated, who are unemployed and unemployable.

      Social activists and progressive editorial boards now regard the minimum wage as another welfare program that can reduce the costs of programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and can reduce inequality. But the minimum wage is very poorly targeted for these purposes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that “roughly 40 percent of workers directly affected by the $15 option in 2025 would be members of families with incomes more than three times the federal poverty level.” If the goal is to aid low-wage households, rather than teenagers and other part-time workers in middle-income and affluent families, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would be far more effective, because it is designed to aid the working poor.

      The national minimum wage was established in 1938, and along with periodic increases has become widely accepted as desirable public policy. But it has also become a textbook example of the failure to think separately and equally about ends and means. If there is a public consensus that low-income families should receive additional aid, that policy should be paid for by the public, not by private businesses, many of which will try to offset the higher costs by raising prices to consumers and cutting employee hours and benefits, and some of which won’t survive with higher mandated costs that they can’t adequately offset.

      The notion that third parties can pick the right starting wage for every employee, in every job, in every business, in every industry is folly. Those who support increases in the minimum wage do so with the best of intentions, but they should be aware of the substantial hidden costs and negative consequences which are often ignored in the public debate and should be aware that there are much better alternatives for helping those in need.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 18:30

    • 92% Of NYC Restaurants Unable To Pay Rent In December, Study Finds 
      92% Of NYC Restaurants Unable To Pay Rent In December, Study Finds 

      Another week, another restaurant doomsday story.

      According to the latest NYC Hospitality Alliance survey, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for restaurants across the metro area to pay their rent in full and on time. The return of indoor dining couldn’t come soon enough as struggling eateries cling on for dear life. 

      The survey found 92% of more than 400 respondents couldn’t pay rent in December, a number that has exponentially moved higher during the pandemic. In June, 80% of restaurants couldn’t afford to pay rent; July 83%; August 87%; October 88%. The trend outlines the struggle Big Apple restaurants have endured since the pandemic began. 

      Before the pandemic, more than 25,000 restaurants, bars, and nightclubs employed 325,000 people across all seven boroughs. So far, thousands of eateries have closed permanently, and at least half are at risk of closing if government aid isn’t seen or restrictions aren’t lifted. The industry’s consolidation has been devastating for the labor force, with some 140,000 jobs lost.

      NYC Hospitality Alliance survey said 40% of respondents said landlords reduced rent, 36% said landlords deferred rent, and 14% said they could renegotiate leases. 

      The report’s release comes as Gov. Andrew Cuomo eased restrictions on restaurants statewide last week. He said restaurants and bars could stay open longer and has allowed for indoor dining at 25% capacity in the city. 

      “We’re nearly a year into the public health and economic crisis that has decimated New York City’s restaurants, bars, and nightlife venues,” said Andrew Rigie, executive director of the NYC Hospitality Alliance. 

      Cuomo’s ban on indoor dining last fall produced a dark winter for many restaurants who had to build tents on their patios or sidewalks to house guests and protect them from the freezing temperatures. 

      In response to the ban, restauranteurs across the city prohibited the governor from dining at their eateries. 

      “He should be banned from every restaurant bar etc he’s a scumbag f**k you coumo and di blasio,” one owner said. 

      With indoor restrictions in place during the holiday season, many restaurants across the city saw a “dramatic loss of revenue” as New Year’s celebrations were canceled. 

      Some restaurants developed new revenue streams by selling frozen dinners. 

      OpenTable shows the percentage of restaurants in New York City accepting reservations from diners remains well under the 50% level, even worse than last October. 

      NYC Hospitality Alliance survey’s lined up with December’s Alignable Rent Poll, showing that more than half of the country’s restaurants couldn’t pay rent in December. 

      More than one year later since the pandemic began and the restaurant industry remains in shambles. No “V-shaped” recovery here. 

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 18:00

    • Learning To Live With Crypto
      Learning To Live With Crypto

      Authored by Sean Stein Smith via The American Institute for Economic Research,

      Accounting standards developed for the 20th century are not equipped to deal with 21st century crypto assets. Assuming otherwise creates inaccurate and diminished financial reporting. 

      Recent headlines by the likes of Tesla, Microstrategy, and BNY Mellon, as well as statements by market titans such as Ray Dalio and Jeff Gundlach illustrate one consistent point; crypto is part of the mainstream financial conversation. 

      Bitcoin especially has come a long way from its early days as a cypherpunk-themed movement to create an alternative financial and payment system. In the context of 2021, bitcoin and other crypto are actually starting to become somewhat boring; just another asset class and investment opportunity for institutional investors, financial institutions, and retail investors alike versus a world changing idea.

      If the story ended there, well, it would all sound pretty mundane. Unfortunately, that is only the surface, and these headlines obscure an extremely important problem that remains unaddressed; the accounting for crypto as it currently stands makes no business sense. That’s right, something as under-the-radar as accounting standards are quickly becoming a significant issue as crypto adoption and investment accelerates. 

      Let’s dig in. 

      The Problem 

      There is currently no widely accepted authoritative accounting guidance for crypto. Certain specific countries have implemented unique approaches that stand apart, but these are not widely adopted outside of these countries. In the accounting world, the two standard setting bodies are the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). It is true that the IASB has proven more flexible in terms of crypto accounting; there are no authoritative standards to that effect. In the US, and despite worthwhile efforts by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) to publish non-authoritative research, the FASB has so far refused to consider the issue of crypto-specific accounting guidance. 

      In the face of no authoritative standards, a consensus has developed that crypto should be treated as an indefinite lived intangible asset (like goodwill) for financial reporting purposes. At first glance this all seems fine since crypto is intangible and has no fixed expiration date. Peeling back the layers of this treatment, however, quickly reveals how inappropriate this classification is for crypto. 

      Following the rules of accounting for indefinite lived intangible assets, these assets are held on the balance sheet at the price paid for them (cost) less any impairment charges. Impairment, without getting overly technical, is a process by which assets are evaluated to see whether or not the book value is reflective of market value. If the market value has decreased, the asset is written down and an expense is recorded. Under US accounting standards, there is one other wrinkle to keep in mind; once an asset has been written down it cannot be written back up no matter what the market valuation becomes. 

      This accounting treatment might be fine for goodwill, an asset created due to paying more than the fair market valuation of an organization (think M&A) would imply, but does not work for crypto. Under this current treatment, any organization that invests in crypto will have to record this investment at cost, and mark it down whenever conditions trigger an impairment test, and would never be able to mark this asset back up. 

      Crypto is still a volatile market, and even just in 2021 there have been double-digit percentage swings in prices for bitcoin and innumerable other crypto. Treating crypto as the current consensus would indicate creates a situation where economic realities are not accurately represented. 

      Think about it, is any other widely traded and free-floating commodity or equity-like instrument treated this way? No. Why? Because it does not make business sense and diminishes the usability of financial reporting. 

      Potential Solutions 

      There are two possible solutions that could ultimately be implemented given the rapid proliferation of crypto on corporate balance sheets. Again, there is no widely implemented crypto-specific guidance, and these approaches do not align with current market consensus. 

      • Option #1 is the simplest approach, and would involve choosing to treat, record, and report crypto investments as a commodity-like instrument. This would allow the changes in market value to be reported as they occur on the balance sheet, and be reported on the income statement (or through other comprehensive income). Implementing this approach, modifying existing standards to reflect an emerging asset class, would increase the transparency and usability of financial reporting. 

      • A second option, and one that in a perfect world would already be in the pipeline at standard setters, is the development of entirely new standards for this entirely new asset class. Obviously this would take more time, require more input, and necessitate high levels of collaboration, but the following framework might make sense. Classifying different crypto depending on use case (currency alternative, commodity equivalent, or equity-like instrument) would allow new and more nuanced standards to enter the marketplace. 

      As far fetched as this might seem, a similar attempt was made to improve crypto reporting via the proposed (not passed) Token Taxonomy Act of 2019; a refreshing attempt by policymakers to encourage innovation and adoption of new technologies. 

      Takeaway

      Crypto has rapidly moved from a fringe topic, to a relatively minor investment selection, to an investment being adopted by some of the largest corporations and asset managers in the world. This is fantastic news for wider adoption, but the accounting simply has not kept pace. Accounting professionals need to learn to live and work with crypto, and standard setters need to be proactive in the creation of crypto-specific standards. Applying standards developed for the 20th century economy to 21st crypto assets is already causing issues, and should be rectified to avoid wider market disruptions.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 17:30

    • Biden Admin "Working Directly" With Big Tech To Crush Vaccine Dissent
      Biden Admin “Working Directly” With Big Tech To Crush Vaccine Dissent

      “In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.”

      Those were the prophetic words of Caitlin Johnstone in 2018 warning of the slippery slope that Big Tech and its liberal minions were embarking on as the corporate-sponsored cancel-culture began.

      In 2018, representatives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to “quell information rebellions” and adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord.”

      “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words,” the representatives were told.

      “America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

      And now, 3 years later, all the ‘behind the scenes’ nods and winks are gone and conspiracy theories proved fact as Reuters reports The White House has been reaching out to social media companies including Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc’s Google about clamping down on COVID misinformation and getting their help to stop it from going viral, a senior administration official said.

      “Disinformation that causes vaccine hesitancy is going to be a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a source with direct knowledge about the cooperation told Reuters.

      The White House previously acknowledged working with tech giants like Facebook and Google on the issue, but direct engagement was not confirmed, Reuters said.

      “We are talking to them … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly.”

      The source told Reuters that the companies “were receptive” as they engaged with the White House. “But it is too soon to say whether or not it translates into lessening the spread of misinformation.”

      Every time the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all new media political discourse with an iron fist are pointed out, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands.

      “It’s not censorship!” they exclaim. “It’s a private company and can do whatever it wants with its property!”

      Except now, that ‘private’ entity is working directly for the government as the Biden administration is not even trying to hide the relationship.

      So, it turns out Johnstone was right: “In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.”

      Be careful what you ‘think’ America… be wary of ‘questioning’ anything, and definitely be careful what you ‘share’.

      As John Whitehead warned this week:  This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

      “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 17:00

    • "It's Raining Metal" – Boeing 777 Experiences Mid-Flight Engine Explosion Over Denver Suburbs
      “It’s Raining Metal” – Boeing 777 Experiences Mid-Flight Engine Explosion Over Denver Suburbs

      Update (1712 ET): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a statement around 1700 ET about the incident concerning a Boeing 777-200 operated by United Airlines. The FAA says it’s “aware of reports of debris in the vicinity of the airplane’s flight path. Please contact local officials and the airline for further information about the passengers. The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board will investigate.” 

      * * * 

      9NEWS’ Chris Vanderveen reports United flight 328 has returned to Denver International Airport after passengers heard a “loud bang.” 

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

      Vanderveen tweeted: 

      “Just spoke to passenger on United flight that had to turn around after passengers heard a “loud bang”. Flight was able to return to DIA. No injuries immediately reported on board. Plane was headed to Honolulu according to passenger.”

      He also tweeted a video from a passenger during landing. The video clearly shows the engine sustained damage. 

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

      Twitter user Kieran Cain posted a picture of the “giant metal engine piece just landed in this Broomfield person’s yard after a plane flying over experienced explosion.”

      More images of the metal engine part.

      Engine parts landed in a sports field filled with people. No word if anyone was injured. 

      “Incredible photos by Hayden Smith of UA328 suffering an engine failure shortly after departing Denver,” tweeted Tamas K-L. 

      “Hollyyy crap, it is just raining engine parts across the world today. This piece, what looks to be the entire engine inlet of a United 777-200, rained down over Denver,” said Flightradar24’s Jason Rabinowitz

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

      Literally, parts of the aircraft were “raining down over Denver.” 

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

      One Twitter user allegedly shows a video of the plane returning to Denver International Airport.

      Broomfield Police told 9NEWS “metal parts fell from the sky on Saturday, possibly from a passing aircraft in the the Broomfield area.”  

      FlightAware shows United flight 328 is a Boeing 777-200. Here’s the plane’s flight path this afternoon as it appears the aircraft took off from Denver International Airport and then immediately returned. 

      This can’t be good for Boeing shares come Monday…

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

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 16:29

    • "Rise Up, Fight Back!" – Detroit Rent Protest Erupts Amid Nationwide Eviction Crisis
      “Rise Up, Fight Back!” – Detroit Rent Protest Erupts Amid Nationwide Eviction Crisis

      At least 100 people gathered at a rent demonstration in Detroit on Saturday afternoon following a mother who was evicted with police assistance not too long ago. People walked the streets in the metro area, shouting, “no slumlords, no cops, all evictions got to stop!” This comes as millions of Americans are behind in rent and face eviction if the nationwide moratorium expires at the end of March.

      Independent reporter Brendan Gutenschwage captured the rent protest in a series of tweets Saturday afternoon. He said about 100 people turned up for the event to march through Detroit’s West Side. 

      The crowd was heard chanting: “When Black homes are under attack, what do we do? Rise up, fight back!”

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

      Protesters also chanted: “No slumlords, no cops, all evictions got to stop!”

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

      More views of the protest. 

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

      During the demonstration, the crowd marched past a community food distribution and donation drive. Housing and food insecurities are huge issues in America right now with no resolution in sight. 

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

      Protesters told people in the community to “come out of their houses and join them” in their march against evictions.

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

      What sparked the protest was when a mother was evicted from her home by police in December. 

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

      Meanwhile, a nationwide eviction crisis is here, and there’s no way to stop it. 

      According to research firm Moody’s Analytics, about 12 million renters owe an average of almost $6,000, which includes past due rent, late fees, and unpaid utility bills. In total, some $72 billion is owed. 

      “These are low-income households,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “They’ve probably already borrowed as much as they can from family or friends. They have no resources left.”

      In New York City alone, tenants owe a whopping $2 billion in back rents. 

      COVID has severely impacted almost all Americans but has financially crushed those with the lowest incomes. 

      The federal government has yet to address the eviction crisis with a long-term solution. In December, Congress allotted $25 billion in emergency rental assistance. Frankly, the federal government and Federal Reserve don’t have a viable long-term plan to fix this socio-economic mess – all they care about is printing trillions of dollars and throwing free money at everyone, thinking it will somehow immediately repair the deeply scarred economy.

      With eviction courts already clogged up with cases, the big question that looms is if the Biden administration will extend eviction moratoriums… If not, prepare for more rent protests. 

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 16:00

    • Inflation Here, There, And Everywhere
      Inflation Here, There, And Everywhere

      Authored by Bryce Coward via Knowledge Leaders Capital blog,

      What a week for price data! We have been writing about the possibility of higher inflation for months now, most recently here. We have also highlighted the most likely assets to benefit from higher inflation like copper, oil and energy stocks. So far so good on that front.

      While inflation of some kind – be it transitory or more lasting in duration – has been a high probability scenario for awhile, we are finally starting to see it clearly in the economic stats. This week alone we were given price data from the New York Fed’s Empire State survey, economy-wide producer price data from the Bureau of Labor Stats, and price data from the Markit PMIs. All of those data points recorded large gains and handily beat market expectations.

      For example, the Markit Services Input Price series went parabolic in February, recording the highest reading ever, by a long shot. The Output Price series also went up, but not as much as input prices. The difference between input prices and outprices implies margin contraction for services companies. We wouldn’t expect this level of margin compression to be sustained and thus expect output prices for services to rise handily in the months ahead, especially as covid vaccinations continue to chug along and reopening continues.

      Producer prices rose significantly in January too. Core producer prices (prices ex food, energy, and trade), recorded a 2% year-over-year gain, which was fully double the “Street’s” estimates.

      Finally, the Empire State manufacturing survey recorded a 10-year high in Prices Paid and a 9-year high in Prices Received.

      With these data all moving in one direction (up), it’s only a matter of time before the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation – the core personal consumption expenditure  (PCE) – catches up. The PCE is often the last inflation statistic to move, but movement in the upward direction is pretty much baked in the cake at this point.

      If history is a guide, the level of service company input prices (blue line) suggests we could see a core PCE reading above 2% within the next two months.

      Why does all this matter? Inflation impacts asset prices directly through the level of bond yields and indirectly through the increased volatility it brings to sales and earnings. The longer duration the asset, the more impact on that asset’s price as a result of inflation. For example, 30Y year Treasury yields (duration 20 years) are up nearly 40bps since the beginning of the year while 10 year Treasury yields (7 year duration) are only up 25bps. The Nasdaq 100 index (the longest duration major equity index) is up only 5% YTD compared to the Russell 2000 (a much shorter duration index), which is up 14.7%. Copper miners, which are among the shortest duration equities, are up 28%. To the extent the inflation data continues to come in hot, we would expect the above hierarchy of asset price returns to hold, generally speaking.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 15:30

    • "Two Weeks That Changed The World": A Goldman Post-Mortem On "The Squeeze"
      “Two Weeks That Changed The World”: A Goldman Post-Mortem On “The Squeeze”

      It was almost exactly three months ago, long before the Reddit short squeeze fireworks, when we were parsing through the latest quarterly Hedge Fund Tracker report from Goldman Sachs which famously breaks down the 50 most popular hedge fund long and short positions, when we repeated what we have said for much of the past decade:

      … since it is the most shorted stocks that end to do far better than the most popular ones, especially during market-wide squeezes such as the one seen since March, here is also the list of 50 most-shorted stocks. As usual, our advice is to go long the most hated names and short the most popular ones – a strategy that has generated alpha without fail for the past 7 years, ever since we first recommended it back in 2013.

      We said this on November 20, 2020, which we bring up because as everyone knows by now, what transpired since has been the biggest coordinated short squeeze in history, and anyone who listened to our advice and put on the abovementioned pair trade is now up some 40% in the past 3 months, an annualized return of over 160%.

      Actually, those who were reading us during this historic short squeeze meltup may already have retired, because while many were chasing Gamestop, one of our favorite squeeze trades was to go long a heavily shorted microcap, SRMX, as we revealed on Jan 27, and just two weeks later, SRMX was up 3,800%, double the peak performance of Gamestop.

      Yet while our readers profited handsomely from January’s epic moves, in many cases generating historic returns, there were also just as many who had a terrible month: they are better known as hedge funds. And it is their plight that Goldman’s latest Hedge Fund tracker focuses on.

      What follows below will not be surprising or new to any of our readers, who were presented with front-row seats to the historic events as they unfolded in January and early February. Still, what Goldman’s Ben Snider has done in his latest Hedge Fund Trend monitor (in which he analyzes the holdings of 820 hedge funds with $2.8 trillion in gross equity positions), is a good recap of some of the key catalysts and milestones behind what was to many financial professionals, two weeks that changed the world of finance starting with the January 22 breakout in Gamestop stock, and ending with the February 5 collapse in the most shorted names and the apparent return to normalcy.

      As Snider writes, January’s short squeeze showed the risk posed to both hedge fund returns and broad market performance by record leverage and a high degree of crowding, two factors (both the byproduct of years of “idea dinners”) which we have repeatedly warned in the past would one day come and bite the hedge fund industry in the ass.

      As we noted at the time…

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

      … hedge funds entered 2021 with the highest levels of net and gross exposure on record. And although the average fund’s portfolio concentration and the degree of crowding across hedge fund portfolios declined in 2020, both of those measures remained elevated relative to history, Snider notes.

      As an illustration, the top five constituents of Goldman’s Hedge Fund VIP list of the most popular hedge fund long positions have remained unchanged for 10 consecutive quarters, including this quarter’s rebalance (although while 13Fs showed positions as of Dec 31, this may well have changed after the January fireworks).

      That’s because short covering that began following vaccine efficacy announcements in November accelerated in January, leading eventually to broad hedge fund de-grossing that weighed on popular hedge fund long positions and the aggregate S&P 500.

      Meanwhile, as we predicted well in advance, Goldman retroactively points out that a rolling basket of the Russell 3000 stocks with the highest short interest as a share of float rose 42% in January, capping a record three-month return of 98% for the most heavily-shorted stocks (to those who listened to us and put this basket on as a long, congratulations).

      As Goldman then notes, “this tipped a chain of dominoes that led to the largest week of active hedge fund de-grossing since February 2009, according to Goldman Sachs Prime Services, which caused our Hedge Fund VIP list to decline by 6%, the S&P 500 to dip by 4%, and an average January return of -1.2% for long/short equity hedge funds.”

      Conveniently, starting with the day Robinhood decided to block most purchases of most shorted stocks – effectively putting a stop to the process that “scared” Interactive Brokers CEO Thomas Peterffy said brought markets “frighteningly close” to breaking during the Reddit Raid – hedge fund performance has rebounded in the weeks since the short squeeze, and leverage – while off its peak – remains close to the highest levels on record. In fact, hedge funds are now even more levered:

      “Aggregate hedge fund net leverage calculated based on publicly-available data registered 58% at the start of 2021, surpassing the previous record level of 57% in early 2015. Higher-frequency exposures calculated by our colleagues in Goldman Sachs Prime Services also showed record leverage prior to the January short squeeze. According to their data, net and gross leverage each now register at the 99th percentile.”

      This should not be a surprise: consider that January’s short squeeze occurred against the backdrop of already extremely low aggregate short interest  – largely a function of the short extinction-level event unleashed by the Fed last year which sent stocks soaring to record highs – and which has continued to decline. In fact, the median S&P 500 stock has outstanding short interest equating to just 1.5% of market cap, matching the record low in 2000. In most sectors, short interest outstanding currently ranks in the bottom decile of the last 25 years, with Goldman noting that only Energy sector shorts registering above the historical average (this is why JPMorgan believes that the next massive squeeze will focus on energy names starting some time in March).

      Yet while most hedge funds suffered through a devastating January, where the alpha drawdown among the hedge fund universe was the worst on record leading to cascading VaR shocks…

      … Retail investors were by and far the big winners. That’s why Goldman writes next that the January short squeeze and apparent pockets of froth in the equity market have turned investor focus to the impact of individual retail traders: “Broker activity, trading volumes in penny stocks, and inflows into levered ETFs all reflect the surge in retail trading activity that contributed to the sharp recent rally in heavily shorted stocks.”

      In general, the most popular stocks among retail investors have performed well; a basket of Retail Favorites (ticker: GSXURFAV) has returned 18% YTD, outperforming both our VIP basket of the most popular hedge fund long positions (+8%) and the broad S&P 500 (+4%). Notably, the retail favorites have been positively correlated with the most heavily-shorted stocks, in contrast with the recent sharply negative correlation of our Hedge Fund VIP basket (Exhibit 10).

      The dramatic gains by retail investors also explain the substantial outperformance of value over growth names in 2021. Goldman explains:

      In general, the favorite retail trading stocks tend to be tilted toward Value as a factor, while hedge fund favorites are more correlated with Growth. Similarly, at the sector level, the largest weight and correlation of Hedge Fund VIPs is with Info Tech stocks, whereas retail favorites have been more correlated with cyclical value sectors like Energy and Financials.

      As a result, while hedge funds have shifted “slightly” toward Value in recent quarters, Goldman notes that they remain firmly in the Growth camp.

      This is similar to events in the second half of last year, when ahead of vaccine efficacy results and the 2020 elections, funds rotated modestly toward Value, including lifting positions in Financials. However, the rotations fizzled in the 4th quarter, as vaccine news surpassed expectations but Election Day 2020 failed to result in a large “Blue Wave.” At the factor level, funds continued to shift from Growth to Value, but changes in sector and subsector tilts generally favored secular growth over cyclicality.

      Of course, between hedge funds’ even higher (record) net leverage and continued bets on growth stocks, what happened in January may very well happen again – in fact it is virtually assured following the next big reflationary catalyst. We are starting to see that already, because as yields rise it is the growth and high-duration stocks that are getting hammered the hardest:

      Consistent with their factor tilt toward Growth, the most popular hedge fund long positions have recently been very negatively correlated with interest rates. Hedge Fund VIPs generally have higher implied equity duration and higher valuation multiples than both the retail favorite basket and the S&P 500. For more on equity duration and sensitivity to interest rates, see Q&A on rates and equities, February 7, 2021

      And yet despite their investing differences, hedge funds and retail investors do share some commonality in their portfolios. 12 stocks in Goldman’s Hedge Fund VIP basket also appear in the Retail Favorites basket: AAPL, AMZN, BABA, DIS, FB, GOOGL, MSFT, NFLX, NVDA, SQ, UBER, VTRS.

      Furthermore, Goldman notes that both investor groups have also contributed to the surge in trading activity among extremely high-growth, high-valuation stocks; each basket contains a number of stocks trading above 20x EV/sales, although none of those stocks appear in the overlap between the two baskets.

      Goldman concludes, as usual, by looking ahead in the rearview mirror, and in the table below lists the retail favorite stocks with the largest increases and decreases in hedge fund popularity last quarter….

      … while the next chart shows the entire Retail Favorites basket. The basket is rebalanced monthly to include the stocks with the highest dollar notional volume of small share trades during the previous month

      And while all of this information is great, what would have been far more practical – not to mention lucrative – is for Goldman not to do a “post mortem” but to predict ahead of time, that the most shorted stocks would explode and the most popular ones would collapse- you know, as analysts used to do once upon a time when they correctly called the future… like for example we did in our Nov 20 post.

      And since all of the above confirms that absolutely nothing has changed, we will end this post the same way we end all our hedge fund performance wraps – by telling our readers that the most profitable decision they can make is to once again go long the most shorted names…

      … while shorting the hedge fund hotel of 50 or so “VIP” names that have emerged after countless shadowy and collusive (if not collusive enough to warrant a Congressional hearing) idea dinners.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 15:00

    • Want To Prosecute Trump? It Will Require Proof Not Politics For A Viable Case
      Want To Prosecute Trump? It Will Require Proof Not Politics For A Viable Case

      Authored by Jonathan Turley,

      Below is my column in USA Today on the calls for criminal charges against former president Donald Trump and what is still missing from viable prosecutions.  In the meantime, civil lawsuits have been filed including one by Rep. Bennie Thompson alleging that Trump and others incited the riot on January 6th. Those civil lawsuits have the advantage a lower standard of proof than criminal prosecutions. If some cases can be sustained past motions to dismiss, they would also allow for discovery though those fights could draw out the litigation. However, Democrats may also be laying the foundation for Trump to claim vindication in defeating such cases in courts. Despite the assurance of the same legal experts of a strong case for prosecution, made-for-television cases do poorly in actual courts of law. What makes for good politics does not always make for good cases. However, bad cases can make for some really bad politics.

      Here is the column:

      With the acquittal of former President Donald Trump in the Senate, many are calling for criminal charges for everything from incitement to racketeering to bank fraud. Legal experts on CNN and MSNBC seemed to appear like crisis counselors after the acquittal to assure viewers that all was well because Trump can be clearly prosecuted and convicted.

      The question is how serious a prosecution threat is Trump facing. The answer is that the basis for such charges has been wildly overstated and that, without additional evidence, Trump is not looking at a trip to the hoosegow any time soon. According to The Associated Press, the Justice Department is not pursuing Trump on the much discussed campaign finance allegations tied to payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

      So let’s look at the two major threats of prosecution and what it would take for a credible prosecution.

      Criminal incitement

      For weeks, the airwaves have been packed with legal experts assuring hosts that Trump clearly committed not just impeachable but criminal incitement. For example, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe (who previously declared a long list of impeachable or criminal violations) announced the core elements of the crime satisfied: “This guy was inciting not just imminent lawless action, but the violent decapitation of a coordinate branch of the government.”

      Such proclamations do better with MSNBC than the DDC (United States District Court for the District of Columbia). The public statements of Trump alone would not make for a credible case for criminal incitement under the controlling case law.

      Nevertheless, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine garnered widespread acclaim by announcing soon after the Jan. 6 riot that he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge. Then nothing happened. That was strange given the insistence by legal experts that the crime was public and obvious on Jan. 6. Yet, more than a month have gone by without word of an interview for Trump, let alone a charge, on criminal incitement. Why?

      The reason is that while the crime is not clear, the case law is. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

      Trump never called for violence and instead told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to “cheer” on those challenging the electoral votes. Such protests at capitals are common and, while reckless, Trump’s speech could as easily be interpreted as a call for protest rather than violence.

      Notably, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg also referred to a planned march on Congress after declaring that “revengeance” could be taken for the betrayal of the president and Congress. The Supreme Court still overturned the conviction.

      The court has consistently rejected the type of arguments by Tribe and other legal experts as a threat to free speech in our society. In Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets, holding that “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In another case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one official declared, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.

      Trump could also point to the timeline:

      ►He ended his speech at 1:10 p.m.

      ►The first rioter entered the U.S. Capitol at 2:12.

      ►According to CNN, Trump had a heated call around 2:20 with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who told him of the breach.

      ►Around 2:26, Trump mistakenly called Utah Sen. Mike Lee instead of Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville. After Lee gave Tuberville his phone, he reportedly said that Trump did not appear to realize the extent of the rioting in the building.

      ►At 2:38, Trump called for his followers to be peaceful and to support police. 

      That would not make for a strong case for criminal incitement.

      What would be needed? Prosecutors would need testimony showing that Trump knew of the high risk of violence and wanted it to occur. They would also seek evidence that Trump actively delayed deployment of reinforcements or sought to block efforts at preparation. What is clear is that the speech (and prior public statements) would not be enough to sustain a conviction.

      Racketeering

      Like Racine, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been lionized for opening criminal investigation into the phone call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger last month. Willis suggested that Trump’s pressuring of Raffensperger could constitute “solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.” 

      Again, the call itself does not clearly establish such crimes.

      While often omitted in news accounts, the call was actually a settlement discussion between the Trump team and the Georgia team. There were a variety of lawyers present, not some backroom arm twisting. The Trump campaign alleged there were uncounted votes that surpassed the 11,779 deficit, and Trump asserted, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”

      Former prosecutor Daniel Goldman (who worked on the first Trump impeachment) tweeted that the smoking gun was the line by Trump, “ ‘It’s gonna be costly to you.’ I’ve charged extortion in mob cases with similar language.”

      In reality, the line was, “It’s going to be very costly in many ways,” which is very different.

      That is also a common point in a settlement negotiation. However, as a criminal defense attorney for 30 years, I would be eager to see Goldman’s prosecution of someone on such a statement in a case like this.

      So what would Willis need? She would need to show pressure outside of a settlement discussion in which both sides are expected to state their positions and demands strongly. That could take the form of Trump making or supporting threats, or making promises to Raffensperger to get him to violate the law. The call itself is not a smoking gun of criminality.

      That does not mean Trump does not face other threats. The most credible could come out of New York, where he is being investigated for bank and tax fraud predating his administration. While overreporting or underreporting assets is common in the real estate business, these tend to be crimes more easy to prosecute before a jury. It is also difficult to argue selective prosecution in such cases and prosecutors can portray missing or inaccurate reporting as cut-and-dried violations.

      Despite the drumbeat for prosecution, such charges could easily backfire. If Trump were to beat the charges at trial or on appeal, it would be cited as vindication not just on the charges but on the second impeachment. The former president could end up like the character of Big Jule in “Guys and Dolls” proudly proclaiming, “33 arrests, no convictions.” Indeed, absent new transformative evidence, prosecuting Trump on the cases in Washington or Georgia could result in a resounding victory just before the 2024 election. They could make Big Jule’s record not just a criminal boast but a presidential slogan.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 14:30

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Feb 20

    Today’s News 20th February 2021

    • Our Descent Into Collective Madness
      Our Descent Into Collective Madness

      Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via PJMedia.com,

      These are crazy times. A pandemic led to national quarantine; to self-induced recession; to riot, arson, and looting; to a contested election; and to a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

      In response, are we focusing solely on upping the daily vaccination rate? Getting the country back to work? Opening the schools as the virus attenuates? Ensuring safety in the streets?

      Or are we descending into a sort of madness?

      It might have been understandable that trillions of dollars had to be borrowed to keep a suffocating economy breathing.

      But it makes little sense to keep borrowing $2 trillion a year to prime an economy now set to roar back with herd-like immunity on the horizon.

      Trillions of dollars in stimulus are already priming the economy.

      Cabin-feverish Americans are poised to get out of their homes to travel, eat out and socialize as never before.

      Meanwhile, the United States will have to start paying down nearly $30 trillion in debt. But we seem more fixated on raising rather than reducing that astronomical obligation.

      We are told man-made, worldwide climate change – as in the now-discarded term “global warming” – can best be addressed by massive dislocations in the U.S. economy.

      The Biden administration plans to shut down coal plants. It will halt even nearly completed new gas and oil pipelines. It will cut back on fracking to embrace the multitrillion-dollar “Green New Deal.”

      Americans should pause and examine the utter disaster that unfolded recently in Texas and its environs.

      Parts of the American Southwest were covered in ice and snow for days. Nighttime temperatures crashed to near zero in some places.

      The state, under pressure, had been transitioning from its near-limitless and cheap reservoirs of natural gas and other fossil fuels to generating power through wind and solar.

      But what happens to millions of Texans when wind turbines freeze up while storm clouds extinguish solar power?

      We are witnessing the answer in oil- and gas-rich but energy-poor Texas that is all but shut down.

      Millions are shivering without electricity and affordable heating. Some may die or become ill by this self-induced disaster — one fueled by man-made ideological rigidity.

      Texas’ use of natural gas in power generation has helped the United States curb carbon emissions. Ignoring it for unreliable wind and solar alternatives was bound to have catastrophic consequences whenever a politically incorrect nature did not follow the global warming script.

      In 2019, a special counsel wrapped up a 22-month, $35 million investigation into then-President Donald Trump’s alleged “collusion” with Russia in the 2016 election. Robert Mueller and his team searched long and hard for a crime and came up empty.

      Then, Trump was impeached in December 2019 and acquitted in the Senate in early 2020. His purported crime was warning the Ukrainians about the Biden family’s quid pro quo racketeering.

      After the revelations concerning Hunter Biden’s shenanigans not only in Ukraine but also in Kazakhstan and China, Trump’s admonitions now seem prescient rather than impeachable.

      Trump had been threatened with removal from office under the 25th Amendment. He was accused of violating the Logan Act and the Constitution’s emoluments clause. His executive orders were often declared unconstitutional if not seditious.

      All these oppositional measures predictably failed to receive either public or congressional support.

      Finally, an exasperated left decided to flog the presidential corpse of now private citizen Trump. It did so without a Supreme Court chief justice to oversee an impeachment trial in the Senate. The targeted president was no longer president.

      There was no special prosecutor, little debate and even less cross-examination. In the end, the second impeachment was sillier than the first. But, like the first, the show trial wasted precious time and resources in the midst of a pandemic.

      But the height of our collective madness is the current cancel culture. Its subtexts are “unearned white privilege” and “white supremacy.”

      In the name of those abominations, mobs tear down statues, destroy careers, censor speech, require veritable oaths and conduct reeducation training.

      Stranger still, those alleging “white privilege” are usually themselves quite wealthy, liberal — and white. These elites count on their incestuous networking, silver-spoon upbringings and tony degrees to leverage status, influence and money in a way undreamed of by the white working class.

      Affluent and privileged minorities likewise join the chorus to call for everything from reparations to “reprogramming” Trump voters.

      The most elite in America are the most likely to damn the privilege of those who lack it. Perhaps this illogic squares the psychological circle of feeling guilty about things they never have any intention of giving up.

      If blaming those without advantages does not satisfy the unhappy liberal elite, then there is always warring against the mute dead: changing their eponymous names, destroying their statues, slandering their memories and denying their achievements.

      The common denominator with all these absurdities? An ungracious and neurotic elite whose judgment is bankrupt and whose privilege is paid for by those who don’t have it.

      Tyler Durden
      Sat, 02/20/2021 – 00:00

    • US Army Prepares To Equip Unit With Hypersonic Capability 
      US Army Prepares To Equip Unit With Hypersonic Capability 

      Following conflicts over trade, technology, and capital markets, rising political tensions between the US and China will continue under the Biden administration.

      For instance, the US Army is expected to equip its first unit with hypersonic equipment this fall. The Pentagon is far behind in the hypersonic races with China and Russia. 

      A hypersonic unit within the Army will begin training with all the equipment it needs to launch these new weapons, according to Lt. Gen. L. Neil Thurgood, director of the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, who spoke with Defense News.

      Thurgood said the equipment will be delivered to the unit by September. 

      “By the end of this fiscal year, which is in September, all of the equipment that the unit needs plus training will be delivered to the unit,” he said. 

      The unit will be supplied with a vast number of launchers, trucks, trailers, computer systems, and other pieces of equipment to begin training in early 2022. 

      Thurgood declined to tell Defense News which unit will receive the equipment. He said the live round is the only piece of equipment that won’t be delivered this fall. It was noted that the weapon itself will be delivered in 2023. 

      Thurgood did not comment on the type of hypersonic weapon the unit will be receiving. However, we noted last March, the US Department of Defense (DoD) successfully launched a common hypersonic glide body (C-HGB) missile from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii.

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

      The DoD has been allocating more funds to hypersonic programs for upcoming military budgets as it must desperately catch up with China and Russia. 

      Senator James Inhofe, a senior Republican from oil-producing Oklahoma and Senate Armed Services Chairman, told Defense News in 2019 that DoD’s hypersonic testing labs were inadequate. He said, “dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one.”

      The US is in a hypersonic race with major global superpowers and is clearly behind the curve. 

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 23:40

    • The Decline Of The West: American Education Surrenders To "Equity"
      The Decline Of The West: American Education Surrenders To “Equity”

      Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      It will be difficult or even impossible to go back to a system where learning is actually a discipline that requires hard work and dedication…

      Public education in the United States, if measured by results, has been producing graduates that are less competent in language skills and dramatically less well taught in the sciences and mathematics since 1964, when Scholastic Aptitude Test scores peaked. The decline in science and math skills has accelerated in the past decade according to rankings of American students compared to their peers overseas. A recent assessment, from 2015, placed the U.S. at 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD), the United States came in at 30th in math and 19th in science. Those poor results must be placed in a context of American taxpayers spending more money per student than any other country in the world, so the availability of resources is not necessarily a factor in most school districts.

      Much of the decline is due to technical advances that level the playing field for teachers worldwide, but one must also consider changing perceptions of the role of education in a social context. In the United States in particular, political and cultural unrest certainly have been relevant factors. But all of that said and considered, the U.S. is now confronting a reassessment of values that will likely alter forever traditional education and will also make American students even more non-competitive with their foreign peers.

      Many schools in the United States have ceased issuing grades that have any meaning, or they have dropped grading altogether, which means there is no way to judge progress or achievement. National test scores for evaluating possible college entry are on the way out almost everywhere as they are increasingly being condemned as “racist” in terms of how they assess learning based solely on the fact that blacks do less well on them than Asians and whites. This has all been part of an agenda that is being pushed that will search for and eliminate any taint of racism in the public space. It has also meant the destruction or removal of numerous historic monuments and an avoidance of any honest discussion of American history. San Francisco schools are, for example, notoriously spending more than $1 million to change the names of 44 schools that honor individuals who have been examined under the “racism and oppression” microscope and found wanting. They include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Paul Revere.

      The new world order for education is built around the concept of “equity,” sometimes described as using the public education system to “ensure equitable outcomes.” But the concept itself is deeply flawed as the pursuit of equity means treating all American unequally to guarantee that everyone that comes out of the schools is the same and has learned the same things. That is, of course, ridiculous and it penalizes the good student to make sure that the bad student is somehow pushed through the system and winds up with the same piece of paper.

      And the quality overall of public education will sharply decline. One might reasonably observe that imposition of a totalitarian style “equity” regime based on race will inevitably drive many of the academically better prepared students out of the system. Many of the better teachers will also move to the private academies that will spring up due to parental and student demand. Others will stop teaching altogether when confronted by political correctness at a level that prior to 2020 would have seemed unimaginable. The actual quality of education will suffer for everyone involved

      All of that has been bad enough, but the clincher is that this transformation is taking place all over the United States with the encouragement of federal, state and local governments and once the new regime is established it will be difficult or even impossible to go back to a system where learning is actually a discipline that sometimes requires hard work and dedication. In many school districts, the actual process of change is also being put on the back of the taxpayer. In one Virginia county the local school board spent $422,500 on a consultant to apply so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) to a new program of instruction that will be mandatory for all employees and will serve as the framework for teaching the students. When schools eventually reopen, all kindergarteners, for example, will be taught “social justice” in a course designed by the controversial Southern Poverty Law Center and “diversity training” will be integrated in all other grade levels. Teaching reading, writing and arithmetic will take a back seat of “social justice.”

      Critical Race Theory, which is being promoted as the framework for reorganizing the schools along lines of racial preferences, has been fairly criticized as it pretends to be an antidote to systemic racism but is itself racist in nature as it opposes a race neutral system that equally benefits everyone. It proposes that all of America’s governmental bodies and infrastructures are racist and supportive of “white supremacy” and must be deconstructed. It requires everything to be examined through a value system determined by identity politics and race and it views both whites and their institutions as hopelessly corrupted, if not evil.

      Fortunately, some pushback to the Jacobins of political correctness is developing. Parents in many school districts are starting to attend school board meetings to register their opposition and even some school board members and teachers are refusing to cooperate. The teachers do so at risk of losing their jobs. At the elite Dalton private school in New York City parents have sent a letter to the Head of School Jim Best complaining how the newly introduced “anti-racist” curriculum has been gravely distorted by Critical Race Theory and the pursuit of “equity” to such an extent that it has included “a pessimistic and age-inappropriate litany of grievances in EVERY class. We have confused a progressive pedagogical model with progressive politics. Even for people who are sympathetic to that political viewpoint, the role of a school is not to indoctrinate politically. It’s to open the minds of children to the wonders of the world and learning. The Dalton we love, that has changed our lives, is nowhere to be found. And that is a huge loss.”

      The letter also stated that “Every class this year has had an obsessive focus on race and identity, ‘racist cop’ reenactments in science, ‘decentering whiteness’ in art class, learning about white supremacy and sexuality in health class. Wildly age-inappropriate, many of these classes feel more akin to a Zoom corporate sensitivity training than to Dalton’s intellectually engaging curriculum.”

      Ironically, much of the new curriculum is being driven by a core of radicalized Dalton faculty members, who in December signed on to an “anti-racism manifesto” which demanded that the school “hire 12 full-time diversity officers, abolish high-level academic courses if Black students’ performance isn’t on par with White students’, and require anti-racism ‘statements’ from all members of the staff.”

      Inevitably what is going on at Dalton and elsewhere is also playing out at many of America’s top universities, so the rot will persist into the next generation when today’s college students themselves become teachers. A black Princeton professor of classics is calling for all classics departments to be done away with because they promote “racism, slavery and white supremacy.” America’s education system, once upon a time, benefited the nation and its people, but we are now watching it in its death throes. And please don’t expect the Joe Biden administration to do anything to save it. They are on the side of the wreckers.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 23:20

    • First Look Inside St. Louis' "Hooverville-Style" Tiny Home Village For Homeless 
      First Look Inside St. Louis’ “Hooverville-Style” Tiny Home Village For Homeless 

      A modern-day “Hooverville” has been constructed in St. Louis, Missouri, consists of dozens of people who have been left behind in the “K-shaped” recovery. 

      The tiny house village, a temporary housing program erected by the city, is located off Jefferson Avenue just north of downtown. The shanty village built during the pandemic depression is for the homeless. 

      The village was constructed with about $600k from the federal CARES Act and has a 29-month lease on the property. 

      “There are single and double homes. They have heating and AC, plus a bed and desk. The property offers showers, restrooms, laundry, three meals a day and 24-hour access to caseworkers. The heat is the biggest thing for many of the residents as the temperatures drop,” said local news KMOV. 

      Amy Bickford, the program director for the city’s homeless services, said at any given time, there are “200-500 people on the streets.” That number increases as the pandemic recession have resulted in steep job loss in the metro area. 

      A storm is gathering as an eviction crisis materializes. Even though there’s a federal moratorium on evictions – tens of thousands of folks in the city are unemployed and face imminent eviction because of missed rent payments.

      This means when courts open up – homelessness in the area could explode, thus increasing the need to expand the tiny home village for first-time homeless. 

      KMOV interviewed one resident of the tiny home village who said he is “thankful for a roof over his head even if it’s just a few square feet.” 

      Lloyd Covington III said, “It’s very heartwarming. I understand what it feels like to be a big kid now.” 

      At the moment, 50 people live in the village. 

      KMOV spoke with Andy, who he and his wife recently moved into one of the tiny homes. They’ve been homeless for six months. “It’d be horrible to be out on the street on a day like this,” he said.

      “I got sick, had a bad infection in my leg, lost my job and a kind of snow ball effect from there,” he said.

      We noted days ago working-poor Americans are downsizing their lives and are living simply as the pandemic downturn has crushed their ability to afford rent and food. 

      In reality, the federal government and Federal Reserve’s rescue packages created a “K-shaped” recovery where only the wealthy, or perhaps the top 10% of Americans, were unaffected. Meanwhile, the bottom 90% were given lousy stimulus checks as they battle with housing and food insecurities. 

      In short, these tiny home villages for the homeless, which closely resemble Hoovervilles from the 1930’s Great Depression, are set to spring up across other major metro areas as more than ten million people remain out of work. Once the eviction moratoriums are lifted, a flood of people will become homeless. They will have no other choice to seek but these temporary housing villages as homeless shelters are full. 

      Do these villages need a name – maybe “Bidenvilles”? 

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 23:00

    • U.S. Wants To Negotiate With Iran As Israel And Hezbollah Exchange Threats
      U.S. Wants To Negotiate With Iran As Israel And Hezbollah Exchange Threats

      Submitted by South Front,

      Hezbollah, one of Israel’s sworn enemies and a staunch ally of Iran continues its tough rhetoric against Tel Aviv.

      On February 17th, the group released a 2-minute video titled “Oh Zionists, You Have Military and Security Targets Within Your Cities.” The footage contained a threat to strike 10 Israel Defense Forces (IDF) targets throughout Israeli cities.

      Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah was shown warning Aviv Kochavi, Chief of General Staff of IDF with “total war”. The Hezbollah video warning of war if the IDF chose to initiate it came in response to large-scale drills that the IDF held in recent weeks.

      During the exercise, IDF pilots trained to hit up to 3,000 targets per day in case of all-out confrontation.

      This tougher rhetoric from Hezbollah is not something uncommon. What makes it significant is that the movement can afford to make it even tougher due to the Biden Administration formally being less supportive of Israel.

      On February 18th, US President Joe Biden told Iran that it was ready to take part in EU-sponsored talks to restore the Iran Nuclear Deal.

      This seems as a large concession, and causes a sense of urgency in Israel. For the first time since he entered into office, Biden accepted a phone call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

      In the conversation, Biden affirmed the US commitment to Israel’s security, and mutual defense cooperation. He said that the flow of weapons, equipment and funding would continue. It all appeared very hollow and according to script.

      Similarly, to what US President Barack Obama did, Biden promised to increase Israeli military aid, but that also means it will not get any more “tangible” support.

      This is all good and well, but it simply means “you will not feel as special as you were when Donald Trump was around.”

      Separately, another Axis of Resistance enemy, Saudi Arabia is suffering by Yemen’s Ansar Allah (the Houthis).

      On February 17th, the Houthis captured the significant Marib Dam, as they push towards Marib city and consolidate power in the surrounding areas.

      The city is the last major stronghold of the Saudi-led coalition in central Yemen. If it falls, which seems quite plausible, the Houthis will have even more opportunity to push into southern Saudi Arabia.

      In their past raids they have captured hundreds of Saudi-led coalition soldiers and various equipment.

      February 2021 seems to be the month of the Axis of Resistance, with Iran’s campaign of non-compliance with the Nuclear Deal giving fruit. Hezbollah, the Houthis and the pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria further seem to be achieving limited success.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 22:40

    • After Olympics Scandal, Japan's Ruling Party Allows Women To Attend Top Board Meeting…So Long As They Stay Quiet
      After Olympics Scandal, Japan’s Ruling Party Allows Women To Attend Top Board Meeting…So Long As They Stay Quiet

      One week after the 83-year-old head of the Tokyo Olympics organizing committee resigned for saying women talk too much, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party – in almost continuous power since 1955 – has decided to allow more women present during its key meetings – as long as they don’t talk.

      Currently, just two of the party’s 12-member board are women, along with three of its 25-member general council. According to Reuters, the party has proposed allowing five female lawmakers to join its board meetings as observers in response to criticism that the body is dominated by men.

      The decision follows a request by female LDP lawmakers who asked Nikai to increase the ratio of women in key party posts.

      The proposal comes after sexist comments from former Tokyo Olympics chief Yoshiro Mori, himself an LDP member and a onetime prime minister, sparked a global outcry and renewed attention on gender disparity in the world’s third-largest economy.

      The move would allow more female LDP members to see how decisions were being made, said Toshihiro Nikai, the party’s 82-year-old secretary general. He said he had heard criticism the party’s elected board was dominated by men. –Reuters

      “It is important to fully understand what kind of discussions are happening,” Nikai said during a late-Tuesday news conference. “Take a look, is what it is about.”

      While the female observers will be required to keep their mouths shut, they will be able to separately submit opinions to the secretariat office, according to Nikkei.

      Japan, ranked 121st out of 154 countries on the World Economic Forum’s 2020 Global Gender Gap Index, has scored poorly on women’s participation in economics and political empowerment, despite former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s championing of a policy of “Womenomics” aimed at increasing female participation in the economy. Activists, however, say drastic change is still needed.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 22:20

    • Is The Temporary Collapse Of Texas Foreshadowing The Total Collapse Of The US?
      Is The Temporary Collapse Of Texas Foreshadowing The Total Collapse Of The US?

      Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

      We are getting a very short preview of what will eventually happen to the United States as a whole.  America’s infrastructure is aging and crumbling.  Our power grids were never intended to support so many people, our water systems are a complete joke, and it has become utterly apparent that we would be completely lost if a major long-term national emergency ever struck.  Texas has immense wealth and vast energy resources, but now it is being called a “failed state”. 

      If it can’t even handle a few days of cold weather, what is the rest of America going to look like when things really start to get chaotic in this country?

      At this point, it has become clear that the power grid in Texas is in far worse shape than anyone ever imagined.  When extremely cold weather hit the state, demand for energy surged dramatically.  At the same time, about half of the wind turbines that Texas relies upon froze, and the rest of the system simply could not handle the massive increase in demand.

      Millions of Texans were without power for days, and hundreds of thousands are still without power as I write this article.

      And now we are learning that Texas was literally just moments away from “a catastrophic failure” that could have resulted in blackouts “for months”…

      Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday.

      As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

      I can’t even imagine how nightmarish things would have eventually gotten in Texas if there had actually been blackouts for months.

      According to one expert, the state really was right on the verge of a “worst case scenario”…

      The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down.

      If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

      For years, I have been telling my readers that they have got to have a back up plan for power, because during a major emergency the grid can fail.

      And when it fails, it can literally cost some people their lives.  I was deeply saddened when I learned that one man in Texas actually froze to death sitting in his own recliner…

      As Texas suffered through days of power outages, a man reportedly froze to death in his recliner with his wife clinging to life beside him.

      The man was found dead in his Abilene home on Wednesday after being without power for several days in the record cold.

      Most Americans don’t realize that much of the rest of the world actually has much better power infrastructure than we do.  Just check out these numbers…

      In Japan, the average home sees only 4 minutes of power outages per year. In the American Midwest, the figure is 92 minutes per year. In the Northeast, it’s 214 minutes; all those figures cover only regular outages and not those caused by extreme weather or fires.

      As our population has grown and our infrastructure has aged, performance has just gotten worse and worse.  In fact, things ran much more smoothly all the way back in the mid-1980s…

      According to an analysis by Climate Central, major outages (affecting more than 50,000 homes or businesses) grew ten times more common from the mid-1980s to 2012. From 2003 to 2012, weather-related outages doubled. In a 2017 report, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that there were 3,571 total outages in 2015, lasting 49 minutes on average. The U.S. Energy Administration reports that in 2016, the average utility customer had 1.3 power interruptions, and their total blackout time averaged four hours.

      America is literally crumbling all around us, and it getting worse with each passing year.

      Our water systems are another example.

      In Texas, the cold weather literally caused thousands of pipes to burst.  The damage caused by all of these ruined pipes is going to be in the billions of dollars.

      Right now, we are being told that a total of 797 water systems in the state are currently reporting problems with “frozen or broken pipes”…

      Some 13.5 million people are facing water disruptions with 797 water systems throughout the state reporting issues such as frozen or broken pipes, according to Toby Baker, executive director for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. About 725 systems are under a boil water advisory, Baker said during a press conference Thursday.

      Overall, approximately 7 million residents of the state live in areas that have been ordered to boil water, and it could take months for service to fully return to normal.

      Without water, none of us can survive for long, and it is absolutely imperative that you have a back up plan in case your local system goes down.

      In Houston, people that are without water in their homes have been forced to line up to fill buckets at a public spigot…

      Meanwhile, in scenes reminiscent of a third world country, Houston residents resorted to filling up buckets of water from a spigot in a local neighborhood.

      One Houston resident, whose power has just gone back on Thursday after three days but still has no water, told DailyMail.com: ‘It is crazy that we just watched NASA land on Mars but here in Houston most of us still don’t have drinking water.’

      You can watch video of this happening right here.  Of course if your local water system completely fails, there won’t even be a public spigot available for you to get water.

      Shortages of food and other essential supplies are also being reported in Texas.

      For Philip Shelley and his young wife, the situation became quite desperate fairly rapidly…

      Philip Shelley, a resident of Fort Worth, told CNN that he, his wife Amber and 11-month-old daughter, Ava, were struggling to stay warm and fed. Amber is pregnant and due April 4.

      “(Ava) is down to half a can of formula,” Shelley said. “Stores are out if not extremely low on food. Most of our food in the refrigerator is spoiled. Freezer food is close to thawed but we have no way to heat it up.”

      So what would they have done if the blackouts had lasted for months?

      All over the state, extremely long lines have been forming at local supermarkets.  In some cases, people have started waiting way before the stores actually open…

      Joe Giovannoli, 29, arrived at a Central Market supermarket in Austin at 8:30 a.m. Thursday, an hour-and-a-half before it opened. Minutes later, more than 200 people had lined up behind him in the biting 26-degree weather.

      Giovannoli’s wife is three months pregnant and the power in their one-bedroom Austin apartment blinked out Tuesday night. After a water pipe broke, firefighters also turned off the building’s water, he said. Giovannoli said he realized he still had it better than many others across Texas, but worried how long things will take to get back to normal.

      This is happening in communities across Texas, and you can see video of one of these “bread lines” right here.

      Of course those that had gotten prepared in advance did not have to wait in such long lines because they already had food.

      Sadly, even though Joe Giovannoli had gotten to the supermarket so early, he later received really bad news…

      A few minutes before the store opened its doors, a manager stepped outside and warned those waiting in line that supplies inside were low: No produce, no baked goods, not much canned food.

      “We haven’t had a delivery in four days,” he said.

      Remember, this is just a temporary crisis in Texas that is only going to last for a few days.

      So what would happen if a severe long-term national emergency disrupted food, water and power systems for months on end?

      All it took to cause a short-term “collapse scenario” in the state of Texas was some cold weather.

      Eventually, much worse things will happen to our nation, and it has become clear that we are not ready.

      So get prepared while you still can, because time is running out.

      *  *  *

      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
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 22:00

    • "The Trans-Atlantic Alliance Is Back": Biden Vows To Defend "Democratic Progress" In 1st Address To Global Audience
      “The Trans-Atlantic Alliance Is Back”: Biden Vows To Defend “Democratic Progress” In 1st Address To Global Audience

      President Biden in remarks delivered virtually to the Munich Security Conference on Friday continued with his “America is back” theme, aimed as a critique of Trump’s “America First” message. Significantly it was the first major speech given before an international audience at an event attended by top global security officials and world leaders. On the same day he emphasized a similar ‘global partnerships’ thread in an address to G-7 leaders. 

      He didn’t specifically invoke Trump by name, but the implications were clear when Biden said before the Munich event, “America is back, the transatlantic alliance is back, and we are not looking backward. We are looking forward together.” And further at a moment when US-NATO relations are somewhat strained after four years of Trump hounding Europe to pull its weight in terms of defense spending, he called the European partnership “the cornerstone of all we hope to accomplish in the 21st century.” With this in mind, he was emphatic that: “The trans-Atlantic alliance is back.”

      “I know the past few years have strained and tested our transatlantic relationship, but the United States is determined — determined — to re-engage with Europe, to consult with you, to earn back our position of trust and leadership,” he said.

      AFP/Getty Images

      He added later in the address: “I come to Europe on behalf of a new administration, and an administration that’s determined to set a new tone not only in Washington, but in America’s relations around the world.”

      He said in the speech that “democratic progress is under assault,” and urged that “We must demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people. That is our galvanizing mission.”

      “Let me erase any lingering doubt: the United States will work closely with our European partners.”

      Here’s how Bloomberg previewed and summarized Biden’s message to the world Friday:

      • Joe Biden is ditching the America First mentality in favor of global cooperation. In a politically risky reset effort, his administration said the U.S. is willing to meet with Iran over the nuclear deal that Donald Trump quit.
      • The reset may not pay off. Iran appeared to snub Biden’s offer to begin direct discussions before officially rejoining the accord. It wants the U.S. to return to the deal and lift sanctions before they talk.
      • Better luck elsewhere? The president will re-introduce the U.S. to world leaders in a pair of international conferences today, calling for partnerships in a sharp departure from his predecessor’s foreign policy.

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

      On Iran, Biden said at a moment Tehran has vowed to not reengage unless Washington provides sanctions relief first, “We’re prepared to reengage in negotiations with the P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear program.”

      “We must also address Iran’s destabilizing activities across the Middle East, and we’re going to work in close cooperation with our European and other partners as we proceed,” he added.

      He also took swipes at China and Russia over “autocratic” tendencies and rule. Especially of note is that while referring to Russia as a “bully” he said, “We are in the midst of a fundamental debate about the future direction of our world. Between those who argue that — given all of the challenges we face, from the fourth industrial revolution to a global pandemic — autocracy is the best way forward and those who understand that democracy is essential to meeting those challenges.”

      “Historians will examine and write about this moment. It’s an inflection point. And I believe with every ounce of my being that democracy must prevail.”

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 21:40

    • China Invasion Of Taiwan Means War With US, Tom Cotton Argues
      China Invasion Of Taiwan Means War With US, Tom Cotton Argues

      Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

      Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Thursday called for a new US policy on what would happen in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Currently, the US arms Taiwan through weapons sales and maintains a policy known as “strategic ambiguity,” which means the US is not guaranteed to intervene if Beijing moves to take the island.

      Cotton said he wants to make it “crystal clear” that a Chinese incursion on Taiwan means war with the US. “The United States needs to be clear that we will not allow China to invade Taiwan and subjugate it. Case closed. No further debate,” he said at a Reagan Institute event.

      Via Roll Call, Getty Images

      “Replace strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity that the United States will come to the aid of Taiwan if China was to forcefully invade Taiwan or otherwise change the status quo across the [Taiwan] Strait,” Cotton added.

      The hawkish senator said the US should establish “red lines” for China that would “require a response” from Washington. Examples of Cotton’s red lines include China seizing Taiwanese-claimed islands, a Chinese invasion of a regional ally like India, or if Beijing permits an attack on US troops or allies by North Korea.

      Cotton made the comments while he presented his plan to take on Beijing economically. In the plan, Cotton called for an economic decoupling from China. “Our economy has become far too entangled with China’s, providing the Chinese Communist Party with leverage over the US government and industry. It’s past time we decoupled from China,” he said.

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

      Cotton’s report came after the US Chamber of Commerce released a study that said the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would see a one-time loss of as much as $500 billion if US companies halved foreign direct investment in China.

      Besides the hit to the US’s GDP, decoupling with China would give Washington and Beijing less reason not to go to war if a naval incident happens in the South China Sea, where the US has stepped up its military presence and frequently sails warships.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 21:20

    • Damascus Says Biden Is Setting Up New Bases On Sovereign Syrian Territory
      Damascus Says Biden Is Setting Up New Bases On Sovereign Syrian Territory

      Within the first few weeks of the Biden administration a handful of viral stories alleged there had been an immediate uptick in US convoys and logistical equipment headed into northeast Syria, which many took to reflect an escalation of the occupation under the new administration. However, given that most US action in Syria including troop movements and locations at any given moment are classified and done far away from ground-level media reporting, it’s almost impossible to verify whether such large convoys in and out of the country are part of ‘routine’ resupply missions or if they represent a broader build-up of forces.

      On the heels of the recent speculation and slightly increased or renewed public interest in Syria, there are fresh reports out this week that the Pentagon is actually constructing a new US base in northeast Hasakah. Significantly, this allegation is also being featured in Syrian state media. 

      A landing zone at Al-Tanf base in Syria, via Wikimedia

      Citing Syrian state sources in the middle of this week, for example, Middle East Monitor described that, “The US army began building a second base in the Al-Malikiyah region in the Syrian northeastern province of Hasakah, Syria’s SANA news agency reported.”

      According to further details offered by SANA:

      The agency quoted local sources as saying that over the past few days, US forces have deployed military reinforcements including 60 armored vehicles and army engineering vehicles to carry out excavation, leveling, and construction of barricades in the area, southwest of Ain Dewar in the border triangle between Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.

      At the end of last month, American forces began establishing a base near Tal Alu in the Al-Yarubiya area in Hasakah eastern countryside.

      Early this week the Saudi-funded, London-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat also wrote that a new base is being established in the US-occupied border region of Syria’s northeast:

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

      The paper cited the anti-Assad opposition source SOHR:

      According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a military convoy of over 50 vehicles and trucks affiliated to the International Coalition were seen crossing into north-eastern Syria from the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

      “Trucks, carrying armored vehicles, weapons, military, and logistical equipment, entered via Al-Walid border crossing with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, heading towards Al-Qamishli area,” the Observatory reported.

      And crucially it emphasized the following: “This is the 11th Coalition convoy to enter Syria since the beginning of 2021.” 

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

      Of course, Damascus and its allies Russia and Iran have long been vocal in condemning the blatantly illegal occupation of a UN-member state’s sovereign territory.

      Whether the latest reported large convoys are in fact for the purpose erecting new bases or are perhaps just “routine” transports… it ultimately matters little to Syria and its allies. The American military presence remains an aggressive, illegal occupation nonetheless.

      Some known US base locations in northeast Syria, via a recent map/”Syria Direct.”

      In the scant foreign policy remarks given thus far since entering the White House, Biden has essentially glossed over Syria, instead focusing on places like Iran, China, and Russia. Amid the silence there’s a growing unease that the US is quietly building its presence there for something big yet to come, after Trump touted his “secure the oil” plan – the latter phraseology which the new administration has recently attempted to distance itself from.

      * * *

      To review the Syria quagmire and Washington’s long-running covert war aimed at regime change in Damascus, or essentially how we got here, see author Scott Horton’s analysis below (Warning: very graphic at 7:50 mark):

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 21:00

    • Bill Gates Bankrolling Educational Organization That Says Math Is Racist
      Bill Gates Bankrolling Educational Organization That Says Math Is Racist

      Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

      The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is bankrolling an activist educational group that believes math is racist and that arriving at an objective answer is an example of “white supremacy.”

      Yes, really.

      A conglomerate of 25 educational organizations called A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction asserts that asking students to find the correct answer is an “inherently racist practice.”

      The organization’s website lists the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as its only donor.

      “In fact, over the past decade, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded over of $140 million to a variety of groups associated with Pathway. Their “antiracist resources” are at the epicenter of a new training course for teachers offered by the Oregon Department of Education throughout the state,” reports National File.

      “Three of the most prominent organizations receiving grant money from the Gates’ are The Education Trust, Teach Plus, and WestEd, all non-profit 501c organizations.”

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

      A guidebook for teachers produced by Pathway called ‘Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction’ ludicrously claims that mathematics “is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

      Teachers are instructed to blame non-white students getting answers wrong on “white supremacist practices,” which are truly to blame for the “underachievement” of minorities.

      As we have previously highlighted, following on from universities, schools have now become breeding grounds for this kind of intersectional insanity.

      Earlier this week, we reported on how the principal of East Side Community School in New York sent white parents a manifesto that calls on them to become “white traitors” and advocate for full “white abolition.”

      Last year, we revealed how children at an elementary school in Virginia are being taught that traits such as “objectivity” and “perfectionism” are ‘racist’ characteristics of “white supremacy.”

      Meanwhile, school districts across America are eliminating grading standards in order to “combat racism”.

      The move was announced in San Diego after it was revealed that just 7% of D or F grades are handed out to white students, while 23% went to Native Americans, 23% of failing grades went to Hispanics and 20% went to black students.

      As Allie Beth Stuckley notes, “I don’t know. Maybe the people who don’t want black and brown kids to learn math correctly are the *actual* white supremacists.”

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

      *  *  *

      New limited edition merch now available! Click here. 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
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 20:40

    • Damaged Fukushima Reactors Leaking Coolant After Last Weekend's 7.3 Earthquake
      Damaged Fukushima Reactors Leaking Coolant After Last Weekend’s 7.3 Earthquake

      Two reactors at the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan have begun leaking cooling water following last weekend’s 7.3 magnitude earthquake, indicating that the existing damage to TEPCO’s Unit 1 and 3 reactors has worsened, according to AP, citing spokesman Keisuke Matsuo.

      Matsuo said the cooling water level fell as much as 70 centimeters (27 inches) in the primary containment chamber of the Unit 1 reactor and about 30 centimeters (11 inches) in Unit 3. TEPCO wasn’t able to determine any decline in Unit 2 because indicators have been taken out to prepare for the removal of melted debris, it said.

      Increased leakage could require more cooling water to be pumped into the reactors, which would result in more contaminated water that is treated and stored in huge tanks at the plant. TEPCO says its storage capacity of 1.37 million tons will be full next summer. A government panel’s recommendation that it be gradually released into the sea has faced fierce opposition from local residents and a decision is still pending. -AP

      The leaking water is believed to have remained inside the reactor complex, as there is ‘no sign of any outside impact,’ according to Matsuo. 

      A powerful 9.1 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Fukushima in 2011, causing a tsunami which destroyed the plant’s exterior generators, causing three reactor cores to melt – dropping nuclear fuel to the bottom of their primary containment vessels and causing a massive explosion which spewed radioactive material as far as Idaho, where drinking water samples showed trace amounts of nuclear isotopes following the disaster.

      Since the incident, cooling water has been constantly leaking from the damaged primary containment vessels into the basements of the reactor buildings, requiring additional water to be pumped into the reactors to cool the melted fuel which remains inside of them. The recent drop, however, indicates that more water is leaking following the most recent earthquake, according to TEPCO, which initially reported no abnormalities.

      Fukushima nuclear plant (source: AP)

      On Friday, the Tokyo High Court held that the government as well as TEPCO are responsible for the 2011 nuclear disaster, ordering that both pay 280 million yen ($2.6 million) in compensation to over 40 plaintiffs who were forced to evacuate Chiba, an outskirt of Tokyo. The decision reverses a previous ruling by the Chiba district court which exempted governments from liability.

      Judge Yukio Shirai, however, said that the government should have prepared for such a disaster following a long-term assessment of seismic activities conducted in 2002.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 20:20

    • Biden's Coronavirus Relief Package Has Almost Nothing To Do With The Coronavirus
      Biden’s Coronavirus Relief Package Has Almost Nothing To Do With The Coronavirus

      Authored by Peter Suderman via reason.com (emphasis ours),

      Over and over again, President Joe Biden has pitched his $1.9 trillion stimulus plan as vital to restoring a struggling American economy and recovering from the pandemic. Many households are struggling, he tweeted earlier this month, with desperate Americans wondering how they are going to eat. “That’s why I’m urging Congress to pass the American Rescue Plan and deliver much-needed relief.” Time, he has insisted, is of the essence. “We don’t have a second to waste when it comes to delivering the American people the relief they desperately need. I’m calling on Congress to act quickly and pass the American Rescue Plan.”

      The fiscal response, he has argued, must be commensurate to the crisis at hand. “Now is the time we should be spending,” he said at a CNN town hall this week. “Now is the time to go big.” 

      Biden has certainly gone big. His $1.9 trillion deficit-funded plan would be among the largest stimulus/relief packages in history. But much of the spending he has proposed would do little or nothing to help actually struggling Americans. Instead, the plan is padded with non-urgent, pre-existing Democratic policy priorities that have, at most, only tangential relationship to the crisis at hand. 

      Take schooling, for example. The mass closure of schools has caused immeasurable chaos and frustration for families across the country, especially those with working parents, and it has set back educational advancement for children, especially in lower-income families with fewer resources or alternatives. Beyond the disruptions to family schedules and educational achievement, there is mounting evidence that school closures, in combination with other forms of isolation stemming from the pandemic, have taken a dark toll on student mental health. In the Las Vegas area, schools finally reopened following a rash of suicides in which 18 students took their own lives.

      Biden ran on reopening most schools for in-person instruction within a hundred days—a promise his administration has both walked back and then kinda-sorta attempted to un-walk back. But reopening, he has insisted, is conditioned on schools obtaining sufficient funding in a relief package. Accordingly, his plan includes about $128 billion for K-12 schooling “for preparation for, prevention of, and response to the coronavirus pandemic or for other uses allowed by other federal education programs,” as part of a $170 billion boost in education-related spending.

      This is a dubious argument on its face, considering that private schools have largely reopened, as have public schools in some states, such as Florida, that have pushed for faster and more widespread reopenings. 

      But even if you think substantial additional funding is strictly necessary for rapid reopening, there’s a problem: The vast majority of the relief plan’s money for schools wouldn’t be spent in the current fiscal year, or even next year. Previous coronavirus relief and congressional spending bills have already included more than $100 billion in funding for schools. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, “most of those funds remain to be spent.”

      As a result, just $6 billion would be spent in the 2021 fiscal year, which runs through September. Another $32 billion would be spent in 2022, and the rest by 2028. Biden is insisting that schools must reopen soon—and also that the only way for them to reopen is to authorize more than $120 billion in spending, most of which wouldn’t roll out for years. It doesn’t make much sense. 

      Similarly, Biden’s plan calls for $350 billion to backstop state budgets, which were projected to be down as much as 8 percent overall this year. Yet according to The Wall Street Journal, total revenues were down just 1.6 percent for the 2020 fiscal year, and 18 states ended the year with above-projection revenue. As Reason‘s Christian Britschgi noted last week, Biden’s plan would disburse money to every state—including California, which is set for a $15 billion surplus. Previous coronavirus relief bills, meanwhile, have already doled out $300 billion to bolster state budgets. The billions in extra funding Biden’s plan would deliver to soaring state budgets would, in all likelihood, not be spent this coming year. So much for not having a second to waste.

      There’s more like this peppered throughout Biden’s pandemic relief plan. Biden and his communications team raise the issue of food insecurity—then insist that checks should go to a two-earner family with stable jobs making $120,000 a year in a city with a roughly $40,000 annual median income for couples.

      This is despite the fact that the average couple with comparable six-figure earnings has experienced no unusual job loss and has piled up record levels of personal savings. Even if the goal is just to pump more money into the economy, these checks wouldn’t, for the most part, be spent. They’d just add to the savings. 

      As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) notes, half the spending in the coronavirus relief plan would go toward such poorly targeted measures. The plan also includes expansions to Obamacare subsidies and would hike the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour—in 2025. Ultimately, the hike would cost jobs rather than preserve them. But raising the federal minimum wage has been a Democratic policy priority for years, so it got stuffed into the relief bill grab bag.

      How much of this alleged coronavirus relief plan is actually related to the coronavirus?  According to CRFB, just 1 percent of the relief plan’s spending would go toward vaccines, and just 5 percent would go toward pandemic-related public health needs. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the spending—about $300 billion—would be spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis. 

      Biden keeps insisting that time is of the essence, that massive federal spending is urgently needed to speed America’s recovery from its coronavirus-induced health and economic downturn. But the practical details of his plan say otherwise. The president’s relief plan is an object lesson in non-urgent, non-vital policymaking. Biden is pitching a coronavirus relief package that has very little to do with coronavirus relief.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 20:00

    • JPM Joins "Overheating" Bandwagon: Sees 6.4% GDP As Stimulus Forecast Doubles To $1.7TN
      JPM Joins “Overheating” Bandwagon: Sees 6.4% GDP As Stimulus Forecast Doubles To $1.7TN

      Just a week after Goldman unleashed a wave of worry about tighter financial conditions with its revised forecast boosting 2021 and 2022 GDP up by 0.2% each year, to 6.8% and 4.5%respectively, as a result of a far bigger stimulus than its had originally expected ($1.5 trillion vs $1.1 trillion originally), which set the US economy directly on collision course with overheating (and prompted Goldman to pull forward its first rate hike estimate to H1 2022), other banks have started jumping on the overheating bandwagon, and today JPMorgan became the latest bank to nearly double its Covid stimulus forecast, which led the bank to aggressively boost its 2021 and 2022 GDP estimates as well.

      In a note to clients, JPM’s chief economist Michael Feroli made the following forecast revisions:

      • We now look for a $1.7 trillion fiscal stimulus package (up from $900 billion) to be passed in March
      • Even before that kicks in, growth appears to be on firmer footing at the start of the year
      • All told we now expect 6.4% (4Q/4Q) GDP growth this year and 2.8% next year
      • We see the labor market getting back to full employment, or around 4% unemployment, by 2Q22…
      • …and expect core PCE inflation to reach 2.0% by 4Q22, with balanced risks around the outlook
      • While the outlooks for growth and inflation are moving up, Fed rhetoric appears to be getting more dovish

      Feroli first explains the reason behind his dramatic stimulus forecast revision:

      Shortly after the two Georgia Senate run-off elections in early January delivered effective control of that chamber to the Democratic Party we penciled in an assumption of another $900 billion of fiscal stimulus. This sought to balance the risk of a smaller amount reached through a bipartisan deal and a larger amount arrived at by the Democrats using the budget reconciliation process. Since then the odds of a bipartisan deal have diminished to near zero, and Congressional Democrats have pushed forward with a much larger package. Thus, we revise our outlook to incorporate a $1.7 trillion package to take effect in March.

      Needless to say, this will not ease overheating concerns, and as Feroli writes, “the larger stimulus package should meet an economy that is getting off to a better-than-expected start to the year. After a soft end to 2020, the economy appears to have shrugged off the latest wave of COVID-19 case counts (which are now rapidly declining). This week’s upside surprise on January retail sales leaves real consumer spending tracking around 5.0% annualized growth this quarter. Spending may stumble in February, partly due to weather conditions across the country, but we expect the stimulus package will support a rebound in consumer spending as early as March.”

      In sum, between the effect of the $900BN December stimulus and the upcoming $1.7 Trillion Biden stimulus, JPM “now expects real GDP growth at a 5.0% pace this quarter, and 6.4% (4Q/4Q) in 2021.“

      The soaring GDP will naturally help depress unemployment, and in JPM’s new forecast the unemployment rate reaches 4.0% by the middle of next year, which is also the bank’s estimate of the natural rate of unemployment.

      Hilarious, Feroli then says that in its “forecast the economy doesn’t overheat, in the sense of displaying significant, persistent,  above-2% inflation. The experience of the last expansion confirms model findings that it takes a fairly lengthy period of sustained tightness in resource utilization to shift the inflation trend. Even if there are slack resources this year, rapid growth could generate inflation if reallocation frictions cause supply bottlenecks.” 

      That said, even Feroli who clearly has a mandate to not spark further selling ahead of imminent rate hikes meant to cool off the overheating economy, says he thinks “the stimulus will foster heating, in the sense that it will help get the economy back to 2% inflation—a feat that just Fed forbearance on future rate hikes was much less likely to achieve.”

      Knowing that clients are laughing out loud at this point, Feroli spends some more digital ink trying to justify his naive assessment, and writes that while “It’s easy to tell a story that inflation will pick up significantly in coming quarters, it’s harder to model it.”

      Actually, no, Mike one trip to the supermarket should help you model everything you need. In any case, this is how he explains away the lack of soaring inflation on the back of trillions of stimulus spending and an overheating economy:

      What those models see is that over the last three decades inflation has been very well-anchored around its trend (or local mean). However, those models wouldn’t foresee a regime shift in fiscal or monetary policy. Perhaps that is underway: to account for this possibility we are leaning to the upside on our model output to get inflation to 2% by the end of next year. An upside risk is that a true regime shift would lead to a much larger move in inflation. A downside risk is that we are succumbing to the common forecasting error of base rate neglect. On net, we see balanced risks around our inflation outlook.

      Yeah, ok, we’ll check back in 6  months on this. But while Feroli is wrong on his inflation forecast, where he is right is in observing that while his growth and inflation forecasts have been moving up, “Fed rhetoric has been moving in a more dovish direction” and after the latest FOMC minutes he still sees tapering beginning in 1Q22, the same as Goldman. As for the first rate hike…

      While we now see inflation getting to 2% by the end of next year, we continue to think the Fed will want to see another year of inflation gradually moving above 2% before the first rate hike in 1H24.

      So three years at 0%… with real GDP and inflation likely hitting 5-6%? We make this rhetorical observation just in case there are still any questions why bitcoin will soon hit $100,000.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 19:45

    • First Spy Shots Of Hummer EV Pickup "Looks Like A Tank" 
      First Spy Shots Of Hummer EV Pickup “Looks Like A Tank” 

      Last year, we’ve covered GMC’s unveiling of the first-ever all-electric High Utility Maximum Mobility Easy Rider, otherwise known as Hummer (see: here & here). But only conceptual designs were released until now. 

      According to popular car website Carscoops, the battery-electric Hummer was spotted on public roads for the first time. This is the first real-world look at the reborn Hummer. 

      Source: Carscoops 

      What is likely a test car, the new vehicle “features steel tube running boards to protect the huge rocker panels, redesigned door mirrors that look sleeker compared to the original show car, while it appears that the design of the rear control arms is also different,” said Carscoops.

      Source: Carscoops 

      “The interior of the test cars remains under covers but our spy photographers were able to grab a few partial shots of the dashboard, which appears to be consistent with the show car’s cabin, which featured a 13.4-inch infotainment display, in addition to a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster,” Carscoops continued.

      The first-ever GMC HUMMER EV is expected to pack 1,000 horsepower and rocket the vehicle from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds. The new electric vehicle range is expected to be around 350 miles. 

      Source: Carscoops 

      Overall, Carscoops described GMC HUMMER EV as a “tank.” Production is expected this fall with a release in 2022.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 19:40

    • Let's Review 50 Years Of Dire Climate Forecasts And What Actually Happened
      Let’s Review 50 Years Of Dire Climate Forecasts And What Actually Happened

      Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

      Here are 21 headlines from various news sources regarding dire climate predictions over the last 50 years. Many of the predictions are outrageously funny.

      Climate Forecast Headline Predictions

      1. 1967 Salt Lake Tribune: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975, Already Too Late

      2. 1969 NYT: “Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior.“

      3. 1970 Boston Globe: Scientist Predicts New Ice Age by 21st Century said James P. Lodge, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

      4. 1971 Washington Post: Disastrous New Ice Age Coming says S.I. Rasool at NASA. 

      5. 1972 Brown University Letter to President Nixon: Warning on Global Cooling 

      6. 1974 The Guardian: Space Satellites Show Ice Age Coming Fast

      7. 1974 Time Magazine: Another Ice Age “Telling signs everywhere.  Since the 1940s mean global temperatures have dropped 2.7 degrees F.”

      8. 1974 “Ozone Depletion a Great Peril to Life” University of Michigan Scientist

      9. 1976 NYT The Cooling: University of Wisconsin climatologist Stephen Schneider laments about the “deaf ear his warnings received.”

      10. 1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years. 

      11. 1989 Associated Press: UN Official Says Rising Seas to ‘Obliterate Nations’ by 2000.

      12. 1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.

      13. 2000 The Independent: “Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Our children will not know what snow is,” says senior climate researcher.

      14. 2004 The Guardian:  The Pentagon Tells Bush Climate Change Will Destroy Us. “Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years,” the Pentagon told Bush.

      15. 2008 Associate Press: NASA Scientist says “We’re Toast. In 5-10 years the Arctic will be Ice Free”

      16. 2008 Al Gore: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013.

      17. 2009 The Independent: Prince Charles says Just 96 Months to Save the World. “The price of capitalism is too high.”

      18. 2009 The Independent: Gordon Brown says “We have fewer than 50 days  to save our planet from catastrophe.”

      19.  2013 The Guardian: The Arctic will be Ice Free in Two Years. “The release of a 50 gigaton of methane pulse” will destabilize the planet.

      20. 2013 The Guardian: US Navy Predicts Ice Free Arctic by 2016. “The US Navy’s department of Oceanography uses complex modeling to makes its forecast more accurate than others.

      21. 2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

      The above items are thanks to 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.

      The article has actual news clips and links to everyone of the above stories.

      What Happened to the Glaciers?

      On January 17, 2020 Montana Public Radio reported Scientists Predicted Glacier Park’s Glaciers Would Be Gone By Now. What Happened?

      Last week, Glacier National Park announced that it will be changing signs warning that its signature glaciers would disappear by 2020. The park says the signs, put in more than a decade ago, were based on the best available predictions at the time.

      In terms of the predictions, the latest that I’ve seen actually comes from a group of Swiss researchers. So I would have to look at their results in more detail than is possible from looking at the paper they published to be able to say definitively when all the glaciers are are hosed and no longer present, but certainly by 2100.

      New Predictions and Stories 

      Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation’s “World War II.” 

      “Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’ ” she said.

      OAC then blasted the GOP for taking her doomsday prediction literally. 

      We have had 50 years of this kind of BS and yes, many people do take it literally.

      On February 7 2020, she unleashed her Stunningly Absurd “New Green Deal” that suggests she was serious.

      1. Upgrade all existing buildings in the US

      2. 100% clean power

      3. Support family farms

      4. Universal access to healthy food

      5. Zero-emission vehicle infrastructure

      6. Remove greenhouse gasses form the atmosphere

      7. Eliminate unfair competition

      8. Affordable access to electricity

      9. Create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages

      10. Guaranteeing a job with a family sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States

      More $90 Trillion Solutions

      In 2015, Business Insider noted A Plan Is Floating Around Davos To Spend $90 Trillion Redesigning All The Cities So They Don’t Need Cars

      The $90 trillion proposal came from former US vice president Al Gore, former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon, and their colleagues on The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. 

      Where is the CO2 Coming From?

      CO2 Stats

      • Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.

      • Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.

      • In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.

      • In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.

      • In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.

      Key Questions

      1. How much money are we willing to spend to reduce our 14.5% and falling percentage of carbon emissions?

      2. What would it cost to cut that by half in 10 years?

      3. Assuming we could cut that in half in 10 years, what would it do to total carbon output?

      4. By what force do we get China, India, and all the developing economies in the Mideast and Africa to reduce their carbon output?

      5. Assuming we achieve number 4 peacefully by some sort of economic buyout like cap-and-trade what is the cost to the US?

      6. What about inflation?

      7. Sure, China is producing goods for the US and EU but do we want that to stop? When? Why? How? Cost?

      8. Does not China, India, Africa, etc., have the right to improve their standards of living?

      9. What do the above points imply about the US standard of living?

      10. How the hell do we pay for this?

      Looking ahead over the next 100 years, the US is a minor part of the carbon problem.

      Bonus Geopolitical Q&A

      Q: What happened when Merkel went along with the Greens and did away with nuclear?
      A: Germany imports more coal-based energy from neighboring states and is more dependent on Russia for natural gas.

      Q: Is wind and solar ever going to make a serious dent in China’s growing energy demands.
      A: No

      Q: What happened in France when Macron pushed through a gas tax to support the Green movement?
      A: How quick we forget the Yellow-Vest Revolt that went on for months.

      I have yet to see AOC, John Kerry, any Mish reader, or anyone else address any of the above questions in detail.

      Final Questions to All Those Demanding Government Do Something

      What the hell are you doing?

      The #1 thing someone can proactively do eliminate their carbon footprint is to stop breathing.

      Since that seems a bit impractical, the #2 thing someone can do is not have kids.

      Instead, most demand the government do something. What?

      Until someone can put a realistic price on this while addressing my questions, forgive me for not agreeing that a total rise in the ocean of 3 inches in the last 20 years is the existential threat of our time.

      Politicians Will Not Solve the Problem

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

      Clean Energy

      I am a big fan of natural gas and believe it is clean energy. The byproduct of burning natural gas is carbon dioxide and water.

      Neither is a pollutant in any way shape or form. Plants even need carbon dioxide to survive.

      Coal is another matter.

      Burning coal releases SO2 and NOx pollutants that cause Acid Rain, huge respiratory problems and will devastate forests.

      If the atmosphere is polluted with sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOx), rain becomes oxidized by ozone (O3) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to form H2SO4 or HNO3 before falling to the ground. They are known respectively as sulfuric and nitric acid.

      Acid rain will dissolve panty hose on the spot.

      There is a huge difference between burning coal and burning natural gas.

      Anti-Coal, Pro-Natural Gas

      For environmental reasons, I am anti-coal but very much in favor of Natural Gas. And that has been my position forever. 

      I am totally fine with eliminating coal for environmental reasons but to expect China to be 100% wind and solar is nonsense. 

      There is no reason for Germany to abandon nuclear power and the results have been anything but green.

      Libertarian Philosophy

      Many of my readers blame me and Libertarians in general. They understand neither.

      As noted above I am anti-coal. Why? It pollutes with SO2 and NOx causing acid, respiratory illnesses, and it kills fish.  

      I have seen too many environmental cleanups. I have never commented on this before but my degree at the University of Illinois was in Environmental Engineering.

      I have bashed China’s air and water pollution consistently for decades. I have bashed Germany’s diesel industry consistently too. 

      Doing nothing about actual poison and doing nothing about CO2 are two very different things. 

      There is nothing Libertarian about letting companies pollute then walk away in bankruptcy. 

      One clever reader researched my coal and water pollution stance and noted I said the same things in 2006. Indeed I did. 

      My position has been consistent.

      Don’t Accept 100% of the Climate Change Story and You Get Labeled a Racist

      There we numerous global cooling warnings in the 60s and 70s and that is what we were taught in school. I did not believe the hype then, and I do not believe the hype now.

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

      Point any of this out and guess what happens: You Get Labeled a Racist, as I did.

      I am grateful that 50 years of sensational headline now look laughable, but they keep coming and coming.

      Why should anyone take these models seriously? 

      No Wonder People Don’t Believe the Hype

      How many times did we hear the arctic ice would all be gone by now? That Miami if not all of Florida would be underwater? 

      Flashback 2010: The glaciers will all disappear by 2020. Now the best estimate is another 80 years. 

      Flashback 1989: UN Official Says Rising Seas to ‘Obliterate Nations’ by 2000. What a hoot.

      Flashback 2009: Gordon Brown UK Chancellor of the Exchequer says “We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.” Hmm. Have 50 days passed? 

      Flashback 1969: “Everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior.“

      That’s my favorite.

      A Word About Predictions and Urgency

      Believe in man-made climate change all you want. There is some truth to it although the models have not been remotely accurate to say the least.

      After 50 years of nonsense hype, it’s no wonder anyone with a modicum of common sense is more than a bit skeptical of these dire predictions and the alleged urgency to do something immediately about them.

      If after all these now laughable headlines, you still have faith in the predictions, why? 

      And if you don’t believe the predictions, then do you still want to spend $90 trillion to solve the alleged problem?

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 19:20

    • China Keeping Rare Earth Export Ban In "Back Pocket" To Punish Biden If He Gets Out Of Line
      China Keeping Rare Earth Export Ban In “Back Pocket” To Punish Biden If He Gets Out Of Line

      For the second time this week, western, English-language media outlets are reporting about rumblings within the Chinese Communist Party leadership about imposing new export controls on so-called “rare-earth metals” The news, first reported earlier this week in the FT, could quickly hobble the US defense industry.

      While Bloomberg seemed to confirm the FT’s report about Beijing launching a “review” of its rare-earth export policies, the BBG reporters also took things a step further by suggesting that the Chinese government was merely trying to keep pressure on President Joe Biden now that ‘standing up to China’ has apparently become a bipartisan issue in the US.

      While China has no plans to restrict shipments of rare earths to the U.S., it is keeping the plan in its back pocket should a trade war break out again, the person said. The Asian nation is also exploring a ban on rare earths as part of its sanctions on some individual companies, including Lockheed Martin Corp., which violated China’s core interest over arms sale to Taiwan, the person said.

      All of this comes after Beijing reportedly readied a plan to restrict exports of the metals to the US back in 2019, when the US and China were still dealing with the fallout from Trump’s trade war.

      To be sure, Beijing has already tried weaponizing rare earths when it slapped US defense contractor Lockheed Martin with sanctions.

      China controls most of the world’s mined output from the broad group of 17 elements that are used in everything from smartphones to fighter jets, and has a complete stranglehold over processing.

      Infographic: China's Rare Earth Monopoly is Diminishing | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      China’s dominance leaves the US with pretty much no alternatives to make up for the shortfall in supply, which would likely cause prices of these metals to skyrocket.

      overseas industries with few avenues to immediately secure supply if curbs were to be put in place, since the US imports 80% of its rare earth supply from abroad.

      Former President Donald Trump, of course, tried to rectify this terrible vulnerability with an executive order aiming to ramp up domestic production and processing, though presently the US remains entirely dependent, pretty much, on China for these metals.

      Still, there’s reason for the US to take precautions against China imposing rare earth ‘restrictions’. After all, China didn’t hesitate to use rare earths as leverage during a territorial dispute with Japan back in 2011 – it imposed an export embargo, causing prices to skyrocket – when the two countries were fighting over some rocky islands in the Pacific.

      And with Beijing’s crackdowns on Hong Kong and aggressive rhetoric (and, increasingly, actions) toward Taiwan grow increasingly emboldened, there may come a day when push comes to shove for Biden. And without another source for these metals, it could unleash a world of economic pain.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 19:00

    • This Diary From The Great Depression Is Like Reading A Modern-Day Newsfeed
      This Diary From The Great Depression Is Like Reading A Modern-Day Newsfeed

      Authored by Fabian Ommar via The Orgnaic Prepper blog,

      During times like these, keeping close tabs on events unfolding is critical. It’s always more productive for the pragmatic, though, to be aware and knowledgeable about such events’ developments.

      One of the best ways to do so is by learning from history. For the most part, natural events are unpredictable, random in impact and reach, and localized. Economic collapses, on the other hand, follow a more cyclical dynamic and have all-embracing consequences.

      Because consumption, finance, and economy are in great part determined by psychology and behavior (mainly fear and greed), and because humankind always reacts the same to abundance and scarcity, history tends to repeat itself with reasonable consistency and similarity in these areas.

      Even though crashes can’t be forecast with accuracy, brewing crises always send warning signs frequently early on. Perhaps even more important (and useful for us), its consequences are well studied and vastly documented.

      The current crisis is being compared to The Great Depression of the 1930’s

      But how these SHTFs compare away from charts and figures, more close to society and people’s lives? Are contemporary fears and (apparently insurmountable) matters of monumental debts, hyperinflation risk, social fragmentation, political animosity, government intervention, and widespread conflicts genuinely unprecedented? 

      I looked at a few excerpts from “The Great Depression: A Diary” by Benjamin Roth to find out. It’s a personal yet surprisingly dispassionate account of the darkest years of the1930’s big slump, right after the stock market crash of 1929. Written 90 years ago in journal format as events were unfolding, without hindsight or historical distancing. It is a candid and powerful documentation of the depression zeitgeist.

      Benjamin Roth was a young lawyer in Youngstown, OH, then an important steel production center of the flourishing Rust Belt. A common, middle-class professional and family man hit directly by the economic devastation, Roth was trying to understand and cope with the craziness going on. All that makes his observations very compelling and his narrations all the more relatable. 

      Reading through Roth’s diary feels like reading a tweet, blog, or newsfeed today.

      Anyone following today’s current events will be amazed at the similarities between that period and now regarding facts and events. But mostly as to how people felt and reacted to those. In that sense, Roth’s book won’t provide direct answers. But it’s filled with great insights and highly entertaining stories. 

      Likewise, the idea here is not to draw a detailed or factual comparison nor provide a more in-depth analysis. We live in a very different world. The economy is considerably bigger and orders of magnitude more complex, so things are not directly comparable. The excerpts only illustrate parallels and allow for observations, with emphasis on context and human behavior. Hopefully, this will inspire you to grab a copy. It’s great reading.

      It also provides a few important lessons to combat the anxiety caused by uncertainty

      Many people are battling the anxiety of not feeling better prepared for the evolving situation.

      One lesson is that, as the Stoics say, “This too shall pass.” Back then, the whole tribulation seemed to people like the end of times. This sentiment certainly got solidified further by WWII breaking out just a few years later. It sure feels like that today, too, with the endless cascade of bad news and looming threats all over.

      In that regard, and not making light of it (crises are a real catastrophe to many), the fact that we’re still here, in an even better situation than ever before in history, should be taken as a sign that we’re learning and improving, as species and civilization. That shows that it’s entirely possible to overcome significant hardships no matter how bad the present feels or how dark the future looks.

      Another lesson is that these ordeals take time to pass, and invariably the cost is brutal in various forms. It’s a huge ordeal spreading insecurity, pain, suffering, and causing loss to people, families, and businesses everywhere. (Not to mention that widespread instabilities increase the risk of authoritarianism, hot conflicts, and other worrying developments.) 

      Let’s see what the Great Depression of the 1930s and Mr. Benjamin Roth have to tell us

      (Note: The excerpts aren’t in chronological order).

       “January 18, 1933 – I am reading a book written by Claude Bowers entitled The Tragic Era. In it, he describes the panic of 1873 and I am amazed at the similarity to conditions today.”

      I couldn’t find a more fitting start than the author looking back to get some insights and answers to his difficulties. That is what we do. People get lost during these periods. It’s hard to know or be sure of much or interpret things correctly when we’re immersed in the chaos, dealing with hardships, changes, and turmoil almost daily.

      Takeaway: Looking at current events through the lenses of the past helps achieve a more balanced view. As I said, even though it doesn’t offer much relief in practical terms, it’s Diasomewhat comforting to know that we’ve been through this before many times and survived. Individuals and society.

       “August 14, 1932 – The movement back to the farm has grown stronger during the past two years until today it is almost an exodus from the city to the farm.”

      Whenever the economy dips, things start to degrade everywhere. But cities get hit harder and faster, making people flock to the country en masse. It’s a recurrent, global phenomenon, though more prevalent and visible in the U.S. and other highly-industrialized and urbanized nations. The reasons are various: spikes in homelessness and crime, tax hikes, diminishing job opportunities, dwindling entertainment, faltering public services. That, and a lot more, haunted the population back then as it does now. In our case, with the added effects of lockdowns, social distancing, and multiple restrictions.

      Takeaway: The pendulum is constantly swinging in this city-country movement, and it’s already bringing large-scale and far-reaching changes in lifestyle, the market, and infrastructure at both ends. Everyone must pay attention to these factors and prepare for, whether living in the city or country.

      “February 13, 1933 – I have done considerable reading about the depressions of 1837 and 1873 and, I am struck by the similarity to the present crisis. If history repeats itself, then we still have 2 or 3 years of bad times ahead of us.”

      The passage above is also about the repetition of situations and events and a warning to those who believe in silver bullets to solve complex issues. For instance, thinking a vaccine or monetary stimulus will make economic, societal, and geopolitical problems go away magically or in the short term. It won’t. In fact, those (as well as others) measures, chiefly ones coming from politics, organizations, and the ruling elites, could potentially trigger further events or have unintended consequences, becoming themselves sources of more unknown unknown”.

      Takeaway: How long this crisis will last is impossible to know for sure.” “If history repeat,” we may not even have seen the worse yet. There could be unexpected developments at any point. This next decade is promising to be, at the very least, highly volatile. Being prepared for a few more years of challenges and hardships ahead is a sensible strategy. Don’t expect things to go “back to normal.”

      “June 1, 1933 – In looking back over the 3 months since Roosevelt became President it seems that the U.S. has traveled a long way toward some form of socialism or managed economy.”

      The intervention in economy and finance took center stage during the 2020 presidential campaign and has been inspiring endless articles by economists and ‘‘experts” everywhere since, well, at least 2008. Today, a lot of people are afraid that the U.S. may turn into the Soviet Union. Or worse, Venezuela. Heck, I don’t live in the U.S., and I dread that myself! Judging by Benjamin Roth’s remarks, this sentiment was prevalent during the turbulent 1930s as well. 

      Takeaway: Once again, if history is any indication, despite the movement away from the free market, individualism and liberty, and the trend towards higher levels of intervention, collectivism, and safety, the U.S. should remain a free, capitalist nation. At least for the foreseeable future. Which doesn’t mean capitalism and democracy won’t undergo changes, possibly some big ones even. (Here’s more information on that topic.)Being on top of this is a way to keep up, or at least not get caught entirely off guard.

      “January 11, 1932 – The war between Japan and China drags along. Threats made by the U.S. are disregarded. Germany announces she cannot and will not pay further reparations and France threatens to collect by force what is coming to her.”

       “March 11, 1933 – Los Angeles district in California experiences 13 quakes yesterday. Almost as bad as San Francisco affair! Early reports indicate 150 dead; 2500 hurt; tremendous property loss.”

      These two entries only one year from each other remind us that multiple SHTFs can happen concomitantly. A grave economic depression was ravaging the world, and yet parallel disasters and conflicts kept taking place in the U.S. and everywhere else. Hitler became a dictator in military-building Germany. Countries were abandoning the gold standard. Revolutions were breaking out in France and Austria. The shadow of fascism and authoritarianism looming large over Europe and South America. And a lot more events that would change the world indelibly.

      Takeaway: Expect geopolitical instability to become even more of a thing soon regardless of the pandemic or crisis, or precisely as a direct result of those. Stay alert for movements and developments in military, trading, alliances. Nature won’t suspend its usual activities just because we’re already going through difficult times of our own cause, either. Be on the lookout for potential simultaneous SHTFs, always trying to imagine how those may impact your life.

      “January 6, 1933 – During the boom everybody piled up debts to a dizzy height (…) economists claim that either the debt will have to be cut down or money inflated.”

      Studying macroeconomics after the 2008 recession is what brought me into preparedness and survivalism. When I learned about countries’ surreal indebtedness, corporations, families, and individuals, I became worried. It’s a giant iceberg of over USD 250 trillion and growing. And that’s only the more visible part. Likewise, the U.S. (and worldwide) fast-growing deficit and sovereign debt post-WWI and during the depression was a worrying issue, which didn’t escape Roth’s attention.

      Takeaway: Debt and leverage have significantly fluctuated throughout history, in cycles between booms and busts, war and peace. That’s how things are. The reduction of indebtedness and cleaning of the system at such levels has rarely (if ever) been a smooth process. Something has to give. Get ready for volatility, inflation/deflation, melt-ups-and-downs, tax hikes, confiscations, poverty. And, of course, the accompanying gamut of social reflexes (unrest, protests, strikes, riots, etc.). All that can impact our lives.

      “September 1, 1932 – The stock market (…) tripled its value during August in one of the quickest climbs ever witnessed. I believe this also established a record. Nobody seems to know even yet why the stock market went up because business has gotten worse instead of better.”

      It seems the fabled V-shaped recovery and the absolute disconnect between the real economy and the stock market aren’t exactly unprecedented. Almost 90 years have passed since this entry. Yet, it could well have been written yesterday. Or any day since mid-2020, when the stock market rebounded from the March crash with intense vigor. Meanwhile, the real economy has gone from bad to worse, and some would say terminal. Businesses and jobs are still being wiped out in droves due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the faltering economy.

      Takeaway: Whatever happens, it’s reasonable to expect any real build back of the economy, production, and jobs should take some time, not to mention tremendous efforts and lots of sacrifices. And things will be a lot different too, an entirely new world for sure.

      “August 30, 1932 – It is interesting to note that during the first three years of depression a wave of bankruptcy swept out of existence most of the small independent merchants. Recently the movement has included large national chain stores.”

      Then as now: small businesses are always hit the hardest during significant slumps. The current devastation differs in a few ways from the 1930s, though. One is speed: it only took a few months since march 2020 to attain and even surpass the levels of bankruptcy and unemployment reached in the span of a few years during the Great Depression. The second is that we haven’t (yet?) seen larger movements, perhaps due to the massive support programs put in place by governments everywhere. It’s likely that without this much intervention, the wave of bankruptcy would have been, in fact, a monstrous tsunami.

      Takeaway: Not entering the merits of validity and/or efficacy of such measures (and potential side effects), an immutable law of the universe states that there’s no free lunch. Fiscal and monetary ‘‘stimulus”, forbearances, moratoriums, and government support have a price that’s piling up and will have to be paid at some point. Since debt, private and public, can only be paid, rolled, deflated, or defaulted, whatever happens, will have its own set of consequences and ripples. Staying informed about the economy, increasing knowledge about finance, building reserves, and investing in some insurance against inflation may be ways to stay prepared.

      “August 3, 1933 – Since Roosevelt became President a war-time hysteria of public opinion has been created which makes it unpopular to criticize what he does. Even newspaper editorials have unanimously supported him so and refrained from honest criticism.”

      Now as then. Unsurprisingly, political divisiveness was an issue during the Great Depression. Unsurprisingly, it is now, too. At times it seems both sides have irreconcilable agendas and insurmountable differences; that only the complete destruction of the opponent (either through political, social, or economic persecution/destruction, or de facto by civil war) can bring resolution to a deadlock. Apparently, the press (M.S.M.) siding with this or that party, candidate, or agenda was a thing back then, too. For obvious reasons, Big Tech, social media, and cancel culture are unprecedented.

      Takeaway: As much as divisiveness and radicalism spread and deepens, and politics, debates, and narratives look like a dead-end, these can dwarf in the face of weightier, real, practical, more immediate, or urgent matters. If that happens, society will have to sit down and talk or start rowing in the same direction together. Looking back in history, this seems to be an American characteristic (though not uncommon in other countries and populations). Perhaps we haven’t reached this point yet. But knowing it has happened before, it’s possible (likely?) people will opt for a common way out. Let’s just hope it’s a pacific and productive exit, not a belligerent and destructive one.

      “March 5, 1934 – Roosevelt is as popular today as a year ago. His following with the working class is tremendous. It seems he and the Democrats will be in power for some time. Socialism is now accepted calmly by ministers, professors, etc. and it is amazing to me to see how calmly most people accept drastic government regulation.”

      Hold your horses: this is not about Democrats or Republicans, but rather bigger government, centralization, intervention, and regulation becoming more or less accepted in one period or another. When things get hard, larger portions of the population will long for (and depend on) assistance. Whether or not that is a good, useful, or otherwise, policy is beyond the present scope. That’s just how things are. Back then, Benjamin Roth and many others were certain that America was headed to communism and doom. As bad as things may have been (and it sure was terrible), it’s clear now that the U.S. didn’t even come close to actual socialism. But for a nation that epitomizes capitalism like no other, the feeling (and fear) is totally understandable. 

      Takeaway: As we know, America (and capitalism) came out stronger, though not without lots of suffering for a large percentage of the population. Is America on the verge of socialism once again? It looks like, yes. Will it become this time? Impossible to say. Have we seen this before? Absolutely, and not just once. So, what’s the point? Perhaps none: the future is not written. But the past always offers a lesson: change and evolution don’t come free or without pain. Whatever happens, there will be a cost. But it’ll pass. And therein lies a point: since we can’t avoid SHTF, the question is to prepare for difficult times and survive until things get better again, plowing ahead.

      Conclusion (with a caveat): This isn’t an exercise in futurology, just food for thought.

      “History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain

      In that sense, I find it necessary to conclude by pointing a few significant differences between the period narrated in Benjamin Roth’s diary and today. They may or may not affect specific events during the unfolding of the current crisis. But may have enough gravity to them to potentially change the outcome and reshape the world going ahead.  

      The reversal of roles

      Back in the early 20th century, U.S. was a booming, production-based economy, the biggest creditor in the world thanks in great part to money lent during WWI.” “Made in the U.S.A.” was a valuable slogan and motive of pride. Today, about 70% of the private U.S. economy is based on services and consumption, mostly of imported goods. The American production has been almost entirely exported to Asia and other countries, with China being the largest U.S. supplier and its principal creditor. 

      Trading deficits are mounting. The Debt-to-GDP ratio has soared to 130% and is growing fast. Since the U.S. is the largest economy globally, this turned it into the biggest world debtor. But the USD remains the reserve currency, and the U.S. still holds the biggest military power. That may take some time to change, even if no reaction is put in place, which is unlikely if we take history as an indication. (Again, hopefully, a peaceful response, for the good of everyone).

      The COVID-19 pandemic 

      Another big difference between the 1930s and today is the pandemic and the subsequent set of bamboozled responses by authorities everywhere. When the crash of 1929 hit, the world had rid of the Spanish Flu for over a decade. Nowadays, we still have COVID-19 wreaking havoc on the economy and everyone’s lives. There’s no telling whether it will mutate or vanish, whether vaccines will work, or whether elites and politics will use the virus, cure, and prevention to impose even more restrictions on production, work, traveling, commerce, entertainment, and freedom. The reality is that COVID-19 is a significant factor now and should remain one for at least a few years ahead.

      War risks

      Between 1934-36 the world was exiting The Great Depression. Shortly after Europe was engulfed in WWII.” “War is all hell,” as defined by Gen. Willian Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War. But it has an undeniable impact on the production and economy of all countries, involved or not. The effect of more activities and trading in demographics helped the entire world, mostly the U.S., to get out of the hole a few times throughout history. That makes some political parties and elites (not to mention the military) quite fond of armed conflicts, unfortunately. Whether a war is in the cards or not, and to what extent (can be a currency or trade war, hot war, cyberwar, local or widespread conflict) remains to be seen. These things happen. 

      Technological advancements

      Technology is always viewed paradoxically as both salvation and doom: it brings conflicting feelings of admiration, fear, hope, and despair. There’s currently a host of new tech evolving at a dizzying pace: A.I., Big Data, 5G, advanced mass surveillance, crypto, blockchain, bio, Taas, electric vehicles, interplanetary rockets, etc. Collectively, this is being touted as The Next Renaissance. It’s also being called a potential threat to freedom, the environment, humankind, and life in general. While technology cannot be discarded, it must be noted that technological development is a constant. Meaning, every age has it playing a part in events. The early 20th century, for instance, had its own set of technological threats. Just as the Industrial Revolution had before. It repeats throughout history, and the most important is, it can’t be stopped. Keeping up is optional, of course. But avoiding or escaping its effects is not.

      Finally, there isn’t much we can do against these greater forces and historical movements. But individually, we can keep doing our best, keep ourselves informed, in good shape (physically and mentally), and prepared as much as possible.

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 18:40

    • Tesla Finishes Near Dead Last In 2021 J.D. Power Dependability Survey
      Tesla Finishes Near Dead Last In 2021 J.D. Power Dependability Survey

      As Model S and Model X vehicles (and even some Model 3s) age further with each day, we’re guessing there are going to be an awful lot of stories about the quality of Tesla vehicles deteriorating as they get older. That’s because, as we have noted several times (here and here), Teslas don’t exactly seem like they are top quality the day they roll off the line.

      And it appears J.D. Power agrees with us – the American data analytics and consumer intelligence company placed Tesla 30th out of 33 manufacturers in its most recent Vehicle Dependability Survey. 

      The survey looked at 177 specific problems in 8 categories, the report says. This includes “powertrain, exterior flaws, and HVAC issues” among other issues. The 2021 study looks at the 2018 model year. Tesla was fourth from the bottom of the list, averaging 176 issues per 100 vehicles. 

      “The automaker is not officially ranked among other brands in the study because it doesn’t meet the ranking criteria. Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla doesn’t grant J.D. Power permission to survey its owners in 15 states where it is required. However, Tesla’s score was calculated based on a robust sample of surveys from owners in the other 35 states,” J.D. Power’s press releases read. 

      Back in 2020, Tesla also posted abysmal scores in the U.S. Initial Quality Study. The brand scored an abysmal 250 in 2020, placing it below literally dozens of other manufacturers, including names like Land Rover and Audi, in terms of reliability.

      The U.S. Initial Quality Study has been put out annually for the last 34 years and works by asking buyers of new cars of the current model year what problems they have had within the first 90 days of owning a vehicle. The score is based on the number of problems experienced within those 90 days per 100 vehicles. 

      Recall, we also pointed out hours ago that Tesla was once again slashing prices internationally, marking the 13th time this year that the company has tried to stoke demand by lowering prices. 

      “The base price of the standard model was cut to 4.29 million yen ($40,500) from 5.11 million yen on Thursday, while the long-range version saw an even steeper drop of 1.56 million yen to 4.99 million yen. The performance sedan remained at 7.17 million yen,” according to Automotive News. 

      The price cuts were reported to be part of an “effort to build its presence and spur demand in a market that has seemed largely impenetrable”.

      Takeshi Miyao, an analyst at consulting firm Carnorama in Tokyo, told Automotive News that the cut “should have a positive impact on sales”.

      We have an idea: now that you’ve got a nearly $1 trillion market cap, why not focus on just making quality vehicles?

      Tyler Durden
      Fri, 02/19/2021 – 18:20

    Digest powered by RSS Digest