Today’s News 13th December 2019

  • Is Western Media Credible Anymore?
    Is Western Media Credible Anymore?

    Authored by Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan for The Saker Blog,

    Western media is spreading fake news and fabricating stories with evil intentions. Western Media is biased and creating unrest and chaos in various parts of the world. Media is being used by the Western world to coerce, influence and achieve their ill-political motives. Unfortunately, Western Media is already dominating and controlling public opinion throughout the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let me give you a particular example of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). BBC reported that the Saddam Hussain regime in Iraq possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). America along with its allies attacked Iraq, destroyed Iraq, killed millions of people, damaged Infrastructure, Power Houses, Telecommunication, Hospitals, Schools, Churches, Mosques, Roads, Industry, Oil Wells, Refineries, etc. Finally noticed that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Later on, the British Prime Minister of that time, acknowledged that the BBC news was not accurate, and information about WMD was not correct. But after damaging a country totally and harming millions of people, pushing Iraq into stone ages, one’s mere apology may not be accepted and may not be forgiven by humanity, irreversible damage to Iraq may never be forgotten by the history.

    It is worth mentioning, Iraq was a very stable, oil-rich, and total welfare state under President Saddam Hussain. Education, health care was free of cost to its citizens, plenty of food, variety of food was available abundantly. Electricity was available in all parts of the country in abundance sufficiently. Fuel and items of daily use were available everywhere conveniently. The society was very much stable, satisfied and living a comfortable life. All factions of the society were enjoying harmony and was a tolerant society. It might be possible a few exceptionally politicians opposing the ruling party “Bath” or President Saddam Hussain, were victimized. They might be few in numbers or two digits only. But the vast majority of the nation was comfortable with the rulers.

    But after the US war on Iraq, today, people of Iraq are facing a shortage of food, fuel, electricity, medicines, and items of daily life. No free education and health care are provided by the government. The society is extremely polarized, intolerance and factionist are very much common. Terrorism, lawlessness, and chaos are witnesses everywhere.

    Is publically apology is sufficient to cool down the suffering of millions of Iraqis? Can anyone ignore the dirty role of the BBC? Is it possible, people of Iraq forget the BBC? Can the victim forgive the BBC?

    It is only one example only. The same trick was played in the case of Syria. BBC reported that the Syrian Government possesses Chemical Weapons and is using against rebellions. Western Alliance NATO, under the US leadership, attacked Syria, killed millions of innocent people, displace millions of common citizens, damaged the whole country, and pushed the Syrian into stone ages. Forced the Syrian people to take asylum in the Western World where they are humiliated, especial the women and children are being abused. A huge portion is forced to live in temporary camps within the country, where life is very hard and lacks the basic amenities of daily life. Western World has made the life on common Syrian misery and curse only. While Syrians was a very stable country, may not be very rich, but with all basic amenities available conveniently. Nature has blessed the Syrians with best fruits and vegetables, and traditional Syrian food is one of the important attractions in the region. The people of Syria are very pretty and a superior creature. They can compete any beauty villain in the world easily. The law and order situation was very much comfortable and society was stable and living in harmony.

    The same is the case of Libya, where ill-motivated fake News led to the destruction of a sovereign country. A very stable, oil-rich nation turned into chaos and lawlessness. A nation with all comforts and facilities has been deprived of even basic needs of life. A sate with total welfare for its citizens has been changed into a lack of everything like food, medicines, fuel, electricity, etc.

    The situation in Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, and Afghanistan is not much different than this. The US admits its role in spreading fake information about Afghanistan and admits its failure in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran are on the list and Western World is engaged in a hybrid war, where media is the basic weapon and in some cases over-engaged in spreading fake news and fabrication of stories to create chaos and promote instability.

    In Pakistan , we noticed many illegal radio stations operating by Western-funded NGOs, spreading hate, misinformation, and troubles only. Many media houses and individual journalists are hired by Western World and used as front-man or under-cover operation of hybrid war in Pakistan.

    Only in the Middle East, around two million people have been killed, several million have been displaced from their homes, either to live in Camps or to move to other countries seeking asylums.

    In fact, the world is full of such examples and unfortunately, the developing world is the victim and under direct target.

    The recent reports regarding Mike Pompeo regarding lies, cheating, stealing, etc are further confirmation that information is deliberately changed to achieve designed results. The US role in

    1970s ‘Operation Condor,’ in which South American dictators systematically tortured and killed dissidents in the region. An estimated 60,000 people were killed by the Latin American states in the clandestine operation, 30,000 in Argentina alone. Another 30,000 were disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned during the Operation. It is now known that the CIA was a guiding hand throughout the whole process, by training and helping military and civilian personnel. “Diplomacy and military strength go hand in hand. They are indeed intimately related. Each relies on the other,” Pompeo also admitted during the conference called “Why Diplomacy Matters.”

    Covert operations, ousting democratically elected governments, inciting revolts and supporting transnational companies are run of the mill actions for the CIA, all justified as part of the fight against those who question U.S. interests. Actions that continue until this day. In 2018, one of its offshoots, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) channeled over US$23 million to meddle in the internal affairs of key Latin American countries, under the flagship of “human rights” or “democracy,” which represent a real menace for national sovereignty and the continuity of progressive governments in the region and the world.

    These are the only few known facts, there must be much more in various parts of the world similar incidents and fake news or spread of misinformation.

    I believe the Western World is misusing Media and the spread of distorted information as an unarmed wing or tool of defense and diplomatic strategies, to achieve their evil goals. It seems Western media is notorious for spreading fake news and the fabrication of stories. They have lost their credibility at all. The intellectuals and people with common sense no more believe Western Media anymore. The credibility of Western Media is challenged and lost recognition among the people having conscious.

    I have been traveling internationally frequently and come across many foreigners. Most of them have a very negative impression about Pakistan. But those who have travelled to Pakistan, are very different and praise Pakistan. In fact, media is projecting negative image of Pakistan, however, the ground realities are very different. I do not claim that Pakistan is perfect and everything is ideal, but reject the extremely negative impression posed in the Western Media. There might be many problems in Pakistan but just like other countries, not much different from the rest of world. In some respect, Pakistan is better than many other nations awhile facing few challenges too like other nations. Misinformation and distorted stories regarding Pakistan are part of Western Media war launched against Pakistan.

    I understand some of you may disagree with my opinion and maybe offended but at least it may initiate an open debate. Let’s explore the avenues of a common ground where we can seek the truth. The common man is interested only in seeking the real facts and figures. Let’s judge the reports and news on an impartial basis and reach conclusion at our own. With the improvement of technology, and especially with the help of the internet and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), it is possible for the dissemination of facts instantly. We should conceive the facts with open-minded and be receptive to facts only.

    I wish for a peaceful world where justice, freedom, and truth will prevail. Let’s join hands toward this goal and all those willing to achieve this goal, be struggling till the victory. In fact, journalism is a holy profession and must not be politicized. Let the media work for the welfare of humanity. There are many media houses working very well and are serving humanity properly. We must salute them and extend our full cooperation. We must differential among good and bad News agencies or media houses. It is our own duty to judge the good and evil media and should appreciate the positive role of media where ever necessary.

    I must offer my heartiest apology if offended a few of you. But willing to find common ground and extend my full cooperation, if it is desired by some of you. Let’s build a better world, where tomorrow should be better than yesterday. Our next-generation must not face the same challenges which we have faced. Love humanity, love peace, seek the truth.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 12/13/2019 – 00:05

  • San Fran Loses Another Convention Over Skyrocketing Costs, Human Excrement
    San Fran Loses Another Convention Over Skyrocketing Costs, Human Excrement

    San Francisco has lost another major convention thanks to “poor street conditions” (aka poo and the vagrants who produce it), along with prohibitively high costs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Oracle OpenWorld conference – which typically hosts 60,000 people, will no longer be held in San Francisco according to a Monday email from the San Francisco Travel Association obtained by CNBC.

    “Oracle stated that their attendee feedback was that San Francisco hotel rates are too high,” reads the email in part. “Poor street conditions was another reason why they made this difficult decision.”

    The conference brought the city an estimated $64 million per year. Instead, that money will now go to Las Vegas – where Oracle has signed a three-year agreement to bring the event to the Caesars Forum.

    According to a survey published in October by Cheaphotels.org, San Francisco is the fourth most expensive city for hotels, behind Nashville, Boston and San Jose. The average double room at San Francisco’s cheapest hotel with at least three stars was $214 in October, the survey showed. Las Vegas was all the way at the other end of the spectrum. –CNBC

    An Oracle spokesperson confirmed the move with CNBC, writing in an email “Oracle is excited to offer a modern, state-of-the-art experience for attendees at Oracle OpenWorld and Code One 2020 in Las Vegas.”

    “The city and its vast amenities are tailor-made for hosting large-scale events, and we look forward to bringing the industry’s most comprehensive technology and developer conference to America’s premier hospitality destination. Oracle continues to enjoy a strong relationship with the City of San Francisco and partners such as the San Francisco Giants and the Golden State Warriors. We look forward to working with our longstanding counterparts in San Francisco on future events.”

    In July of last year, a major medical convention expected to bring in 15,000 visitors and $40 million in tourism dollars decided to stop holding the event in San Francisco because attendees didn’t feel safe walking the streets.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 23:45

  • Who Are The Globalists And What Do They Want?
    Who Are The Globalists And What Do They Want?

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I get the question often, though one would think it’s obvious – Who are these “globalists” we refer to so much in the liberty movement? Sometimes the request comes from honest people who only want to learn more. Sometimes it comes from disinformation agents attempting to mire discussion on the issue with assertions that the globalists “don’t exist”. The answer to the question can be simple and complex at the same time. In order to understand who the globalists are, we first have to understand what they want.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We talk a lot about the “globalists” because frankly, their agenda has become more open than ever in the past ten years.  There was a time not long ago when the idea of the existence of “globalists” was widely considered “conspiracy theory”. There was a time when organizations like the Bilderberg Group did not officially exist and the mainstream media rarely ever reported on them. There was a time when the agenda for one world economy and a one world government was highly secretive and mentioned only in whispers in the mainstream. And, anyone who tried to expose this information to the public was called a “tinfoil hat wearing lunatic”.

    Today, the mainstream media writes puff-pieces about the Bilderberg Group and even jokes about their secrecy. When members of Donald Trump’s cabinet, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, attended Bilderberg in 2019, the mainstream media was wallpapered with the news.

    When the World Government Summit meets each year in Dubai, attended by many of the same people that attend Bilderberg as well as shady mainstream icons and gatekeepers like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson, they don’t hide their discussions or their goals, they post them on YouTube.

    I remember when talking about the US dollar being dethroned and replaced with a new one world currency system and a cashless society controlled by the IMF was treated as bizarre theory. Now it’s openly called for by numerous leaders in the financial industry and in economic governance. The claim that these things are “conspiracy theory” no longer holds up anymore. In reality, the people who made such accusations a few years ago now look like idiots as the establishment floods the media with information and propaganda promoting everything the liberty movement has been warning about.

    The argument on whether or not a globalist agenda “exists” is OVER. The liberty movement and the alternative media won that debate, and through our efforts we have even forced the establishment into admitting the existence of some of their plans for a completely centralized global system managed by them. Now, the argument has changed. The mainstream doesn’t really deny anymore that the globalists exist; they talk about whether or not the globalist agenda is a good thing or a bad thing.

    First, I would point out the sheer level of deception and disinformation used by the globalists over the past several decades.  This deceptions is designed to maneuver the public towards accepting a one world economy and eventually one world governance. If you have to lie consistently to people about your ideology in order to get them to support it, then there must be something very wrong with your ideology.

    Second, the establishment may be going public with their plans for globalization, but they aren’t being honest about the consequences for the average person. And, there are many misconceptions out there, even in the liberty movement, about what exactly these people want.

    So, we need to construct a list of globalist desires vs globalist lies in order to define who we are dealing with. These are the beliefs and arguments of your run-of-the-mill globalist:

    Centralization

    A globalist believes everything must be centralized, from finance to money to social access to production to government. They argue that centralization makes the system “more fair” for everyone, but in reality they desire a system in which they have total control over every aspect of life. Globalists, more than anything, want to dominate and micro-manage every detail of civilization and socially engineer humanity in the image they prefer.

    One World Currency System And Cashless Society

    As an extension of centralization, globalists want a single currency system for the world. Not only this, but they want it digitized and easy to track. Meaning, a cashless society in which every act of trade by every person can be watched and scrutinized. If trade is no longer private, preparation for rebellion becomes rather difficult. When all resources can be manged and restricted to a high degree at the local level, rebellion would become unthinkable because the system becomes the parent and provider and the source of life.  A one world currency and cashless system would be the bedrock of one world governance. You cannot have one without the other.

    One World Government

    Globalists want to erase all national borders and sovereignty and create a single elite bureaucracy, a one world empire in which they are the “philosopher kings” as described in Plato’s Republic.

    As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled ‘The Hard Road To World Order’:

    In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

    This system would be highly inbred, though they may continue to give the masses the illusion of public participation and “democracy” for a time. Ultimately, the globalists desire a faceless and unaccountable round table government, a seat of power which acts as an institution with limited liability, much like a corporation, and run in the same sociopathic manner without legitimate public oversight. In the globalist world, there will be no redress of grievances.

    Sustainability As Religion

    Globalists often use the word “sustainability” in their white papers and agendas, from Agenda 21 to Agenda 2030. Environmentalism is the facade they employ to guilt the population into supporting global governance, among other things. As I noted in my recent article ‘Why Is The Elitist Establishment So Obsessed With Meat’, fake environmentalism and fraudulent global warming “science” is being exploited by globalists to demand control over everything from how much electricity you can use in your home, to how many children you can have, to how much our society is allowed to manufacture or produce, to what you are allowed to eat.

    The so-called carbon pollution threat, perhaps the biggest scam in history, is a key component of the globalist agenda. As the globalist organization The Club Of Rome, a sub-institution attached to the United Nations, stated in their book ‘The First Global Revolution’:

    In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

    In other words, by presenting human beings as a species as the great danger, the globalists hope to convince humanity to sublimate itself before the mother earth goddess and beg to be kept in line. And, as the self designated “guardians” of the Earth, the elites become the high priests of the new religion of sustainability. They and they alone would determine who is a loyal servant and who is a heretic. Carbon pollution becomes the new “original sin”; everyone is a sinner against the Earth, for everyone breaths and uses resources, and we must all do our part to appease the Earth by sacrificing as much as possible, even ourselves.

    The elites don’t believe in this farce, they created it.  The sustainability cult is merely a weapon to be used to dominate mass psychology and make the populace more malleable.

    Population Control

    Globalists come from an ideological background which worships eugenics – the belief that genetics must be controlled and regulated, and those people they deem to be undesirables must be sterilized or exterminated.

    The modern eugenics movement was launched by the Rockefeller Foundation in the early 1900’s in America, and was treated a a legitimate scientific endeavor for decades. Eugenics was taught in schools and even celebrated at the World’s Fair. States like California that adopted eugenics legislation forcefully sterilized tens of thousands of people and denied thousands of marriage certificates based on genetics. The system was transferred to Germany in the 1930’s were it gained world renown for its inherent brutality.

    This ideology holds that 4% or less of the population is genetically worthy of leadership, and the elites conveniently assert that they represent part of that genetic purity.

    After WWII the public developed a distaste for the idea of eugenics and population control, but under the guise of environmentalism the agenda is making a comeback, as population reduction in the name of “saving the Earth” is in the mainstream media once again.  The Question then arises – Who gets to decide who lives and who dies?  Who gets to decide who is never born?  And, how will they come to their decisions?  No doubt a modern form of eugenics will be presented as the “science” used to “fairly” determine the content of the population if the elites get their way.

    Narcissistic Sociopathy

    It is interesting that the globalists used to present the 4% leadership argument in their eugenics publications, because 4% of the population is also consistent with the number of people who have inherent sociopathy or narcissistic sociopathy, either in latent or full-blown form, with 1% of people identified as full blown psychopaths and the rest as latent.  Coincidence?

    The behavior of the globalists is consistent with the common diagnosis of full-blown narcopaths, a condition which is believed to be inborn and incurable. Narcopaths (pyschopaths) are devoid of empathy and are often self obsessed. They suffer from delusions of grandeur and see themselves as “gods” among men. They believe other lowly people are tools to be used for their pleasure or to further their ascendance to godhood.  They lie incessantly as a survival mechanism and are good at determining what people want to hear.  Narcopaths feel no compassion towards those they harm or murder, yet crave attention and adoration from the same people they see as inferior. More than anything, they seek the power to micro-manage the lives of everyone around them and to feed off those people like a parasite feeds off a host victim.

    Luciferianism

    It is often argued by skeptics that psychopaths cannot organize cohesively, because such organizations would self destruct.  These people simply don’t know what they’re talking about.  Psychopaths throughout history organize ALL THE TIME, from tyrannical governments to organized crime and religious cults.  The globalists have their own binding ideologies and methods for organization.  One method is to ensure benefits to those who serve the group (as well as punishments for those who stray).  Predators often work together as long as there is ample prey.  Another method is the use of religious or ideological superiority; making adherents feel like they are part of an exclusive and chosen few destined for greatness.

    This is a highly complicated issue which requires its own essay to examine in full. I believe I did this effectively in my article ‘Luciferians: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System’. Needless to say, this agenda is NOT one that globalists are willing to admit to openly very often, but I have outlined extensive evidence that luciferianism is indeed the underlying globalist cult religion. It is essentially an ideology which promotes moral relativism, the worship of the self and the attainment of godhood by any means necessary – which fits perfectly with globalism and globalist behavior.

    It is also the only ideological institution adopted by the UN, through the UN’s relationship with Lucis Trust, also originally called Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust still has a private library within the UN building today.

    So, now that we know the various agendas and identifiers of globalists, we can now ask “Who are the globalists?”

    The answer is – ANYONE who promotes the above agendas, related arguments, or any corporate or political leader who works directly with them.  This includes presidents that claim to be anti-globalist while also filling their cabinets with people from globalist organizations.

    To make a list of names is simple; merely study the membership rosters of globalists organizations like the Bilderberg Group, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Tavistock Institute, the IMF, the BIS, World Bank, the UN, etc. You will find a broad range of people from every nation and every ethnicity ALL sharing one goal – A world in which the future for every other person is dictated by them for all time; a world in which freedom is a memory and individual choice is a commodity only they have the right to enjoy.

    *  *  *

    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

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 23:25

  • This Is Why A Record Number Of Americans Are Fat & Broke
    This Is Why A Record Number Of Americans Are Fat & Broke

    Fast food and takeout are anathema to the ‘clean eating’ lifestyle trend that has swept the US – and much of the developed world – over the past 10 years. But while spending on gym memberships and boutique fitness classes has risen significantly over the past ten years, recent studies show that over-spending on takeout was the biggest financial mistake made by younger Americans in 2018, according to a  MarketWatch report that cited data from a recent study published by Principal.

    According to the data, nearly one in three Americans – 29%, up from 26% in 2018 – said dining out was this year’s top budget buster for them, followed closely by spending on groceries (which is ironic given the proliferation of low-cost grocers like Aldi that have sprouted up in recent years).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But that’s not all: In a separate study, Fidelity found that the No. 1 small financial mistake that most Americans admit to is dining out too much, something that 36% of respondents said they’d done in the past year.

    Americans spent roughly $3,500 a year on dining out in 2018, according to government data. That’s a new record high, and a 2.8% improvement from the prior year. Sales are projected to hit a record high of $863 billion this year, according to the National Restaurant Association.

    Since February 2010, there have been just 5 months out of 117 where the number of waiters and bartenders in the US has posted a monthly decline. November was no different.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s worse: The cost of getting takeout or going out to eat is rising much more quickly than the price of buying groceries, but that hasn’t had much of an impact on the spending habits of young people. And if the latest Gallup poll (a different poll than the ones cited above) shows, Americans eat out often: Six in 10 ate out at least once in the past week. And 16%

    “Dining rooms and kitchens across the U.S. are getting a little less use than they used to,” said research firm Nielsen in a recent report. “That’s because Americans have embraced the experience of eating out.”

    Eating out is hammering Americans’ savings, but that’s not the only impact it’s having on their general sense of well-being: It’s also probably the biggest contributor to the expanding waistlines of millions of Americans. When Americans eat out, they chow down on an extra 200 calories more than on a normal day.

    Furthermore, government research has shown that “when eating out, people either eat more or eat higher calorie foods – or both – and that this tendency appears to be increasing.”

    Meanwhile, a staggering 75% of Americans are either overweight or obese, according to the CBC. And over time, the costs in the form of deteriorating health associated with obesity will will continue to climb. According to the CDC, obese patients often shoulder costs that are $1,429 higher on average than patients of a normal weight.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 23:05

  • Places With The Most And Least Traffic Fatalities In America
    Places With The Most And Least Traffic Fatalities In America

    Submitted by Priceonomics,

    Each year, tens of thousands of people tragically die in traffic accidents. By latest count almost 37,000 people died last year in automotive accidents. Many of those people were pedestrians who were hit by cars. Others were passengers or drivers. Among children age 8 and older, motor vehicles accidents are the leading cause of death.

    Still, some strides have been made to reduce vehicle deaths.  Because of airbags, seat belts, and improved automotive technology, cars are generally safer today than in prior decades. Moreover, some municipalities are redesigning their roads to make them safer for both drivers and pedestrians.

    So where are the roads most dangerous in America? Along with Priceonomics customer PersonalInjurySanDiego.org, we decided to analyze the latest data available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the rate of traffic fatalities in states and cities across America.

    Among states, we found that Mississippi has the highest rate of traffic fatalities in the country, while New York has the lowest. Montana has the highest rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the country. When it comes to wearing seat belts, Hawaii leads the nation with a 97.8% compliance rate. New Hampshire is last in the nation when it comes to seat belt safety as only 76.4% buckle up in the “live free or die” state.

    ***

    The NHTSA is a governmental organization tasked with creating and enforcing automobile standards. As part of its mission to “Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes” the agency releases traffic fatality data on an annual basis. On a state level, the most recent data available is from 2018, which we have analyzed in this report.

    To begin, let’s look at the states that are most dangerous when it comes to motor vehicle-related deaths. The chart below shows the number of traffic fatalities per 100,000 living in each state.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    By a considerable margin, Mississippi is the most dangerous state when it comes to automotive fatalities. In Mississippi there are 22.1 auto-related deaths per every 100,000 people living there. In Mississippi, the probability of dying in a motor vehicle accident is nearly 5 times as high as in New York, the state with the lowest death rate.

    According to the CDC, rural roads tend to be much more dangerous which helps explain why states like Mississippi and South Carolina top the rankings. On the other hand, states where a lot of the population live in an urban center like New York tend to have safer streets on average.

    However, the rural-urban divide only explains part of the divide when it comes to deaths in car crashes. Another factor is that there is considerable variation in how likely the population is to embrace life-saving safety measures like wearing a seatbelt.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Part of the reason a place like Mississippi have high traffic fatality rates is non-compliance with wearing seatbelts. In Hawaii, the state with the highest seat belt rate, 97.8% of people wear their seatbelts. In contrast, Mississippi has the 4th lowest seat belt rate at just 80.2%.  Of note, New Hampshire is the only state in the country that does not require wearing seatbelts and therefore ranks last on this metric.

    Seatbelts is just one safety measure that can be embraced or rejected by the population. Another measure to consider is the prevalence of drunk driving. The following chart shows the rate of motor vehicle deaths that involved a positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by state:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When it comes to drunk driving deaths, Montana has the highest rate in the country, followed by Wyoming and South Carolina. On the other hand, drunk driving deaths are much more rare in New Jersey, New York and Minnesota.

    ***

    Automobiles can be lethal. They are extremely heavy and are capable of moving at extraordinary speeds. A moment of distraction from a driver or a poorly designed intersection can easily result in death. In the United States, traffic fatalities are much more common than in others. Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama lead with the highest fatality rates. These states also tend to have lower rates of seat belt wearing and higher rates of drunk driving, indicating that many of these deaths are completely preventable.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 22:45

  • Chinese Internet 'Influencers' Helped Sell More Than $4 Billion In Goods Last Year
    Chinese Internet ‘Influencers’ Helped Sell More Than $4 Billion In Goods Last Year

    Internet influencers are quickly becoming the new preferred type of advertising in China, mirroring a trend that has taken place in the U.S.

    And the influencers run the gamut: from livestreaming moms, to farmers – and even dogs, according to the Wall Street Journal. These “key opinion leaders” sold more than $4 billion in goods in China in 2018, according to China’s largest influencer company, Ruhnn Holding. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While that is still a small fraction of the $2 trillion in e-commerce sales that are expected out of China this year, it’s still an area that companies are paying attention too. 67% of advertisers this year said that internet celebrities and influencers have becoming their preferred method of advertising in China. Supporting the influencers is a new industry of producers and talent agencies, which has doubled in size over the last two years.

    There are an estimated 21 million influencers in China and they have embraced livestreaming on platforms like Alibaba’s Taobao and Douyin, a version of TikTok. Although Amazon has started to look into livestreaming and influencer channels, livestreaming is still relatively new in the U.S. compared to China. In the U.S., most influencers use posts and short videos on YouTube and Instagram. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Consumers in China were the most susceptible to brand recommendations by influencers than any other country surveyed – partly because Chinese consumers have a long history of being cheated by counterfeit products. Many consumers say they trust online celebrities, who largely portray themselves as regular people, instead of websites or brands. 

    Mark Tanner, managing director of marketing-research firm China Skinny said: “It comes down to the inherent lack of trust by Chinese consumers. For many, Chinese KOLs are the most trustworthy and authentic source of information, particularly as there are relatively few other ways to get information with the state controlling the media.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Brands like using online influencers because they are effective: roughly one in five consumers watching online infomercials will buy a product, compared to less than 1% of consumers viewing conventional e-commerce advertising. 

    Alibaba has invested heavily into influencers, broadcasting the shows of about 100,000 livestream hosts per day on its shopping app. Even leaders of China’s communist party have started to talk about ways to use influencers to reach out to the public. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But there are some downsides, too. Because customers feel close to the influencers they buy from, there can be swift outrage when a customer feels betrayed. For instance, one of China’s most famous influencers, Li Jiaqi, went viral for the wrong reason when he tried to fry an egg on a non-stick pan earlier this year and the egg stuck to the pan. He also went viral after claiming to sell “big meaty crabs” from Suzhou. When customers received the crabs, they found them to not be big, meaty or from Suzhou. 

    Searches for Li Jiaqi’s “misleading advertising” totaled 700 million hits after the incidents. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Deng Xuerui, who received 10 undersized crabs earlier this month said: “He betrayed my trust”. She said she used to watch his show daily but is now no longer a fan. State newspapers also piled on Jiaqi, suggesting that he was an example of why government regulation was necessary for influencers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The work can be grueling for influencers, many of whom host shows live six or seven days a week. Regardless, pay can be good, as well. A key opinion leader can earn has much as $50,000 with one pre-recorded post on a social media site. In the U.S., big name stars can bring in as much as $100,000, as we noted in our recent writeup about the influencer trend in the U.S.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 22:25

  • The Race To Construct The First Solar Space Station
    The Race To Construct The First Solar Space Station

    Authored Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

    China aims to turn the dream of science fiction writer Isaac Asimov into reality by building a solar power station in space by 2035, according to Chinese researchers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Scientists at the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) plan to build a solar power station in space that would capture solar energy from the Sun and beam it wirelessly to the Earth via lasers or microwaves, China’s news agency Xinhua reported on Monday. 

    “We hope to strengthen international cooperation and make scientific and technological breakthroughs so that humankind can achieve the dream of limitless clean energy at an early date,” Xinahua quoted CAST research fellow with the space solar station program, Wang Li, as saying at a Chinese-Russian engineering event in China last week.

    According to the Chinese scientist, solar energy in the space will be more efficient and sustainable than fossil fuels in powering satellites and isolated or disaster-hit regions on earth.

    The idea of a solar power station in space was first proposed in a short story Asimov published in the 1940s, and despite decades of research, the challenges of installing solar panels in space and developing efficient wireless energy transmission technology have hindered major breakthroughs. 

    China has invested US$28.4 million (200 million Chinese yuan) in the construction of a test base in Chongqing in the southwest to test its developments.

    Earlier this year, Chinese scientists revealed plans to build and launch in orbit a space solar station that could capture the Sun’s rays 24/7.

    China has already started to build an early experimental space power plant in the city of Chongqing.             

    China is not the only country studying the potential of harnessing the power of the Sun in space.

    Caltech, for example, has its Space Solar Power Project, which has researched the use of ultralight, foldable, 2D integrated elements. Caltech has developed a prototype which collects sunlight, converts it to RF electrical power, and wirelessly transmits that power in a steerable beam.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 22:05

  • Visualized: Ranking The Most Traded Goods Between The U.S. And China
    Visualized: Ranking The Most Traded Goods Between The U.S. And China

    From a young age, many of us were taught that sharing is caring. In fact, as Ashley Viens of Visual Capitalist notes,  many countries have also followed this simple principle, in the interest of growth and prosperity, when doing business on a global scale.

    Today’s infographic from HowMuch.net charts the top imports and exports between the U.S. and China, pulled from the Observatory of Economic Complexity’s (OEC) global market data for 2017.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

     

     

    Which items do you find most surprising?

    Give and Take: The Trade Relationship of the U.S. and China

    Two of the world’s largest superpowers today, the U.S. and China have typically had a long-standing trade relationship going back decades. The table below shows the top 10 exports the U.S. sent to China in 2017, along with the proportion of each item in the total export value of $132 billion. The top 10 items account for 39% of total exports to China.

    The Top 10 Exports from the U.S. to China (2017)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While the majority of these are highly specialized, manufactured products─such as airplanes, integrated circuits, and semiconductors─the U.S. still relies on exporting many basic commodities such as gold, copper, and soya beans.

    Below is the list of the top 10 imported products from China, and the percent that each product accounts of the total $444 billion in 2017. These top 10 items make up 30% of all products imported from China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China is best known for its electronics and technology-focused products─with electronics products accounting for two-thirds of the top 10 Chinese imports. In 2017, China also dominated all electronics imports into the U.S., claiming over 60% of the market. But how has the recent trade war impacted the imports and exports between the U.S. and China?

    The U.S.-China Trade War Continues

    At one point, China was the United States’ top trading partner in terms of the total value of imports and exports. Since the trade war began in 2018, China has fallen to third place. For example, soybean exports to China in 2019 are predicted to only reach a third of numbers seen in 2018, and the price of this commodity has been nearly cut in half.

    In the first nine months of 2019 alone, the U.S. saw a 13.5% drop in imported products from China, due to actual and threatened increased tariffs. In addition, U.S. exports to China dropped by 15.5%─a significant loss of $53 billion.

    The Future of U.S.-China Trade

    To date, the U.S. has enacted tariffs on over $550 billion worth of imported products from China. In response to the U.S. tariffs, China has added tariffs to $185 billion worth of exported goods from the United States.

    With the 2020 U.S. presidential election looming on the horizon, threats of increased tariffs seem to dominate headlines internationally. If these trends continue, many U.S. businesses—both at home and abroad in China—could find their bottom lines threatened by rising trade costs.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 21:45

  • Virginia Lawmakers Threaten 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries With National Guard
    Virginia Lawmakers Threaten 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries With National Guard

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Virginia is the new battleground of the Second Amendment. After the most recent election, the state’s House and Senate are both Democrat majorities and they haven’t wasted a moment in attempting to gut the gun laws in what has historically been a permissive state.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What are these new gun laws?

    The so-called “assault weapon ban” is SB16 and has that perilously vague wording we all know to be incredibly dangerous. In some interpretations, this law, if it passes, could make illegal the ownership or transportation of any semi-automatic gun because extendable magazines are available for it – and you don’t even have to have the extendable mags.

    The Virginia Mercury reports:

    The new Democratic majorities are expected to pass a variety of gun restrictions, including universal background checks, red flag laws that would allow authorities to take guns from people deemed dangerous and reinstatement of a one-handgun-a-month law…

    …But the proposed ban on particular types of firearms — and the prospect of criminal charges for gun owners who didn’t give them up — seemed to stoke the strongest outrage in the 40-plus rural localities that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries within the past few weeks. Of the dozens of bills already filed for the session that begins in January, Saslaw’s assault weapon bill was the most-read, according to the state’s online legislative system. (source)

    Since the above article was written, it should be noted that 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties are at 80 and counting. One sheriff has even vowed to deputize citizens should these unconstitutional laws pass.

    After the public outcry, Governor Northam has said a provision will be added for current gun owners.

    “In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said in a statement Monday evening. (source)

    Good try, but no cigar.

    Gun owners aren’t going to take this lying down.

    We’ve written before about Second Amendment sanctuaries popping up across the nation, and now Virginia is joining the fight. According to Gun Rights Watch, practically the entire state is saying NO.

    Check out this map.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map from Gun Rights Watch as of 12/11/19

    Watch this article which is being updated regularly with the sanctuary movement.

    These counties have passed resolutions vowing not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. USA Today’s report refers to them as “publicity stunts” and “political statements.”

    Richard Schragger, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, who focuses on the intersection of the Constitution and local law, told USA Today:

    Rather than challenging an existing statute, the resolutions are “mostly expressive and symbolic” declarations, he said.

    “In Virginia, state law supersedes local law. Citizens and local officials have to comply with state law even if a county declares itself to be a Second Amendment sanctuary,” Schragger added. (source)

    It seems they may be underestimating the force of thousands of clearly well-armed and outraged Virginians if they think it’s just a publicity stunt. I’m pretty sure that the Virginians I know mean business.

    Now the state legislature is threatening the sanctuary counties and officials.

    Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says that the gun owners are “being ginned up by the gun lobby” and had a few words to say about the rebellion.

    “The resolutions that are being passed are being ginned up by the gun lobby to try to scare people. What we’re talking about here are laws that will make our communities and our streets safer. We’re talking about universal background checks, finally, maybe, Virginia will pass universal background checks to make sure that people who are dangerous, who are criminals and who aren’t permitted to buy guns, won’t be able to buy guns,” said Herring. “So, when Virginia passes these gun safety laws that they will be followed, they will be enforced.” (source)

    How exactly do they plan to enforce those laws?

    One representative hopes that the law enforcement officers will just resign.

    “I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath,” Democratic Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may refuse to enforce future gun control measures. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.” (source)

    I’m 99.9% sure that any sheriff who has supported such a motion is not going to say, “Oh, it’s the law. My bad, Gerry.”

    Rep. Donald McEachin believes cutting off state funds would do the trick, and if that doesn’t work he has another suggestion that is far more drastic.

    McEachin also noted that Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam could call the National Guard, if necessary.

    “And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” he said. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.” (source)

    Bringing in the National Guard to confiscate guns or override sanctuaries could only end one way: in bloodshed. Although, one must wonder whether the National Guard members would comply with the governor over their friends, families, and neighbors.

    It’s going to get ugly fast. As serious as these legislators are about “getting guns off the street,” Virginians are equally serious about defending their right to bear arms.

    It’s the ultimate game of chicken. It looks like we really have reached the point of “out of my cold, dead hands.”

    Virginia gun owners, myself included, have no intention whatsoever of complying with this gun grab, and no conciliatory “you can keep them but you have to register them” gesture is going to suffice.

    The only question remaining is, who’s ready to die on this hill?


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 21:25

    Tags

  • Meet The Banker Who Had To Tell Aramco That A $2 Trillion IPO Valuation Wasn't Happening
    Meet The Banker Who Had To Tell Aramco That A $2 Trillion IPO Valuation Wasn’t Happening

    As Aramco’s valuation jumped notably after its IPO – briefly topping the magical $2 trillion valuation level, one banker could be breathing a sigh of relief. 

    Achintya Mangla, one of JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s most senior bankers, told Aramco Chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan prior to its IPO that there was “no way” investors were going to value Aramco at $2 trillion. In response, Al-Rumayyan “erupted” with expletives in both English and Arabic, according to Bloomberg. After all, Al-Rumayyan now likely had to tell his boss, the crown prince, the bad news. 

    The prince had long insisted on the $2 trillion valuation for Aramco, who pumps 10% of the world’s oil. Nobody had been able to convince the price along the way that global investors wouldn’t agree. Those who argued with him were pushed aside, like Khalid Al-Falih, who was fired as Aramco chairman and oil minister earlier this year. 

    When bankers pitched underwriting the IPO for Aramco this year, they told Al-Rumayyan that $2 trillion “wasn’t out of the question”. An initial valuation of $1.7 trillion to $2.4 trillion was tossed around. 

    But the valuation was becoming unsustainable as the IPO drew closer. Everywhere bankers pitched the IPO in September and October, they were told that the valuation was too high. One manager in Switzerland had a valuation as low as just $800 billion.

    Bankers took notes on the feedback: the consensus valuation was about $1.2 trillion. Some investors said they could go slightly higher.  “Up to $1.5 trillion based on dividend,” was the feedback from Franklin Templeton, for instance. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the problem for many investors was the dividend yield. At $2 trillion, the yield would fall to less than 4%, which is well below what other oil and energy names are paying currently. Wellington Asset Management said the yield needed to rise to 7% or 8% to make the company a worthwhile investment. This implied a valuation of $900 billion. 

    Mangla’s job in October was to break the bad news to the client, speaking on behalf of all of the banks on the deal. And he wasn’t the only one who tried to break the bad news. Jonathan Penkin, a senior equity capital markets banker at Goldman Sachs was told not to speak at any more meetings after he tried to talk about the valuation later in October. Motassim Al-Ma’Ashouq, the top Aramco executive in charge of the IPO preparations was also told to stand down. 

    Karen Young, a Middle East specialist at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a specialist in the political economy of the Middle East said: “Saudi Arabia has always had this problem: top-down decision making. There’s a culture of fear. Savvy and able technocrats don’t feel comfortable speaking up.”

    Saudi Arabia also “drew a blank” with strategic investors, who often agree to buy into an IPO earlier than others. Everywhere Aramco’s banks pitched – China, Singapore, Russia – they were told “thanks, but no thanks.”

    Al-Rumayyan felt betrayed by the banks who once told him $2 trillion was possible and Aramco had a choice to face: delay the IPO and wait for a higher valuation, or cut the valuation and make the deal enticing to foreign investors. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Riyadh had another solution: sell the Aramco shares at home and ignore foreign investors. The government had the idea of pressuring wealthy local families and bringing in friends from places like UAW and Kuwait to help with the deal. Even after these reinforcement, Aramco had to settle for a $1.7 trillion valuation. 

    The IPO is a “shadow” of Aramco’s previous aspirations, but has still allowed the crown prince to claim victory. Last Thursday the company announced it had raised $25.6 billion, beating the $25 billion set by Alibaba and Aramco now has the highest valuation of any company in the world. Banks, on the other hand, face the prospect of not getting paid for nearly four years of work on the IPO. Many people were surprised the IPO happened at all. 

    On the first day of Aramco trading, its valuation went limit up 10%, giving it a market value of $1.88 trillion. 

    “Those who have not subscribed in Aramco will be chewing their thumb to the point that I will be worried about them that they go and fix themselves in the hospital,” oil minister Prince Abdulaziz concluded. 

    And during the second day of trading, the magical $2 trillion level was crossed (but not maintained)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Shares jumped almost 10% in the first 90 minutes of trading Thursday, breaching the 37.51 SAR, the level which values Aramco over $2 trillion.

    But prices faded in the back half of the session and closed at 36.75 SAR, or below MbS’ target. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 21:05

  • How A Chinese Company Built A $250 Million Search-Hijacking Empire
    How A Chinese Company Built A $250 Million Search-Hijacking Empire

    Authored by Mike Snyder via Medium.com,

    A publicly listed Chinese company has used a series of offshore shell companies to conceal their ownership of browser extensions that purport to offer a private search engine to users.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Search Hijacking Extensions in Browser Stores

    These extensions with names like Search Encrypt and Hide My Searches engage in a form of ad fraud called search hijacking whereby searches are intercepted and redirected from one search engine to another.

    Our research has identified almost 7 million users who are affected by these malware extensions, which are helping this company generate almost $250 million a year in revenue.

    Search Hijacking 101

    Search hijacking is a very simple type of fraud. A user with one of these extensions installed who types a search engine like Google.com into their browser address bar and intends to conduct a Google search will have their search intercepted and sent to one of several search domains setup by the perpetrator. These perpetrators monetize this traffic by placing their own ads on the search results pages. In this case, Microsoft provides both the ads and search results to the search hijacker, becoming an unwitting victim funding this fraud.

    Perhaps the biggest irony is that Microsoft’s own Bing.com searches are also hijacked by the extensions and re-sold back to Microsoft.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bing.com Search Hijacking

    For example, a search for “airpods” on Bing leads to a Search Encrypt search results page that has more ads than search results. A user would have to have the stamina to scroll through 10 text ads from Microsoft and then 5 image ads before coming to an organic search result. You, the Medium reader, will also need the same stamina, as I have embedded a screenshot of the exact page below.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Search Encrypt Results Page

    The Chinese Connection

    Genimous Technology Co Ltd, a public company traded on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange under the symbol 000676, is the 12 billion CNY ($1.7 billion USD) company that is behind these extensions [1]. Their ownership is concealed through shell companies setup in offshore jurisdictions like Polarity Technologies Ltd in Cyprus and EightPoint Technologies Ltd in the Cayman Islands, but can be traced through analysis of the browser extensions terms of service and contact information [2, 3]. Based on public filings, in the first 6 months of 2019, Genimous made 900,296,410.76 CNY ($125 million USD) from its overseas division, which generates its revenues from ads on search results pages [4, 5 (page 15 of the PDF)] for a $250 million yearly run rate.

    Genimous subsidiary, EightPoint Technologies, claims to have 10 million users and generate at least 5 billion searches a year [6]. Microsoft Bing sees 5.5 billion searches a month [7]. This implies Genimous could be responsible for driving 10% of the searches on Bing, which may not be an unreasonable assumption since we have identified almost 7 million active users of their extensions. Even at 1 search a day, 7 million users will generate 2.5 billion searches a year.

    A Threat to National Security?

    More concerning for users may be that Genimous is collecting and storing sensitive user data, including search queries, on Chinese servers, notwithstanding the extensions’ privacy policies which can be modified at any time, where the data are subject to Chinese laws on data privacy. While their privacy policies claim not to store “identifying” user data, past research has found how easy it is to de-anonymize data. Potentially sensitive searches could then be linked to users.

    These same privacy concerns have sparked a national security investigation into TikTok because as a Chinese company, the “company must still adhere to Chinese law on supplying information to the government” [8]. However, while TikTok hosts fun and light-hearted content, the Genimous search hijacker extensions are marketed toward users who are seeking a private search engine and who may be surprised that their most sensitive searches are being stored by a Chinese company making promises that it cannot legally keep. Arguably, searches that reveal or imply a user’s sexual orientation or health status are far more damaging in the wrong hands than a funny TikTok video.

    The marketing for Search Encrypt leaves little to the imagination as to the kind of searches that they are catering to [9]. These searches are also the most personal and deeply sensitive kind, exactly the kind of searches you wouldn’t want a foreign power to have access to. The forced divestment of the dating app Grindr from Chinese ownership being a case in point.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Moat Advertiser Report

    Mozilla Takes a Stand

    Mozilla, the maker of the popular Firefox browser, appears to have taken some preliminary steps to mitigate search hijacking with add-on policies [10] that prohibit search interception:

    Search functionality provided or loaded by the add-on must not collect search terms or intercept searches that are going to a third-party search provider.

    At the time of publication, however, the Genimous extensions are still active in the Firefox add-on store.

    Next Steps

    In the online advertising world, fraud has generally been seen as a scourge in the ad exchange space. Search advertising has been spared that level of scrutiny. As a result, standards like ads.txt that protect publishers on ad exchanges and ensure that bad actors are prevented from the unauthorized resale of publisher inventory are sorely missing when it comes to search advertising. Even the biggest publishers like Google and Bing are victims of search hijacking.

    Browser extensions can only be distributed through the extension stores with the approval of the browser vendors. Will the major browser vendors like Google and Mozilla step up and stop the search hijackers?

    *  *  *

    Against Surveillance Capitalism – Fighting back against unscrupulous data collection


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 20:45

  • The Farce Of The Deal: Terms Of 'Phase One' Trade Deal Will "Never Be Made Public"; There Will Be No Signing Ceremony
    The Farce Of The Deal: Terms Of ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal Will “Never Be Made Public”; There Will Be No Signing Ceremony

    There was much rejoicing and buying of stocks when Trump tweeted, to much fanfare and bombast early this morning, that he is “Getting VERY close to a BIG DEAL with China. They want it, and so do we!.” Sure enough, just a few hours later, there was a deal. Or was there? Because whereas we now know that the US & China have agreed to a Phase One deal on Paper, and Trump signed off on it… nobody will ever know what’s in the actual deal, even once we pass it!

    Here’s what we do know: according to Fox Business correspondent Edwards Lawrence, China “verbally agreed to buy $50b in agriculture, but that will not be in writing.” In fact it appears that nothing will be.

    Also, the deal supposedly includes intellectual property protections, something the US has been asking for as a core demand.

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

    Needless to say, a Chinese IP concession will most certainly not be in writing too.

    Other parts of the deal include “increased access to the financial services market. There is language where the Chinese agree not to manipulate their currency. There is enforcement written into the agreement. Dec 15th tariffs do not go forward.”

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

    Perhaps most important for traders is that this is the end of the overnight “trade deal optimism” rally: phase two of the trade deal will “begin after 2020 elections.” Which means a whole year without Trump tweets that a deal is very close and that China is dying to do it.

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

    Yet for all of the above, here’s the most mindboggling part. Lawrence said that the Chinese have requested that the language of the trade deal will never be made public.

    That’s right – there is (supposedly) a “deal”, written on paper somewhere, specifying certain terms, and signed by certain US and Chinese presidents. And nobody will ever see what that deal actually states.

    Effectively, the Phase One trade deal “could” be nothing more than a market manipulating blank piece of paper, and since China has only pledged to do something – which nobody will know as it is not written – and since China has not committed contractually in the court of public opinion, it will have absolutely no incentive to abide by the Phase One “deal>”

    And just to confirm that it is all a farce, the source said there would be no signing event between President Trump and President Xi, confirming that there is no actual deal to certify.

    Of course, none of this mattered to the algos, as markets soared then soared more on Thursday, pricing in for the 563rd time a trade deal that now appears does not exist. Here’s the moment when the Dow jumped 400 points on President Trump’s trade tweet.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As a reminder, today’s “we have a deal” news was just recycled headlines from Oct. 11, when President Trump first announced a phase one trade deal on Twitter.

    And while we now have a secret, unsigned “deal”, the president spent the last several months jawboning stocks higher on imminent trade deal headlines. During this period, the S&P500 rose by nearly 8%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, in a world where the Fed’s NOT QE is about to inject $500 billion in liquidity in the next 4 weeks, and NOT bail out the biggest US and European banks, it is only fitting that the US-China unsigned, forever secret NOT trade deal is just the catalyst that pushes the NOT market to a new all time high.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 20:22

  • Strange Things Are Happening In The Waters Along The West Coast, And Fish Are Starting To Disappear
    Strange Things Are Happening In The Waters Along The West Coast, And Fish Are Starting To Disappear

    Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

    Something is causing the waters just off the west coast to heat up dramatically, fish are dying off in staggering numbers, birds that feed on those fish are also dying off rapidly, and scientists have discovered 15,000 holes in the ocean floor off the coast of California.

    Oh, and scientists don’t know for certain why any of these things are happening. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is not emphasizing this crisis, and so most Americans don’t even know what is going on. But the truth is that what we are facing is extremely serious.

    In fact, officials have taken the “unprecedented” step of shutting down the federal cod fishery in Alaska for the year because of the lack of fish. We are seeing things happen that we have never seen before, and this is definitely going to affect our food supply.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So why are the fish dying?

    Well, nobody knows for sure, but some officials are blaming the “marine heat wave” that has been happening in the waters along the west coast. The following comes from KING5 News

    A massive warmer-than-normal pool of water that’s formed in the Pacific Ocean off the Washington coast and up into the Gulf of Alaska may already be wreaking havoc with our weather.

    This is something that I have written about previously. Scientists are telling us that water temperatures are “as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit above normal”, and if such conditions persist we could see millions upon millions of fish die.

    At this point, we are being told that this vast expanse of water is roughly “1,000 to 2,000 miles” in size in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hopefully this “blob” will go away soon, but that hasn’t happened so far, and nobody really knows what is causing it.

    Meanwhile, fish are dying off at an absolutely staggering rate. As I mentioned above, there are so few cod off the coast of Alaska right now that officials felt that it was necessary to shut down the federal cod fishery for the entire year

    In an unprecedented response to historically low numbers of Pacific cod, the federal cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska is closing for the 2020 season. It’s a decision that came as little surprise, but it’s the first time the fishery has closed due to concerns of low stock.

    When I first heard about that, I was quite stunned.

    And the outlook for the future looks quite grim, because officials are telling us that there are “next to no” new eggs

    A stock assessment this fall put Gulf cod populations at a historic low, with “next to no” new eggs, according to NOAA research biologist Steve Barbeaux, who authored the report.

    At their current numbers, cod are below the federal threshold that protects them as a food source for endangered Steller sea lions. Once below that line, the total allowable catch goes to zero — in other words, the fishery shuts down.

    The birds that feed on those fish are also dying off in large numbers.

    Because of a severe lack of fish, they are literally dropping dead from starvation, and at this point there isn’t much that officials can do about it. The following comes from the Big Wobble

    In November 2019, thousands of short-tailed shearwaters birds migrating from Alaska were washing up dead on Sydney’s iconic beaches and the bird deaths had nothing to do with the massive wildfires in the area, thousands more, short-tailed shearwaters were dying out at sea, in what was confirmation of the incredible fish shortages in the Pacific Ocean. The corpses had been spotted at several shorelines including Bondi, Manly and Cronulla. The birds were migrating back to southern Australia to breed after spending the summer in Alaska. But, according to experts, a higher number than usual are dying on the way due to a lack of food. The birds need to be at full strength to make the 14,000km trip over the Pacific but the krill and other fish they feed on have apparently dwindled due to sea temperatures rising.

    Let us hope that things will return to normal eventually, but there is no guarantee that is going to happen.

    Our planet is becoming increasing unstable, and really weird things are starting to take place.

    Speaking of weird, scientists are telling us that they have found 15,000 holes in the ocean waters off the California coast

    Thousands of strange round holes scooped out of the ocean floor have been uncovered along the coast of California.

    Some measure nearly 600 feet across, but scientists are unsure how they formed.

    As many as 15,000 holes have been found during an underwater survey by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI).

    I was quite alarmed when I read that, and even more alarming is the fact that scientists are telling us that the cause of all of these holes “remains a mystery”

    “The cause and persistence of the pockmarks still remains a mystery, but we find no evidence they were created from gas or fluid in the sea floor in the recent past. The micro-depressions are recently formed erosional features; they are not ‘incipient pockmarks’. Overall, a lot more work needs to be done to understand how all these features were formed, and this work is in progress.”

    For a long time I have been warning about what is happening to our planet. Volcanoes are going off like firecrackers all over the globe, and there was another major volcanic eruption in New Zealand on Monday. And earthquake activity continues to rise to very troubling levels. In fact, it was recently reported that there have been almost 60,000 earthquakes of at least magnitude 1.5 around the world over the last 12 months…

    Earthquake tracking website EarthquakeTrack has recorded an astounding 59,841 tremors around the globe in the last 365 days on December 9. In the last 30 days, a total of 4,172 tremors higher than magnitude 1.5 were felt and 895 hit in the last seven days.

    The official story is that everything is just fine and our planet will start behaving normally again soon.

    But unofficially, a lot of scientists out there are deeply concerned about what we are witnessing.

    A great shaking has begun, and nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 20:05

  • Trump's "Space Force" Officially Launched In $738BN Defense Bill
    Trump’s “Space Force” Officially Launched In $738BN Defense Bill

    The final 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the House on Wednesday 377-48 at a massive and unprecedented $738 billion, in a nearly united Republican vote which also included over 180 House Democrats. It marks a $22 billion spending increase for the Pentagon.

    It’s expected to be signed by President Trump likely next week after it goes through the Senate, after it was stripped of all significant items the administration would find objectionable, including a controversial War Powers Act resolution meant to end US involvement in Yemen and which would would have required Congressional approval for military action against Iran.

    Interestingly, the House bill also removed language that blocked the Pentagon from researching low-yield nuclear weapons, and the House also backed away from controversial border wall restrictions. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Prior White House flag ceremony involving the newly established ‘Space Command’ file image, via Mic.

    Long sought after sanctions targeting Russia’s Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany were added. Trump had previously accused Berlin of handing “billions” of dollars to the Russians to the detriment of Ukraine, whose gas transit facilities will be bypassed by the new Gazprom spearheaded venture, set for completion within months. Expanded and severe new sanctions were also added against Syria, known as the ‘Caesar bill’.

    Crucially, Trump’s ‘Space Force’ will now become a reality. As Defense News explains:

    In a history making win for Trump, the agreement would add a new armed service, dedicated to space, under Title 10 of U.S. Code, which was an action the White House saw as pivotal to solidifying it as a fully independent military branch. The Space Force would be housed within the Air Force and led by the chief of space operations, who would report directly to the Air Force secretary and be a member of the Joint Chiefs.

    Meanwhile, the most vocal progressive Democrat opponent of the massive defense spending bill, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), had this to say in a floor speech ahead of Wednesday’s vote: “there are many things you can call the bill, but it’s Orwellian to call it progressive.” 

    “Let’s speak in facts,” said Khanna. “This defense budget is $120 billion more than what Obama left us with. That could fund free public college for every American. It could fund access to high-speed, affordable internet for every American. But it’s worse. The bipartisan amendment to stop the war in Yemen: stripped by the White House. The bipartisan amendment to stop the war in Iran: stripped by the White House.”

    Indeed, the most worrisome aspect to the new NDAA is that it makes it easier for the White House to go to war with Iran, at a moment tensions continue to soar. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 19:45

  • "Greta, Chill!": Trump Taunts Thunberg, Tells Her To 'Work On Anger Management'; She Replies
    “Greta, Chill!”: Trump Taunts Thunberg, Tells Her To ‘Work On Anger Management’; She Replies

    President Trump has advised Greta Thunberg to “Chill,” and suggests that the fiery activist “work on her Anger Management problem.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish environmentalist who dropped out of school to rail against everyone except China (the world’s largest polluter by gross volume), was just named TIME magazine’s most influential person for 2019.

    Quickly responding to Trump’s taunt, Thunberg (or her handlers) changed her Twitter bio to: “A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, a twitter account associated with Trump’s 2020 campaign, the “Trump War Room,” mocked Thunberg’s TIME magazine cover on Wednesday:

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

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsIn September, Thunberg delivered a dramatic speech to the UN general assembly in which she accused world leaders of ‘ruining her childhood’ and her ‘dreams’ – exclaiming how dare you!

    In response, Trump tweeted: “She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”

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

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 19:44

  • The FBI Teams Up With The Post Office To Get Your Fingerprints
    The FBI Teams Up With The Post Office To Get Your Fingerprints

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation is teaming up with the “highly efficient” post office to make sure they’ve got your fingerprints. Even though it wasn’t that long ago that people were warned of sharing their DNA with ancestry sites, it seems they might have reason to be concerned now about the FBI’s desire to snag your fingerprints too.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now, the government has announced a new program in which they hope people will voluntarily give their fingerprints.  As the public has become more aware of such privacy concerns, it seems strange that on Friday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced a new partnership with the United States Postal Service where customers can voluntarily provide them with their fingerprints while you’re at the post office.

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

    Surely all the bad guys will jump at the chance to give their fingerprints to the government, right?

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

    This one tweet has everyone, left and right and those not even on the political spectrum in agreement.

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

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

    Gotta buy some stamps or mail a package, why not help the government build up a national database of fingerprints. That sounds great for your privacy.PJ Media

    And, you get to pay for the privilege of having your privacy rights violated repeatedly.

    For a fee, the FBI can provide individuals with an Identity History Summary—often referred to as a criminal history record or a “rap sheet”—listing certain information taken from fingerprint submissions kept by the FBI and related to arrests and, in some instances, federal employment, naturalization, or military service. –FBI.gov

    The program is explained more on their website.

    But there are ways to get this information without giving your fingerprints to the FBI.  In fact, most of it is public record anyway.

    Of course, there are plenty of ways to obtain a criminal background check without providing the federal government your fingerprint. Most of the information is a part of the public record. If you’ve forgotten that you’ve been arrested in the past and want to check, you can start with local records before you give Big Brother your fingerprints. There are also some websites that can pull up records for a fee as well, without giving up your fingerprints. –PJ Media

    Perhaps the most insidious part of the deep state, the FBI is trusted in this country about as much as uncooked pork. Senator Rand Paul feels the same:

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

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


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 19:25

    Tags

  • Rep. Tlaib Blames "White Supremacy" For Shooting Carried Out By Black Supremacist Group
    Rep. Tlaib Blames “White Supremacy” For Shooting Carried Out By Black Supremacist Group

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib blamed “white supremacy” for a shooting in New Jersey targeting a Jewish kosher grocery store which was carried out by a member of a black supremacist group.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Three civilians and one police officer were killed during the shooting on Tuesday, with the civilian victims later being named as members of the local Chassidic community.

    The tragedy took place in a “historically black neighborhood where an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community recently has taken root,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

    David Anderson was subsequently named as one of the shooters, with NBC New York reporting that he had made anti-Semitic and anti-police statements online.

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

    Anderson was “once associated with the Black Hebrew Israelite movement,” reports Heavy.com.

    The Black Hebrew Israelite movement is described as “Groups of Black Americans who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites.”

    However, despite this information being known yesterday, Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted earlier today, “This is heartbreaking. White supremacy kills.”

    Tlaib deleted the tweet after an immediate backlash pointing out that at least one of the shooters was a black supremacist, not a white supremacist.

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 19:22

  • China Downturn Could Last Five Years Warns Central Bank
    China Downturn Could Last Five Years Warns Central Bank

    An advisor to the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) said China’s economy might not recover for the next five years, reported Reuters.

    Liu Shijin, a policy adviser to the PBoC, said the country’s GDP will decelerate through 2025 and could print in a range of 5 to 6%. 

    Shijin warned that excessive monetary policy is failing to stimulate the economy and could cause it to rapidly decelerate.

    Last month, we noted that China’s credit growth plunged to the weakest pace since 2017 as a continued collapse in shadow banking, weak corporate demand for credit, and seasonal effects all signaled that China’s economy, nevertheless, the global economy, will continue to slow. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The latest Q3 GDP figure recorded a further drop in growth, now printing at 6% YoY, the weakest expansion since the early 1990s. 

    China will continue decelerating into 1H20 — thanks to ineffective monetary policy but could stabilize in a target range of 5.8% to 6% YoY.

    A further economic slowdown in Chinese growth could ruin the party for equity bulls, who have already priced in a massive 2016-style rebound in the global economy. A slowing China means the world will fail to rebound, though we don’t discount the stabilization narrative.

    With China’s economy unlikely to sharply rebound early next year, global investors will shortly have to reprice growth, which could result in a move down in global equities. 

    To gain more color on China’s extended slowdown, we turn to Fathom Consulting’s China Momentum Indicator (CMI), which provides a more in-depth view of China’s economic activity than the official Chinese GDP statistics.

    CMI is based on ten alternative indicators for economic activity; some of those indicators include railway freight, electricity consumption, and the issuance of bank loans.

    Fathom has stated that in CMI, the calculation of the index avoids measuring construction activity, and instead focuses on shadow measures of economic activity. The consulting group says this allows the index to be “less prone to manipulation than the headline GDP figures.”

    “In 2014, when China’s traditional growth model was running out of steam and vulnerabilities were rising, authorities toyed with credit tightening and an enforced rebalancing. But at the end of 2015, when growth slowed too sharply, they quickly threw in the towel, resorting to the old growth model of credit-fuelled growth. With growth once again slowing, and past precedent suggesting credit has neared its limit, China finds itself at a crossroad,” Fathom recently said.

    China’s failure to stimulate its economy suggests CMI will continue a downward trajectory that has been underway for the last decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We’ve recently outlined the bust of the global auto industry has weighed down the Chinese economy. With no signs of an upswing in the auto market, China’s economy will remain depressed in the years ahead.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As China’s economy slows, global commodity prices are stuck in a deflationary spiral. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s slowing economy warns that global equities have mispriced growth for early 1Q20. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese stocks could see downside in the year ahead as the economy slows. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking for signs of life in the Chinese economy — there aren’t any at the moment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Société Générale’s latest report shows employment in China contracting across manufacturing and non-manufacturing, outlining how the slowdown is broad-based.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s becoming increasingly clear that China’s economy is decelerating and could be locked in a downward spiral until 2025. This means without China being the beating heart of the global economy, which created 60% of all new global debt over the past decade – there can be no global recovery. Maybe the world has just transitioned into a period of low or below trend growth that could be the onset of a worldwide trade recession.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 19:05

  • Gabbard Takes No Prisoners In DNC Warfare
    Gabbard Takes No Prisoners In DNC Warfare

    Authored by Sarah Cowgill via LibertyNation.com,

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the outspoken, independent thinker from Hawaii running for the loftiest perch in the land, has just said “no” to taking the next Democratic presidential primary debate stage. This signals either a surrender or a strategic end-run around the field. Yes, we’ve been down this road before. It is the same sentiment she expressed prior to the last debate; although she threatened to boycott the circus, she did qualify, show up, and rebuke the other candidates and the Democratic Party.

    Gabbard has been Public Enemy #1 in those circles since. Instead of playing into the cemented narrative, Tulsi, who has not so far reached the conditions imposed for participation in the next round, is not wasting her time.

    The Most Repetitive Show On Earth

    As the sixth platform for national domination looms, Gabbard tweeted a different plan, saying:

    “For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th ‘debate’ — regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls. I instead choose to spend that precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

    Whether her bold decision is based on not quite reaching the necessary baseline requirements, or because she has had enough of the game playing, Tulsi seems indifferent to striving for inclusion. And we all know Gabbard is not one to tread water in the shallow end of the pool when a good, strong crawl will cover more territory.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tulsi Gabbard

    The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has upped the ante for primetime pandering by requiring candidates to have a minimum of 4% support in selected national polls and 6% in two state polls of the early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

    The deadline for polling qualification is Dec. 12 at the witching hour of 11:59 p.m. in the Eastern time zone. How dramatic for what is likely to be a boring rehash of Trump-bashing, held a scant week later.

    Although Tulsi has the sheer donor numbers needed – the support of at least 200,000 unique donors – her national polling numbers haven’t yet reached the threshold. Those on the survey leaderboard are Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, billionaire Tom Steyer, and businessman Andrew Yang.

    A Diverse Or One-Note Race?

    Tulsi has been tilting at the DNC and its primary prerequisites since the get-go, claiming the surveyors they used weren’t “accurate” enough, or that the venues were biased. Gabbard’s campaign released a statement in August, which said:

    “Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC ‘certified’ polls.”

    The DNC was insistent that its criteria for inclusion have been fair and balanced. Just ask the committee’s spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, who responded:

    “This has been the most inclusive debate process with more women and candidates of color participating in more debates than billionaires. We are proud of this historic and diverse field with 20 candidates participating in the first two debates and at least 10 candidates in each debate after that.”

    What’s ironic is that no people of color – because of the strident stipulations imposed – will be at the Dec. 19 debate hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at the Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. PBS is set to broadcast the debate, and most likely, fewer people will watch the event than Gabbard can reach by holding town halls or meet and greets. Perhaps she’s on to something, after all.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 12/12/2019 – 18:45

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th December 2019

  • NATO Secretary General Targets "Rising China": Why Cold War Newspeak Never Went Away
    NATO Secretary General Targets “Rising China”: Why Cold War Newspeak Never Went Away

    Authored by  Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On December 3rd, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO must address the “security implications” of China’s rise as a “military power”, and in true Orwellian doublespeak, insisted that he did not want to make an adversary out of Beijing but rather was interested in analysing how best to respond to the challenges China poses in a balanced way…by announcing it a ‘security threat’.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What are these challenges? That China now has the second largest defense budget in the world and has modern capabilities such as long-range missiles that can reach the whole of Europe and the U.S. This alone is apparently enough cause for Stoltenberg to announce publicly that NATO must address this as a challenge to western ‘security’ rather than actually engaging in diplomatic talks with China in order to resolve their concern in the matter like civilised people do. Let’s not forget that the American navy has been actively expanding their presence around China for several years now, yet despite this transparent hostility, it is China who is deemed a ‘security threat’ for having a competent defense budget.

    But we know this is not the whole story.

    Of course no bully likes it when their victim suddenly learns the art of self-defense, and who would be more paranoid of aggression than those who have been practising it for years on others only to increasingly find the tables turned.

    This western paranoia of the communist boogeyman has its roots in Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech which ushered in the Cold War.

    Last month was the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and along with its celebration the continuation of a false narrative, not only as to what had instigated the Cold War, but more importantly what the world was promised and ultimately denied when they were told that the Cold War was supposedly finally over.

    In a recently published paper, On Churchill’s ‘Sinews of Peace’, I went over the drastic shift in geopolitics that occurred with the passing of Franklin D. Roosevelt who had upheld, along with his vice-president Henry Wallace, an anti-colonial post-WW II vision known as “The Century of the Common Man”. Churchill was very much dependant on American support to destroy the Frankenstein monster that the Bank of England had helped fund into significance and though Churchill loathed FDR’s vision, he was not in a position where he could outright resist it and instead found himself needing to make large compromises and often, most likely with the thought that this would all be temporary…and so it was.

    Upon the death of FDR in 1945, the Iron Curtain speech shortly after created an oppressive division throughout the world, the effects of which we are still reeling from.

    The Cold War division

    Germany was officially divided according to this map by the Soviet Union, the UK, USA and France from 1945 to 1949. This was done to ensure that Germany would not attempt any further military action after WWII. It was Churchill’s Iron Curtain announcement in 1946 that turned the USSR into the free world’s public enemy #1, without any specific reason as to what the Soviets had done to warrant this declaration of the ‘Cold War’ division. This split with the Soviets was formalised in May 1949 when the British, French and American zones were joined to form the Federal Republic of Germany. The Soviets had no choice but to form a separate German republic in October 1949; the German Democratic Republic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Despite these two German republics being set up, the British, French and American militaries would remain in West Germany until May 5, 1955, and ended their nearly 10 year occupation only after West Germany had joined NATO in 1954. Under these terms, West Germany would be allowed to establish a military force of up to half-million men and resume the manufacture of arms. The end of the Allied occupation of West Germany meant a full recognition of the republic as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union.

    It should be evident that such manoeuvres were a clear show towards the USSR of not only a hostile stance but an ever increasing aggressive military doctrine that was preparing for a war.

    Although West Germany was given ‘independence’ on a short leash, Allied presence never left West Berlin up until at least 1990. Berlin, as the capitol of Germany, held great strategic significance and became a form of battleground in intelligence gathering and espionage. Berlin had been split in two after WWII, and the Allied occupied West Berlin not only became a symbol of ‘freedom’ in response to the ‘tyranny’ of the Soviets, but was an important stronghold to keep in the Cold War, since it was in the middle of Soviet-held territory.

    The blockade of roads and rail lines into West Germany by the Soviets in 1948-1949 and the later building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 were terrible decisions made by the USSR but should be measured in the context that such reactions were primarily instigated by an escalating western military aggression against them.

    West Berlin would be surrounded by a wall that stretched out to 140 km, was 11.8 ft high, was for the most part electrified and had over 116 watchtowers and over 14, 000 guards and dogs. It would divide Berlin for 28 years.

    This was indeed a very terrible period not only for those in Berlin but for much of the world. The Cold War thinking had allowed for the justification of the Spanish Inquisition-like Red Scare that occurred in the United States and elsewhere, where Americans who refused to follow the very narrow line of what was deemed acceptable thoughts and opinions in the free world newspeak could at any point in time face a judicial inquisition on them, akin to having committed a thoughtcrime.

    Schools and workplaces were put through drills on a regular basis of how to react if the Soviets were to launch a nuclear bomb against America. Such tactics were used to put the American people in an ongoing fear state and thus quickly, the former allies who had by far the largest death toll in WWII in their essential role in combating fascism, were turned into a terrifying race of boogeymen with seemingly no sense of ‘humanity’ or ‘morality’.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As a quick side note, I want to bring attention to Elbe Day April 25, 1945, which marked the day when the American and Soviet forces met for the first time near the end of the war. There was a very strong comradery that occurred, and these men would become forever united since they experienced together the brutality and hardship of a hard won war.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is also important to note that the Russians and Americans never had any historical conflict with each other at this point. In fact, Russia’s navy would place itself along both east and west coastlines of the United States during its Civil War to protect Lincoln’s Union from foreign intervention- that is, from Britain and France. The Russian navy were treated as heroes during their seven month stay in the US

    Therefore, American and Russian soldiers had always been comrades in arms up until the point of the Iron Curtain speech by Churchill, upon which a division would be forcefully imposed between the two.

    China’s invisible role

    China’s involvement in both WWI and WWII is too often forgotten today. What is also forgotten is that the Iron Curtain was also directed against their country, and the level of extreme betrayal that occurred against them was on par with that suffered by the Soviet Union. Recall that under FDR’s post-war vision, both Russia and China were intended to be equal partners alongside the USA and Britain in shaping a multi-polar world order.

    When WWI had started, China offered their support militarily to the cause of the Allies. Japan had already become a member of the Allied force and it was recognised that their relationship with China was not on ‘friendly’ terms, especially since the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895. China’s loss in this war allowed for a series of treatises that divided chunks of China amongst several nations. One particular region that China very much wanted back was Shandong, which was considered sacred land for the Chinese people since it was not only Confucius’ birthplace but also home to the ancient state of Qin, the last kingdom conquered by Qin Shi Huang, who proclaimed himself China’s first emperor in 219 B.C. Japan was at the time in possession of this region.

    Japan was asked whether China could be ‘permitted’ to contribute military support for the Allied cause, to which Japan refused since this would give China a more equal footing with its relations to the West. Despite this refusal, China offered to support the Allies as laborers. Starting in 1916, China began shipping thousands of men to Britain, France and Russia who would work to repair tanks, assemble shells, transport supplies and munitions. Since China was officially neutral, commercial businesses were formed to provide the labor.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After a year of supplying labor, the Chinese contribution remained largely unrecognised diplomatically. By the end of the war, Chinese workers would rank as the largest and longest-serving non-European contingent in WWI.

    By the end of the war, western powers ultimately awarded the Shandong territory to Japan in the Treaty of Versailles. China was understandably upset and refused to sign the treaty. The Versailles Treaty became a clear sign to the Chinese that they could not trust the European nations to support China’s welfare and that China would have to look elsewhere for support moving forward. [America did eventually intervene on this decision and awarded the territory to China in 1922.]

    Another blow would be China’s earning of only two seats at the Paris Peace Conference, relative to Japan’s five seats, the reason why China had fewer seats was because they did not play a military role in the war- a role they were forbidden to play.

    When WWII started and Japan had taken the side of fascism, China contributed its military forces on the side of the Allies. China had the second highest death toll in WWII after the Soviet Union. However, if you look more closely at the graph depicted above, the number of civilian deaths is much higher than military deaths (by about 12 million). This is because the Japanese fascists committed genocide on the Chinese people. The most notorious being the Nanking massacre which not only had a gruesomely large death toll but became infamous for its horrific torture and mass rape on the Chinese people. During this ethnic cleanse by the Japanese fascists throughout the entire WWII (which overlapped the second Sino-Japanese war), mass graves were dug out and millions of Chinese people would be told to step inside before they were shot to death. The Jewish holocaust is recognised as one of the worst crimes against humanity in recent history. However, not much is given to the memory of the mass genocide that was committed on the Chinese people during the same period.

    Despite their great sacrifices, both the USSR and China would be labeled less than a year after the war as the new face of anarchy and barbarism, not by their actions but simply because Churchill and the British Empire had decided it so.

    The empty promises of a post-Cold War world

    On November 9th, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the end of the Cold War quickly followed… or at least this is what we are told.

    The USSR agreed to the destruction of the Berlin Wall specifically on the basis that the western powers would agree to dismantle the war drive and that NATO would cease to expand its military bases any further. Many of the terms of these agreements were outlined in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. However, this treaty that promised the dissolution of the Cold War paradigm was ultimately breached by NATO, with Russia suspending its participation in 2007 and in 2015 ultimately removing its participation in the treaty since NATO had no intention to honor it. Since the supposed end of the Cold War, NATO has only continued its expansion, increasing tension towards an ultimate conflict with Russia.

    In 2007, President Putin gave a now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. In this speech he discussed the fallacy of a unipolar world order envisioned by NATO and that there can only exist a multipolar world at this stage in history:

    This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

    I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

    Where are we now?

    We need to grow up, and grow up fast. We cannot afford to be led by childish stories of the boogeyman and be governed by fear so easily any longer.

    It is time we, the West, recognise our faults and hypocrisy. The western hegemony over the world is coming to an end and we should be happy for our brothers and sisters who have a renewed hope for a better life, largely from the New Silk Road. We have no place to condemn their rise as a threat to western stability. Western powers have been guilty of breaching trust with the Russians and Chinese time after time. We need to correct this monstrous inability to be able to trust and love those outside the western sphere. These cultures, some which may have been considered by us backwards not that long ago, have grown and cultivated themselves such that we today look very small next to them. We have become the backwards culture. We have become the barbaric culture that only knows war and is a disbeliever in peace. We who are privileged enough to never have experienced war in our homelands for almost a century, are the ones who condone it as necessary on others. What an ugly belief this is. It is time the West, and its people, have the humility to admit that they have something to learn from the rest of the world. Only then can there be a true dialogue amongst civilisations towards the common goal of peace.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 23:45

  • Hashrate Domination: China Controls Two-Thirds Of The World's Crypto Network's Processing Power
    Hashrate Domination: China Controls Two-Thirds Of The World’s Crypto Network’s Processing Power

    A new report from Reuters, citing CoinShares, indicates that China’s Bitcoin miners now control a whopping 66% of the world’s crypto network’s processing power. This could be bad news for US miners as it signals China is quickly advancing.

    Also known as “hashrate,” it’s the speed at which a computer is performing an operation in Bitcoin code to unlock coins, China has been steadily gaining hashrate share this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In June, China’s Bitcoin miners controlled 60% of the global hashrate, and now the figure is up to 66% in December.

    Chris Bendkisen, head of research at CoinShares, believes the rapid increase in the Chinese share of hashrate could be due to the deployment of advanced mining technology.

    “This is beneficial to the Chinese mining industry,” said Bendiksen. “If you are the first to increase your proportion of the hashrate, and you can do that before your competitors, that’s generally good.”

    Mining crypto has become more difficult over the last several years as profitability sags. The overall Bitcoin hashrate has risen 80% since June, which in recent times, has created stronger profitability for miners who have access to cheap energy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With China controlling more and more of the world’s Bitcoin hashrate, some worry that the US could be falling behind the crypto curve, as Beijing is making a state effort to be a leader in blockchain.

    Xiao Wunan, an executive vice-chairman of the China-backed Asia Pacific Exchange and Co-operation Foundation (APECF), recently told CNBC that Beijing’s crypto initiatives are strategically important to the communist party.

    “Blockchain is the technology field that China started to develop almost at the same time as other countries in the world,” said Xiao, who was employed by the Chinese government. “It’s hard for China to claim technological supremacy on fields like Internet Plus [China’s initiative on information technology] or artificial intelligence, but the blockchain technology would be a perfect fit for China’s technological dominance.”

    “It’s called ‘corner overtaking’ strategy in Chinese,” Xiao added.

    The largest mining facilities in China are in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces, CoinShares said, which account for at least half the world’s hashrate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Other top mining hubs are in the US, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

    China could be laying the groundwork for a state-backed digital currency in the mid-2020s as it wants to become a leader in crypto in the intermediate timeframe.

    So what’s next for Bitcoin? 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 23:25

  • SoCal Church Displays Holy Family As "Caged Refugees" At The Border
    SoCal Church Displays Holy Family As “Caged Refugees” At The Border

    Authored by Eoin Higgins via CommonDreams.org,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A Nativity scene in the southern California city of Claremont depicting the Holy Family as a separated family held in cages at the U.S. border is sparking controversy and conversations over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

    “If this isn’t your church’s politics, you’ve got the wrong faith,” tweeted music journalist Zel McCarthy.

    Vanity Fair writer Anthony Breznican said that the Claremont United Methodist Church tableau, depicting Joseph and Mary in cages on either side of a caged baby Jesus Christ, was an accurate representation of the meaning of the Bible story.

    “I love the Nativity story,” said Breznican.

    “I love it not because it is warm and fuzzy, but because it is about perseverance against cruelty.”

    Breznican added that the Nativity story points the finger at those who, when faced with evil, do nothing.

    “The monster of the Nativity story is not King Herod, the bloodthirsty tyrant,” said Breznican. “He is just the backdrop.”

    “The villain is the innkeeper, a common everyday person, who sees their dire situation and chooses not to help,” Breznican continued.

    “No room. Sorry. America is full of innkeepers these days.”

    The exhibit represents “a not-so implicit criticism of the Trump administration’s border separation policies,” said Politico reporter Dan Goldberg.

    Claremont United Methodist Church Rev. Karen Clark Ristine told L.A. Times reporter James Queally that the scene was intended to use the Holy Family to highlight the “nameless families” who are victims of the border crackdown.

    “We’ve heard of their plight; we’ve seen how these asylum seekers have been greeted and treated,” said Ristine.

    “We wanted the Holy Family to stand in for those nameless people because they also were refugees.”

    “We don’t see it as political; we see it as theological,” she added.

    Ristine’s sharing of a photo of the scene on Facebook sparked controversy, with some commenters calling the pastor “an instigator; a trouble maker who does not have this country’s best interests,” and questioning the purpose of the scene.

    In her post, Ristine said that the Nativity scene was meant to send a message.

    “Imagine Joseph and Mary separated at the border and Jesus no older than two taken from his mother and placed behind the fences of a Border Patrol detention center as more than 5,500 children have been the past three years,” wrote Ristine. “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 23:05

  • China Mobile Shipments Fall 1.5% On Year, No Recovery Until 2023?
    China Mobile Shipments Fall 1.5% On Year, No Recovery Until 2023?

    After a decade of record growth, the global mobile phone industry peaked in 2016/17. Innovation has slowed as phones reach the masses on a massive scale.

    The loss of momentum in phone shipments is becoming increasingly visible on the manufacturer side, as shipments in China have contracted on the year.

    Bloomberg cites a statement from the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT), an institute under the industry ministry, that said mobile phone shipments dropped to 34.8 million units in Nov.

    CAICT said mobile phone shipments dropped 1.5% Y/Y last month, continuing the fall seen in Oct. when shipments plunged 6.7% on the year.

    According to the International Data Corporation (IDC), global smartphone shipments are expected to drop to 1.37 billion units in 2019, down 7% from the 2016 peak.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sangeetika Srivastava, the senior research analyst at IDC, said “Consumers continue to hold their devices for lengthier times, making sales difficult for the vendors and channels alike.”

    The IDC expects the global synchronized slowdown and an ongoing trade war between the US and China to continue the challenging environment into 2020.

    The arrival of 5G phones could rebound the industry by 2023, with mobile phone sales expected to reach 1.48 billion, slightly above the peak from 2016. This means the mobile phone industry will remain below trend for the next several years.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 22:45

  • The Warfare State Lied About Afghanistan, Iraq, & Syria. They Will Lie Again!
    The Warfare State Lied About Afghanistan, Iraq, & Syria. They Will Lie Again!

    Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    This week saw the Washington Post published a bombshell report titled “The Afghanistan Papers,” highlighting the degree to which the American government lied to the public about the ongoing status of the war in Afghanistan. Within the thousands of pages, consisting of internal documents, interviews, and other never-before-released intel, is a vivid depiction of a Pentagon painfully aware of the need to keep from the public the true state of the conflict and the doubts, confusion, and desperation of decision-makers spanning almost 20 years of battle.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the report states:

    The interviews, through an extensive array of voices, bring into sharp relief the core failings of the war that war is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. persist to this day. They underscore how three presidents — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump — and their military commanders have been unable to deliver on their promises to prevail in Afghanistan.

    With most speaking on the assumption that their remarks would not become public, U.S. officials acknowledged that their warfighting strategies were fatally flawed and that Washington wasted enormous sums of money trying to remake Afghanistan into a modern nation….

    The documents also contradict a long chorus of public statements from U.S. presidents, military commanders and diplomats who assured Americans year after year that they were making progress in Afghanistan and the war was worth fighting.

    None of these conclusions surprise anyone that has been following America’s fool’s errand in Afghanistan. 

    What makes this release noteworthy is the degree to which it shows the lengths to which Washington to knowingly deceive the public about the state of the conflict. This deception extends even to the federal government’s accounting practices. Notes the report, the “U.S. government has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan.”

    As the war has dragged on, the struggle to justify America’s military presence accelerated. As the report notes:

    A person identified only as a senior National Security Council official said there was constant pressure from the Obama White House and Pentagon to produce figures to show the troop surge of 2009 to 2011 was working, despite hard evidence to the contrary.

    It was impossible to create good metrics. We tried using troop numbers trained, violence levels, control of territory and none of it painted an accurate picture,” the senior NSC official told government interviewers in 2016. “The metrics were always manipulated for the duration of the war.

    Making Washington’s failure in Afghanistan all the more horrific is how easily predictable it was for those who desired to see the warfare state for what it is.

    In the words of Lew Rockwell, in reflecting on the anti-war legacy of Murray Rothbard:

    War is inseparable from propaganda, lies, hatred, impoverishment, cultural degradation, and moral corruption. It is the most horrific outcome of the moral and political legitimacy people are taught to grant the state. 

    On this note, it is important to note that the significance of the Washington Post’s report should not distract from another major story that has largely been ignored by mainstream news outlets.

    Recently, multiple inspectors with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come forward claiming that relevant evidence related to their analysis of the reported 2017 chemical gas attack in Syria. As Counterpunch.org has reported:

    Assessing the damage to the cylinder casings and to the roofs, the inspectors considered the hypothesis that the cylinders had been dropped from Syrian government helicopters, as the rebels claimed. All but one member of the team concurred with Henderson in concluding that there was a higher probability that the cylinders had been placed manually. Henderson did not go so far as to suggest that opposition activists on the ground had staged the incident, but this inference could be drawn. Nevertheless Henderson’s findings were not mentioned in the published OPCW report.

    The staging scenario has long been promoted by the Syrian government and its Russian protectors, though without producing evidence. By contrast Henderson and the new whistleblower appear to be completely non-political scientists who worked for the OPCW for many years and would not have been sent to Douma if they had strong political views. They feel dismayed that professional conclusions have been set aside so as to favour the agenda of certain states.

    At the time, those who dared question the official narrative about the attack – including Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Thomas Massie, and Fox News’s Tucker Carlson – were derided for being conspiracy theorists by many of the same Serious People who not only bought the Pentagon’s lies about Afghanistan but also the justifications for the Iraq War.  

    Once again we are reminded of the wise words of George Orwell, “truth is treason in an empire of lies.”

    These attacks promoted as justification for America to escalate its military engagement in the country, with the beltway consensus lobbying President Trump to reverse his administration’s policy of pivoting away from the Obama-era mission of toppling the Assad regime. While Trump did respond with a limited missile attack, the administration rejected the more militant proposals promoted by some of its more hawkish voices, such as then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. 

    In a better timeline, the ability of someone like Rep. Gabbard to see through what increasingly looks like another attempt to lie America into war would warrant increased support in her ongoing presidential campaign.

    Instead, we are likely to continue to see those that advocate peace attacked by the bipartisan consensus that provides cover for continued, reckless military action abroad.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 22:25

  • Californians Flock To Texas As Corporations Seek Cheaper Pastures
    Californians Flock To Texas As Corporations Seek Cheaper Pastures

    Around 700,000 people left California last year, with more than 10% moving to Texas.

    According to a new report by Yardi Systems, over 86,000 people abandoned the Golden State. In terms new Texas residents overall, ex-Californians constituted around 15%, according to the Dallas Morning News.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The influx of Californians should come as no surprise, as businesses have been migrating out of the high-tax, high-crime, heavily regulated state for cheaper pastures.

    Last month, we reported that Charles Schwab’s relocation of their headquarters from San Francisco to Dallas, a move they expect to complete in the second half of 2020. Announced following the company’s $26 billion acquisition of TD Ameritrade, their new 70-acre Dallas-Fort Worth campus will cost around $100 million, and provide 500,000 square-feet of office space.

    Chairman and founder Charles Schwab noted that one of the drivers behind the move from California was that “the costs of doing business here are so much higher than some other place.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Schwab is far from alone, as some 660 companies have moved 765 facilities out of California over the last 24 months, according to a new report.

    The departures from the Golden State between January 2018 and now involve corporate headquarters, manufacturing facilities, data centers, research hubs, software and engineering centers and a few warehouses, according to business relocation expert Joe Vranich, president of Spectrum Location Services.

    Obviously a lot of them are going to Texas,” Vranich said in an interview with the Dallas Business Journal. “It just makes sense.”

    California companies large, midsize and small are shifting their regional or corporate headquarters to North Texas because of the DFW area’s generally lower taxes, more affordable housing, lower expenses, central location, access to an international airport and other factors. –Dallas Business Journal

    Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal noted last month that ” The Lone Star State imposes a 0.75% franchise tax on business margins (total revenue minus compensation), which is substantially less than the corporate tax rates in California (8.84%) and Nebraska (7.81%), where TD Ameritrade is currently headquartered. The city of San Francisco also imposes a 0.38% payroll tax and a 0.6% gross receipts tax on financial service companies.”

    One California law cited in the exodus requires companies to hire workers as employees, not independent contractors, with limited exceptions. Aimed at giving basic labor rights and benefits to hundreds of thousands if people working for Uber, Lyft, Doordash, and similar companies, the companies affected say it’s not feasible.

    “I don’t know how companies can continue to deal with this brutal assault that is on them,” said Joe Vranch, adding “Most of the municipalities in Texas are easier to get along with, and that’s a benefit in addition to things like no income tax and an easier regulatory environment.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 22:05

  • Harvey Weinstein Reaches $47 Million Settlement, Wiping The Civil Slate Clean
    Harvey Weinstein Reaches $47 Million Settlement, Wiping The Civil Slate Clean

    Money talks and sexual predators walk.

    That appears to be the anticlimatic end of the #MeToo story arc, which started with Harvey Weinstein, and is set to conclude with a multi-million cash settlement ending effectively all civil cases against the former Hollywood mogul.

    According to the WSJ, Harvey Weinstein, his former associates, insurers and accusers have all reached a nearly $47 million tentative settlement of virtually all the civil cases pending against him, about $25 million of which will compensate women who have accused the Hollywood producer of sexual misconduct.

    Under the terms of the agreement, Weinstein and his former associates won’t admit wrongdoing; the deal still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge and a judge overseeing a proposed class-action lawsuit.  Even better for the “not guilty” Weinstein, the bulk of the settlement money will be paid not by him but by his insurance policies, including those held by his former studio.

    While the deal will resolve all but two of the civil sexual-misconduct lawsuits and other legal claims filed against Weinstein, the settlement won’t impact the criminal case brought by Manhattan prosecutors against the former producer, which is set to go to trial on January 6. Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex.

    The WSJ reports that the settlement is the culmination of more than a year of negotiations, which involved countless parties, including Weinstein’s lawyers, his former film studio, the New York attorney general’s office, insurers and alleged victims. The negotiations also included the former associates of Mr. Weinstein who some women claimed had enabled Mr. Weinstein’s alleged abuse. It also resolves a suit filed by the New York attorney general that accused his former studio’s executives and board of failing to protect women from his alleged misconduct.

    Here is how the money will be divided up according to the proposed deal:

    • $6 million will go to women who have filed lawsuits and legal claims and their attorneys.
    • $18.6 million will be set aside to create a settlement fund for additional alleged victims, including those covered by the attorney general’s suit.
    • $7 million will go to some creditors of the film studio
    • $12 million will cover the costs of lawyers who defended Weinstein’s former associates against the suits.
    • $1 million will fund Weinstein’s defense costs to fight lawsuits against two victims who aren’t participating in the settlement.

    In other words, for every dollar Weinstein’s alleged victims receive now, his lawyers will get two.

    Lawyers for those women who refused to take part in the deal portrayed the settlement as unfair. Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer for one of those women, said in a statement that he didn’t believe the deal was the best possible settlement. “It is shameful that $12 million of the settlement is going to the lawyers for the directors who we alleged enabled Harvey Weinstein.”

    Surely he would prefer that $12 million was going to the plaintiff’s lawyers, and speaking of, perhaps it’s now time to change the name of #metoo to #paymetoo.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 22:04

  • "This Pattern Of Clumsy Manipulation Is Everywhere In The Record Of CrossFire Hurricane Probe"
    “This Pattern Of Clumsy Manipulation Is Everywhere In The Record Of CrossFire Hurricane Probe”

    Authored by Charles “Sam” Faddis via AndMagazine.com,

    The Hidden Hand

    The essence of a coup, which some might refer to as covert action, is the hidden hand.  One does not announce that a foreign power is overthrowing the government and installing a new government.  One pulls strings as if from behind a curtain, making events that are all part of a carefully orchestrated plan appear disconnected, spontaneous and serendipitous.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As I read through the recently released IG report for the second time, as someone with a great deal of experience in military and intelligence matters, I see that hand everywhere.

    Per the IG report, a single report is delivered to the FBI in the summer of 2016.  It concerns a meeting between a cooperative contact of a foreign intelligence service and a junior level employee of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos.  The report relates what are frankly very amorphous comments by Papadopoulos concerning the Russian government and its alleged possession of information on Hillary Clinton.

    On any other day this report would command no attention whatsoever.  The source in question has no track record of any kind with the FBI. Papadopoulos has been employed by the Trump campaign for perhaps 90 days at this point, and there is no reason to believe he has contacts of significance in the Kremlin.

    Not on this occasion.  This one report from a foreign intelligence service goes directly to the top of the FBI.  The Director himself, James Comey is briefed.  A full investigation is launched.  Multiple confidential human sources are tasked.  Wiretaps are ordered.  A task force is organized. Crossfire Hurricane is born.

    There is a problem, though.  This hand, perhaps because it is controlled by individuals who have made their bones riding desks in Washington, DC and not in the field running actual operations, is clumsy.  The information regarding Papadopoulos provided the needed pretext to start an investigation, but most of the people who will now form the investigative team are not in on the plot.  They will have to be led to the pre-ordained conclusion, so that it appears that they did so without outside interference.

    And these investigators have a pesky habit of actually doing their jobs.

    Almost immediately these investigators demonstrate that Papadopoulos does not have the access within the Trump campaign necessary for the suspected Russian connections.  If there is a conduit, Papadopoulos cannot be it.

    Suddenly, Carter Page is shoved forward as the new focus of the investigation.  His contacts with Russians are long-standing and well-known.  He will serve well as the new target.  Human sources are mobilized.  Wiretaps are ordered.

    But, there is another problem.  Those wielding the clumsy hidden hand have forgotten the first rule of real operational personnel.  Never move against a target until you have run “traces.” until you have run the individual’s name through our databases, checked the records and found out what we already know about him.  Maybe the conspirators really don’t know that.  Maybe they just don’t dare do so, because it will mean involving working-level personnel who are not in on the joke.

    In any event, they apparently did not run “traces” and as a consequence they clearly do not know that, yes, Mr. Page has extensive Russian contacts and, yes, he has been reporting to “another government agency” for many years on those contacts.  Page is a source.  Our source.

    This is problem.  It is a huge, never fully resolved problem for the conspirators.  The “other government agency” sends a formal memo documenting the fact that Page is a source.  The hidden hand tries hiding that.  Any mention of it is removed from applications for FISA warrants, and it is never mentioned in renewal applications either.

    But, again, as new FBI personnel, unwitting of the plot are assigned to the investigation they keep doing their jobs.  Already they have determined that the only evidence they can develop is exculpatory.  Already they have established that there is no basis to believe any of the allegations against Donald Trump and his campaign.  Now, they circle back to the issue of Page.

    Are they, in effect, focusing investigative resources on a man, Page, who has been cooperating with American intelligence for years?  If so, this is the definition of “crossing lines.”  Inquiries are made.  A second memorandum is sent by the “other government agency.”  This one spells out in excruciating detail Page’s relationship with that agency.

    The conspirators, behind their curtain, are now desperate.  What was supposed to be an elegant plot is now in danger of collapsing.  The hand directs crude measures.  An attorney assigned to the investigation materially alters the memorandum inserting words not found in the original and making it appear to say exactly the opposite of what it said, in plain English, originally.  The trail is covered, temporarily, but there is now hard, physical evidence of the conspirators intervention.  The “other government agency” retains the memorandum in its original form, waiting to be discovered by investigators scrutinizing the record at a later date.

    This pattern of often clumsy manipulation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is everywhere in the record.  It is at the heart, for instance, of the entire Christopher Steele narrative.

    Shortly after Crossfire Hurricane is initiated, Steele, a former British intelligence officer, appears to provide a dossier, actually multiple files, concerning alleged connections between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Kremlin.  The dossier also includes a number of gratuitously salacious allegations concerning President Trump and Russian prostitutes, which likely says more about Steele and the way his mind works than anything else.

    Steele is working for a law firm employed by Fusion GPS, which is in effect, an extension of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  He is in Washington, DC frequently.  He has a wide range of contacts at senior levels on multiple continents.  He has had contact of some kind with the FBI for years.

    Yet, when Steele appears to deliver his information he chooses to pass that information to a junior FBI agent working for an FBI Legal Attache (Legatt) in a European city and then rely on this individual to get the “intelligence” to the right people.  Why?  Because in the minds of those individuals masterminding this operation this will make the information more “organic.”  It will not arrive on the desks of the special agents working Crossfire Hurricane as if hand delivered.  It will not appear to be too neatly packaged and perhaps arouse suspicion.  It will seem to the people working the investigation, most of whom of necessity can never know what is really happening, that this information was developed in the field and therefore is more credible and to be afforded more weight.

    But, again, the hand is clumsy.  Steele is a loose cannon.  He talks to the press.  He discusses his contact with the FBI.  This is discovered.  Formal contact with Steele is shut down.  He is no longer an FBI source.

    As with the alteration of the memo from the “other government agency” the conspirators must become more forceful and more visible.  If Steele’s “intelligence” cannot continue to be fed into the investigation there is no plot.  There is no way to lead the investigators in the desired direction and ensure the desired result.  The entire operation is in danger of collapsing.

    Again, per the IG report, Bruce Ohr, a senior Department of Justice lawyer with no role of any kind in the investigation, but a wife who works for Fusion GPS, suddenly appears and makes himself a conduit between Steele and the FBI.  Beyond that, in fact, he meets directly with the head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, obtains at least one thumb drive full of Steele’s reports and ferries those to the FBI. The pipeline is reestablished.

    No one in the Department of Justice or FBI has asked Ohr to play this role.  It is, in fact, in direct conflict with his status as an attorney.  Ohr actively hides his actions from his superiors.  His behavior is transparent and without justification.  It is almost certain to attract attention.  This is not all the way covert action should work, but the conspirators, backed into a corner by the FBI’s refusal to meet Steele directly have no choice.  It is the files compiled by Steele, which are the key to their efforts to delegitimize and destroy Donald Trump.

    The IG report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation runs to hundreds of pages, and it contains a wealth of information.  It is the product of what can only have been a massive amount of investigative work by a team of dedicated professionals and is a huge resource for those attempting to understand the origins of the Russian collusion hoax.  Yet, at the same time it misses the essence of what just transpired.  It is like reading a description of the actions and motivations of a troupe of marionettes in a stage play and missing the fact that they are all simply doing what those pulling the strings make them do.

    The FBI did not conduct an investigation of Donald Trump and his associates that ultimately proved to be based on false information and continue that investigation long past the time it should have been shut down simply because some people made some errors in judgment or some procedures need to be changed.  That investigation was simply the most visible piece of a deliberate, covert attempt to overthrow the democratic process.  The perpetrators of that crime have yet to be brought to justice and identified. 

    Let’s hope that happens soon.

    Time for the hidden hand to be revealed.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 21:45

    Tags

  • Deutsche Bank Breaks Down How Tomorrow's Election Will Impact UK Markets
    Deutsche Bank Breaks Down How Tomorrow’s Election Will Impact UK Markets

    A team of Deutsche Bank macro analysts led by Oliver Harvey has produced its latest note economic note about Brexit expounding on the bank’s near-to-medium-term view on the outlook for British markets.

    The bulk of the note is an examination of how the Conservative policy manifesto stacks up against Labour, while also examining how each party’s platform might impact longstanding economic trends in Britannia, including weak productivity (since the crisis, the UK has exhibited the most tepid productivity performance of any major economy, according to the OECD’s data)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …and a standard of living that hasn’t yet recovered to surpass its pre-crisis peak.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And let’s not forget about taxes. Labour hopes to hike the capital gains tax on investment income, while also raising the inheritance tax and several other levies.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking further down the road, DB’s team said they “find it difficult to be bullish sterling until more detail is provided on Brexit outcome.” Strategists are increasingly expressing trepidation about Boris Johnson’s insistence that the Conservatives won’t allow an extension of the next meaningful Brexit deadline (that is, the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline to finish trade-deal talks)

    In the near term, the biggest risks are related to the outcome of Thursday’s vote. Conservatives are ahead in the polls, but it’s likely they won’t win an outright majority. So, the first question is what kind of coalition will they form? Two possible iterations are: an alliance with the DUP and/or Brexit Party, or a minority government with the support of the Liberal Democrats. In the event of the former we would be very negative on the pound and bullish UK rates.

    Neither route is free of problems for the Tories. The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) has been a persistent thorn in No. 10’s side since last summer, and both they and the Brexit Party have criticized Johnson’s deal. If they win enough seats, they could try to force Johnson to scrap the deal and push for another round of negotiations, which would probably infuriate both the EU27 and the British public. If the Conservatives end up partnering with the Lib Dems, they might need to commit to a second Brexit referendum in order to pass Johnson’s deal. In the short term, at least, this would present a more optimistic outlook for the pound and UK markets more broadly.

    In terms of growth, a Conservative majority followed by implementation of the government’s Brexit deal in January could trigger a bounce in consumer sentiment, in turn lifting growth in the short term. It probably goes without saying, but however the Tories choose to handle the situation, the composition of the governing coalition will be of critical importance to markets.

    For example, DB’s team believes business investment would rise if the government (presuming a Tory plurality) agrees to extend the Dec. 2020 deadline, thereby increasing the chances of a lasting trade deal that’s agreeable to both sides.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Polls have consistently shown Conservatives with a sizable lead. But as DB shows, there’s not much of a relationship between the percentage of the vote and number of seats won.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Still, Labour’s program of massive public spending hikes is attractive to the average Joe who is tired of austerity and eager for better broadband access.

    Labour’s party manifesto is ambitious, and includes nationalizing the broadband arm of BT Group (formerly British Telecom) to bring free broadband to all of Britain before 2030. The manifesto also calls for much higher regional investment to help smooth out the stark economic inequalities between various regions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Johnson’s Conservatives are way ahead in the polls. But as investors learned during the Brexit referendum, polls can’t always be trusted.

    And anybody who agrees with DB’s long-term skepticism about the pound can probably pick up some OTM puts for a reasonable price. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 21:25

    Tags

  • Is It Garbage Or Is It Art?
    Is It Garbage Or Is It Art?

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Artwork Made from Old Bananas Shows Value Is Subjective

    Last week, Miami art gallery Art Basel sold, for $120,000, a piece of art composed of a banana duct taped to a wall. At least one other identical piece sold for a similar amount. A third piece was priced at $150,000. The banana used in the display is a real banana, and on Saturday, a performance artist named David Datuna ate some of it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Datuna’s stunt merely illustrated what everyone should have already known: the value of the artwork had almost nothing to do with the banana itself. Its value came not from the amount of labor that went into it or from the cost of the physical materials involved. A spokeswoman for the museum summed up the real source of the item’s value, noting,He [Datuna] did not destroy the artwork. The banana is the idea.

    In other words, the people who purchased the art weren’t actually purchasing a banana and tape. The person who purchased the art was buying the opportunity to communicate to peers that he or she was rich enough to throw around $120,000 on a work of art that would soon cease to exist. This was a transaction that involved purchasing status in exchange for money. The banana was only a tiny part of the exchange.

    Moreover, the transaction offered the opportunity for the gallery, the art seller, and the art buyer to all further increase their status by being the topic of discussion in countless news articles and discussions in social media. As was surely anticipated by the artists and everyone else in the banana sale, the media could be counted on to act as if this art was something new, outrageous, or exciting. “Art world gone mad,” the New York Post announced on its front page. Hundreds of thousands of commentators in various social media forums chimed in to comment on the matter.

    One wonders, however, how many times this shtick can be repeated over and over until people lose interest. Apparently: many times. After all, this sort of art is not a new thing. For decades, avant-garde artists have been using garbage and other found objects to create art. And people with a lot of disposable income have been willing to pay a lot of money for it. It’s all basically an inside joke among rich people. And regular people have the same reaction over and over again.

    But there’s absolutely nothing at all that’s shocking, confusing, or incomprehensible from the point of view of sound economics. Transactions like these should only surprise us if we’re still in the thrall of faulty theories of value, such as the idea that goods and services are valued based on how much labor and materials went into them. That’s not true of any good or service. And it’s certainly not true of art.

    Is It Garbage or Is It Art?

    In fact, two identical items can be valued in two completely different ways simply if the context and description of the objects changes.

    According to the Daily Maila 2016 study suggests that people value ordinary objects differently depending on what they are told about the objects:

    “According to the new research, being told that something is art automatically changes our response to it, both on a neural and a behavioural level.”

    In this case, researchers in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told subjects to rate how they valued objects in photographs. When told that those objects were “art” people valued them differently. 

    In other words, the perceived value of objects could change without any additional labor being added to them, and without any physical changes at all. 

    The value, it seems, is determined by the viewer, and we’re reminded of Carl Menger’s trailblazing observations about value

    Value is a judgment economizing men make about the importance of the goods at their disposal for the maintenance of their lives and well-being. Hence value does not exist outside the consciousness of men.

    One moment the viewer may think he’s looking at garbage, which he has likely learned is of little value. When told that said junk is really “art,” the entire situation changes. (Of course, we would need to see their preferences put into real action via economic exchange to know their preferences for sure.)

    The change, as both Menger and Mises understood it, is brought about not by changes to the object itself, but by changes in context and in the subjective valuation of the viewer. 

    A glass of water’s value in a parched desert is different from that of a glass next to a clean river. Indeed, a glass of water displayed in a museum as art — as in the case of Michael Craig-Martin’s “An Oak Tree” — is different from water found in both deserts and along rivers. Similarly, the value of a urinal displayed in a museum as art — as with Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” — is different from a physically identical urinal in a restroom. 

    The Daily Mail article attempts to tie the researchers’ observations to the theories of Immanuel Kant on aesthetics. But, one need know nothing about aesthetics at all to see how this study simply shows us something about economic value: it is, to paraphrase Menger, found in the “consciousness of men.” 

    And it is largely due to this fact that centrally planning an economy is so impossible. How can a central planner account for enormous changes in perceived value based on little more than being told something is art? 

    Is a glass of water best utilized on a shelf in a museum, or is it best used for drinking? Maybe water is best used for hydroelectric power? Exactly how much should be used for each purpose? 

    When discussing the problems of economic calculation in socialism, Mises observed that without the price system, there simply is no way to say that a specific amount of water is best used for drinking instead of being used for modern-art displays. Nor is the fact that people need water for drinking the key to determining the value of water. (See the diamond-water paradox.)

    In a functioning market, consumers will engage in exchanges involving water in a way that reflects how much they prefer each use of water to other uses. At some moments, some consumers may prefer to drink it. At other moments, they may prefer to water plants with it. At still other moments, they may want to contemplate an art display composed of little more than a glass of water. The price of water at each time and place will reflect these activities. 

    Without these price signals, attempting to create a central plan for how each ounce of water should be used is an impossible task.

    Do we need to know why people change their views of object when told they are art? We do not. Indeed, were he here, Mises would perhaps be among the first to remind us that economics need not tell us the mental processes that lead to people preferring different uses for different objects, although we can certainly hazard a guess. It’s unlikely that the buyer of the taped banana bought it because he or she planned to eat it.

    But even if we are wrong about the buyer’s motivation, the fact remains that the buyer valued the banana at $120,000 for some reason — and the value was subjective to the buyer.

    Similarly, we can’t know for sure why each individual values water for drinking over “art water” or vice versa. And a government planner or regulator — it should be noted — can’t know this either.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 21:05

  • IATA Slashes 2019 Global Airline Profit Forecast Amid Mounting Macroeconomic Headwinds 
    IATA Slashes 2019 Global Airline Profit Forecast Amid Mounting Macroeconomic Headwinds 

    As the global economy continues to decelerate into year-end, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is out with a new report warning that airline profits are expected to fall much faster than thought in 2019, with slowing likely to continue through 2020. 

    IATA placed most of the blame for the slowdown on the trade wars that have stymied global growth and led to investment uncertainties. 

    Reuters noted that IATA slashed its 2019 net profit forecast to $25.9 billion, a 5.1% drop from 2018. 

    IATA warned that the global airline industry could see a trough, but that was contingent on whether “trade optimism” continued. 

    IATA slashed its 2019 revenue forecast to $838 billion from the $899 billion and said it could see an improvement to $872 billion for 2020. Still, again, the optimism was contingent on a trade resolution between the US and China. 

    “Slowing economic growth, trade wars, geopolitical tensions, and social unrest, plus continuing uncertainty over Brexit, all came together to create a tougher than anticipated business environment for airlines. Yet the industry managed to achieve a decade in the black, as restructuring and cost-cutting continued to pay dividends,” said Alexandre de Juniac, IATA’s Director General and CEO.

    De Juniac stated that he believes the global economy will bottom in the near term, and 2020 could be a brighter year. Though he might be mistaken, betting on an economic rebound based on “trade optimism” — considering structural declines in the global economy were present several quarters before the trade war started. With China’s credit impulse failing to turn up significantly, we don’t dispute the idea that stabilization could be seen in the global economy in 2020. Still, the bet of a massive rebound seems far fetched at the moment. 

    “It appears that 2019 will be the bottom of the current economic cycle, and the forecast for 2020 is somewhat brighter. The big question for 2020 is how capacity will develop, particularly when, as expected, the grounded 737 MAX aircraft returned to service and delayed deliveries arrive,” said De Juniac.

    IATA said airlines’ net profit per passenger dropped to $5.70 this year from $6.22 in 2018, with the industry’s overall net profit margin expected to slide to 3.1% this year from 3.4% in 2018.

    The report noted that the sharpest contractions in the industry came from air freight, where a 3.3% decline in freight demand over the year was the most significant decline since the financial crisis. 

    The OECD has recently warned that the global economy is rapidly decelerating at a pace not seen since the financial crisis as monetary policy via central banks becomes ineffective so far to spark growth. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The world economy could slow by as much as 2.9% this year and next, the OECD said. It added that growth could turn up to 3% in 2021. 

    The consolidation of the global airline industry is underway. A bankruptcy wave has been spreading across the industry at a pace never seen before.

    Airline bankruptcies generally start to gain pace right before an economic downturn, and during a recession, which means the latest surge in bankruptcies, from companies like India’s Jet Airways, British travel group Thomas Cook and Avianca of Brazil, suggests 2020 could be a challenging year for the global economy. 

    The International Bureau of Aviation (IBA) warned: “2019 has seen the fastest growth in airline failure in history,” with about 17 carriers filing for bankruptcy protection as of Sept.

    The Reuters Global Airline Index peaked when the global economy started to slow in 4Q17.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The S&P500 Airlines Index shows resistance in the possible form of a double top.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 20:45

  • Sin Taxes & Other Orwellian Methods Of Compliance That Feed The Government's Greed
    Sin Taxes & Other Orwellian Methods Of Compliance That Feed The Government’s Greed

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    – C.S. Lewis

    “Taxman,” the only song written by George Harrison to open one of the Beatles’ albums (it featured on the band’s 1966 Revolver album), is a snarling, biting, angry commentary on government greed and how little control “we the taxpayers” have over our lives and our money.

    If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,

    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.

    If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,

    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

    Don’t ask me what I want it for

    If you don’t want to pay some more

    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman.

    When the Beatles finally started earning enough money from their music to place them in the top tax bracket, they found the British government only-too-eager to levy a supertax on them of more than 90%.

    Here in America, things aren’t much better.

    More than two centuries after our ancestors went to war over their abused property rights, we’re once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.

    Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and domination has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, speeding tickets and penalties.

    With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.

    Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.

    We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, and no real property rights, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn.

    Think about it.

    Everything you own can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, so-called public interest, etc.).

    That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp.

    And then you have all of those high-handed, outrageously manipulative government programs sold to the public as a means of forcing compliance and discouraging unhealthy behavior by way of taxes, fines, fees and programs for the “better” good.

    Surveillance cameras, government agents listening in on your phone calls, reading your emails and text messages and monitoring your spending, mandatory health care, sugary soda bans, anti-bullying laws, zero tolerance policies, political correctness: these are all outward signs of a government—i.e., a societal elite—that believes it knows what is best for you and can do a better job of managing your life than you can.

    This is tyranny disguised as “the better good.”

    Indeed, this is the tyranny of the Nanny State: marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots.

    So-called “sin taxes” have become a particularly popular technique used by the Nanny State to supposedly discourage the populace from engaging in activities that don’t align with the government’s priorities (consuming sugary drinks, smoking, drinking, etc.).

    Personally, I don’t think the government really cares how its citizens live or die: they just want more of the taxpayers’ money, and they figure they can rake it in by using sin taxes to appeal to that self-righteous segment of every society that sees nothing wrong with imposing their belief systems on the rest of the populace.

    Examples abound.

    For instance, a growing number of cities and states (Washington DC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle, among others) have adopted or considered imposing taxes on sugary drinks, as much as a dollar more for a two-liter bottle of soda, supposedly in the hopes of forcing lower-income communities that struggle with obesity and diabetes to make healthier dietary choices by making the drinks more expensive.

    The faulty logic behind these sin taxes seems to be that if you make it cost-prohibitive for poor people to pursue unhealthy lifestyle choices, they’ll stop doing it.

    Except it doesn’t really work out that way.

    Study after study shows that while sales of sugary drinks decreased sharply in cities with a soda tax, sales figures spiked at stores located outside the city. In other words, people just shopped elsewhere.

    You won’t convince former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg of this, however. Bloomberg, a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, believes the government needs even greater tax powers in order to force Americans—especially poor people—to make smarter lifestyle choices. “When we raise taxes on the poor, it’s good because then the poor will live longer because they can’t afford as many things that kill them,” stated Bloomberg.

    Folks, this right here is everything that is wrong with the power-hungry jackals that aspire to run the government today: by hook or by crook, they’re working hard to frogmarch the citizenry into complying with their dictates, because they believe that only they know what’s best for you.

    It’s this same oppressive mindset that’s been pushing social credit systems (here and in China) that reward behavior deemed “acceptable” and punish behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

    It’s the same mindset that supports the government’s efforts to compile a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

    It’s the same mindset that has government agents spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using AI eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

    It’s the mindset behind the red flag gun laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others. “We need to stop dangerous people before they act”: that’s the rationale behind the NRA’s support of these red flag laws, and at first glance, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others.

    And it’s the same mindset that allows squadrons of AI censors to shadowban individuals for expressing their unfiltered, politically incorrect opinions and beliefs on social media: all in an effort to keep them in line.

    Rounding out this dystopian campaign to impose a chokehold on the populace is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

    Clearly, those helping to erect the prison walls that now enclose us purportedly for our own good are not people that understand the concept of freedom or individual rights.

    Unfortunately, this is what happens when you empower the government and its various agencies, agents and corporate partners to act in loco parentis for an entire nation.

    All of the incremental bricks that have been laid over the years as part of the police state’s prison wall—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have helped to acclimate us slowly to a life in prison.

    Funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry, these prison walls have been sold to us as a means of keeping us safe  behind bars and out of reach of danger.

    Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized.

    Even so, how did we go from enacting laws to make our world safer to being saddled with a government that polices our social decisions? As with most of the problems plaguing us in the American police state, we are the source of our greatest problems.

    As journalist Gracy Olmstead recognizes, the problem arose when we looked “first to the State to care for the situation, rather than exercising any sort of personal involvement… These actions reveal a more passive, isolated attitude. But here, again, we see the result of breakdown in modern American community—without a sense of communal closeness or responsibility, we act as bystanders rather than as stewards.”

    Olmstead continues:

    [Communitarian libertarian Robert] Nisbet predicted that, in a society without strong private associations, the State would take their place — assuming the role of the church, the schoolroom, and the family, asserting a “primacy of claim” upon our children. “It is hard to overlook the fact,” he wrote, “that the State and politics have become suffused by qualities formerly inherent only in the family or the church.” In this world, the term “nanny state” takes on a very literal meaning.

    Unfortunately, even in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us, whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, how or what we eat or even keeping our children safe.

    We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.

    Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

    The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

    Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to remain in control and in power. 

    Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically.

    When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.

    Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

    So where does that leave us?

    Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

    Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow.

    Therein lies the problem: we have suspended our moral consciences in favor of the police state.

    The choice before us is clear, and it is a moral choice. It is the choice between tyranny and freedom, dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery and dangerous freedom, and manufactured pipedreams of what America used to be versus the gritty reality of what she is today.

    Most of all, perhaps, the choice before us is that of being a child or a parent, of obeying blindly, never questioning, and marching in lockstep with the police state or growing up, challenging injustice, standing up to tyranny, and owning up to our responsibilities as citizens, no matter how painful, risky or uncomfortable.

    As author Erich Fromm warned in his book On Disobedience, “At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization.”

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your life, your movements, your property and your money, you’re not free.

    Personally, I’d rather die a free man having lived according to my own dictates (within the bounds of reasonable laws) than live as a slave chained up in a government prison.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 20:25

    Tags

  • Visualizing The Dramatic Rise And Fall Of Cannabis Company Stocks
    Visualizing The Dramatic Rise And Fall Of Cannabis Company Stocks

    The unprecedented expansion of cannabis across North America took the investment world by storm, as investors raced to cash in on the “green rush”.

    Yet, as Visual Capitalist’s Imam Ghosh details below, even as changing regulations unlock new opportunities, it seems as though the cannabis stock bubble has already burst – at least temporarily.

    Today’s visualization dives into the roller coaster of cannabis company stock valuations over the past few years, and which companies remain standing in this hazy market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A Wild Ride for Cannabis Stocks

    The North American Marijuana Index tracks the equally-weighted stocks of leading companies operating in the legal cannabis industry in U.S. and Canada. Companies listed on the index must have at least 50% of their business strategy focused on the legal industry, including ancillary operations that support companies and consumers.

    At the tail-end of 2017, the promise of upcoming legalization in two immense markets—California state and Canada—had investors all fired up. The index’s low (105.31 on June 27th, 2017) shot up almost three times to 358.93 by January 8th, 2018.

    Things took a sharp turn in the second quarter of 2019, as the expectations for cannabis company stocks encountered a harsh reality post-legalization.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What are the reasons behind such a nosedive? Could the cannabis industry still make a comeback in 2020? We look at some opposing perspectives to answer these questions.

    So Much For the Green Rush

    The cannabis industry is experiencing significant challenges. In the U.S., legal cannabis faces high taxes—come the new year, consumers in California will see an 80% mark-up on their cannabis at checkout, up from 60%.

    North of the border, federal legalization led to immense consumer demand for Canadian cannabis—but supply can’t keep up. To make matters worse, retail stores are slow to roll out, which means Canada is feeling the crunch.

    Steep prices, and difficulty purchasing products post-legalization, allow the black market to thrive. It’s clear many cannabis companies have taken a big hit as a result.

    According to the Marijuana Index, here are the 10 biggest companies in the space now:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Only one company outside of North America—and even the cannabis sector—lands on this list. The UK-based Big Pharma company GW Pharmaceuticals is steadily growing its industry presence, as it currently holds 41 cannabis patents in the U.S. and Canada combined.

    Still, even these big players have seen their valuations drop since the industry was at its peak. Unless the aforementioned issues are ironed out, investors may continue to pull their dollars from the cannabis industry.

    A psychological shift has taken place from everyone wanting to own (cannabis) to everyone involved now feeling burned. I think many investors are now over it.

    – Chris Kerlow, portfolio manager at Richardson GMP

    On the flip side, some investors aren’t calling it quits quite yet.

    Long-Term Prospects Are High

    While cannabis seems plagued with issues, some argue that these are simply short-term growing pains and will be solved as the industry matures.

    Particularly in the U.S., experts predict that cannabis sales could reach immense heights in the next decade:

    1. $30 billion by 2025 (New Frontier Data)

    2. $50 billion by 2029 (Jefferies Group LLC)

    3. $75 billion by 2030 (Cowen Inc.)

    4. $100 billion by 2029 (Stifel Financial Corp)

    Compared to a benchmark of $13.6 billion today, these numbers may seem ambitious—but they’re backed by major industry trends. 2020 could well be the year the market stabilizes, as consumers explore an array of retail options and vote with their wallets.

    What’s more, key players in consumer industries—from alcohol and tobacco to beauty and fitness—are making big bets in cannabis and CBD-infused products. A higher number of partnerships could spark the next uptick for the industry’s potential.

    The marijuana business is not for the faint of heart. But this is a big long-term game.

    – Mark Zekulin, CEO of Canopy Growth Corp.

    An Eye on What’s to Come

    It’s clear there are differing viewpoints on the future of cannabis companies and their respective investors. As this snapshot of cannabis stocks unfolds and transforms in 2020 and beyond, could companies potentially buck the current trend and bounce back? Or will stocks continue to go up in smoke?


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 20:05

  • Parents Lose Custody Of 15-Year-Old Daughter For Refusing To Allow Sex Change
    Parents Lose Custody Of 15-Year-Old Daughter For Refusing To Allow Sex Change

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    The parents of a 15-year-old Finnish girl lost custody of their daughter after refusing to allow her to undergo a sex change.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to a report by Svenska Yle, the parents prevented the girl from starting hormone treatments to “correct her gender.”

    The names of the individuals involved were changed and the EU country in which the events happened were removed from the article to protect the identity of the family.

    However, what we do know is that two summers ago after the family moved abroad, their daughter Nea met a new friend group.

    She went from acting and dressing very feminine to dressing like a boy and claiming she was born into the wrong body.

    Nea then demanded that her parents Kari and Niina allow her to begin hormone therapy and eventually breast removal surgery.

    The request was denied and Nea became increasingly angry before one of her friends contacted the police and filed a criminal report against the parents.

    Documents show that Nea’s friends were encouraging her to “break contact with her parents” from the beginning.

    Nea was taken by authorities and spent a few months in an orphanage before being allowed to return home to her parents, who then planned to move back to Finland.

    Nea later returned to the police station with a local transgender activist and a decision to allow her to begin hormone treatment was made without the parents even being consulted.

    Nea’s parents eventually gave up on trying to regain full custody of her and now say that she hardly speaks to them.

    Her parents watched a video of the girl talking into a camera and saying, “This is how I sound six months after I started taking testosterone.”

    She has apparently developed a deeper voice, put on weight and grown more hair, changes that are “irreversible.”

    “Without over-dramatizing, you can say that as the voice, appearance and personality change, it is as if they had killed our child,” said the girl’s mother.

    As we previously highlighted, the number of children wanting to undergo sex change treatment has exploded since the media and the culture began hyping transgender identity politics.

    Earlier this year, it was revealed that five people working at Britain’s only NHS transgender clinic had quit after children as young as three were being through unnecessary gender reassignment treatment.

    “Referrals to the clinic risen in recent years, with 94 in 2010, rising to 2,519 by last year, with the youngest patient aged just three,” reported the Daily Mail.

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 19:45

  • Vatican Caught Using Charity Donations To Cover Budget Shortfalls
    Vatican Caught Using Charity Donations To Cover Budget Shortfalls

    While Pope Francis has long preached about the ills of economic inequality and sins of capitalism, the Catholic church has been robbing Peter’s Pence to the tune of over $50 million annually to plug holes in their out-of-control budget – after paying over $3 billion in pedophile priest settlements around the world over several decades.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the Wall Street Journal, most of the roughly $55 million the church takes in annually goes towards “plugging the hole in the Vatican’s own administrative budget, while as little as 10% is spent on charitable works.”

    The little-publicized breakdown of how the Holy See spends Peter’s Pence, known only among senior Vatican officials, is raising concern among some Catholic Church leaders that the faithful are being misled about the use of their donations, which could further hurt the credibility of the Vatican’s financial management under Pope Francis. –Wall Street Journal

    Of note, Peter’s Pence is an annual collection event held every June, billed as a fundraising event for the needy. It is described as a “gesture of charity, a way of supporting the activity of the Pope and the universal Church in favoring especially the poorest and Churches in difficulty. It is also an invitation to pay attention and be near to new forms of poverty and fragility.”

    A section of the website dedicated to “works realized” describes individual grants, such as €100,000 in relief aid to survivors of last month’s earthquake in Albania or €150,000 for those affected by cyclone Idai in southeastern Africa in March. -WSJ

    “The purpose of the Peter’s Pence Collection is to provide the Holy Father with the financial means to respond to those who are suffering as a result of war, oppression, natural disaster and disease,” according to the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    Except that for at least the past five years, just 10% of the money collected (over $55 million in 2018) – actually goes towards the types of charitable causes advertised for the collection, according to ‘people familiar with the matter,’ who added that approximately 2/3 of the funds have been used to help plug the budget shortfall at the Holy See – which consists of the central administration of the Catholic Church as well as the global papal diplomatic network.

    Last year, the budget deficit reached around $78 million on total spending of around $334 million.

    The ‘reallocation’ of charitable donations comes as the Holy See is facing a ballooning budget deficit which the pope has warned cardinals could have a “grave impact” on the economic future of the church. Francis was elected in 2013 with a mandate to overhaul the Vatican’s finances following allegations of corruption, waste and incompetence, according to the report.

    News of the Vatican’s financial mismanagement couldn’t come at a worse time – as the church grapples with a scandal over dodgy London real estate investments which led to the dismissal of its chief financial regulator, René Brülhart, in November. First revealed in October, the latest scandal centered on the Holy See’s attempts to secure an €100 million ($110 million) loan to acquire luxury property in London’s Chelsea neighborhood.

    Church law allows the pope to use donations as he sees fit, including to support his administration. According to the collection’s website, “Peter’s Pence also contributes to the support of the Apostolic See and the activities of the Holy See,” emphasizing activities that help “populations, individuals and families in precarious conditions.”

    And now we find out, it contributes a lot.

    The assets of Peter’s Pence now total about €600 million, down from about €700 million early in the current pontificate, largely on account of unsuccessful investments, said the people familiar with the funds’ use.

    The use of Peter’s Pence donations mostly to plug the budget deficit is particularly sensitive for Pope Francis, who began his pontificate by calling for a “poor church for the poor,” and has continually emphasized the church’s mission to care for and advocate on behalf of the most vulnerable. –Wall Street Journal

    Last month, Pope Francis said: “When the money from Peter’s Pence arrives, what do I do? I put it in a drawer? No. This is bad administration. I try to make an investment and when I need to give, when there is a need, throughout the year, the money is taken and that capital does not devalue, it stays the same or it increases a bit.”

    He forgot to include that he uses it to pad the budget.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 19:25

  • Chicago, Detroit "Least-Prepared" For A Recession, Says New Moody's Report
    Chicago, Detroit “Least-Prepared” For A Recession, Says New Moody’s Report

    Authored by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner via Wirepoints.org,

    Moody’s says 23 of the nation’s 25 largest cities are ready for a recession. Two aren’t. They are Detroit and Chicago. Both cities are junk-rated by Moody’s.

    Moody’s analyzed four key factors to determine which cities are ready for a recession: fiscal volatility, reserve coverage, financial flexibility and pension risk. The top cities in preparedness were Boston, Charlotte, Denver, San Antonio, San Francisco and Seattle. They scored “stronger” in Moody’s recession preparedness measure, while Chicago and Detroit scored “weaker.” 

    Moody’s message should be particularly worrisome given that the city’s firefighter pensions are just 18 percent funded, while the police and municipal funds are less than 25 percent funded. They are among the worst-funded pension plans in the country.

    The rating’s agency highlighted Chicago’s poor condition in its report, saying: 

    “…both direct city obligations and those of overlapping units of government – continue to weigh heavily on its credit profile. In this scenario analysis, Chicago’s extraordinarily high fixed costs, coupled with its escalating pension liabilities, make it one of the cities least prepared for a near-term recession.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At Wirepoints, we’ve highlighted those overlapping debts in our recent report, “Wealthy” Chicago households on the hook for up to $2 million in debt each under progressive approach to pension crisis and in an accompanying video.

    Chicagoans’ overlapping state and local retirement debts total over $150 billion based on Moody’s pension calculations. That’s the equivalent of a $400,000 “hidden mortgage” on the Chicago households with the means to pay down that debt over time – those earning more than $75,000 annually.

    But if the city and state want to take a “progressive approach” to paying down that $150 billion over the next two to three decades – by targeting only those making over $200,000 annually – then the hidden mortgage on those households totals nearly $2 million.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Moody’s added in its report, “Houston, Chicago and Fort Worth stand out as negative outliers in terms of fixed costs, with Chicago and Fort Worth particularly burdened by rising pension contributions.”

    Which makes it all the more amazing that neither Gov. J.B. Pritzker nor Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot will endorse an amendment to the Illinois Constitution’s pension protection clause.

    They shouldn’t wait until a recession comes. By then, it might be too late to save Chicago’s city worker pensions. The city’s population is already shrinking and as that hidden mortgage increases, expect more Chicagoans to flee.

    Read more about Chicago’s fiscal crisis:

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 19:05

  • Gundlach Blames "Fed Manipulation" For Repo Market Madness
    Gundlach Blames “Fed Manipulation” For Repo Market Madness

    It wasn’t so long ago that Jeffrey Gundlach, founder of DoubleLine Capital, said he would never again appear on CNBC, after a particularly contentious interview last year that led to some brief drama between him and Jim Cramer.

    But on Wednesday afternoon, Gundlach invited “the Judge” – CNBC’s Scott Wapner – to his company’s offices for an hour-long interview where Gundlach explained his relatively recent turn toward bullishness on the US economy and equity market – even though he still has all the long-term gripes about the Fed and monetary policy that he’s shared with business journalists for years.

    Gundlach started off by saying that “one of the most important statements that has gotten less play than it should is Jay Powell said in late October that we would have to see a ‘significant’ rise in inflation that is persistent to even consider raising interest rates to fight inflation.”

    To Gundlach, it’s evidence that the Fed wants to keep benchmark rates below the rate of inflation to keep negative real rates in effect for the US economy. He also claimed that the Fed “knows we have a debt problem” and probably wants to push the day of reckoning as far into the future as possible.

    “So the Fed wants inflation to be higher, actually, and they’ve contextualized this by saying ‘well, 2% was our target for many years and we fell short, so now we need to fill the gap’, which makes no sense to me whatsoever. I think it’s cover for wanting interest rates to basically be below the inflation rate, which seems to be the game plan for central banks in developed countries around the world.”

    “So now we have the 10-year Treasury yield is below the inflation rate and CPI is up at 2%, core CPI is up higher than 2%, and yet the interest rates are being kept below that. The Fed knows that we have a debt problem in the United States and that the way to push the day of reckoning out into the future is to keep interest rates below the inflation rate.”

    Overall, Gundlach’s comments about Jay Powell were largely negative, though he appears to disagree with President Trump about the need for rate cuts last year.

    “Its difficult to give him a lot of credibility...instead of raising rates, we’ve cut rates.”

    But Powell has one redeeming quality.

    “One reason I’d give him a C- and not a D is he has said that to fight the next recession, negative interest rates won’t happen in the United States.”

    Looking ahead, whenever the next recession arrives, the Fed will be ill-equipped to defend the economy from its ill-effects. And markets, as the round-trip we’ve taken over the past year or so shows, are in sync with the central bank.

    “Now the market is completely in sync with the Fed. What Jay Powell has done is he raised rates four times in 2018 and cut rates three times in 2019 we’ve been on a wild ride,” Gundlach said.

    Convincing the Fed to hike rates at this point would be extremely difficult, Gundlach said. Even if inflation made a comeback, “it will need to be pretty remarkable,” he said.

    “The Federal Reserve has turned into a body that’s essentially following the market. And now the bond market is saying there’s no purpose in raising rates, there’s no purpose in cutting rates, we’ll probably be unchanged with interest rates until the third quarter of next year.”

    Moving on to a discussion of the labor market, Gundlach offered an insightful explanation for why the economy ‘feels’ better today than it did under Obama.

    “People keep talking about how good the labor market is and, yes, it’s good – for sure. But the jobs growth under Trump has actually been lower than Obama…what’s better is people aren’t getting laid off. Weekly unemployment claims are really low…they’re down about 30% from the last three years of Obama. That, I think, is why the economy is perceived to be better on the jobs market because the labor market participation has increased.”

    Whatever happens in the coming months, Gundlach is convinced that there won’t be a recession before the end of 2020. He insisted that there haven’t been enough ‘leading indicators’ going off.

    “I think there’s unlikely to be a recession…the odds are there won’t be a recession before the end of 2020.”

    Still, people are definitely spooked, and one wouldn’t be wrong to call last summer a period of paranoia for the Street.

    “In the summer, there were white papers circulating on Wall Street calling on the Fed to make a 50 basis point emergency cut thanks to some of the global manufacturing data out there.”

    As for Trump’s ‘Phase One’ trade deal, Gundlach believes it’s mostly a sham, concocted to give off the illusion that progress is being made with China, even though there’s no evidence of that. Going even further, Gundlach said the press conference where Trump and Liu He unveiled he ‘agreement’ was perhaps the low point in Trump’s presidency.

    “I don’t think there will be a substantive deal before the election, I’ve thought that all year,” Gundlach said.

    Finally, Gundlach offered some thoughts about the political situation. He said his ‘base case’ for the 2020 election is a Trump victory, though he also said the market is under-pricing the risk of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the impact of the resurgent left.

    He likes Pete Buttigieg, but fears he’s “way too young” to be president, especially after only ever having run the city of South Bend.

    Soon, CNBC asked Gundlach to explain the blowup in repo markets that began in September came about, and the Fed’s role in causing the panic in money markets.

    Gundlach said the fact that there weren’t buyers for o/n money is a sign that the Fed is keeping interest rates at artificially manipulated levels.

    “What’s interesting about that is the overnight repo market had been struggling to stay in lines with the Fed funds rate but that day Sept. 17 it just blew out and the Fed had to panic and come to the rescue and add reserves to the system…that to me is a worrisome development because it suggests that the market doesn’t ratify the Fed funds rate. The Fed funds rate is at a level that really isn’t clearing the market…that corroborates my viewpoint, which I think is a minority opinion.”

    “It’s really telling that you can’t find buyers for overnight money in excess of a 2% interest rate and yet the 10-year Treasury is below 2% with inflation at 2% and higher. It tells you that the inflation levels being maintained by the Fed aren’t market levels…they’re manipulated levels.”

    Watch the full interview below:


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 18:45

  • Blain: Tomorrow’s UK Election Will Be Shockingly Binary
    Blain: Tomorrow’s UK Election Will Be Shockingly Binary

    Blain’s Morning Porridge, submitted by Bill Blain

    “Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there’ll be sun!”

    One day more….

    As trade war mumbleswerves rumble on (no more tariff increases), the Impeachment case continues to build its own pointless momentum,  Aramco opens limit up (+10%) (Hint – sell!), and we get ready for Christine Lagarde facing the media after running her first ECB Meeting, all eyes are on the UK – our little island set in a silver sea – where tomorrow we get to vote for the least bad of some very poor choices.  

    Suddenly, we have last minute wobbles in UK election predictions. Suddenly, the predicted Tory landslide may be less than expected.   Suddenly, a hung Parliament is, apparently, a “real” possibility. Suddenly, these long Sterling positions look very dangerous.  Suddenly, Labour party are eating into Conservative Support – or so says one poll.  Suddenly I see… the Great Game of British Self Flagellation might be extended for another 5 years or so. Joy oh Joy.. !

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Please remove all sharp objects from my desk if it happens. 

    Of course, hungoparlphobia is exactly what they Tory strategists want us to fear most.  Scare the Bejesus out of us. Present us with a shocking vision of five more years of excruciating Laura Kuenssberg opinions reports, Andrew Neil public vivisections, Naga and Charlie insulting guests on the Brek-drek couch.  Who would possibly not want that..? (The BBC and Channel 4 will love it – 5 more years of political indecision will ensure no one is asking them the hard questions about what they think their role is in elections. Should they merely report the news, or continue to set the news?) 

    Like it not, this election is a critical moment for the UK.  We can move forward and elect a government no one (particularly me) is going to be particularly happy about, or we can continue to wallow in our ongoing collective cognitive dissonance over Brexit.  It’s really simple. It’s not actually about parties, party politics or policies – good or bad as they might be. It’s about making a choice of having a government empowered to act, or not.

    Imagine the future. 10-years time and the UK is doing much as it always does, and no one really remembers the Brexit nonsense. We’re still drinking French Wine and Proseco, skiing in the Alps, driving EVs designed in Germany and made in Sunderland, and spending summers in the Med. Or,  we’re still arguing about where to stay or leave. Take your pick.  The Europeans don’t care – they just want it done.   

    The horror of a shock defeat or hung-parliament is a narrative the Tories have been pushing since the start – raising the spectre of a small number of tactical voters in key constituencies stealing the election. The message is simple: if we Brits don’t vote Tory tomorrow then the UK will be trapped forever in a hung parliament, unable to move forward, and likely to suffer another 5 years of indecision, political vacuum and dither over Brexit.  

    That may be about the truest thing the Tories have said through the whole election.  

    Meanwhile, the opposition have done surprisingly well redirecting voter fears towards saving our beloved National Health Service.  In order to deny the Tories a chance to move forward, Labour – the party I naturally and have always supported – have redirected the debate down a pointless avenue about how the NHS isn’t safe in Tory hands. Without money and focus it’s not safe in anyone’s hands. A few well-placed front page stories to show the dismal state of the NHS, pin it on Tory indifference and suddenly it’s the number one issue for the electorate.  

    From a political perspective – well done Labour, snatching something back from the Tories. From the perspective of the UK’s Future – it’s a disaster. We now have an unholy alliance of voters who think a wrecking vote for a hung parliament – consigning the UK to five more years of directionless whittering in Parliament – means they get a chance to reverse the referendum and stay in Europe and save the NHS at the same time. Wrong.

    Democracy really is a terrible way to run a country…. 

    It would be easier to accept the need to vote for them if the Tories accompanied the Get-It-Done message with some really sensible initiatives on growth, trade, AI, Robotics, sellable polices about rebuilding social infrastructure, opening up and focusing education and making it free.  But that’s not the fight they chose to fight. 

    The NHS is a key matter –  it can no longer remain a sacred cow. Doctors and Nurses are the most valuable people in our society, and they will tell you the NHS needs reform, less management and more leadership, and funds redirected to get the elderly into long-term care rather than filling hospital beds and emergency rooms. A root and branch grub out of entrenched bureaucracy will do more to make it fit for purpose than screaming headlines. Reforming the Health Service will be a massive undertaking, and doesn’t for one moment mean privatising it – yet no UK political party has the bravery to address it. 

    Tomorrow’s UK election will be shockingly binary. Either:

    • We move forward – which happens with a Conservative Majority, or 
    • We start the Brexit debate all over – which happens under a hung parliament, a Labour led coalition or an unlikely Labour majority. 

    Buy or sell the UK and Sterling on that basis. The vote actually boils to down to the choosing a government that will govern and move the UK out of its current hole.  If we fail to do so, then don’t blame the politicians – blame ourselves. 

    Election Coverage

    The plan for the Election here at Shard is going to be an all-nighter from 10-pm onwards. I’ll be putting out a stream of commentary on www.morningporridge.com, and posting Porridge Specials early morning, a round up at 6.00 am and a final porridge comment at the usual time…   


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 18:25

    Tags

  • The Wealthy Are Hoarding Physical Gold
    The Wealthy Are Hoarding Physical Gold

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    The world’s rich are hoarding gold – this according to data buried in a recent Goldman Sachs note to clients.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the note published over the weekend, Goldman recommended diversifying long-term bond holdings with gold, citing “fear-driven demand” for the yellow metal.

    Hedge funds and other large speculators boosted their bullish bets on gold by 8.9% through the week ended Dec. 3, according to government data released last Friday. That represents the biggest gain since the end of September.

    The Goldman note cited political uncertainty and recession fears as the catalyst for the move toward gold. It also mentioned worries about a wealth tax, increasing interest in Modern Monetary Theory (essentially money-printing) and the current loose central bank monetary policy.

    Data buried in the note also revealed that owning physical gold appears to be the preferred method to “hedge against tail events” by the rich.

    “Since the end of 2016 the implied build in non-transparent gold investment has been much larger than the build in visible gold ETFs.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Goldman said the data is consistent with reports that vault demand is surging globally.

    Trade data implies that gold in storage has increased far more rapidly than is reflected by financial market instruments, indicating a widespread preference for physical gold instead of gold-linked financial assets … Political risks, in our view, help explain this because if an individual is trying to minimize the risks of sanctions or wealth taxes, then buying physical gold bars and storing them in a vault, where it is more difficult for governments to reach them, makes sense.

    “Finally, this build can also reflect hedges by global high net worth individuals against tail economic and political risk scenarios in which they do not want to have any financial entity intermediating their gold positions due to the counter-party credit risk involved.”

    As a writer for Yahoo Finance put it.

    “This means that for those including gold in their end-of-the-world trade, owning gold bullion is a must.”

    You don’t have to be super-rich to invest in gold. And the same reasons the wealthy are hoarding the yellow metal apply to average investors. In a world drowning in government, corporate and consumer debt, and with never-ending loose monetary policy, along with and a political landscape becoming more and more favorable to socialism, it makes sense to own physical gold and store it securely so you have access to your wealth with minimal counterparty risk.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 17:55

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th December 2019

  • As Prices Skyrocket, China Claims It Doesn't Need US Pork To Ensure Domestic Supply 
    As Prices Skyrocket, China Claims It Doesn’t Need US Pork To Ensure Domestic Supply 

    The Global Times is out with a new opinion piece on Tuesday morning, stating how China will expand its pork imports with Brazil rather than the US. 

    We’ve been covering this trend for the last several months, while the Trump administration continued to promote headlines indicating China was buying massive amounts of agriculture products from the US, including pork and soybeans. But as we noted, this wasn’t the case, and China abandoned US markets for Brazil. 

    In early Nov., China signed the first-ever trade deal with Brazil to start receiving shipments of swine offal, or organ meats (hearts, tongues, stomachs, and entrails).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    BS SA and BRF SA are the Brazilian meat companies that will start sending pig byproducts to China. 

    As we’ve noted in the past, the US has likely lost its label as the top producer in supplying China with agriculture products because of the trade war, which has led to a decoupling of both economies and forced China to head to South America for new sourcing channels. 

    China’s “pig Ebola” wiped out about half of the country’s breeding pig population so far this year, forcing pork spot prices to hyperinflate, which resulted in the consumer price index jumping 4.5% Y/Y in Nov., well above the 4.2% consensus expectation, and the highest annual increase since 2001.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The pig shortage sent the country’s food inflation rate to a record +19.1% in November from +15.5% in October, primarily on higher inflation in fresh vegetable and pork prices. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To prevent further socio-economic unraveling spurred by soaring food inflation, China had to act quick, and that’s why they’ve started sourcing pigs from Brazil to fill the gap in the pork deficit. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In other reports, we noted that China typically sources most of its soybeans from the US between October and January, though that wasn’t the case this year. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier this week, we produced a map showing all dry bulk, general cargo, and other dry vessels carrying agriculture products (fertilizers, grains, oil/oilseeds, meals/feeds/pulses, softs, and other agriculture products) across the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Several significant trends were spotted on the map. The first is how a massive flow of vessels are moving back and forth from Brazilian and Argentinean ports to Europe and China. The second observation is the muted activity on either coast of the US. 

    And maybe there’s some validity to the Global Times opinion piece since it appears China has gone elsewhere for its agriculture needs. 

    Still, if there were crop failures or any livestock disease outbreaks in South America, China would have to renter US markets for pigs and soybean. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 12/11/2019 – 01:00

  • 2019 Was A Year Of Global Unrest… And 2020 Is Likely To Be Worse
    2019 Was A Year Of Global Unrest… And 2020 Is Likely To Be Worse

    Authored by Tony Walker via The Conversation,

    2019 may well go down as the most disrupted year in global politics since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent implosion of the former Soviet Union.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, the likelihood is that 2020 will be worse, and bloodier.

    Conditions that spawned global unrest on every continent in 2019 are unlikely to recede. Rather, they are likely to worsen in the face of a slowing global economy and little sign of causes of disaffection being addressed.

    Washington as disruptor

    In a word, the world is in a mess, made more threatening by the retreat of the Trump administration from America’s traditional role as a stabilising force.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Donald Trump has moved the US away from its traditional role of global stabilising force. AAP/EPA/Kevin Dietsch

    If anything, Washington is a disruptor in its abandonment of international agreements. These include: the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership, previously the Trans Pacific Partnership, aimed at liberalising Asia-Pacific trade. The US has also withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that froze Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Washington’s defenestration of the JCPOA and its reimposition of tough sanctions on Iran has further destabilised the world’s most volatile region.

    All this and more, including an unresolved trade conflict between the US and China, virtually guarantees 2020 will stretch the sinews of a fragile global order.

    An evolving US-China technology war and risks of a technological decoupling add to the gloom.

    The world is in worse shape than during the GFC

    The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 was a period of intense uncertainty as a global financial system buckled. But, for the most part, that distress was confined to governments, boardrooms and the offices of international lending institutions.

    The GFC did not fuel widespread global unrest as a shell-shocked financial world came to terms with the reality of a regulatory framework that had failed.

    In 2019, the story has shifted dramatically.

    Mass protests over the skewed benefits of globalisation accompanied by faltering confidence in a democratic model are challenging the assumptions on which a Western liberal capitalist system has rested. Local grievances are fuelling protests against an established order in places as far apart as La Paz in Bolivia and Beirut in LebanonEndemic corruption is looming larger.

    If there is a defining issue that is driving popular unrest more or less across the board, it is that people do not feel they are sharing the benefits of an extended period of global economic expansion.

    In January, Oxfam reported that the world’s 26 richest individuals owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population.

    Billionaires grew their combined fortunes by US$2.5 billion (A$3.66 billion) a day in 2018, while the relative wealth of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people declined by US$500 million a day.

    A rich-poor gap is widening across the world to the point where it is no longer possible to argue that an economic growth model that advantages the few is lifting all boats.

    Inequality and anger

    Something had to give.

    Professor Henry Carey of Georgia State University acknowledges differences in causes of localised unrest now sweeping the world, but he also identifies shared characteristics. He writes:

    Each protest in this worldwide wave has its own local dynamic and cause.

    But they also share certain characteristics: fed up with rising inequality, corruption and slow economic growth, angry citizens worldwide are demanding an end to corruption and the restoration of the democratic rule of law.

    Carey makes the useful point that, as the world becomes more urbanised, overcrowded cities are staging points in a global wave of unrest.

    In 1950, there were only two mega-cities with populations of 10 million or more – the New York metropolitan area and Tokyo. Today, there are 25 such megacities.

    Of a world population of 7.7 billion people, 4.2 billion, or 55%, live in cities and other urban settlements. Another 2.5 billion will move into cities in poor countries by 2050, according to the United Nations.

    In other words, poverty, gang crime, drug trafficking and all the other ills associated with an impoverished urban environment will become less manageable as overcrowding gets worse in cities, parts of which have become urban slums. Carey writes:

    Ignored by the municipal government, [overcrowded urban settlements] usually lack sanitation, clean drinking water, electricity, health care facilities and schools […] The injustices of this daily life underlie the anger of many of today’s protesters. From Quito to Beirut, extreme marginalisation of so many people living in big dysfunctional and dangerous places has boiled over into deadly unrest.

    In these circumstances, it is no accident that Latin America, with the world’s slowest economic growth and most glaring inequality, has exploded in the longest-lasting violent protests.

    In Chile, where economic grievances boiled over into days of mass protests, an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit was abandoned because of security concerns.

    In Bolivia, the long-serving populist president, Evo Morales, was forced out of office and the country by days of urban unrest.

    In Haiti, protests over corruption, lack of employment and extreme poverty have paralysed the functioning of the state for months.

    In countries such as Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, unrest is barely contained in the face of endemic corruption and government failures to provide basic services.

    In the Middle East, it is a similar story.

    In Lebanon, riven by protests for months, Prime Minister Saad Hariri was forced to step down amid growing anger about rising living costs, lack of job opportunities, stagnant wages and corruption.

    In Iraq, bloody protests over government failures to address inequality led to the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi amid risks of a resumption of a civil war between the country’s Shia and Sunni populations.

    In Iran, days of protests over economic austerity were put down brutally by a regime that is battling crippling sanctions.

    Elsewhere in the Middle East, the Egyptian regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is under immense pressure from an exploding and impoverished population. Jordan has witnessed its own protests recently over economic hardship.

    Libya is riven by civil war that is both driving and facilitating an asylum-seeker exodus across the Mediterranean, principally to Italy. This is, in turn, fuelling anti-immigrant tensions in that country.

    In Francemass protests over President Emmanuel Macron’s attempts to address the country’s economic malaise show little sign of easing.

    Elsewhere in Europe, unrest is barely contained. In Spain, tens of thousands of Catalonian independence protesters have taken to the streets of Barcelona in a tense standoff with Madrid.

    In Russia, sporadic demonstrations against official corruption have become a feature, as they have elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.

    In Eastern Europe, authoritarian regimes such as those in Poland and Hungary carry with them their seeds of confrontation with a disaffected population.

    In Africa, all the ills mentioned above are present in spades.

    South Africa is struggling to cope with huge economic challenges posed by an influx of refugees and a vast underclass camped in townships on the fringes of its major cities.

    In Hong Kong, a proposed extradition law that would have facilitated the removal of those accused of crimes or misdemeanours to the mainland might have prompted mass protests. But at the heart of the demonstrations are economic grievances. Hong Kong’s wealth disparities are obscene.

    Climate unrest

    Across the globe, unrest over climate change is a common denominator and is likely to become more – not less – challenging to governments.

    In Australia, in the midst of what may well prove to be the worst bushfires since white settlement, agitation over climate is exerting enormous pressure on the government of the day.

    Whether this is fair or not, the government is perceived to be indifferent to climate concerns.

    In a study of protest movements, the Brookings Institution found multilateralism flourished, global GDP rose and the percentage of people living in absolute poverty declined steadily after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

    Paradoxically, this was an era that also sowed the seeds of present challenges. Advances in technology and globalisation, spurred by lower trade barriers, boosted global GDP but also led to the dislocation of middle-class livelihoods in many Western societies. The study concludes:

    Now, in the wake of the global financial crisis, two critical dynamics have unfolded: first, the powerful democracies of the trans-Atlantic community (the bulwark of the Western-led order) are facing political turmoil at home and setbacks in the liberal quality of their own governments.

    Second, the democracies find themselves losing ground internationally to authoritarian powers bent on breaking the hold of these democracies on the character of the international order.

    This is not helped by an administration in Washington that has yielded ground to authoritarian dictatorships at a time of global unrest in which stable Western leadership has hardly been more necessary.

    *  *  *

    In an era of misinformation, please help The Conversation advance its important public service with a contribution today.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 23:45

  • Trump Shuts Down WTO Appeals Court, Sending EU, China Scrambling For 'Plan B'
    Trump Shuts Down WTO Appeals Court, Sending EU, China Scrambling For ‘Plan B’

    Axios certainly has the best intro to today’s bombshell development: “Internationalists have always dreamed of a court with jurisdiction over all the countries of the world. In 1995, the World Trade Organization was created — allowing the world’s countries to press claims against one another for the first time.” 

    But it won’t survive the Trump presidency as on Tuesday his administration has effectively brought it to an end, neutering its ability to intervene in trade wars, having blocked all new appointments to its dispute-resolution court.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    WTO file image via Shutterstock.

    Starting two years ago the US administration began blocking appointments, and now Trump has run out the clock as the now paralyzed WTO’s Appellate Body over that period declined from seven judges to three, and with two more terms expiring Tuesday, only one judge remains, thus without the ability to issue a binding ruling. 

    Also per Axios:

    Donald “Tariff Man” Trump (his words) can now impose whatever tariffs he likes, without fear that the WTO might find them to be illegal.

    However, there’s widespread perception that the WTO has been rendered obsolete until it undertakes major reforms  for example criticisms that it frequently fails to abide by its own rules, has an inconsistent appeals mechanism, and its rules fail to account for state-controlled enterprises.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via the AFP

    Viewed as among the foremost hindrances to Trump’s “America First” program, he’s already long bulldozed past WTO rules amid the trade war with China, including punitive levies on Chinese goods (and another tariff increase set for this upcoming weekend), and imposing metal tariffs on allies like Europe, Canada and Japan.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via the Peterson Institute for International Economics: The World Trade Organization (WTO) resolves trade disputes through its dispute settlement process, a system that the United States helped design to ensure all countries follow negotiated trading rules. Since 1995, a total of 575 cases have been brought to the WTO, and the United States has been either a complainant or respondent in 275 of them

    * * *

    And now the question of China and “a very unfortunate Plan B” initiative, as described in Bloomberg:

    China is in preliminary talks to support the European Union’s backup plan for settling international trade disputes as President Donald Trump’s administration gets closer to scuttling the World Trade Organization’s role in refereeing cross-border commerce.

    On Tuesday, China’s Ambassador to the WTO Zhang Xiangchen told Bloomberg News that Beijing is actively working to support the EU’s vision of an appeal-arbitration model, which essentially replicates the work of the WTO’s soon-to-be defunct appellate body.

    So far such a Europe-based alternative has drawn interest from current WTO members Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Japan and Turkey, as noted in the report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Data for year 2018. You will find more infographics at Statista

    Meanwhile, internationalists fear a return to the law of the jungle:

    “The WTO is facing its deepest crisis since its creation,” Phil Hogan, the European trade commissioner, told members of the European Parliament this year. If the rules governing international trade can no longer be enforced, “we’d have the law of the jungle.”

    And one former appellate body member James Bacchus, told Bloomberg: “There has been a gradual support for this as a very unfortunate Plan B.”

    He concluded, “Now it seems to be the best option, given all the lousy options we have left.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 23:25

  • Escobar: What Really Happened In Iran?
    Escobar: What Really Happened In Iran?

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    On November 15, a wave of protests engulfed over 100 Iranian cities as the government resorted to an extremely unpopular measure: a fuel tax hike of as much as 300%, without a semblance of a PR campaign to explain the reasons.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Iranians, after all, have reflexively condemned subsidy removals for years now – especially related to cheap gasoline. If you are unemployed or underemployed in Iran, especially in big cities and towns, Plan A is always to pursue a second career as a taxi driver.

    Protests started as overwhelmingly peaceful. But in some cases, especially in Tehran, Shiraz, Sirjan and Shahriar, a suburb of Tehran, they quickly degenerated into weaponized riots – complete with vandalizing public property, attacks on the police and torching of at least 700 bank outlets. Much like the confrontations in Hong Kong since June.

    President Rouhani, aware of the social backlash, tactfully insisted that unarmed and innocent civilians arrested during the protests should be released. There are no conclusive figures, but Iranian diplomats admit, off the record, that as many as 7,000 people may have been arrested. Tehran’s judiciary system denies it.

    According to Iran’s Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, as many as 200,000 people took part in the protests nationwide. According to the Intelligence Ministry, 79 people were arrested in connection with the riots only in Khuzestan province – including three teams, supported by “a Persian Gulf state,” which supposedly coordinated attacks on government centers and security/police forces.

    The Intelligence Ministry said it had arrested eight “CIA operatives,” accused of being instrumental in inciting the riots.

    Now compare it with the official position by the IRGC.

    The chief commander of the IRGC, Major General Hossein Salami, stressed riots were conducted by “thugs” linked to the US-supported Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO), which has less than zero support inside Iran, and with added interference by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Salami also framed the riots as directly linked to “psychological pressure” from the Trump administration’s relentless “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. He directly connected the protests degenerating into riots in Iran with foreign interference in protests in Lebanon and Iraq.

    Elijah Magnier has shown how Moqtada al-Sadr denied responsibility for the burning down of the Iranian consulate in Najaf – which was set on fire three times in November during protests in southern Iraq.

    Tehran, via government spokesman Ali Rabiei, is adamant:

    “According to our information, the attack on the consulate was not perpetrated by the Iraqi people, it was an organized attack.”

    Predictably, the American narrative framed Lebanon and Iraqwhere protests were overwhelmingly against local government corruption and incompetence, high unemployment, and abysmal living standardsas a region-wide insurgency against Iranian power.

    Soleimani for President?

    Analyst Sharmine Narwani, based on the latest serious polls in Iran, completely debunked the American narrative.

    It’s a complex picture. Fifty-five percent of Iranians do blame government corruption and mismanagement for the dire state of the economy, while 38% blame the illegal US sanctions. At the same time, 70% of Iranians favor national self-sufficiency – which is what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been emphasizing – instead of more foreign trade.

    On sanctions, no less than 83% agree they exerted a serious impact on their lives. Mostly because of sanctions, according to World Bank figures, Iranian GDP per capita has shrunk to roughly $6,000.

    The bad news for the Rouhani administration is that 58% of Iranians blame his team for corruption and mismanagement – and they are essentially correct. Team Rouhani’s promises of a better life after the JCPOA obviously did not materialize. In the short term, the political winners are bound to be the principlists – which insist there’s no possible entente cordiale with Washington at any level.

    The polls also reveal, significantly, massive popular support for Tehran’s foreign and military policy – especially on Syria and Iraq. The most popular leaders in Iran are legendary Quds Force commander Gen. Soleimani (a whopping 82%), followed by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (67%) and the head of the Judiciary Ebrahim Raisi (64%).

    The key takeaway is that at least half and on some issues two-thirds of Iran’s popular opinion essentially support the government in Tehran – not as much economically but certainly in political terms. As Narwani summarizes it, “so far Iranians have chosen security and stability over upheaval every time.”

    ‘Counter-pressure’

    What’s certain is that Tehran won’t deviate from a strategy that may be defined as  “maximum counter-pressure” – on multiple fronts. Iranian banks have been cut off from SWIFT by the US since 2018. So efforts are intensifying to link Iran’s SEPAM system with the Russian SPFS and the Chinese CIPS – alternative interbank paying systems.

    Tehran continues to sell oil – as Persian Gulf traders have repeatedly confirmed to me since last summer. Digital tracking agency Tankertrackers.com concurs. The top two destinations are China and Syria. Volumes hover around 700,000 barrels a day. Beijing has solemnly ignored every sanction threat from Washington regarding oil trading with Iran.

    Khamenei, earlier this month, was adamant:

    “The US policy of maximum pressure has failed. The Americans presumed that they can force Iran to make concessions and bring it to its knees by focusing on maximum pressure, especially in the area of economy, but they have troubled themselves.”

    In fact “maximum counter-pressure” is reaching a whole new level.

    Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi confirmed that Iran will hold joint naval drills with Russia and China in the Indian Ocean in late December.

    That came out of quite a significant meeting in Tehran, between Khanzadi and the deputy chief of the Chinese Joint Staff Department, Major General Shao Yuanming.

    So welcome to Maritime Security Belt. In effect from December 27th. Smack on the Indian Ocean – the alleged privileged territory of Washington’s Indo-Pacific policy. And uniting the three key nodes of Eurasia integration: Russia, China and Iran.

    Khanzadi said that, “strategic goals have been defined at the level administrations, and at the level of armed forces, issues have been defined in the form of joint efforts.” General Yuanming praised Iran’s Navy as “an international and strategic force.”

    But geopolitically, this packs a way more significant game-changing punch. Russia may have conducted naval joint drills with Iran on the Caspian Sea. But a complex drill, including China, in the Indian Ocean, is a whole new ball game.

    Yuanming put it in a way that every student of Mahan, Spykman and Brzezinski easily understands:

    “Seas, which are used as a platform for conducting global commerce, cannot be exclusively beneficial to certain powers.”  

    So start paying attention to Russia, China and Iran being quite active not only across the Heartland but also across the Rimland.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • Lavrov Mocks Media Frenzy Over "Secrets" Exchanged During "Normal" Diplomatic Meeting With Trump
    Lavrov Mocks Media Frenzy Over “Secrets” Exchanged During “Normal” Diplomatic Meeting With Trump

    Little has been revealed in terms of precise statements or any potential diplomatic breakthroughs following Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s closed-door, no press admitted meeting with President Trump on Tuesday. 

    But the predictable outraged frenzy given the timing didn’t disappoint, with CNN pointing out “the extraordinary spectacle of President Donald Trump consulting with Moscow on the day House Democrats unveiled articles of impeachment underpinned partly by Trump’s unusual relationship with Russia.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via the White House

    On that note, Lavrov did punch back on the ‘Russiagate’ narrative in general as well as the notion that a mere diplomatic meeting would suggest a ‘compromised’ White House, saying in a joint press conference with Secretary of State Pompeo that his county’s alleged election interference is “baseless” and any level of proof “simply does not exist”.

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

    This after Rep. Adam Schiff slammed the high level meeting as “a success of the Russian propaganda” while lamenting that supposedly “adversaries” were “invited in” but with “allies locked out.”

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

    “There was no press at our meeting, American or Russian. If Schiff can describe the ministerial-level contacts normal to any country and my meeting with the president in such a way, then I believe that they will soon accuse our diplomats, just as they have our athletes, of doping and call for criminal punishment,” Lavrov said mockingly.

    In a tweet President Trump said he had a “very good” meeting with the top Russian diplomat and listed items discussed as including trade, Iran, North Korea, the INF Treaty, Nuclear Arms Control, and election meddling (on this last topic, Lavrov denied receiving a “warning” from Trump regarding interference).

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

    A White House statement indicated the potential for greater trade with Russia was also a focus on the meeting.

    Speaking of trade and ongoing sanctions Lavrov boasted before reporters that trade between the two countries has actually grown during the Trump administration. 

    “Regardless of the sanctions – which obviously hurt everyone – the trade between our two countries has grown during the Trump presidency from $20 billion, to which it was reduced under President Obama, to $27 billion this year,” Lavrov said.

    A further highlight of the late Tuesday press conference came when one reporter sought to “trap” the Russian foreign minister by asking whether he had again received any classified information during this Oval visit, based on prior allegations from their initial May 2017 meeting.

    “I can only find that out based on what you report,” Lavrov replied, and then appeared to again mock the assumptions behind the question:

    “We talked about what I openly and literally told you. If you find some secrets there, feel free to make that sensational.”

    Also of note is that Lavrov said he again extended a personal invitation from Putin to Trump to be in attendance for Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations in May. The president is said to be “considering it”. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • These Secretive Oil Companies Control $3 Trillion In Wealth
    These Secretive Oil Companies Control $3 Trillion In Wealth

    Authored by Anes Alic via OilPrice.com,

    They control the vast majority of the world’s oil and gas assets, yet the average person has never even heard of them, outside of those that are famous for things like getting attacked by missiles or becoming embroiled in a high-profile corruption scandal. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    State-owned oil and gas companies (aka, the national oil companies, or NOCs) control at least US$3 trillion in oil and gas assets, compared to around $2.5 trillion as of 2017, and hold an estimated 90% of all known reserves–considerably more than publicly listed companies such as BPExxonMobil and Shell. Meanwhile, Saudi Aramco leads the pack as the world’s most profitable company. 

    That means that NOCs control about as much wealth as all U.S. billionaires or roughly twice the assets of global multilateral development banks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Resourcegovernance.org

    If we go by annual revenue alone, China’s state-run Sinopec—explorer, producer, refiner, marketer and distributor—was the biggest oil and gas company in the world at the end of 2018. By net income, that title goes to Saudi Aramco, which reported net income in 2018 of $111.1 billion, compared to Sinopec’s $9.1 billion. 

    These numbers may seem a bit wild, but no one really ever knows where they come from or how they are derived. 

    By annual revenue metrics, by year-end 2018, four of the top 10 oil and gas companies in the world were state-owned: Sinopec, Aramco, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Russian Gazprom. The other six Top 10 titles went to Shell (4th), BP (5th), Exxon (6th), Total (7Th) Valero (8th) and Phillips 66 (10th).

    Despite their economic importance, most of these 71 NOCs are notoriously secretive–Norway’s Equinor being one of the few exceptions. For the remainder of the NOCs, their opacity poses a significant fiscal and governance risk, especially when they carry huge debts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: IMF.Org

    Massive Fiscal Players

    The National Oil Company Database has listed at least 19 NOCs with assets in excess of $50 billion. 

    At least 25 NOCs account for 20% or more of government revenues, with Nigeria’s national oil company, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), collecting about half the general government revenues through oil and gas sales. 

    The database also reveals a pattern of weak public reporting by many NOCs, with only 20 of 71 NOCs revealing sufficient information for the 10 most critical indicators. More than half of the NOCs fail to publish financial statements audited by independent auditors, with some like the Republic of Congo’s SNPC failing to even disclose a balance sheet at all. 

    It’s often only when their debt loads become unsustainable that their true extent is revealed to the public, pushing the governments that had guaranteed the debts into a financial crisis.

    NOCs frequently borrow funds to finance new investments, maintain large discretionary expenditures or fulfill certain political agendas. The borrowings may take the form of loans from other oil companies (e.g., Nigeria’s NNPC), from banks (e.g., Ghana’s GNPC), from another government entity (e.g., Sonatrach which borrows from the Algerian Central Bank), by issuing corporate bonds (e.g., Russia’s Rosneft) as well as oil-backed loans from other traders or NOCs (e.g., Kazakhstan’s KazMunayGas). 

    NOC borrowing does have its benefits. The need to borrow can incentivize these oil and gas companies to develop healthy corporate governance practices in a bid to improve their credit ratings. A good case in point is Saudi Aramco’s recent bond issuance, which provided a rare peek into its financial performance.

    Excessive debt can, however, create significant risks. 

    Some NOCs such as Venezuela’s PDVSA and Angola’s Sonangol have debts exceeding 20% of the country’s GDP. Other NOCs are highly leveraged, such as Russia’s Rosneft and the UAE-headquartered TAQA. Mexico’s Pemex has negative equity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: IMF.Org

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Brooking.edu

    Nevertheless, maintaining healthy levels of debt and equity are not always enough. Consider Venezuela’s PDVSA, which despite holding 335 billion barrels of oil-equivalent reserves–the largest reserves of any NOC– is still unable to service all of its $35 billion of debt.

    All those riches are mostly locked underground, yet the company is unable to access them after years of mismanagement as well as the impact of sanctions and the economic crisis. Public debt figures of Venezuela and Mexico include debts by their NOCs, though debts by Brazil’s Petrobras or Bolivia’s YPFB are not included in their national debts.

    Some NOCs such as Norway’s Equinor and Colombia’s Ecopetrol and have consistently delivered strong returns on public investment. Yet in too many countries NOCs have struggled to develop into commercially efficient actors, and in extreme cases have actively contributed to large-scale corruption, not to mention that they largely remain unaccountable for the role they play in climate change.

    So, NOCs may control $3 trillion in oil and have the luxury of being entirely opaque and, in some cases, thoroughly corrupt, but their non-state-owned international oil company (IOC) brethren still tips the scales overall on revenue and income. 

    Where the IOCs lose out is politically because NOCs aren’t always about doing good business; sometimes, there about establishing a foothold somewhere even when it doesn’t make economic sense. That can equate to enormous power over time.  


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 22:25

  • WSJ Blasts "Willing Press Echo Chamber" For Enabling Schiff To "Distort Truth For Political Gain"
    WSJ Blasts “Willing Press Echo Chamber” For Enabling Schiff To “Distort Truth For Political Gain”

    With Bloomberg News now banned from Trump campaign events, after openly admitting its political bias, and with the likes of Harwood and Todd now fully paid up members of the resistance, there has been one voice from the establishment media that has remained quietly ‘balanced’, quietly not-activist, and quietly reporting the news.

    The Wall Street Journal has lambasted President Trump for his trade war, anguished over his manner, and criticized many of his actions as President; but, unlike the rest of the mainstream media, they have also acknowledged his successes, reported the facts about various left-wing conspiracies (as opposed to amplified them), and has not been afraid to stand alone as a quasi voice of reason amid the most-polarized environment this nation has known since the Civil War.

    All of which is background for what The Journal did tonight as its Editorial Board dared to go after two ‘untouchables’ – Rep. Adam Schiff and the Washington press corps.

    In a stunning rebuke of both, an op-ed details how the Horowitz report exposes the Democrat’s many distortions. They begin with a jab-jab-cross…

    “Monday’s Justice Department Inspector General report on the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe is illuminating in many ways, not least the light it casts on the previous claims by politicians when they were telling the public about what they saw in classified documents.

    House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff in particular has been exposed for distortions and falsehoods.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And after exposing the lies, distortions, and falsehoods that Schiff again and again promoted on any TV screen that would have him, The Journal concludes with a Tyson-esque upper-cut to end the battle…

    “Mr. Schiff had access to the same documents as Mr. Nunes.

    His decision to misrepresent the FBI’s actions shows he is willing to distort the truth for political purposes.

    He gets away with this because he has a willing echo chamber in the Washington press corps.”

    Once again, Schiff has been exposed for undertaking exactly the kind of partisan lying and manipulation that he claims – falsely – the Republicans (and particularly Mr. Nunes – who has been ultimately vindicated) have been doing all along.

    The only question America must have now is simple – where is the accountability?

    Read the full WSJ op-ed here…


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 22:05

    Tags

  • Jonathan Turley: "They Even Threatened My Dog" For Defending Trump At Impeachment Hearings
    Jonathan Turley: “They Even Threatened My Dog” For Defending Trump At Impeachment Hearings

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Law professor Jonathan Turley revealed that even his dog was violently threatened after he testified in favor of President Trump during the impeachment hearings.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turley already spoke about death threats he received following his testimony last week, but went further in an interview with CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell.

    “I know you received a lot of threats after what you did last week,” O’Donnell told the George Washington University law professor.

    “And my wife and dog,” Turley responded.

    “To be fair, you did talk about them during your testimony. You did bring up your wife and dog,” O’Donnell said.

    “Who would shoot a Goldendoodle?” Turley asked in response.

    “Maybe a Shih Tzu, but not a Goldendoodle. I don’t understand where the anger comes from. Although as an academic, the thought that you could talk about James Madison and that would be fighting words is something I haven’t seen outside of a law school.

    The violent anger directed towards Turley came as a result of him challenging the impeachment process and arguing that there was not enough evidence to impeach President Trump.

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 21:45

  • CBP Baltimore Breaks Record For Recovered Outbound Stolen Vehicles, 95% Of Cars Headed To Africa 
    CBP Baltimore Breaks Record For Recovered Outbound Stolen Vehicles, 95% Of Cars Headed To Africa 

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – Baltimore Service Port has reported a new record in the number of stolen vehicles being exported from the US. CBP said 246 stolen vehicles, worth over $10.3 million, have been recovered at seaports in Baltimore, Wilmington, Del., and Philadelphia in 2019.

    Baltimore ranks second nationally behind New York, in which 257 stolen vehicles were recovered in 2019.

    Nationwide, more than 1,000 vehicles have been recovered during import and export inspections, with a majority of the vehicles recovered on East Coast ports. 

    CBP said it has been a record year for recoveries in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Wilmington. Recoveries this year are up 112% over last year’s figures. At least 66% of the recoveries occurred at the Port of Baltimore. 

    The agency blamed transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) that operate up and down Interstate-95 for the jump in stolen vehicles.

    “Export examinations are a critical component to Customs and Border Protection’s border security mission. Transnational criminal organizations use stolen vehicles as currency and they conceal illicit revenue from their illegal activities in outbound cargo,” said Casey Durst, Director of Field Operations for CBP’s Baltimore Field Office. “CBP officers remain committed to striking back at criminal groups where it hurts most, by intercepting their illegal exports and illicit financial gains.”

    CBP said at least 95% of the stolen vehicles recovered at East Coast ports were destined to West African nations, including Benin, The Gambia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CBP provides details of some of the vehicles recovered: 

    • 80% (198 vehicles) were from model years 2015 through 2019.
    • 63% (156 vehicles) were sport utility vehicles. Nationally, SUV’s comprised 45% of CBP’s recovered stolen vehicles during 2019.
    • The top-5 recovered stolen vehicles were the Land Rover Range Rover (28), Toyota Camry (15), Toyota Rav4 (12), Toyota 4Runner (9), and Cadillac Escalade (7).
    • The most expensive recovered stolen vehicle was a 2017 Audi R8, valued at $162,900, was destined to Togo.
    • The newest vehicle was a 2020 Mercedes Benz GLE350, destined to West Africa.
    • The oldest vehicle was a 1988 Mack truck, destined to West Africa. The oldest passenger vehicle was a 2002 Toyota Camry, destined to Nigeria.

    The agency warned that the number of recovered stolen vehicles have surged in the last several years, officials said the trend would likely persist into the new year. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 21:25

  • Dem Congressman: Impeach Trump To Heal The Wounds Of Slavery
    Dem Congressman: Impeach Trump To Heal The Wounds Of Slavery

    Authored by Graham Noble via LibertyNation.com,

    It is hardly a surprise when Democrats accuse President Donald Trump of some terrible act. Nor is it shocking to hear the president incriminated for all manner of terrible and tragic events. But to witness a Democrat member of Congress blame Trump for slavery is too much of a stretch. Yet, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) is doing just that – or at least drawing a bizarre link between slavery and the current commander in chief.

    Green, with a largely unremarkable political career, is now well known for one thing: his obsession with seeing this president impeached. The representative repeatedly and unsuccessfully introduced motions to impeach Trump – long before any phone calls to Ukrainian presidents.

    Green’s Ridiculous Obsession

    The congressman did have the courage to say what most Democrats seem to have been thinking for months and what drives the effort to remove the president from office: that his party must impeach Trump to prevent him from winning a second term in 2020. More recently, Green has suggested that should the president survive a Senate trial – which seems fairly certain – the Democrats could and should impeach Trump again, taking advantage of the lack of any law limiting the number of times a president can be impeached.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Al Green

    However, impeachment is not enough to satisfy the congressman. Green now says that it must be for the right reason. That seems fair – until one discovers that the right reason for Green is to make amends for slavery.

    During an interview on Dec. 7, Green claimed that the American people “understand” Trump must be impeached immediately, but his reasoning got puzzling when he said: “I also think that if we don’t include some of the things that are important to people of color then I think that our business won’t be finished with.”

    One can only assume that articles of impeachment must incorporate language, or even charges, that acknowledge what Green described as “the original sin” of slavery. Somehow, impeaching Trump will make amends for an inhumane system officially abolished in America in 1865.

    Green added, “Slavery was the thing that put all of what President Trump has done lately into motion.”

    Trump And Slavery

    Slavery led to Trump becoming president. That makes perfect sense – at least to Green.

    “So, I appreciate whatever we will do,” the congressman continued, “but until we deal with the issue of invidious discrimination as [it] relates to LGBTQ community, the anti-Semitism, the racism, the Islamophobia, the transphobia, and also the misogyny that he has exemplified, I don’t think our work is done.”

    Knowing they have no case against the president, various Democrats resort to emotional appeals to justify removing Trump from office. Rather than point to evidence of criminality or abuse of power, which they simply do not have, the president’s political enemies pontificate vaguely about honoring the Constitution, protecting democracy, and even – as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently suggested – preserving civilization itself.

    Green is doing the same thing; he’s just also throwing in the race card for good measure. Is anybody buying what he is selling? In a little under three years, Trump has done far more for the black community than his predecessor did in eight years. The idea that impeaching Trump will heal the vestigial wounds of slavery is more insulting to black Americans than to Trump. How many more years of being patronized, lectured to, and condescended to by Green and his Democrat colleagues must the black community take before it abandons its misplaced loyalty to the very party that resisted the abolition of slavery?


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 21:05

  • Repocalypse 2.0 On Deck? "Turn" Repo Rates Are Blowing Out
    Repocalypse 2.0 On Deck? “Turn” Repo Rates Are Blowing Out

    Earlier today, repo market icon Zoltan Pozsar scared the living daylights out of cross-asset traders everywhere with what could be called a doomsday prediction in which the former NY Fed and Treasury staffer warned that as a result of collapsing systemic liquidity and a drought of “excess reserves”, the coming days could see a lock up in the FX swap market (in the process sending the US Dollar soaring), which would then translate to a violent deleveraging of massively levered hedge funds, and a liquidation first in the bond then stock market.

    Yet while Pozsar had seemingly no concerns staking his hard-earned reputation on the outcome of a potentially catastrophic event that would subsequently be used by the Fed as a catalyst for QE4, he was far less confident about “when” it would occur:

    it’s hard to have a definitive answer: it depends. It depends on how equities do, which depends on the trade deal and other random tweets. It depends on how auctions go, which depends on the equity market and the curve slope relative to actual funding costs.

    Still, now that the genie is out of the bottle, everyone will become a cross-asset expert, trying to isolate even the smallest notable deviation from the norm as the horseman of the coming market apocalypse, and focusing first and foremost on the most direct indication that something is (again) broken in the repo market: the overnight general collateral repo rate.

    However, what concerned market watchers will find when they pull up the recent O/N G/C repo rates is… nothing. Indeed, after the turbulent repo moves in mid/late September, and one outlier event in mid-October, the past two months have seen O/N repo barely move.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A very different picture however emerges when looking at forward, or “turn” repo rates, those that capture the year-end interval of Dec 31-Jan 2 (hence “turn”), where the past month has seen a sharp, consistent increase in repo rates, which peaked in the past two days around 4.10%-4.20%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While one can argue that the rising repo pressure on the “turn” was due the traders starting to frontrun the dismal events laid out by Pozsar, there is a more conventional explanation for the upward pressure on the Turn, which as another repo expert, Curvature’s Scott Skyrm writes today, is “due to an abundance of collateral sellers, without any significant new cash entering the market – through end user cash investors or through the Federal Reserve.” Or, as he summarizes, “Basically, more sellers than buyers” of collateral.

    That said, following today’s modest drop in the “turn”, we may have found ourselves in a very brief holding pattern, as the market is waiting for the specifics in the next round of Fed RP Operations to be announced on Thursday.

    And this is where things get interesting: if Pozsar is right, nothing the Fed announces on Thursday short of QE4, will help relieve the pressure on the “turn” into year end, which the Credit Suisse strategist sees rising ever higher, until it forces dealers to freeze either the FX swap market, or the repo market, or – devastatingly – both. Everything else would, or perhaps should, be ignored by the market as the reserve hold in the financial system is massive and growing by the day as the Fed’s T-Bill QE failed to plug the liquidity drain.

    Skyrm, on the other hand, has a more sanguine view, and expects the Fed to announce a $50 billion (at least) term operation for Monday December 23 (double the current term ops) and a $50 billion (at least) term operation for Monday, December 30. Of course, even Skyrm hedges, noting that “if the Fed announces operations of $25 billion or less on those days then Turn rates will immediately spike higher. However, in the past the Fed has always provided enough liquidity to the market and I still have faith.”

    The Curvature analyst may have faith, but if Zoltan Pozsar is right – and he traditionally has been – in his apocalyptic forecast, the Fed has not been providing enough liquidity since mid-September, and certainly not in the correct format, and it will fail to do so in the coming days, forcing the “worst case scenario” Pozsar described, one in which the “year-end in the FX swap market is shaping up to be the worst in recent memory, and the markets are not pricing any of this.” It is only once markets “start pricing this”, especially after the liquidity-draining Dec 16 tax deadline, that the Fed will have no choice but to respond to the violent market repricing lower, finally launching the QE4 that mega dealers such as JPM have been begging for all along.

    So who will be right: Pozsar, and his fatalistic forecast for a market crash in the coming days (that triggers QE4), or Skyrm’s cautious optimism? The answer will be revealed by the “turn” repo rate: if it resumes rising, and hits 5%, 6%, 7% or more, then all bets are off.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 20:44

  • The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly In NAFTA 2.0
    The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly In NAFTA 2.0

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Democrats agree to pass USMCA, Trump’s NAFTA replacement.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Goodbye NAFTA, Hello USMCA

    In what “seemingly” constitutes a major victory for Trump, Democratic Lawmakers Agree to Support North America Trade Pact.

    House Democrats agreed to support the new U.S. trade deal with Mexico and Canada, marking a victory for President Trump who ran for office in 2016 on a pledge to remake or blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the new version of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement a “victory for American workers” at a Tuesday morning news conference. The pact will replace Nafta when ratified and contains provisions aimed at creating more manufacturing jobs, for example, by increasing the proportion of vehicles that must originate in North America for the cars and trucks to receive duty-free treatment.

    It also includes updated labor rules and beefed-up enforcement provisions to hold firms in Mexico to account on labor, according to people familiar with the emerging deal.

    USMCA had long been supported by Republicans and leading business trade groups but opposed by Democrats over concerns such as the legal language enforcing new labor rules. The Democratic approval Monday comes as a rare bipartisan moment of cooperation on economic policy at a time when Capitol Hill is divided over the impeachment inquiry.

    USMCA Key Provisions

    1. Mexican Labor: U.S. labor unions and Democrats have long complained that Mexican workers can’t always form unions freely and demand fair pay, a situation they say puts pressure on U.S. manufacturing jobs. The Trump administration’s USMCA has new additional labor rules, not included in the current Nafta, as well as new enforcement procedures demanded by Democrats.

    2. Auto Rules: Compared with Nafta, USMCA significantly tightens the rules that the auto industry has to follow in order to trade vehicles duty free in North America. A certain proportion of a car will have to be produced by workers with higher wages, and a greater proportion of components will have to originate in North America.

    3. Digital Freedom: USMCA, unlike the current Nafta, includes rules mandating the free flow of data among the three countries. This and other novel provisions on exchange rates and other areas aren’t so crucial for Canada and Mexico but could later be applied to pacts with more restrictive countries or even China.

    4. Agriculture: A deal to pass USMCA means farmers of major crops no longer have to worry about President Trump potentially pulling out of the existing Nafta and leaving them fewer major export markets. USMCA also gives dairy farmers more access to Canada.

    5. Pharma: Big drugmakers are likely to be disappointed, since Democrats pushed the Trump administration to remove language that would have protected expensive biologic drugs from generic imitators for 10 years. The existing Nafta treaty has no such drug protections.

    Point by Point Comments

    1: Pelosi wanted more, and settled for less. Five days ago, the Wall Street Journal reported Democrats Want to Invade Mexico. Essentially, the unions demanded that the US be allowed to enforce labor laws in Mexico. However, Mexico would not agree. Canada would not have gone alone either.

    2: The devil is in the details. I suspect Mexico will be able to circumvent these rules, if it wants.

    3: Digital rules accomplish nothing.

    4: Agriculture essentially remains the status quo. Wisconsin dairy farmers do get a minor victory.

    5: This is a potential victory for US consumers, but one that Trump did not appear to want. In practice, however, I wonder if it does much.

    AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka Tweets

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dramatically Worse

    Nearly anything the AFL-CIO supports is, by definition, bad for US consumers.

    Thus, if this deal really is a “dramatic improvement”, I propose it is dramatically worse.

    The one place Trumka is correct, most likely by accident, is on Big Pharma.

    Trump on USMCA

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

    Devil in the Details

    What this comes down to is how easily Mexico can get around key provisions 1 and 2.

    The more Mexico adheres to those points, the worse the deal Trump negotiated.

    Good for Unions, Bad for Consumers

    If it’s Good for Unions, It’s Bad for Consumers.

    I wrote about that construct a couple days ago in France Should Take a Lesson From Ronald Reagan: Fire the Strikers.

    Even FDR understood that public unions and public service were impossibly incompatible.

    Click on the link for discussion.

    Proud Union Hater

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

    Unions promote on seniority, not talent. Anyone who wants to get ahead based on performance, not seniority, should not be a union supporter.

    Moreover, corrupt union leaders get into bed with corrupt politicians. The combination is the biggest vote-buying racket in the world.

    This puts the public at the mercy of militant teachers’ unions, police unions, and firefighter unions all demanding and receiving untenable pension promises.

    GM and Ford

    GM’s bonds, despite a bailout (necessary because giving into union demands bankrupted the company) are just a step above Junk.

    So are Ford bond.

    The strike is over. Hooray. But GM has a second date with bankruptcy court. Ford will have a first.

    Pensions

    Meanwhile, please note that Illinois pensions are among the worst funded in the entire nation. Things are even worse in Chicago where Each Chicagoan Owes $140,000 to Bail Out Chicago Pensions.

    Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s only solution is the same as that of predecessor Rahm Emmanuel: Raise Taxes.

    Get The Hell Out Now

    These facts, and they keep piling up, is what prompted me to write on October 4, Escape Illinois: Get The Hell Out Now, We Are

    Also consider Chicago Headed for Insolvency, Get the Hell Out Now.

    In 2020 we are moving to Utah. We have had enough.

    Trump Irony

    Trump is bragging about USMCA. And most Trump supporters will see it that way.

    But at best, the deal represents no significant changes.

    Importantly, the more the AFL-CIO and Pelosi are right, the worse Trump’s deal is in practice.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 20:05

  • Yuan Tumbles After Navarro Warns "No Indication That Tariffs Will Be Delayed"
    Yuan Tumbles After Navarro Warns “No Indication That Tariffs Will Be Delayed”

    While US equity futures have barely dipped, offshore yuan has tumbled – erasing the earlier optimistic spike – after White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro told Fox News that he has “no indication that December tariffs will not be put on.”

    Additionally Navarro said that China “was trying to shape the narrative on trade talks to affect the futures market,” and that is up to the Chinese if a trade deal can get done.

    Yuan erased all of the gains from China’s comments this morning…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    And while Yuan plunged, Dow futs dropped only 30 points (for now)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 19:52

  • Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial
    Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The Hook? May Skip Witnesses In ‘Expedited’ Impeachment Trial

    While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption –  Senate Republicans have no interest in calling witnesses to determine whether Trump’s request was justified in the first place.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the Washington Examiner, the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry’s stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won’t set foot in the Senate.

    Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have “no appetite” for it.

    Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out of 53 votes to spare, there is no “appetite” among Republicans to pursue testimony from people that Democrats blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation. Indeed, Republicans might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump’s guilt or innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings unnecessarily. –Washington Examiner

    Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.

    “At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn’t need more information,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming – the #3 ranked Senate Republican. “Many people have their minds pretty well made up.”

    “Here’s what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “I want to end this.

    The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that requires 67 votes.

    But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration. Some Republicans question whether that’s possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically charged figures. “Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses,” said one Trump ally in the House. But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others privately unhappy with Trump’s behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump’s dream witness list appears impossible.

    How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That’s probably your whip count for calling Hunter,” a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. –Washington Examiner

    “It becomes endless motions to call people, and I’m not sure what anybody gains from all that,” said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.

    That may not play well with Trump’s base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.

    “President Trump’s allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses, will quickly become a dividing line,” said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.

    Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report.

    On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention “extortion” or “quid-pro-quo” – accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 19:45

    Tags

  • Paul Volcker: The Last Of His Kind
    Paul Volcker: The Last Of His Kind

    Authored by Jim Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    One of the most important figures in the history of U.S. monetary policy, Paul Volcker, died Sunday at the age of 92.

    Volcker is famous for having raised interest rates all the way to 20% in June 1981, the highest rates since the Civil War.

    His actions are widely credited for ending the great inflation of the 1970s and setting the stage for the Reagan economy of the ’80s (although his sky-high rates nearly sank the economy at first).

    Volcker didn’t kill inflation right away — it took another couple of years to finally end it, but rates were never that high again.

    Volcker had a solid understanding of inflation and had opposed going off the gold standard in 1971.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He was one of the people in the room at Camp David when Nixon made the decision to close the gold window. He was actually one of the move’s primary strategists.

    People assume Nixon and his team intended to permanently sever the dollar from gold. But it’s not true.

    What Nixon actually said — and Paul Volcker confirmed this when I spoke to him — is that they didn’t think the U.S. was permanently going off the gold standard.

    Nixon, and others involved with the decision, considered it a temporary suspension until the major global powers could get together, rewrite the system and get back to a gold standard at a much higher gold price (it was then pegged at $35/ounce).

    Volcker understood that it was necessary to get the gold price right before a gold standard could resume. After all the money printing that went to fund Vietnam and the Great Society in the 1960s, he knew that a higher gold price was necessary.

    In other words, Volcker knew the U.S. would have to avoid the mistake Winston Churchill made in 1925 as Great Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent of the U.S. Treasury.

    Churchill was determined to fix the gold price (measured in sterling) at the pre-WWI parity. He felt duty-bound to live up to the old value.

    But he neglected all the money printing that occurred to pay for the war. A higher gold price was required to reflect the inflation that took place. Otherwise, setting the gold price too low would be extremely deflationary.

    And that’s what happened. Churchill fixed gold at the pre-war value.

    By failing to set gold at a higher price (again, measured in sterling), Churchill essentially cut the money supply in half. That threw the U.K. into a depression.

    While the rest of the world ran into the depression in 1929, in the U.K. it started in 1926. In other words, Churchill’s decision plunged the U.K. into recession three years ahead of the rest of the world.

    Going back to gold at a much higher price measured in sterling would have been the right way to do it. Choosing the wrong price was a contributor to the great depression.

    So in 1971, Volcker realized that gold would have to be fixed at a higher price to reflect the money-printing that had taken place during the preceding years. Otherwise, it could have dire consequences.

    Of course, the point was moot because the U.S. never did reopen the gold window. And the ’70s were certainly marked by inflation, not deflation.

    Most people don’t know how close to hyperinflation the U.S. came by the late ’70s, and how close the world was to losing confidence in the dollar.

    In 1977, the U.S. had to issue Treasury bonds denominated in Swiss francs because no one wanted dollars, at least at an interest rate that the Treasury was willing to pay.

    They were called Carter bonds.

    Not surprisingly, the economic morass of the late ’70s cost Carter reelection. Inflation was between 14% and 15% by the time Reagan was sworn in.

    Many people forget that Carter appointed Volcker, not Reagan. He began raising rates right away, although they only rose to 20% under Reagan.

    Volcker’s extreme interest rates helped send the economy into recession, first in mid-1980 and again in 1982.

    Although Volcker had Reagan’s support, many voices in the Republican Party wanted him replaced by a more accommodating Fed chairman. So Volcker was not extremely popular at the time.

    But he knew the dollar is ultimately backed by confidence, and he was determined to restore it.

    Volcker did tame inflation, which was back down to about 3% in 1983 after peaking near 15% in 1980. The dollar strengthened, the economy recovered and one of the greatest bull markets in stock market history was underway.

    So Paul Volcker remains one of the most important Fed chairmen ever.

    May he rest in peace.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 19:25

  • "Unprecedented" China Auto Market Collapse Heads Into Third Year After November Sales Drop 4.2%
    “Unprecedented” China Auto Market Collapse Heads Into Third Year After November Sales Drop 4.2%

    The ongoing recession in the global auto market has undoubtedly been lead by China – and if November’s trends are any indication, the entire industry could be setting up for an ugly 2020. 

    Sales of sedans in China fell 4.2% in November to 1.97 million units, according to the CPCA on Monday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This marks the 17th decline in the last 18 months and all but ensures that China will see a second straight annual drop for its auto market, according to Bloomberg

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last year was the first time the market shrunk in decades, with ripple effects extending to places like Europe, Latin America and the rest of Asia. The industry has faced headwinds in the ongoing trade war, in addition to an overstretched consumer and ride-hailing and car-sharing services. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Areas outside of China’s big cities suffered the most, as a slowing economy kept consumers out of the showrooms that sold cheaper local brands. Experts are predicting consolidation in the industry as a result. Some brands, like Suzuki and PSA Group, have pulled out of China (or are in the process of selling stakes). 

    Bigger names like Toyota and BMW have weathered the storm well due to demand for hybrid cars – but this demand is anything but a guarantee moving forward.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    EVs were once a reason for optimism, especially with Volkswagen spending $4.4 billion next year to ramp up EV production in the country and Tesla moving a new plant to Shanghai. 

    But last month, wholesales of NEVs fell a stunning 42% to 79,000 units. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Recall, as we reported days ago, it’s looking like Beijing isn’t so excited to help sustain the EV niche of the market anymore.

    We also noted that Beijing’s ambivalence was starting to show up in the numbers. EV sales fell off a cliff after June of this year, when the government slashed purchase subsidies. From July to October, sales of new energy cars were down 28% from the year prior. 

    Subsidies are unlikely to come back, we noted. The government is now aiming for “quality instead of just quantity”, noting that subsidies would be more costly than they were a few years ago, when the market was smaller. Instead, Beijing said it will spend the money on building out its infrastructure, like its charging stations. 

    A Bloomberg NEF report predicts that the EV market will rebound next year, however, stating: “Potential cuts to subsidies at the beginning of 2020 are keeping the industry in limbo. A shrinking market could force the government to give up its plans on cuts.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 19:05

  • University Departments Ditch Genderless-Term "Alumni"… For Genderless-Term "Alumnx"
    University Departments Ditch Genderless-Term “Alumni”… For Genderless-Term “Alumnx”

    Authored by Jeremiah Poff via The College Fix,

    Latin derived word is originally genderless..

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    College departments across the country are avoiding the term “alumni,” opting instead to use “alumnx,” even though the original term is gender neutral.

    Google search of the term “alumnx” returns a long list of results from American colleges using the term, though most are specific to departments and specialized resource centers. They include the University of California-San Diego, Syracuse University, University of Michigan and Loyola University of Maryland, primarily on LGBTQ+ resource pages.

    The term “alumni” is a latin word that derives from the root word “alumnus,” meaning “pupil,” according to the online etymology dictionary. “Alumni” is the gender-neutral plural form of the word. Some websites use “alumnx” and “alumni” interchangeably.

    The discovery was made Sunday by Jordan Lancaster, a freelance contributor to The Daily Caller and Washington Examiner. She tweeted a series of screenshots from different schools with the caption “seize the endowments.” They included images from Rutgers University, UC-San Diego, UMich and Vermont College of Fine Arts.

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

    The tweet drew attention from many conservative users, who mocked the practice. Lancaster called it “an issue that only matters to people extremely in the university bubble.”

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

    UC-San Diego uses “alumnx” on its critical gender studies major website, including in the URL, but the website also uses the more familiar “alumni” in the text of the page. A request for comment Sunday seeking clarification was not immediately returned.

    At Syracuse, the LGBT resource center uses “alumnx” in both the URL and throughout the page, only using “alumni” when referencing the school’s alumni association. Syracuse did not immediately respond to The Fix’s request for comment.

    The academic program of “intergroup relations” at the University of Michigan includes the term on its page, but uses it interchangeably with “alumni” and “alumna” on the site, with no clear pattern. A request for comment Sunday was not immediately returned.

    The LGBTQ+ services website for Loyola University of Maryland uses “alumnx” for its website, but uses “alumni” as well.

    “Welcome to Loyola’s LGBTQ+ Alumnx page! As Loyola starts to expand LGBTQ+ visibility, we are looking to maintain an active database of a/sexuality and a/gender diverse alumni to support, encourage, and connect current students with alumni of Loyola University Maryland,” the website reads, again showing no clear pattern of the use of the terms.

    The Fix’s request for comment was not immediately returned.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 18:45

  • FISA Report Reveals Clinton Meddled In 2016 Election
    FISA Report Reveals Clinton Meddled In 2016 Election

    If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too – then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Contained within Monday’s FISA report by the DOJ Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the Steele dossier, was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media.(P. 369 and elsewhere)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (h/t @wakeywakey16)

    And when did Steele talk with the media (which got him fired as an FBI source)? September of 2016, roughly six weeks before the election.

    One of the more damaging articles to result from these meetings was authored by Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff, who said in an interview that he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a “secret source” at a Washington restaurant.

    That secret source was none other than Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 Russia expert who fed the Isikoff information for a September 23, 2016 article – which would have had far greater reach and impact coming from such a widely-read media outlet vs. $100,000 in Russian-bought Facebook ads.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Isikoff’s article claimed that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page “has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials – including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president.”

    This allegaton was found by special counsel Robert Mueller report to be false. Moreover, the FBI knew about it in December, 2016, when DOJ #4 Bruce Ohr told the agency as much.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    FISA report, P. 206

    “Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an “off-the-record” briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting,” reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele “acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present.

    Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election. Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we’re guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened – which, quite frankly, simply isn’t plausible given the stakes.

    Whatever the case – the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself, constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.

    We’re sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 18:33

    Tags

  • Meat Prices Spike 8% In Brazil, Threatening A Holiday-Gathering Mainstay For Many
    Meat Prices Spike 8% In Brazil, Threatening A Holiday-Gathering Mainstay For Many

    Consumers in Brazil are facing a crisis: barbeques, which are a mainstay of Brazilian cuisine and have inspired countless Brazilian steakhouses, are under threat.

    The price of beef, pork and chicken in the country are experiencing a sharp rise, even while inflation elsewhere in the country remains low, according to Bloomberg. The meats are up 8.1% month over month in November, threatening to take the main course off the table at many Brazilian celebrations this upcoming holiday season. 

    Renata Ziller, a teacher and mother of three in Brasilia, said:

    “We’ll have to do something with rice, I guess. I’ll have to use some creativity because the prices are so high.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ziller

    The price rise has been a result of increased demand for Brazilian meat from China, in addition a drought impacting the quality of many cattle pastures. The price rise has political and economic implications, Bloomberg writes.

    Meat was invoked by leftist former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who said he would fight for the rights of Brazilian workers to “hold family gatherings, have a barbecue, and drink a little beer, which is what makes us happy.”

    President Jair Bolsonaro also commented on the price hikes: “People are complaining, rightly, that the price of meat has gone up. The world has started to buy more meat from us. Unfortunately that’s what happens.” 

    Bolsonaro supports the free market, and said there was little he could do about the price spike – a refreshing take from a politician. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The price of a chicken in the country was up 8% year over year while pork rose 15% and a filet mignon has risen by about 20%. Meat had the largest impact of all products on the country’s inflation numbers for November. 

    Rafael Cortez, from the consultancy Tendencias Consultoria, said: “Inflation in general ought to be a positive factor for the government, however this current rise in a product that is so dear to the average Brazilian could favor the opposition narrative. We are already starting to see this on social media.”

    Geovana Santos, a 20-year-old trash collector with a one-year old daughter, said the price spikes have caused her to change her diet:

    “Basically I just have to buy sausage, because it’s cheaper,” she concluded.

    Eventually, as prices rise, less Brazilians like Santos will eat meat and demand will hopefully taper, causing prices to again slide lower. With free market concepts like these so simple intuitive and effective, it’s no wonder Central Banks can’t appreciate them. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 18:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th December 2019

  • Photos Show Greek Fighter Jet 'Locked On' To Turkish Warships Near Cyprus
    Photos Show Greek Fighter Jet ‘Locked On’ To Turkish Warships Near Cyprus

    Via Al-Masdar News,

    A Greek fighter jet allegedly obtained ‘missile lock’ on a Turkish frigate that was traveling off the coast of Cyprus on December 8, 2019, the Aviationist reported.

    Citing photos from the Twitter profile of journalist Yannis Nikitas, the Aviationist reported that a Greek Mirage 2000 jet targeted the Turkish frigate with Exocet anti-ship missiles during a show of force over the weekend.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “In the photos we can see the HUD of a Mirage 2000, recognizable also by the characteristic Mirage refueling probe, as it gets a lock on a ship which, according to the caption, could be a Turkish frigate. On the left side of the HUD we can see a ‘M39’ label, showing that the pilot selected the AM-39 Exocet anti-ship to perform the lock on the ship,” the publication said.

    Relations between Greece and Turkey have been rocky this year after Ankara began drilling for oil off the coast of Cyprus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This move by Ankara prompted Cyprus, Greece, and Egypt to issue a joint statement condemning Turkey for violating international law.

    They specifically pointed out that in the statement that Turkey was operating in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial waters.

    Turkey continues to maintain that their activities are within the framework of international law, despite the joint statement from Egypt, Greece, and Cyprus.

    * * *

    More on the alleged “missile lock” from the original Aviationist report:

    The images in question first appeared on the Twitter profile of Yannis Nikitas, an embedded journalist of the Hellenic Ministry of Defense.

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

    Discussing the possibilities, the analysis describes:

    Even if the caption states that the target is a Turkish frigate, we can’t confirm it yet due to the distance the image was taken from, as it’s impossible to discern useful features of the ship for an identification. However, if we extract an approximate shape from the ship in the photo and we consider only frigates, the target could be either a Turkish Barbaros-class frigate or a Greek Hydra-class frigate. We can’t still rule out the possibility of a Greek frigate as the HUD shows the PRAC label, which means that the missile was not armed and ready to be fired but rather set in training mode, or better as practice mode as shown in the image. If that’s the case, the photo could have been taken during TASMO training with the Hellenic Navy.

    The other possibility in addition to the photos perhaps showing a Greek naval exercise in progress (and not a threatening missile lock on a Turkish frigate), is that it does indeed show an encounter with a Turkish ship, but from a prior incident:

    While searching online for more info about the photos and the background of the specific mission of the Mirage from which they were taken, we found the same photos in an article published by Nikitas in September 2018 on his website DefenceReview.gr with two additional shots. If the additional photos are from the same mission (although the weather is different…), the top one shows a closer look at the ship that allows us to confirm that this is indeed a Barbaros-class frigate belonging to the Turkish Navy and the photos were not taken recently but last year during a show of force (i.e. flying low and fast close to a foreign warship in international waters).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet the photo set is still driving angry exchanges between Greek and Turkish commentators online, at a moment of heightened tensions over Turkish oil and gas exploration inside Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 12/10/2019 – 01:00

  • The Woke Media: Apologists For The State
    The Woke Media: Apologists For The State

    Authored by William Anderson via The Mises Institute,

    In an earlier article, I looked at the rise of “Woke Capitalism” and the challenges that this development presents for a free society (or, to be accurate, a somewhat free society). For the time being we probably do not need to worry about the establishment of the People’s Republic of Google, but a much greater problem than left-wing business corporations has invaded our body politic: The Woke Mainstream Media.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is one thing for Nike to discontinue a line of sneakers because the Betsy Ross flag offended someone or for PayPal to refuse to serve as a pay conduit for a conservative organization. One may decry the narrow-minded thinking from company executives, but they are private outfits that have — and should have — the privilege of refusing to do business with certain people — and if they make a bad economic choice, the company will pay financially. And, as I pointed out in the article, corporations are not governments, which really can kill and cage people who are helpless against state-sponsored predations.

    Private sector Wokeness is not limited to profit-making businesses, however, as the giants of American media now are subscribing to the same hard-left political and social theories, and this development has become a much greater problem to American society and American liberty because of the symbiotic relationship between media and government. While Google’s squelching of libertarian speech within its ranks might make it unpopular with libertarians, nonetheless, the company has taken no one’s freedom away.

    However, a media campaign against someone, even someone who is innocent of a crime, can result in imprisonment or worse. As one who for more than a decade has written about prosecutorial misconduct and unjustified pursuit of innocent people, I have yet to find a case in which the worst kind of prosecutorial behavior was not aided by irresponsible and dishonest journalists.

    Furthermore, the rise of Woke Media presents a problem in this country, one in which the progressive news media becomes a partner with government to strip people of their rights and to impose authoritarian rule. While that is not the picture of the media that the media itself tries to present or is the dominant theme in journalism school, it is much closer to the truth than anyone tied to the media will admit. On top of that, almost all of the national media (with the exception of Fox News) is closely linked to the Democratic Party, and most journalists now being on the left. In the years of the Donald Trump presidency, that has meant that much of the media now acts in concert with the Democrats to weaken and even end his term in office.

    With the upcoming movie “Richard Jewell” to be released soon, we see the spotlight on misconduct by American media outlets that helped to falsely accuse an innocent person of the infamous Olympic bombing in Atlanta in 1996. But media problems hardly begin and end with the saga of Richard Jewell.

    When the New York Times calls for curtailing free speech or when its reporters actively work to promote a corrupt prosecutor in order to frame innocent people for rape, as the NYT did in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, when the press wrongly accused the high school boys from Covington Catholic School of harassing a Native American, which led to active death threats against the students, or when media outlets recklessly repeat false statements by government officials, as was done in the Jewell case, such transgressions are open attacks on a free society.

    When these things happen, a media outlet then becomes an advocate for oppressive government, which seems to openly conflict with the media’s self-declared label of “government watchdog.” As I wrote a decade ago:

    Despite that fact that every student in J-school is taught that the press is a “watchdog” of government, the truth is that journalists are the lapdogs of the state. From the local police beat reporter to the top journalist at the New York Times, journalists pretty much repeat what government officials tell them. When journalists actually do pressure government, it is either for the authorities to pass laws that are stricter than what they are at the present or to demand that governments regulate businesses in a draconian fashion.

    In other words, modern journalism emphasizes a vastly-expanded role of state power, which is at odds with why a supposed free press exists in the first place, and certainly at odds with the First Amendment, which has been the bedrock of free speech and freedom of the press, not to mention freedom of religion. Unfortunately, the NYT and other Woke Media outlets have not stopped with attacking the First Amendment; they also have played a major role in promoting academic fraud in history and economics. Like the Bolsheviks which the NYT lionized in its series on the 1917 Russian Revolution and its murderous afterlife (which might as well have been named “Paradise Lost,” given how the NYT gave near-uncritical support to the revolution and the growth of the USSR), the journalists and editorial writers at the “Newspaper of Record” seem hellbent on recreating a new world in which truth takes a backseat.

    While ideology plays a role in establishing the left-wing narratives that American journalists seem to embrace, that is not the only reason that modern journalism is statist at its core. First, and most important, the modern media is a product of the Progressive Era in which journalists sought respectability through the Canons of Journalism issued in 1923 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

    As was often the case during the Progressive Era, there were advocates in various lines of work seeking to “professionalize” their craft. From medicine to teaching to journalism, these advocates attempted to make their occupations more “respectable” by requiring or strongly encouraging formal education in their fields. For example, following the Flexner Report of 1910, authorities — encouraged by the American Medical Association and, of course, the progressive media — began to close medical schools (and especially those medical schools educating black doctors) to limit practice of medicine to a relatively-small number of physicians ostensibly to raise the quality of care by ensuring that only the “top students” can be practitioners.

    Professional journalists sought to do the same thing with their vocation, starting journalism schools and trying to turn journalism into an academic endeavor. During the 1920s, very few journalists had college degrees and organizations like the Society of Professional journalists (formerly Sigma Delta Chi), tried both to present the profession as respectable people engaged in “muckraking” in order to “reform” America. (When I was in journalism school during the Watergate years, many students and faculty wore “Rake Muck” buttons to proclaim solidarity with every Woodward and Bernstein wannabe.)

    The Canons of Journalism stressed that newspapers (which in 1923 were by far the most dominant form of mass media) should be “independent” in their coverage, not being tied to political parties or political movements. Whether or not the press ever held to such lofty standards is debatable, as the media always seemed to take the side of state power, be it the promotion of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, U.S. victory in World War II, or the Kennedy-Johnson years in power.

    For example, President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 presidential campaign against Sen. Barry Goldwater, used the CIA to infiltrate the opposition and engaged in numerous political dirty tricks, yet the media was happy to aid the president in large part because much of Goldwater’s campaign centered around reducing the role of state power in the ordinary lives of people. (While Goldwater also advocated aggressive war against North Vietnam — the press painting him as an unstable cowboy ready to irresponsibly unleash nukes at any time – it was Johnson who escalated the war, which ultimately proved to be his undoing.)

    At least the media turned on Johnson after he no longer could hide the lies about the Vietnam War and the war became unpopular. One senses today that the Woke Media won’t even question politicians that they favor. For example, there has been much news coverage about the policy in which immigration authorities separate children from their parents when picked up at the country’s southern border, a policy that the press tends to tie to President Trump.

    However, Trump was continuing the policy that first was set by the Obama administration. The New York Post recently wrote about how Reuters, a news agency, and a French news agency suddenly killed stories they had earlier published “exposing” the high rate of child detention in the country. However, to their surprise, they were quoting numbers that generated from the Obama administration, not that of Donald Trump. The Post writes:

    So the United States has “the world’s highest rate of children in detention.”

    Is this worth reporting? Maybe, maybe not.

    Nevertheless, Agence France-Presse, or AFP, and Reuters did report it, attributing the information to a “United Nations study” on migrant children detained at the US-Mexico border.

    Then the two agencies retracted the story. Deleted, withdrew, demolished.

    In other words, since the offending actions occurred during the Obama years, they didn’t happen at all. While that seems to be an extreme case, one senses that the Trump phenomenon has pushed the American media into a much more partisan mode than ever before, which is even more stark given the media’s reluctance to be critical of the Obama administration.

    The hard-left move of much of the U.S. media can be seen in comparing coverage of events over the past few decades.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the Jewell case, the FBI leaked material to friendly reporters to implicate Richard Jewell in the Olympic bombing, and there was the usual feeding frenzy early in the case. The frenzy wore itself out, however, when it became clear via pure logistics that Jewell could not have done what the FBI had claimed. In their defense, media figures said that they were just following the FBI’s lead, which was true.

    However, perhaps it should logically have followed that maybe, just maybe, the FBI is full of untrustworthy and incompetent, dishonest, and vindictive employees that have not earned the trust that journalists had given them. Perhaps, just perhaps, government is not full of brilliant and deducting G-Men that are worthy of the heroic treatment the media often gives them. (One excellent exception is James Bovard, who has been an independent warrior exposing government malfeasance — and has been the bane of politicians from both parties.)

    But at least the media listened to reason in the Jewell case and ultimately turned in their coverage.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A decade later in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, most of the U.S. media was craven from the start. By then, the infamous “narratives” that now drive political thinking were in full force.

    The media latched onto the dual themes of racism and sexual assault and even when the earliest evidence cast serious doubt on the truth of the story, American journalists continued to run in one direction until they fell over the cliff and earned a well-deserved rebuke from American Journalism Review.

    (In noting the deterioration in thinking with the elite factions of the media, the Columbia Journalism Review never did an assessment of the Duke case, despite the obvious media failures and breakdowns. And while CJR did provide an assessment for Rolling Stone in the wake its disastrous story, “A Rape on Campus,” which turned out to be wholly fiction, the publication stuck to the original sexual assault narratives which drove the whole thing in the first place.)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Covington Boys story, which dominated the media for several days in January 2019, is an account of how “Wokeness” has so infected the major media that even when the truth was right in front of them, American journalists ran with the left-wing narratives instead. Besides making life a living hell for the Covington students and their families, the elite U.S. media from the New York Times to the Washington Post to CNN proved themselves nearly incapable of being able to separate facts from narratives and created their own fiction of white racist teenage boys in MAGA caps terrorizing and disrespecting minorities. While even a cursory glance at the original video of the so-called incident was enough to make an honest person question the popular story, elite American journalists were unwilling to do even that small task.

    What makes things even worse is that the NYT’s editorial page now is being used as a conduit to promote questionable historical narratives, promote huge confiscatory taxation schemes, and a very dark history of American capitalism that claims that capitalism here entirely owes its existence to the worst aspects of black chattel slavery. Yes, these are opinion pieces that ostensibly represent independent thought from intellectuals, political figures, and academic leaders, but when these writers are dishonest or terribly misleading, a newspaper as influential as the NYT should not be promoting them.

    Because so many American journalists today are squarely joined to the radical left, one wonders what is going to happen to journalism here in the next decade. The so-called watchdogs of state power today are advocating for government to grab authority that would end many aspects of historical American liberty. The next step seems to be the media becoming the TASS of a future Democratic Party administration, and if we reach that stage, it is doubtful we ever can roll back those levels of state power, and we will see Woke journalism not being a barrier to state-sponsored oppression, but rather its enabler.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 23:40

  • In Bizarre Twist Of Events, Vern Unsworth's Lawyer Capitulates To Elon Musk And Retires From Jury Trials
    In Bizarre Twist Of Events, Vern Unsworth’s Lawyer Capitulates To Elon Musk And Retires From Jury Trials

    Just when you thought the “pedo guy” story couldn’t get any stranger than a high priced lawyer striking out on what many believed to be a layup of a case against a billionaire, we get tonight’s stunning Tweet and letter to the editor of Law.com from L. Lin Wood, Vern Unsworth’s (former) lawyer. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After losing at trial to Elon Musk, lawyer L. Lin Wood took to Twitter to explain – not why his client was wronged by the verdict – but rather, why the verdict against him was correct. It’s an admission that, even if he believed it, would be a stunning slap in the face to his client and would have many questioning why Wood would take the case to begin with. Late on Monday night, Wood tweeted:

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

    To add insult to injury, Wood also published  a letter to the editor at Law.com, congratulating Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team for winning the case. 

    Wood opened the letter by saying:

    I congratulate Elon Musk and the lawyers on his team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for their efforts to achieve a verdict for their client that spoke the truth. Alex Spiro and Bill Price are exceptional lawyers. Their efforts contributed greatly to the verdict that spoke the truth: Musk’s July 15, 2018, comments about Vernon Unsworth were nothing more and nothing less than an insult. Insults by definition do not convey fact. And truth, even in the hands of skilled lawyers, does not change.

    He then called Musk’s lawyers “skilled legal adversaries”:

    And after a textbook trial between skilled legal adversaries, the verdict was rendered and the truth was revealed, Musk won. So did Unsworth. Musk only had to use his checkbook to pay his lawyers their well-earned fee.

    Before then announcing his retirement from being a trial lawyer.

    As for me, I promised my family on Thanksgiving Day that the trial for Unsworth would be my last jury trial. I will fade away with my silver hair wisdom ready to help only if needed. I have had the privilege of training a group of skilled young lawyers in this trial to take over the reins and be in the next generation of trial lawyers who purse truth with the best interests of the client at the forefront of their efforts. Lawyers who will never let our profession degenerate to being about money, but who will practice law knowing that it is about the pursuit of truth.

    Twitter immediately blew up with outrage at Wood, with some speculating he was paid off by Musk, blackmailed or is simply just an incompetent lawyer looking to make excuses for his poor performance.

    Regardless, the acknowledgment that the verdict against him “spoke the truth” is a bizarre statement for any attorney to make after losing at trial in such a public forum. 

    Many on Twitter asked Wood to consider the feelings of his client:

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

    Others speculated that he was simply making excuses:

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

    Some asked about the obvious potential impact this could have on Unsworth’s pending litigation, should he decide to appeal in the U.S. or pursue a case in the U.K.: 

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

    Others suggested ethics violations and malpractice:

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

    While some speculated that there were perhaps more nefarious forces at work:

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

    Regardless, L. Lin Wood now joins the long line of those who have elected to – for one reason or another – continue to enable Elon Musk’s behavior, behind his entire board of directors, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the NHTSA. 

    And with the Federal Reserve doing everything it can to prevent a market pullback or recession, the normal market forces that would sever the head off such an obvious money losing disaster no longer exist to correct these types of malinvestment. 

    Has the Tesla boondoggle finally reached escape velocity?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 23:27

  • Trump Beats Border-Crisis: Illegal Crossings Crash To Lowest Since 2013
    Trump Beats Border-Crisis: Illegal Crossings Crash To Lowest Since 2013

    There is a reason that you have not seen more clips of AOC et al. sobbing uncontrollably at a fenced car park, or Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer exclaiming “what about the children” in recent months.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Left’s favorite talking point of the first half of 2019 – Trump is caging kids at the border because of his worse-than-Hitler, racist and inhumane immigration policies – has somehow evaporated in recent months

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As The Wall Street Journal reports, arrests of people crossing the southwestern border have plummeted by 75% since May, marking one of the most dramatic drops in recent history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that 33,510 people were arrested after illegally crossing the border in November, marking the sixth straight monthly decline since May, when 132,000 such apprehensions marked a 13-year high.

    In fact, The Journal notes that the May-November decline is the biggest in absolute numbers and second biggest by percentage of any six-month period this century.

     

    The question is why?

    • Did the desperate immigrants seeking refuge in America’s welfare state suddenly figure out things are not so bad at home after all?

    • Did Soros’ (alleged) caravan-creating funds suddenly dry up?

    • Or did President Trump’s immigration policy changes – ‘building the wall’, increasing spending on border security, and negotiating (tariff threats) with Mexico on immigrant flows – actually work?

    The answer is simple…

    “This is a direct result due to this president’s strategies to address the historic flood of Central Americans, families, illegally crossing the border,” acting CBP Comissioner Mark Morgan said at a press conference Monday.

    “The network of initiatives have worked and continues to work.”

    The program, often called Remain in Mexico, is one of the biggest contributors to the decline of border arrests, immigration experts say. It has deterred some people from coming into the U.S., due to knowledge that they are likely to be stranded in Mexico for months while their cases are decided.

    “I think the big factor has been the Trump administration policies,” said Randy Capps, director of research of U.S. programs at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

    Just as notably, Capps points out that other factors that often alter migration flows, including crime rates and unemployment in the migrants’ home countries, haven’t dramatically changed in recent months.

    In Tucson, Ariz., a migrant shelter has seen arrivals drop from more than 100 a day last year to fewer than 40 recently, according to its operator, Teresa Cavendish.

    In McAllen, Texas, a recently opened shelter intended for migrants had so many empty beds last month that it began to serve other members of the community.

    The López Obrador government has pledged that the security efforts will be permanent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mission accomplished? Too soon?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 23:20

  • Contrary To Conventional Wisdom, US Farmers Are Having Their Best Year Since 2013
    Contrary To Conventional Wisdom, US Farmers Are Having Their Best Year Since 2013

    Skimming through the mainstream media websites, one would find numerous articles decrying the plight of US farmers caught in the middle of the US-China trade war, such as these: “Farmers’ Despair Pushes States to Act“, “Farm Bankruptcies Rise Again“, “Amid Trump Tariffs, Farm Bankruptcies And Suicides Rise.” However, there may be more here than meets the conventional eye.

    As Commodore Research managing director Jeffrey Landsberg writes, US farm income in 2019 is on pace for the highest income seen in six Years.  This, Landsberg continues, “is very significant as US farmers are not faring nearly as poorly as many pundits and media outlets continue to state.  As a result, US farmers collectively have not been in any real uproar and are not jeopardizing Trump’s re-election chances.

    The surging farm net income stands in stark contrast with the documented spike in bankruptcies, which has prompted some to whether this is a case of a handful of farmers pocketing the majority of the upside, or merely more farmers taking advantage of the political climate and filing bankruptcy for insurance or other tangential purposes.

    We present Commodore‘s full note below:

    Extremely noteworthy to us is that the United States Department of Agriculture recently announced that US net farm income this year will climb to its highest level since 2013. This is very significant as US farmers are not faring nearly as poorly as many pundits and media outlets continue to often report. As a result, US farmers collectively have not been in any real uproar and are not jeopardizing Trump’s re-election chances.

    US net farm income this year is on pace to total $92.5 billion. This would mark a year-on-year increase of $8.5 billion (10%) and would mark the highest income since 2013’s record $123.7 billion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Federal government direct farm program payments are contributing to a large amount of the income. Federal government direct farm program payments are expected to end this year at a very robust $22.4 billion, which is $8.7 billion (64%) more than was issued in 2018.

    This includes the Market Facilitation Program payments, which is the official name for President’s Trump tariff payments that are going to farmers to make up for the weakness in exports. The $22.4 billion in federal government direct farm program payments marks a record for this decade (and includes $14.5 billion in Trump’s Market Facilitation Program payments).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 22:40

  • Platts: 5 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week
    Platts: 5 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week

    Via S&P Global Platts Insight blog,

    Oil markets are digesting the latest OPEC announcement on production cuts this week, while regional LNG prices converge and nickel continues on a bearish streak, in S&P Global Platts editors’ pick of energy and commodity trends.

    1. OPEC, allies agree to new oil output cuts at eleventh hour

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s happening? OPEC, Russia and nine other allies delivered a new production cut deal November 6, just hours after it appeared their pact was close to unravelling. OPEC+ will deepen collective output cuts by 503,000 b/d to 1.7 million b/d from January through March, with Saudi Arabia voluntarily slashing another 400,000 b/d of production beyond its new quota. “We already believed market fundamentals warrant $66/b Brent in January, even assuming the existing agreement simply rolled over through end-2020,” said S&P Global Platts Analytics following the decision. “Needless to say, a lower supply forecast provides more support.”

    What’s next? The coalition’s inability to agree on extending the deeper cuts beyond March sets the stage for another potentially tough meeting three months from now. OPEC members Iraq and Nigeria have been serial violators of their quotas, and Russia has also had patchy compliance, though its condensate exemption should help it improve its performance. Whether these producers deliver could be pivotal to the current deal and the pact’s ability to bring down oil stocks in a period of weak demand.

    2. Nickel continues to slide as supply concerns recede

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s happening? The nickel price has been riding high throughout 2019, on supply fears related to an export ban from the world’s number one producing nation Indonesia. It was detached from other base metals, which suffered from the US/China trade spate. Nickel hit a high of $18,850/mt in September. However, the ban suddenly seemed to be less of a concern than poor demand, and the price rapidly corrected, reaching a low of $13,115/mt, December 4. It seems the metal was a target for the old trading tactic, “buy the rumour, sell the fact.”

    What’s next? With the price now trading in a range of $13,000-$14,000/mt, and year-end on the horizon, it is doubtful there will be any return to stellar form for nickel in 2019. Physical traders seem to be neutral on the metal, with no new bookings being fielded even with the price crash. Eyes will be on what Indonesia actually does in 2019, what it means for supply and how bad demand really is from the stainless steel sector.

    3. As regional hub prices converge, Europe attracts US LNG

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s happening? The JKM-TTF spread has narrowed again, making Europe a more attractive destination for US LNG amid subdued Asian demand. About half of the cargoes that were delivered last month from US LNG export facilities landed in Europe, reflecting a shift in trade flows that appears to favor proximity, liquidity, and the ability to hedge, over traditionally more robust end-user markets in Asia.

    What’s next? That Europe has become a home for US LNG beyond just a means to balance the global supply market has taken on added importance amid the ongoing trade dispute between Washington and Beijing. A continued wave of US LNG coming to European shores could help keep a lid on European gas prices through the winter.

    4. Nordic hydro concerns ease in a bearish European power market

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s happening? German and French generation tend to set European power prices, but Nordic hydro can be a big winter swing factor too. A few colder, drier weeks in Norway have taken stocks down below norms, with the hydro “deficit” put at over 10 TWh. Nordic hydro matters: peak regional stocks of over 100 TWh equate to all coal generation in Germany to end-September this year, while annual inflow in Norway alone can vary by 65 TWh.

    What’s next? A material change in the Nordic weather forecast looks set to reverse the recent above-average decline in stocks. Milder, windier conditions could see net outflows decrease on reduced demand and strong wind production. Nordic spot prices are trending down below Eur40/MWh, having been over Eur45/MWh in late November.

    5. US refinery restarts put pressure on gasoline crack spreads

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s happening? Crack spreads for NYMEX RBOB, an indicator of profitability for gasoline production, have weakened since late November, as the return of refineries from fall maintenance is adding barrels of gasoline to storage. The RBOB crack spreads for February 2020 against ICE Brent ended Thursday at around $4.86/b, down $3.16/b on week. The decline followed a surprisingly large US gasoline stock build. Stocks rose by 12 million barrels between the first and last week of November, based on US Energy Information Administration data. US refiners are restarting after maintenance season. At its peak, the week ended October 11, a combined 3.36 million b/d of distillation and FCC capacity was down in the US Gulf Coast and Midwest, according to S&P Global Platts Analytics.

    What’s next? By end-November, outages had fallen to 847,000 b/d, and by end-December they are expected to decline to just 372,000 b/d. Refineries are also returning from maintenance in Europe and parts of Asia, which should add to global gasoline supplies in December.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 22:20

  • Major Freight Carrier Bankrupted, Leaving 3,000 Truckers Jobless, Many Stranded On Highways
    Major Freight Carrier Bankrupted, Leaving 3,000 Truckers Jobless, Many Stranded On Highways

    As the manufacturing recession gains momentum, the largest U.S. truckload carrier filed for bankruptcy Monday morning, leaving 3,000 truck drivers and 500 administrative positions without a job two weeks before Christmas. 

    Indianapolis-based Celadon filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the early hours on Monday morning.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Around 1:43 am est., headlines via Reuters confirmed the bankruptcy and how all domestic and international operations have been halted. 

    • CELADON GROUP, INC. AND AFFILIATES COMMENCE VOLUNTARY CHAPTER 11 CASES

    • CELADON GROUP INC – CELADON ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT IT WILL SHUT DOWN ALL OF ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS EFFECTIVE AS OF TODAY, MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2019

    • CELADON GROUP INC – THIS SHUT DOWN DOES NOT INCLUDE TAYLOR EXPRESS BUSINESS HEADQUARTERED IN HOPE MILLS, NORTH CAROLINA

    • CELADON GROUP – CELADON INTENDS TO USE ITS CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDINGS TO WIND DOWN ITS GLOBAL OPERATIONS

    • CELADON GROUP INC – HAVE FILED VOLUNTARY PETITIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF BANKRUPTCY CODE IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

    • CELADON GROUP INC – TO SUPPORT WIND DOWN OF OPERATIONS, CELADON’S LENDERS HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE INCREMENTAL DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION FINANCING

    Celadon CEO Paul Svindland told WTHR Indianapolis that the entire company would shut down business operations except for the “Taylor Express” subsidiary in Hope Mills, North Carolina, on Monday. 

    Svindland said the company will guarantee delivery of their last loads and will instruct drivers where to leave trucks. 

    “We have diligently explored all possible options to restructure Celadon and keep business operations ongoing, however, a number of legacy and market headwinds made this impossible to achieve,” Svindland said in a press release.

    “Celadon has faced significant costs associated with a multi-year investigation into the actions of former management, including the restatement of financial statements. When combined with the enormous challenges in the industry, and our significant debt obligations, Celadon was unable to address our significant liquidity constraints through asset sales or other restructuring strategies. Therefore, in conjunction with our lenders, we concluded that Celadon had no choice but to cease all operations and proceed with the orderly and safe wind down of our operations through the Chapter 11 process.”

    A source told WTHR that 3,000 truckers across the country are jobless on Monday morning, and many are stranded on highways with no money for fuel as gas cards have been shut off. 

    Over the weekend, rumors of Celadon’s collapse spread on Facebook like wildfire. Reports of truckers stranded on highways as their gas cards and maintenance contracts to service trucks were shutoff. 

    Some Facebook users offered their homes, a hot meal, and transportation for stranded truckers, considering Christmas is several weeks away. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>\

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The collapse of Celadon comes after a grand jury indicted two former executives for cooking the books. 

    Last week, U.S. Attorney Josh Minkler announced the indictment of former COO William Meek and former CFO Bobby Peavler. Both are facing wire fraud, securities fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.​

    As previously reported, the manufacturing recession triggered a freight slowdown in 2019. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the overall economy rapidly decelerating through Q4 and likely into 1Q20, the trucking bust will likely get more severe. 

    As for the stranded Celadon truck drivers — some might not make it home for the holidays.  


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 22:00

  • Never-Trumper Rick Wilson Suggests Putting Anti-Vaxxers In "Re-Education Camps"
    Never-Trumper Rick Wilson Suggests Putting Anti-Vaxxers In “Re-Education Camps”

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Neo-Con Republican strategist and Never Trumper Rick Wilson has suggested that anti-vaxxers should be put in re-education camps and have their children taken away.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yes, really.

    Wilson was responding to an NBC News story about how people who question the safety of vaccines are now taking their fight “offline” due to mass censorship by the likes of Facebook and are “harassing doctors and private citizens.”

    “Anti-vaxxers are a scourge and a strong argument for re-education camps, the immediate seizure of their property, and putting their children into protective custody,” responded Wilson.

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

    The tweet received nearly 8,000 likes.

    One could make the argument that anti-vaxxers are pushing harmful misinformation, but to suggest they should have their kids seized and put in gulags is clearly demented.

    Respondents to the tweet were not impressed.

    “Like China is doing to the Uyghur?” asked one.

    “You should definitely visit the @AuschwitzMuseum because a place like that was only possible thanks to people who think like you,” remarked another.

    While Wilson purports to be a conservative, he is in reality a deep state neo-con who has trashed President Trump for 3 years solid.

    *  *  *

    My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 21:40

  • The Last Time We Had Such A Dramatic Improvement In Sentiment Was… Early 2008
    The Last Time We Had Such A Dramatic Improvement In Sentiment Was… Early 2008

    New record highs in stocks, VIX testing multi-year lows, consumer-confidence soaring, PMIs rebounding… and a Nirvana-like jobs number. The last couple of weeks have provided everything the passive investor could want to confirm all those fears of “recession” were just the typical doomsayers spoiling the party for the ‘smart’ investors who so cleverly are able to see through collapsing earnings, manufacturing recessions, and a global liquidity shortage (saying nothing of repo panic and CLO chaos).

    One look at the chart below “proves” everything is awesome again…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    There’s just one thing…

    As Bloomberg’s John Authers notes, the last time we saw a peak in recession searches followed by a sudden wave of relief like we saw over the summer was…in early 2008.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    In case you needed your memory jogged, Authers explains that fears were high at the beginning of the year as subprime lenders went to the wall, but the headline macro data stayed the right side of recession as the Fed eased aggressively. By mid-summer, even after the fire sale of Bear Stearns and the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, recession fears were as low as they are now.

    Additionally, the “use it or lose it” surge in spending into fiscal year-end is very similar to what occurred during the crisis, both of which left a sudden gaping hole that invited the recession fears – before rebounding (everything is fine, don’t worry)…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Of course, we all know what happened next… all the worst parts of the bible.

    There is of course a vast difference between then and now (as every asset-gatherer and commission-taker will tell you). Here’s one big difference: The Fed’s balance sheet was less than $1 trillion in 2008 (before exploding higher on QE1 etc…) whereas now it is over $4 trillion and accelerating at its fastest rate since the crisis

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Crucially, the depth of the fear this summer dramatically increase the risk that the market will now get too far ahead of itself in its complacent confidence that The Fed has its back (and besides a trade deal is imminent right?)… And that should really frighten everyone, because, as Authers so ominously notes, history tells us that over enthusiasm at times like these can take us to some dark places.

    Even the vol market is starting to get a little worried about next week’s tariff deadline…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Trade accordingly.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 21:20

  • China's Central Bank To Lead Real-World Pilot Of Digital Yuan: Report
    China’s Central Bank To Lead Real-World Pilot Of Digital Yuan: Report

    Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,

    China is at last planning to conduct the first real-world test of its central bank digital currency (CBDC), fresh reports claim. 

    According to local news outlet Caijing on Dec. 9, the initial pilot for the CBDC is set for the city of Shenzhen before the end of 2019, and may possibly include the city of Suzhou. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Banks in a digital currency “horse race” 

    Under the auspices of China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), four major banks and major economic participants such as China Telecom will test digital currency payments. 

    “One step will be to rationally select the pilot verification area, scenario and service scope, and steadily promote the introduction and application of digital form of fiat currency,” Caijing explains.

    The article continues:

    “Compared with the previous pilot, this time the central bank’s legal digital currency pilot will go out of the central bank system and enter real service scenarios such as transportation, education, and medical treatment, reaching C-end users and generating frequent applications.”

    In Shenzhen, the PBoC is encouraging what it describes as a “horse race” — each bank will manage the digital currency differently, competing against each other in order to secure its model’s wider adoption in the future.

    It added that other locales could be included in the testing, but the exact details remain unspecified. 

    PBoC beats world competition

    The debut will nonetheless make the PBoC the world’s first central bank to issue a digital currency, capitalizing on China’s efforts to embrace financial technology this year. 

    As Cointelegraph reported, the currency itself has been under development for several years, and was already at an advanced stage when Beijing officially endorsed the use of blockchain technology in October.

    Criticism of the CBDC plans meanwhile continues, with analysis noting interoperability as a potential major sticking point in the plans. 

    Last week, Cointelegraph launched a dedicated subsidiary publication, Cointelegraph China, to cover developments in the Chinese space.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 21:00

  • Bannon Says Hillary Will Run In 2020 To 'Save Democratic Party From Michael Bloomberg'
    Bannon Says Hillary Will Run In 2020 To ‘Save Democratic Party From Michael Bloomberg’

    Steve Bannon thinks that Hillary Clinton is waiting for just the right moment to enter the 2020 race and “save the Democratic Party” from billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Bannon, Clinton’s recent interview with Howard Stern – under the guise of promoting her book – signals that she’s absolutely running.

    Hillary Clinton is waiting for her shot to come in and say, ‘I’m going to save the Democratic Party,’ that Michael Bloomberg is a liberal or moderate Republican. He’s not a Democrat,” Bannon told Fox News‘ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

    The former Trump strategist added that he doesn’t think any of the current Democratic candidates are strong enough to beat Trump, and that Clinton is “waiting in the wings” to take him on again.

    That said, if Hillary is going to run, she better do so quickly as filing deadlines to be included on Super Tuesday primary ballots in several key states are rapidly approaching or have passed.

     

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


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 20:40

    Tags

  • 10 Grey Swans For 2020
    10 Grey Swans For 2020

    Authored by Bilal Hafeez via MacroHive.com,

    Black swan events are the unknown unknowns that no one can even envisage, let alone predict.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But their close cousin – grey swans – can enter our imaginations. These are low probability, high impact events that few expect. They aren’t even our base cases. But by imagining these risk scenarios, we can at least prepare for them should they erupt. Here are ten to think about for 2020:

    1. US Introduces Capital Controls

    2. Markets Are Shut For A Long Bank Holiday

    3. Euro-area Inflation Surge

    4. Japan Intervenes in FX Markets

    5. Apple Buys Disney

    6. Fed Disintermediates Banks Through Digital Currency

    7. Tesla Partners with Hyundai

    8. Drone Attacks on US installations in Middle East

    9. Virtual Reality (VR) Kills Auto Sector

    10. England Win the Euro 2020

    Grey Swan #1: US Introduces Capital Controls

    (Bilal Hafeez)

    While everyone has been talking about trade wars, the next battle may be fought over capital flows. Under President Trump, the US has battled very publicly to advantage US goods in international trade, especially with China. We’ve now got new tariffs being introduced that have the effect of throwing sand into the gears of global trade. But why stop there?

    The US’s real strength is its intellectual property and corporate prowess. Foreign companies have forever been trying to acquire US companies to leapfrog an internal development process. Notably, in recent years, China has been an active investor in Silicon Valley and an acquirer of US companies. But we are seeing signs that the US may try to put a stop to that.

    The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) was signed into law by President Trump in 2018. It gives the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) – the body that approves foreign takeovers of US companies – sweeping new powers. For example, the body can now stop certain real estate transactions and even acquisitions of minority stakes in companies.

    Recent deals being blocked include Singapore-based Broadcom acquiring US Qualcomm. And Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech had to reverse its purchase of dating app Grindr. All were blocked on national security grounds.

    But this could just be the beginning. A lack of progress by the Chinese to open up its markets, a failure to protect US intellectual property in China and any CNY weakness could see the US ratchet up the pressure in 2020. On top of using CFIUS, the US could also delist Chinese companies from US exchanges – currently over 150 companies are listed including Alibaba and PetroChina, and the US could stop US investors buying Chinese securities. Both Peter Navarro, trade advisor to Trump, and Senator Marco Rubio have advocated such moves.

    Together these measures would amount to capital controls. So why not go all the way and introduce formal capital controls against all countries? Remember that from after the Second World War until the early 1970s the US had formal capital controls under the Bretton Woods system. You heard it here first.

    Market implication: Chinese stocks underperform, US VC markets come under pressure.

    Grey Swan #2: Markets Are Shut For A Long Bank Holiday

    (Macro Dilettante)

    The festive season seems to arrive sooner every year. And yes, I do realise that each year represents a dwindling percentage of my mortal whole (long may it continue!); but it’s not just me who’s complaining this year. Christmas 2019 has come early for almost everybody who invests in everything – it’s been truly an annus mirabilis.

    But as we look forward to 2020, surely we should look back, too. Even in a ‘fake news’, MMT, post-QE financial world, context is a rather important lens when considering long term investment cycles.

    Let us just compare 2019 to its predecessor, when according to DB research the percentage of assets with negative total returns in terms of USD was… 93%. So, I’d wait and see where we end 2019. But why just look back one year?

    Yes, yes. I agree. The past is a different country; they do things differently there. But we mustn’t forget our history lessons, nor the ghosts of our past. For me, I love a macabre story around this time of year. A creepy tale of horror, a bit of a fright. And sometimes a thing in plain sight is source of such a ghoulish frisson.

    When I read the latest sage observations from the CIO of PIMCO (paragons of logic and thoughtful investment) that ‘year-end volatility is possible, not probable’. I know it’s a reasonable and fair assessment. I want a fright for Christmas. Not even statements like ‘volatility is going to treble’, ‘equities are going down 20%’, or ‘PE is a roach motel and going down 25%’ have the slightest effect on me anymore. My fear muscle is jaded. The market has climbed the wall of worry too many times, both with and without ropes. But like the evil in the ghost stories of M.R. James, there is a dark shape at the very corner of my eye.

    Much of our enjoyment around 25 December is due to the Bank Holiday(s). We all look forward to them. So I am sure it would come as a huge surprise to practically all market participants that there is something much worse than lower prices. It’s no prices. No market at all. No liquidity. Zero.

    Don’t believe it’s possible? Let me just share this with you as a creepy Christmas present, a treat, a gift wrapped in shimmering goodwill.

    For one whole week in March of 1933, every single banking transaction in the US was suspended by President Roosevelt issuing Proclamation 2039 in an attempt to stem a tide of bank failures and restore a semblance of confidence in the financial system.

    So, the next time somebody asks, ‘what is the worst that could happen?’, remind them of Bank Holidays. Remind them of March 1933. And try not to lose too much sleep, but ask yourself this question: if it can happen for one week, why not one month?

    As much as I hate to unwind the thread of this ghostly narrative, I’m afraid I must. Because anybody is entitled to ask: ‘but how?’ In other words, you’ve loaded the weapon, now explain how the trigger gets pulled.

    The usual way is to try to imagine a sequence of events that could cause the triggering of unseen market tripwires; classic, logical path dependency. I think the best places to look are, in no particular order:

    • Passive participants becoming forced liquidators following an aligned rapid momentum shift.

    • Funding channels, i.e. CB plumbing springs a leak.

    • Any significantly out-of-sample, rapid rise in inflation in US & Europe (etc., etc.).

    We all have our favourites, from China shadow banking to rising credit default, or even collapsing recovery rates. All are valid. And in extremis they might be capable of triggering generalised carnage.

    There is another way to explain how the trigger might come to be pulled – but I’ll leave that to another note. It involves understanding quantum phase transitions and complexity. It would be too much to digest here. But don’t be surprised if you get an early Christmas gift of quantum proportions.

    Grey Swan #3: Euro-area Inflation Surge

    (Dominique Dwor-Frecaut)

    Following the election of left-wingers as its leaders in November 2019, the Social Democratic Party (SDP), could end its coalition with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). With the economy sliding, waiting out the full Bundestag term until 2021 seems unlikely to arrest the SPD’s own slide in the polls.  Germany could go to the polls in 2020.

    Just like voters in other countries facing income stagnation and large immigration, those in Germany reject mainstream parties. The main beneficiaries of this anti-establishment feeling however have been the Greens rather than the extreme right. While the latter has made some gains, these have been limited to the states of what was formerly East Germany. As a result, the CDU and Greens could each win about a third of the votes.

    The CDU and the Greens would then enter a coalition government as equal partners. If so, the Greens would likely launch a wide-ranging investment program targeting infrastructure and environment. These moves could prove much more popular than commonly assumed as the environment has become the number one concern of German voters.   If the coalition was not able to   overturn Germany’s constitutional limit on budget deficits, it could rely on issuance of debt not included in the debt break.  Germany’s budget balance could swing to for instance a deficit of 1% of GDP in 2020 from a surplus of 1% of GDP in 2019 with larger deficits expected over the medium term.

    Emboldened by Germany’s example, France, Italy, Spain, and the more profligate smaller Euro area countries would launch their own fiscal expansions. Without German support, the European Commission would be powerless to stop the breach of fiscal discipline. The average Euro area budget deficit could rise to for instance 3% of GDP in 2020 from less than 1% of GDP in 2019.

    In addition 2020 would see a further intensification of union activism.  In 2019 labor strikes took place across Europe, but mainly in sectors such as transportation where workers’ ability to paralyze the economy gives them more bargaining power.  In 2020, with the economy supported by expansionary fiscal policy, strikes could broaden to the whole European economy and bring about a further acceleration of wage growth.

    With less austerity and faster wage growth, the Euro area would boom and inflation would make a come back.  For instance, growth could climb to 2.5% in 2020, up from 1% in 2019, and core inflation could move close to 2%, from 1% in 2019. That scenario could see the EUR appreciate to 1.40, the yield curve steepen, and the ECB starts normalizing policy. Euro area equity markets would outperform the US, where a split Congress in the runup to the 2020 elections is unlikely to bring about supportive policies.

    Market implication: euro yield curve steepens, euro higher, euro stocks outperform.

    Grey Swan #4: Japan Intervenes in FX Markets

    (Bilal Hafeez)

    Japanese growth is fast losing steam. In 2019, GDP growth was just under 1%, and in 2020 it is projected to fall to a meagre 0.3%.The US-China trade war and associated global decline in manufacturing has clearly impacted Japan. But Japan hiking sales tax in late 2019 hasn’t helped, either. Indeed, previous sale tax hikes in 1997 and 2014 saw significant declines in growth (3.1% to 1.1% in 1997; 2% to 0.4% in 2014). So what’s their plan of action?

    The Japanese government has announced a fiscal stimulus package to arrest the decline, but much of it appears to be rehashed versions of existing promises. Perhaps for this reason, markets have shrugged off the announcement.

    Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan has hit the limits of monetary policy. They have negative policy rates, they are holding long-term interest down through yield-curve control, they are buying bonds, equities, and real estate, and they altered their inflation target to allow an overshoot.

    That leaves Japan with one option: currency intervention, an action it has taken in almost every decade since the beginning of the free float period in the 1970s. Most recently it engaged in its largest intervention ever in 2011. So Japanese policymakers could dust off this well-tested tool and intervene heavily to weaken the yen. This would certainly help boost Japanese exports, which have plunged of late.

    Of course, the move may well draw criticism from other countries, notably from President Trump. But with the US failing to reward Japan many additional benefits for being conciliatory, Japan may be willing to take a more aggressive path. Moreover, the US needs a reliable ally in its attempts to contain China.

    Get ready for the return of the BoJ in FX markets.

    Market implication: USD/JPY rises

    Grey Swan #5: Apple buys Disney

    (Bilal Hafeez)

    Apple’s earnings have been stagnating in recent years (Chart 1). They are reliant on iPhone sales and upgrades in a maturing smartphone market, and a slowdown in China hasn’t helped. It’s no wonder Apple has focused on expanding its Services and Wearables, Home and Accessories revenues. The trouble is that this will take time and comes with risks.

    The clearest case of this has been Apple’s continued forays into TV – whether as a platform (Apple TV), or more recently into content (Apple TV+). Its strategy on the content side was to work with well-known actors and directors to produce a small set of high-quality shows that would signal Apple’s intent. The trouble is that rival streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+ already have a comparable quality; but they also have the quantity.

    While Apple has famously been reluctant to make large acquisitions, perhaps 2020 could see them lose patience and take that path instead. And what better target than Disney? The financials could work. Apple’s market cap of $1.2 trillion dwarves that of Disney ($265bn). In fact, Apple has over $200bn in cash on its balance sheet, which alone could almost fund the purchase. The acquisition would give a large library of high-quality content including the Marvel, Star Wars, and Pixar properties. It would also give Apple another entry point into the Chinese consumer market.

    Chart 1: Apple Earnings are Stagnating

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Macro Hive, Apple

    We should also remember that Apple founder Steve Jobs was the majority shareholder of Pixar, which was later acquired by Disney. That resulted in Jobs becoming Disney’s largest shareholder. And until recently, Disney’s CEO, Bob Iger, was on the board of Apple. He stepped down just as Apple was launching a TV streaming product. In fact, Iger writes in his autobiography that ‘if Steve were still alive, we would have combined our companies, or at least discussed the possibility very seriously.’

    And if the above arguments are not enough, was it a coincidence that both Apple and Disney ended their streaming service products with a plus: Apple TV+ and Disney+?!

    Market implication: Disney shares would rise

    Grey Swan #6: Fed Disintermediates Banks Through Digital Currency

    (Anton Tonev)

    The financialization of the US economy, which started in the early 1980s, massively increased the size of the financial sector relative to the size of the banking industry upon which it depends for funding/passing liquidity from the Fed.

    The first cracks in the credit/money transmission mechanism already showed up in the late 1980s with the S&L crisis. The Basel I banking regulations, which came as a response to that crisis, were to severely restrict the use of depository institutions’ balance sheets. The problem was that the financial sector kept growing and needed financing so the shadow banking system (off-balance sheet financing) sprang up in the mid-1990s and quickly overtook traditional bank financing. Basel II, which was first enacted in 2004, eventually contributed to putting a spectacular end to this activity with the crisis of 2008.

    Chart 2: Banks as Share of Financial Sector (ex Fed)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Fed Flow of Funds Accounts, BeyondOverton

    The total assets of depository institutions now comprise about 20% of total assets of the US financial sector, which is half of what it was before the 1980s (Chart 1). On top of that, a side effect of Basel III over-reach in response to the 2008 financial crisis is further restricting banks’ ability to put their balance sheets to use for the economy as a whole.

    The bottom line is that the credit transmission mechanism is even more clogged up now than it has been at any point in the past. That is becoming obvious with repo rates staying elevated despite plentiful Fed liquidity: banks cannot expand their balance sheet after being placed in regulatory fetters by Basel III.

    Figure 1

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s not negative rates or fintech that the banks should be scared of; it’s what comes after.

    The 2008 financial crisis was ultimately triggered by a broker-dealer which had no access to the Fed’s balance sheet for funding. The next financial crisis is likely to be similar but probably triggered by a financial institution higher up the inverted pyramid above (Chart 2). This could be an ETF or passive fund provider, for example. But the curve ball here is what is going to happen after the crisis. These events will force the Fed to open up its balance sheet to the whole economy, eventually even to retail through central bank digital currency (CBDC), thus overstepping the banking industry.

    Losing their power of money creation may not provide the death knell for the banking industry, but it would be such a massive hit to their model that they may continue to exist only as mere ‘utilities’.

    Market implications: US financials underperform

    Grey Swan #7: Tesla Partners with Hyundai

    (Bilal Hafeez)

    The global auto industry is in the doldrums. Chinese growth is weaker and the shift towards electric cars is upending the traditional industry order. European manufacturers – notably German automakers like BMW and Volkswagen – are adapting their model ranges, while Japanese automakers like Toyota are already well advanced in their transition. Tesla, of course, is leading the charge on the US side.

    The obvious laggard is Korean automaker Hyundai. Its valuations are among the lowest of the major manufacturers (Chart 1), and investors are clearly questioning the company’s long-term future. Therefore, it may need to find a partner. And fast. But what could it offer? Well, for a start its long experience in manufacturing and its healthy cashflows.

    Meanwhile, the auto company that exemplifies the future, Tesla, has the mirror image of Hyundai’s problems. Investors love the vision and value the company at close to ten times book value, but Tesla struggles with production and cashflows. So perhaps a marriage made in heaven would be Tesla partnering with Hyundai.

    Chart 3: Poor Valuation of Hyundai

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Macro Hive, Reuters

    Admittedly, this could be an outlandish call – there’s been no indication from either side of any interest. But with Hyundai struggling to gain traction in the luxury car market and Tesla’s well-known cashflow issues, you never know.

    Market implication: Hyundai and Tesla stock rises

    Grey Swan #8: Drone Attacks on US installations in Middle East

    (Dominique Dwor-Frecaut)

    The unmanned warfare capabilities of insurgents in the Middle East have increased markedly over the past few years:

    Unmanned warfare arguably reached a new level of threat with the September attack on Saudi oil facilities. The attack shattered the myth of impregnable air defence systems, no matter how costly or sophisticated. Saudi Arabia, after all, has access to the most advanced US military technology as well as to US intelligence and surveillance support.

    But in fact, the sophisticated weaponry that advanced military powers typically deploy is largely helpless when it comes to very large numbers of unsophisticated, low cost weapons such as drones. In response, the US and other militaries are scrambling to develop counter measures. But these will take time to prepare and subsequently deploy.

    Meanwhile, further high visibility targets in the Middle East remain vulnerable in 2020. The likely sponsor of these attacks, Iran, is unlikely to want an open conflict with the US; rather it will wish to demonstrate its retaliation capacity. This suggests that the most exposed targets could be the economic or military assets of US allies or non-military US assets as opposed to the US military itself. For instance, US Navy supply ships crewed by civilians and bringing supplies to the US aircraft carrier strike force deployed in the region could find themselves the target of swarms of unmanned high-speed boats and drones.

    Markets quickly recovered from the September attack on Saudi facilities. The price of oil is now lower than before the September attack. But a new, high-visibility drone attack in the Middle East could see more oil supply risk priced in. It could also lead to a rethink of US military spending priorities as drones are changing the cost benefit analysis of traditional military hardware such as aircraft carriers and fighter jets.

    Market implication: oil prices move higher

    Grey Swan #9: Virtual Reality Kills Auto Sector

    (Anton Tonev)

    The history of humankind is one of gradually reducing mobility. We generally travel for three reasons: resources, work, and entertainment. And with advances in technology, the need to travel for each of these decreases. As we start to move into the digital medium through VR, the need to travel may completely disappear. With VR on the cusp of mass adoption, betting on the autonomous car – whether electric vehicles (EV) or solar powered – to be the next ‘big thing’ in mobility may not be the smartest idea.

    • We stopped travelling for resources after the Agricultural Revolution: when we first acquired a surplus of resources required survival. We moved from hunter-gathering to a more sedentary lifestyle.

    • The Industrial Revolution instigated a widespread need and ability to travel for work. But that need probably reached a peak sometime after WW2.

    • Mobility for entertainment picked up thereafter, but probably reached a peak in 2007 with the invention of the smartphone and the dawning of the Digital Society.

    Chart 4: US Vehicle Miles Travelled Per Capita

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: FRED

    The wide adoption of VR will put the final nail in the coffin of human mobility. Until just a few years ago, at least we used to go ‘shopping for resources’ to our corner grocery store. Now, Amazon and a bunch of other companies bring food and necessities to our doorstep. Travelling for work is also decreasing as internet/network connectivity improves. VR brings the decline of ‘mobility for entertainment’: the need to go to a concert, the movies, etc., or even travelling across the world on vacation, is reduced.

    It’s not the EV that will bring down the auto industry, but VR.

    It’s only a question of how long it takes for ‘haptics’ to become more sophisticated. People will not, of course, stop travelling completely, but physical mobility will be confined to either a thing of absolute necessity or one of luxury. As such, the auto industry may not disappear, but looks likely to be pushed into the niche corner of luxury travel or transporting discretionary physical goods.

    Market implication: global autos underperform

    Grey Swan #10: England Win the Euro 2020

    (Bilal Hafeez)

    England reached the semi-finals of the Football World Cup in 2018. They reached the final of the Rugby World Cup in 2019. And they won the Cricket World Cup in 2019. Notice a pattern? I do, and I think the 2020 European Football Championships could be the next tournament for England to win.

    The team topped their qualifying group to enter the tournament and scored the most goals per match of any group (almost five on average). Betting markets have England as favourites to win followed by some mix of Belgium, France, Spain, and the Netherlands.

    The England squad is also unusually strong. ESPN recently released their rankings of the world’s best players by position. English players Trent Alexander-Arnold and Raheem Sterling were ranked world number one for the right back and wing positions, respectively. Meanwhile, Harry Kane was ranked as the second-best striker (after Sergio Aguero). And the estimated market value of the England squad at EUR1.25bn is the highest in the world (followed by Spain and France).

    So, don’t let the haters talk England down. In 2020, football will be coming home.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 20:20

  • China Launches 'Competitor' Pipeline Mega-Company In Gambit To Double Oil & Gas Infrastructure 
    China Launches ‘Competitor’ Pipeline Mega-Company In Gambit To Double Oil & Gas Infrastructure 

    Still leading the globe in new oil and natural gas demand for its population of 1.4 billion people and aggressive economic expansion program, China has established a new multi-bullion dollar state-owned national oil and gas infrastructure to “boost competition” according to state media headlines. 

    The country’s oil and gas infrastructure is currently predominantly operated by three state energy giants China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), Sinopec and CNOOC with the new addition of the state “competitor” expected to manage most of the national infrastructure, which includes underground natural gas storage and liquefied natural gas terminals as well.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image

    Beijing’s goal is to separate the cost of pipeline transportation from the sale of oil and gas, as Xinhua News Agency announced early Monday: “The new company will separate (oil and gas) transportation, production and sales, and open (transportation) to third-party entities, which will benefit market competition.”

    Beijing’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) will reportedly have a 40% share in the new entity, along with CNPC holding 30%, Sinopec 20% and CNOOC owning 10%.

    “The company will break up the country’s oil and gas pipeline transportation, from upstream production and downstream sales, and will facilitate third-party access to oil and gas infrastructure, helping boost market competition and efficiency of resource allocation,” an industry official said, according to S&P Global Platts.

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

    Risk consultancy group Wood Mackenzie comments that the new company may be worth between $80 billion and $105 billion, and observes further:

    As China aims to double its pipeline infrastructure to over 240,000 km by 2025, PetroChina’s midstream spend could hit up to US$20 billion a year. Pipeline reform means the company will no longer be liable for this spend, freeing up funds for domestic investment and overseas expansion.

    China has a long term plan of seeking to double its pipeline infrastructure to over 240,000km by 2025, part of President Xi Jinping’s broader initiative to rapidly modernize and streamline industrial capacity across the country. 

    Last week China and Russia jointly launched the major unprecedented cooperative project that had been years in the making called the ‘Power of Siberia’ gas pipeline  an east-route pipeline from Siberia now providing China with Russian natural gas, which according to Chinese state media is expected to reach 5 billion cubic meters in 2020 and increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024. 

    Xi had hailed the pipeline’s inauguration as signaling a new start in future China-Russian cooperation and partnerships. Western leaders have received it as an alarming indicator of the two Washington ‘enemies’ seeking to transform the East into the globe’s new energy powerhouse. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 20:00

  • Former Ukrainian Prosecutor Exposes Yovanovich Perjury, George Kent's Motive To Impeach Trump
    Former Ukrainian Prosecutor Exposes Yovanovich Perjury, George Kent’s Motive To Impeach Trump

    Authored by Sundance via the Conservative Treehouse

    In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.

    Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress.

    What is outlined in this interview is a  problem for all DC politicians across both parties.  The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently.

    Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family.  This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.

    Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general public?  Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.

    It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d’affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump.  It was Taylor who engaged in carefully planned text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam Schiff’s political coup effort.

    Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (’06-’09) and later helped the Obama administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.

    In November Rudy Giuliani released  a letter he sent to Senator Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA’s for Ukrainian ‘whistle-blowers’ who are willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.

    Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S. Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the aforementioned laundry process. The VISA’s are unlikely to get approval for congressional testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.

    U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered funds back through their various “institutes” and business connections to the foreign government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]

    The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money laundering by granting conflict waivers, approvals for financing (think Clinton Global Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of “indulgence fees”, junkets, gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.

    If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process. Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain meeting with corrupt Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in December 2016.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because, well, in reality all of the U.S. Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.

    A “Codel” is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The “institutes” is where the real foreign money comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc. etc.  There are trillions at stake.

    [SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee. As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has full control over that Senator.  This is how the system works.]

    The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network.  And that is the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump.  In essence President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to be.

    So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote to impeach President Trump, it’s not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican.  We need to look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer President Trump did not interfere in their process.

    McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and she ain’t about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.

    Senator Lindsey Graham announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the swamps’ financial endeavors. WATCH:

    This open-secret system of “Affluence and Influence” is how the intelligence apparatus gains such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S. intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.

    There’s a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief of being more important than the system.

    Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.

    FUBAR !


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 19:40

    Tags

  • Apple "Deeply Concerned" That Chinese-Born Staff Who Allegedly Stole Trade Secrets Will Try To Flee
    Apple “Deeply Concerned” That Chinese-Born Staff Who Allegedly Stole Trade Secrets Will Try To Flee

    Given the international brouhaha surrounding the ongoing Huawei CFO extradition hearings in Canada to face fraud charges in the US, reports from Reuters  that Apple has “deep concerns” that two Chinese-born former employees accused of stealing trade secrets from the company will try to flee before their trials if their locations are not monitored – could well throw yet another cog in the gears of any imminent US-China trade deal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As detailed earlier in the year, the two former Apple employees worked in the company’s secretive self-driving car program. As CNBC reported earlier in the year, Apple’s review found about 100 photos taken inside Apple’s building that housed the project on his personal devices along with “over two thousand files containing confidential and proprietary Apple material, including manuals, schematics and diagrams,” according to the affidavit.

    Chen allegedly told Apple he backed up the work to his personal devices “as an ‘insurance policy’ to support his job applications after being placed on a PIP,” referring to the Performance Improvement Plan the agent claims Apple placed Chen on in December 2018. Apple allegedly found confidential and proprietary information on Chen’s devices collected prior to his placement on the improvement plan.

    And now, after eleven months, Reuters reports that, during a hearing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, prosecutors argued that Xiaolang Zhang and Jizhong Chen should continue to be monitored because they present flight risks… which seems reasonable since both men were arrested on criminal trade secrets theft charges while heading to airports to fly back to China and have been monitored after being released on bail.

    Their defense attorney reportedly said Monday that both men had family reasons to visit China and had shown no signs of violating their pre-trial conditions so far.

    But, once again echoing the Huawei executive case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marissa Harris argued that if either man fled to China, it would be difficult if not impossible for federal officials to secure their extradition for a trial.

    “Apple’s intellectual property is at the core of our innovation and growth,” the statement said.

    “The defendants’ continued participation in these proceedings is necessary to ensure a final determination of the facts, and we have deep concerns the defendants will not see this through if given the opportunity.”

    Given Tim Cook’s recent cozy relationship with President Trump, we can’t help but wonder if a quiet call will be made to ensure this IP (allegedly stolen by these two Chinese-nationals) is not allowed to leave the country?

    Additionally, the irony is not lost on us at the potential for Chinese officials to be angered by US attempts to surveil the every move of these two Chinese-born citizens.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 19:20

    Tags

  • Morgan Stanley: Central Banks Are Injecting $100 Billion Per Month To Crush Vol And Spike Markets
    Morgan Stanley: Central Banks Are Injecting $100 Billion Per Month To Crush Vol And Spike Markets

    One week ago, in response to the recurring question whether the Fed’s latest direct intervention in capital markets is QE or is NOT QE, we answered by looking directly at how the market itself was responding to the Fed’s liquidity injections.

    The answer was clear enough: just like during the POMO days of QE1, QE2, Operation Twist, and QE3, stocks have risen in every single week when the Fed’s balance sheet increased, following the three weeks of declines that led to the October 11 announcement. What about the one week when the Fed’s balance sheet shrank? That was the only week in the past two months since the launch of “NOT QE” when the S&P dropped.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yet, some doubts still remains.

    As Morgan Stanley’s Michal Wilson writes today in his Weekly Warm Up piece, “in recent marketing meetings, several clients have asked if we think theFed’s $60B/month balance sheet expansion is QE or not.” In response, Wilson gives the podium to MS interest rates strategist Matt Hornbach who says that it’s “Q” but not “QE.” In other words, “there is little debate that the Fed is increasing the quantity of money, or Q. However, they are not taking duration out of the market so the additional money lacks a direct transmission mechanism to the equity markets or other long duration risk assets.”

    While semantically Wilson and Hornbach are correct, the outcome is obvious: whether it is Q, QE, or NOT QE, the money is clearly making its way to the market when the Fed’s balance sheet expands, and vice versa.

    And quite a bit of money it is, because it’s not just the Fed.

    As Wilson further elaborates, “we continue to see the 3 largest central banks in the world expand their balance sheets at the rate of $100B per month ($60B from the Fed, $25B from the ECB and $15B from the BOJ).” As a reminder, several years ago, Citi’s fixed income guru Matt King said that it takes $200 billion in quarterly liquidity injections across all central banks to prevent a market crash, and lo and behold we are now well above that bogey.

    But wait, there’s more: in case $300 billion per quarter was not enough, last week there was also an announcement that Japan would enact a new fiscal stimulus of approximately $120 billion which could be as much as $230 billion when you include the private economy incentives. That, as Wilson puts it, “is a lot of money.” It’s also an issue for the traditionally bearish Wilson, who as a reminder in mid November got a tap on the shoulder and, kicking and screaming, was “urged” to raise his S&P bull case target to 3,250.

    It could go even higher.

    As Wilson notes on Monday, “as part of our year ahead outlook published a few weeks ago, we cited this excessive liquidity as a reason why we thought the S&P 500 could trade well above our bull case year end target of 3250 while this policy action persists. As of right now, it appears that the Fed, ECB and BOJ will continue at this pace through the first quarter of next year.”

    But wait, didn’t Wilson just say moments earlier that the liquidity injection by central banks “lacks a direct transmission mechanism to the equity markets?”

    Well, yes and no. Wilson connects the two, by explaining that in his view, “the central bank transmission mechanism is via suppressed volatility”, to wit:

    The recent actions by the Fed were intended to reduce volatility in the repo market but it’s also had the effect of reducing the volatility in risk markets. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 show 30 day realized volatility for the S&P 500 for two periods. The first period is the post crisis financial repression era, and the second is the longer term. As you can see, we recently reached one of the lowest readings of this era when we hit 5.7% at the end of last month after a brief spike in September when repo markets became disrupted.

    To put this in context, this reading is in the first percentile of the past 7 years, a time when QE and financial repression has been very active…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … almost as if QE is active once more.

    Now, the reason why the Fed is directly targeting volatility – assuming MS’ thesis is right – is that vol also happens to be the key signal for two of the dominant market investors active today: CTAs and vol-targeting strategies. As shown in Exhibit 3and Exhibit 4, one can see that the flow of funds from these strategies is quite volatile and rather significant in size.

    Morgan Stanley’s Quantitative Derivative Strategies (QDS) team estimates that since September, inflows to global equities are close to $175B of which ⅔ ended up in the US. The charts also show the two major downdrafts last year around the volatility shock in January/February 2018 and then the end of the year liquidity squeeze from QT and economic growth deterioration. All that changed in 2019, and this year’s flows have been quite positive with over $300B into global equities cumulatively with a few shocks in May and August to the downside as market volatility increased around escalating trade tensions and then recession fears. With both of those concerns fading recently along with central bank balance sheet expansion those outflows have reversed sharply to inflows.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More importantly, since these two strategies are directly driven by vol, and specifically the lower the volatility, the greater the leveraging, the inflows and the bullish impact on stocks, the more the Fed depresses volatility, the higher stocks rise.

    And so, with central banks remaining stimulative with aggressive balance sheet expansion, Wilson notes that vol should remain suppressed in the absence of a breakdown in trade negotiations or hard evidence that the economic cycle is turning down again. (of course we will know as soon as this Sunday if trade negotiations will indeed not suffer a breakdown).

    The question then turns to how high Morgan Stanley can reasonably expect the S&P 500 to rise from here if these trends remain stable. The next chart shows how realized volatility is related to the equity risk premium (ERP). Unsurprisingly, the MS equity strategist finds a positive relationship between the two – i.e. falling/rising vol is relative to falling/rising ERP.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, there have been some important divergences between the two over the past several years. First, in 2016, the ERP remained somewhat sticky to the upside despite very low realized volatility. This can be attributed to the high political uncertainty during that year due to the US Presidential election and Brexit. There was also a large gap in early 2018 when we experienced a sharp spike in realized vol but the ERP remained quite low. This divergence can be attributed to the observation that the vol shock was more technical in nature and not fundamentally induced. Therefore, the ERP remained low.

    Fast forward to today, when we currently observe a third major divergence between the two – the ERP remains more elevated than one might expect based on its relationship with realized vol. So what’s going on now?

    Here, Morgan Stanley thinks this makes sense given what is likely to be another heightened year of political uncertainty much like 2016. Trade tensions are also likely to remain even with a phase one deal getting signed. Finally, the bank’s core bearish view is that corporate margins/profitability will continue to be a drag on earnings growth even in the muddle through late cycle scenario our economists forecast for the US.

    And yet, this is where the upside “risk” to Morgan Stanley’s bullish forecast lies, because the ERP could certainly fall further, which is why Wilson has been highlighting the near term upside risk for the S&P 500 to trade above his bull case target (3250) so long as the Fed and other central banks keep vol suppressed below “normal” levels. Looking at Exhibit 5, it’s fair to argue ERP could fall another 50bps toward 325-50bps if vol stays suppressed. Using the bank’s ERP/Rates framework in Exhibit 6 and assuming 10 year Treasury yields remain close to current levels, the forward P/E multiple could expand another couple of turns. Using the currently consensus forward EPS of $177.42 this means that the S&P 500 might be able to overshoot to the upside in this suppressed volatility environment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, all of the above was written by a Michael Wilson who is merely covering his (bearish) ass in case the S&P does hit 3,400 which as emerged earlier today, is JPMorgan’s as well as Goldman’s 2020 target. In an ideal world, where the Fed had not launched QE, Wilson’s tone would have been decidedly different. Which is also why he adds the footnote that “this is not our base case assumption, mainly because we think the ERP should remain at current levels, or higher, given the uncertainties around politics, policy and earnings growth for next year.”

    A little more of Wilson’s bearishness shines through when he says that he is confident the current consensus forecasts for earnings next year remain 5-10 percent too high. However, he concedes that the market will use the consensus numbers as its best guess/most likely outcome at least until their are proven wrong. Here, just like this year, the reduction in forward EPS is bound to be slow as companies are loathe to reduce forecasts until they absolutely have to, and analysts rarely deviate far from company guidance.

    Having offered the market his bull – and even mega-bull – case, Wilson is then allowed to revert back to his normal, bearish self, and pointing to last week’s jobs data and consumer confidence data which “were well received by equity investors,” he notes that “the action in the bond market and our cyclicals / defensives ratio left a lot to be desired.”

    Specifically, the strategist notes that despite what has been a series of better data points on the economy and forward looking indicators, both the 10 year Treasury Yield and his cyclicals/defensives stock ratio remain well below key resistance levels. In fact, both are still close to their lows in 2016 and below levels reached last December!

    This makes sense and in in fact confirms Wilson’s view that “downside risks to growth remain higher than upside risks”, especially since the S&P 500 is a very defensive equity market and could be viewed as its own asset class that received a unique allocation in passive portfolios. Meanwhile, the greatest risk in the equity market remains in growth stocks where expectations are too high and priced. From a sector standpoint, this is consumer discretionary broadly and expensive software and secular growth stocks. Since then, Wilson notes that these groups have underperformed and Morgan Stanley thinks that this will continues. Indeed, while consumer discretionary group had a decent day on Friday but its relative performance was still slightly negative remaining well below its 200 day moving average and appearing to be completely broken technically. Broadly, software had an even weaker day on Friday relative to the market capping a poor week and leaving its relative performance in a precarious position technically.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking at the chart above, one can argue that the consumer discretionary line – which is now far below its 200DMA -is now in a breakdown. Why is this notable? Because as Wilson concludes, “consumer discretionary is an early cycle sector and we are clearly late cycle.” While the stocks had a good 2018 and first half of 2019 because US consumers have benefited from the tax cuts and have been spending well above trend, “this above trend spend however is likely coming to an end.”  So, even though the consumer is healthy and likely to continue to spend, he is unlikely to spend at the pace of the past few years, Wilson concludes.

    Which brings us to his bearish punchline (at least as much as he is allowed to be bearish), to wit: “stocks are now beginning to discount that slowdown and we think there is likely more downside given the early cycle properties of these stocks in what is a late cycle environment.”

    Of course, the materialization of this worst-case scenario would just mean even more QE from the Fed, which would then bring up the last -for this cycle – scenario we discussed over the weekend in “When We Fall Back Into A Recession And Real QE Returns, Watch Out.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 19:07

  • Fireworks Erupt As Matt Gaetz Goes Off On 'Non-Partisan' Democrat Impeachment Lawyer
    Fireworks Erupt As Matt Gaetz Goes Off On ‘Non-Partisan’ Democrat Impeachment Lawyer

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) took the Democrats’ ‘non-partisan’ impeachment attorney to task on Monday afternoon in a clip which quickly went viral.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gaetz first asked GOP impeachment attorney Stephen Castor if he’d ever made political donations, to which he replied “I don’t remember any.”

    The Florida Republican then asked Democratic attorney Daniel Goldman the same question, to which Goldman replied “I do sir.

    Gaetz took it from there – saying “matter of fact, you’ve given tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats, right?”

    “Have you given over $100,000?” Gaetz asked. “Do you think if you’d given more money, you might have been able to ask questions – and answer them like Mr. Berke did?” referring to an incident earlier in the day in which House Judiciary Committee attorney Barry Berke was able to directly question Castor – despite him testifying just minutes earlier.

    Gaetz then trots out Castor’s anti-Trump tweets – asking him if he regrets tweeting “Nothing in the dossier has proved to be false (including your pee tape)” last August, then outlining all the things the dossier got wrong.

    Castor was speechless – mostly because Gaetz wouldn’t let him get a word in edgewise.

    Watch:


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 18:40

    Tags

  • Schlichter: A 'Safe Space' Society Is A Totalitarian Nightmare
    Schlichter: A ‘Safe Space’ Society Is A Totalitarian Nightmare

    Authored by Kurt Schlichter, op-ed via Townhall.com,

    As the undisputed star of the new film No Safe Spaces – the hit documentary on academia’s descent into Orwellian tyranny features a quick shot of a lawyer letter I wrote to some collegiate gulag apparatchiks – I wholeheartedly recommend that you go see it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager take you on a guided tour of the insanity and evil that has gripped academia, and it’s utterly terrifying. You need to see it not merely to gape at the freak show but to learn what’s coming for society as a whole. The dreary conformity factories that pretend to be providing our next generation of leaders with a higher education have instead embarked on a campaign of indoctrination designed to manufacture a generation of goose-stepping creeps who use their bizarre collection of buzzwords and fetishes as weapons to suppress any kind of dissent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the problem is that this PC Nazism is not just limited to academia. Eventually, these daddy-issue cadres are going to get out into the world and contaminate all of our institutions even worse than they are contaminated now. We’ve seen weeks of pretentious ruling caste losers presuming to lecture us on how we should fix the messes they and their pals made. Imagine if they compounded their failure with the desire to burn you at the stake for refusing to concede that a dude can get pregnant.

    A dude can’t get pregnant, not ever. And there’s a whole generation of future elitists who would want to cancel you permanently for daring to state this indisputable fact.

    The key to understanding what is happening on campuses, and increasingly in society as a whole, is to discard your bourgeois notions of reason and the presumption of good faith. What’s kind of funny is to watch people shake their heads at the incoherence of the leftist lies – what these people say is manifestly false and usually both contradictory and hypocritical. They have no evidence to support their claims, and they ignore contrary evidence. This freaks out the squares because normal people approach disputes with the understanding that facts and evidence and arguments can change one’s positions. But with these people, that doesn’t happen. It can’t happen, because they are not engaged in argument. Rather, they simply assert whatever nonsense they believe will increase their own power.

    That’s all it is. This PC leftist garbage is simply about power.

    You can’t prove your innocence or change their minds because actual facts are beside the point. The point is to generate a narrative that results in you being deprived of the moral capacity to assert your own rights and interests. You are disenfranchised, totally, by the moral failure that is your race or your sex or your religion or your sexual preference or whatever has been designated as bad this week. That is why we get evil concepts like “white privilege,” “mansplaining” and “heteronormativity” tossed around as if they are conceptual trump cards that instantly silence you merely by being asserted.

    Now, as someone of good faith who strives to operate in a universe that makes sense, you might observe that these kinds of prejudgments based on race and sex and so forth seem an awful lot like prejudice based on race and sex and so forth, and you would be right because that is exactly what they are. And you would scratch your head because aren’t these adolescent inquisitors supposedly really upset about prejudice based on race and sex and so forth?

    Except they aren’t, because they don’t care about prejudice, except to the extent they can use it as a weapon to get what they want. The left is not against prejudice or bigotry. It is actively in favor of both. It’s just that the targets change and morph based on necessity. Go on social media, if you dare, and find a black conservative or a gay conservative or a conservative woman and see what crap they take from the loving left. The crude hatred would shock and appall even the Democrats who invented and filled the ranks of the KKK. The left is supposed to be in favor of black people and gay people and women people and it takes only a few seconds to realize that this is utterly false. They don’t care about bigotry or prejudice. They care about leftist power, and if bigotry and prejudice help them get more of it then the left is all in.

    On the upside, they often turn on each other in internal power struggles where the radicals attempt to out-woke each other to become the king/queen/non-binary monarch of the hill.You’re a person of color? I’ll see your race card and raise you the fact that I was born Dennis but now I’m Denise.

    Today on campus, these creeps have power because the administrators tend to be cowed by the left when not in active cahoots with it. The left can even LARP violent revolution because the schools hold back the cops who ought to be beating down and hooking up these black-masked punks. The scary thing is that someday, some of these quad gestapo types are going to be in real positions of power in real society, and they do not believe in rules and they do not believe in rights for anyone who opposes them. Their sole goal is their own power. And to increase their power, they need to take power from someone else. You are the someone else.

    In a society they control, you will have no rights, no voice, and no future. Leftism always ends in tyranny and murder, which is why we’re blessed to have the Second Amendment. And if you are ever disarmed and at the mercy of these aspiring monsters, the only safe space will be a mass grave.

    *  *  *

    The nightmarish end state the left seeks is on full display in Collapse, my hard-hitting yet hilarious sequel to People’s RepublicIndian Country and Wildfire. My novels have been hailed by Bill Kristol as “Appalling,” so that kind of vouches for them!

    Kurt will be doing a live video chat tonight (Dec. 9) w/ PJ’s Stephen Kruiser at 8:15pm ET for VIP Gold members. Join quickly to be able to take part in the fun.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 18:20

  • 'A Clear Abuse': Barr, Durham Object To IG FISA Probe Findings In Stunning Statements
    ‘A Clear Abuse’: Barr, Durham Object To IG FISA Probe Findings In Stunning Statements

    Following the highly anticipated release of the DOJ Inspector General’s so-called FISA report, Attorney General Bill Barr and his hand-picked US Attorney, John Durham, have issued statements disagreeing with the IG’s conclusions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The report found that while the FBI made serious errors investigating the Trump campaign, and relied heavily on the discredited Steele dossier, that the agency was ultimately justified in launching a counterintelligence operation, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane.

    “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said in a statement released shortly after the FISA report.

    “It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory,” he continued. “Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration.”

    Barr added that the FISA report reveals a “clear abuse” of the surveillance court.

    “In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.”

    The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.”

    Durham, meanwhile, said “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham also said. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsFull Durham statement:

    “I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff.  However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department.  Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.  Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 18:00

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th December 2019

  • The Next Pearl Harbour? China's Gold-Backed Crypto Currency Will Blindside US Dollar
    The Next Pearl Harbour? China’s Gold-Backed Crypto Currency Will Blindside US Dollar

    “A date which will live in infamy.” 

    Indeed, this weekend marks the 78th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which opened the door for the United States to enter World War II. Turn on your TV and you will see military mavens rambling on, pontificating about ‘the defense of the realm’, all the while completely aloof and unaware of the American empire’s real Achilles heel.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Recent, financial pundit and TV host Max Keiser outlined such a scenario, and warned that the US will be blind-sided the day that China introduces its gold-backed crypto currency – an absolute game changer which would create a “catastrophic trapdoor opening underneath the US economy,” said Keiser.

    Not surprisingly, very few mainstream financial pundits in the West are willing to admit that China possesses gold reserves in excess of 20,000 tons, and by introducing a gold-backed cryptocurrency, it has the ability to “kill the US dollar deader than a door nail …. a new Pearl Harbor-type event and it’s coming in the next six to nine months.”

    Watch:

    Source: 21stCenturyWire.com


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 12/09/2019 – 01:00

  • Notorious Duct-Taped Banana Exhibit Vandalized With "Epstien Didn't Kill Himself" Sign
    Notorious Duct-Taped Banana Exhibit Vandalized With “Epstien Didn’t Kill Himself” Sign

    The story of the $120,000 (eaten) banana just won’t end, and tonight it took another, even more surreal turn.

    The now-iconic white wall that as recently as Saturday held a duct-taped banana – arguably the world’s most expensive – at Art Basel Miami Beach was “vandalized” on Sunday afternoon, forcing exhibitors to cover up the writing in red lipstick with a white cardboard. The banana, which attracted hundreds after it sold to an art collector for $120,000, was replaced with the phrase “Epstien (sic) didn’t kill himself,” written with red lipstick.

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

    According to the Miami Herald, the surreal scene confused those who were present in the gallery, most who assumed it was just another “art” performance: “This is the gallery where anyone can do art, right?” the man is heard saying in a video provided to the Miami Herald when a security guard confronted him.

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

    Sacha Medici, 24, was strolling inside the Miami Beach Convention Center, hoping to spot Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s banana art piece, titled “Comedian,” which was eaten by a performance artist on Saturday afternoon.

    “When we got to the wall, it was white and empty,” Medici said. “We saw this guy live-streaming… and he starts writing on the wall and I was like, ‘No way, there’s no way this guy is writing.”

    Miami Beach Police spokesman Ernesto Rodriguez said the incident was reported at 4:50 p.m. and a man they identified as 46-year-old Roderick Webber of Massachusetts was arrested on charges of criminal mischief. A spokesperson for Art Basel directed any questions to authorities. Katherine Wisniewski, spokesperson for the Emmanuel Perrotin art gallery, where the vandalized wall is located, said their gallery is not affiliated with Webber.

    “If someone can eat the $120,000 banana and not get arrested, why can’t I write on the wall?” Webber shouted as he was escorted out of the convention center, according to a police report.

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

    Medici said that as the man wrote on the wall, everyone around her stared and recorded videos on their phones. Some pointed out he had misspelled the last name of Jeffrey Epstein.

    And since art imitates life, security promptly covered up the “Epstien didn’t kill himself” sign.

    Earlier in the day, the infamous $150,000 banana duct-taped to a wall had disappeared again, this time because the gallery owners decided it was becoming an unsafe distraction, clearly anticipating an event such as this.

    “We sincerely apologize to all the visitors of the fair who today will not be able to participate in Comedian,” Galerie Perrotin, where the work was being showcased, said in a statement early Sunday, the last day of the exhibition.

    The Comedian is the name of the work by the Italian artist provocateur Maurizio Cattelan, composed of a ripe banana, duct tape and a 14-page manual for its installation and upkeep.

    As we reported yesterday, just before 2pm on Saturday another artist provocateur named David Datuna unpeeled tape and skin and ate the banana. “Art performance,” he said. He was a “hungry artist,” adding that it was “delicious.”

    In its statement, Art Basel thanked the security guards who helped control the lines to see the banana – or the concept of transience of oblong yellow fruit or something, as Bloomberg put it. In short, enough was enough.

    “The installation caused several uncontrollable crowd movements and the placement of the work on our booth compromised the safety of the artwork around us, including that of our neighbors,” the statement said. “Comedian, with its simple composition, ultimately offered a complex reflection of ourselves,” it said.

    No it didn’t: it was a damn banana duct-taped to a wall and some idiots thought it was worth $150,000.

    So to summarize:

    1. Banana duct-taped to a wall sells for $150,000
    2. Someone eats the banana
    3. Someone writes Epstein didn’t kill himself
    4. Security covers up the message.

    Not even the Fed could come up with a fake version of reality as warped as this one.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 12/08/2019 – 23:57

  • As Winter Comes, Pipeline Wars Heat Up
    As Winter Comes, Pipeline Wars Heat Up

    Authored by Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    For all of 2019, December has been a magnet. A number of major geopolitical issues come to head this month and many of them have everything to do with energy. This is the month that Russian gas giant Gazprom was due to finish production on three major pipeline projects – Nordstream 2, Turkstream and Power of Siberia.

    Power of Siberia is here. It’s finished. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping christened the pipeline to begin the month.

    Next month Putin will travel to Turkey to join President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open the first of four potential trains of the Turkstream pipeline.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is only Nordstream 2 that continues to lag behind because of insane levels of pressure from the United States that is dead set against this pipeline coming online.

    And the reason for that is the last of the major energy issues surrounding Gazprom needing resolution this month, the gas transit contract between it and Ukraine’s Naftogaz.

    The two gas companies have been locked in legal disputes for years, some of which center on Crimea’s decision to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia in 2014. Most of them, however, involve disputes over costs incurred during the previous and expiring gas transit contract.

    The particulars today are ultimately irrelevant as these lawsuits have been used as nothing more than blackmail to keep a new contract from getting signed. Ukraine has sued Gazprom in courts, like in Sweden, that rule not by the tenets of contract law but rather through the lens of social justice.

    These have been political decisions that allowed Naftogaz to seize Gazprom’s European assets, further complicating any resolution to the conflict. These policies were pursued aggressively by former Ukrainian President and long-time US State Department asset Petro Poroshenko and they have done nothing to help Ukraine.

    All they have done is strip-mine the country of its assets while keeping a war to prevent the secession of the Donbass alive.

    This dovetails with the external pressure applied to EU member states, like Denmark, to delay if not outright thwart completion of Nordstream 2.

    Opposition to Nordstream 2 in the US is all about leveraging influence in Ukraine and turn it into a client state hostile to Russia sharing a border with Russia. If there’s no gas transit contract and there’s no Nordstream 2 then US LNG suppliers can sell gas there and deprive Russia of the revenues and the business.

    It’s truly that simple. But that strategy has morphed over the years into a convoluted chess match of move/countermove in the vain hope of achieving something that looks like a victory. But this isn’t a game of real chess but rather a timed match.

    Because the end of 2019 was always coming. And Ukraine would eventually have to decide as to which direction it wanted to go. Moreover, that same choice was put in front of the EU who have clearly, in the end, realized that the US under President Trump is not a long-term reliable partner, but rather a bully which seeks its goals through threat and intimidation.

    Stay with the US or green light Nordstream 2. The choice in Europe was clear. Nordstream 2 gets finished, as Denmark finally granted the final environmental permit for its construction in October.

    That delay moves the completion date out into 2020. And that now gives the US Senate one last chance to stop the completion of the pipeline because everything else to this point has failed, including the EU changing the rules on its gas pipeline rules to force Gazprom to ‘unbundle’ the pipeline from the gas flowing through it.

    Germany amended that directive to allow Nordstream 2 to be regulated at the German federal level and not at the EU level. This was as much of a win as could have been hoped for.

    This prompted the response from the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee head Jim Risch who wants to sanction anyone assisting Gazprom building the pipeline to be sanctioned and forced out of business.

    “The reason for the push is that this window is closing. A lot of Nord Stream is done already. … It will cost them dearly. I think if those sanctions pass [the companies] will shut down, and I think the Russians will have to look for another way to do this if they can do this,” Risch said.

    In reality the window has closed.

    At the end of the day even if this legislation passes there will be no way to stop the pipeline from being completed or the gas to flow through it. With so little of the pipeline left to complete there is no practical way to stop it from happening. Risch and other US senators are hoping to strand Nordstream 2 as an unfinished boondoggle but that’s folly.

    The German government wants this pipeline, therefore the German government will put up the funds to ensure the contractors are paid and the pipeline completed.

    There is a limit to the extent which sanctions can block commerce and once completed the US will have no ability to sanction the gas flowing through the pipeline. It’s a sad and pathetic state of affairs that so much time, manpower and capital was wasted to stop a pipeline that is necessary for Germany’s future.

    It also highlights the hypocrisy of US policy since there isn’t a peep out of the US on Turkstream, which will stitch NATO ally Turkey to Russia via 15.75 cm of natural gas every year. Eventually it will replace the lost South Stream pipeline as the other trains are built and contracted for.

    All of the countries in eastern Europe are hungry for a piece of Turkstream’s future. Serbia Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece are all potential customers.

    And all of these countries that currently get their gas from Ukraine are at risk if nothing gets resolved between it and Russia. This is why the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky is so important. It has the opportunity to begin reversing the damage done to the basic fabric of Ukraine and Europe by agreeing to a path to ending the war in the Donbass and coming to an agreement on gas transit.

    There are more than $12 billion in lawsuits outstanding that Naftogaz has pending against Gazprom. With Nordstream 2 a fait accompli that is all the leverage Zelensky has at that meeting.

    This game is a microcosm of the way the US foreign policy establishment uses Europe as the battleground in the war against Russia. And given the way the political winds are shifting, Europeans are getting very tired of it.

    This is why gas storage facilities in Europe are full, there is real fear that Gazprom will walk away from the talks with Ukraine and will wait out the completion of Nordstream 2. Gazprom offered an extension of the current contract on the condition that Ukraine drop the lawsuits.

    Naftogaz said no. We’ll see if Zelensky is smart enough to say yes.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 12/08/2019 – 23:50

  • Visualizing The Global Inequality Gap, And How It's Changed Over 200 Years
    Visualizing The Global Inequality Gap, And How It’s Changed Over 200 Years

    What makes a person healthy, wealthy, and wise? The UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) measures this by one’s life expectancy, average income, and years of education.

    However, as Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes, the value of each metric varies greatly depending on where you live. Today’s data visualization from Max Roser at Our World in Data summarizes five basic dimensions of development across countries—and how our average standards of living have evolved since 1800.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Health: Mortality Rates and Life Expectancy

    Child mortality rates and life expectancy at birth are telltale signs of a country’s overall standard of living, as they indicate a population’s ability to access healthcare services.

    Iceland stood at the top of these ranks in 2017, with only a 0.21% mortality rate for children under five years old. On the other end of the spectrum, Somalia had the highest child mortality rate of 12.7%—over three times the current global average.

    While there’s a stark contrast between the best and worst performing countries, it’s clear that even Somalia has made significant strides since 1800. At that time, the global average child mortality rate was a whopping 43%.

    Lower child mortality is also tied to higher life expectancy. In 1800, the average life expectancy was that of today’s millennial—only 29 years old:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Today, the global average has shot up to 72.2 years, with areas like Japan exceeding this benchmark by more than a decade.

    Education: Mean and Expected Years of Schooling

    Education levels are measured in two distinct ways:

    • Mean years: the average number of years a person aged 25+ receives in their lifetime

    • Expected years: the total years a 2-year old child is likely to spend in school

    In the 1800s, the mean and expected years of education were both less than a year—only 78 days to be precise. Low attendance rates occurred because children were expected to work during harvests, or contracted long-term illnesses that kept them at home.

    Since then, education levels have drastically improved:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Research shows that investing in education can greatly narrow the inequality gap. Just one additional year of school can:

    • Raise a person’s income by up to 10%

    • Raise average annual GDP growth by 0.37%

    • Reduce the probability of motherhood by 7.3%

    • Reduce the likelihood of child marriage by >5 percentage points

    Education has a strong correlation with individual wealth, which cascades into national wealth. Not surprisingly, average income has ballooned significantly in two centuries as well.

    Wealth: Average GDP Per Capita

    Global inequality levels are the most stark when it comes to GDP per capita. While the U.S. stands at $54,225 per person in 2017, resource-rich Qatar brings in more than double this amount—an immense $116,936 per person.

    The global average GDP per capita is $15,469, but inequality heavily skews the bottom end of these values. In the Central African Republic, GDP per capita is only $661 today—similar to the average income two hundred years ago.

    A Virtuous Cycle

    These measures of development clearly feed into one another. Rising life expectancies are an indication of a society’s growing access to healthcare options. Compounded with more years of education, especially for women, this has had a ripple effect on declining fertility rates, contributing to higher per capita incomes.

    People largely agree on what goes into human well-being: life, health, sustenance, prosperity, peace, freedom, safety, knowledge, leisure, happiness… If they have improved over time, that, I submit, is progress.

    – Steven Pinker

    As technology accelerates the pace of change across these indicators, will the global inequality gap narrow more, or expand even wider?


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 23:25

    • China Retaliates For Huawei: Beijing Orders All Government Offices And Public Companies To Replace Foreign PCs And Software
      China Retaliates For Huawei: Beijing Orders All Government Offices And Public Companies To Replace Foreign PCs And Software

      In a potentially stinging blow to US computer makers such as Dell, HP and Microsoft, and an ominous development for all those who think the US-China trade war is about to come to an end, the FT reports that Beijing has ordered all government offices and public institutions to remove foreign computer equipment and software within three years.

      While the US has been extremely vocal over the past year about banning US companies from using Chinese technology, mostly emerging from the Huawei ecosystem, the directive is “the first publicly known instruction with specific targets given to Chinese buyers to switch to domestic technology vendors” and is meant to echo efforts by the Trump administration to curb the use of Chinese technology in the US and its allies. The order is said to have come directly from the Chinese Communist party’s Central Office earlier this year.

      Additionally, the FT notes that the move is part of a broader campaign to increase China’s reliance on home-made technologies, “and is likely to fuel concerns of “decoupling”, with supply chains between the US and China being severed.” The big irony here is that it was IBM’s sale of its PC group China’s Lenovo in 2004 that allowed China to develop its own PC architecture and supply chain, and effectively reverse engineer US dominance in the PC sector.

      Quoting analysts at broker China Securities, the FT notes that some 20-30 million pieces of hardware will need to be swapped out as a result of the Chinese directive, with large scale replacement beginning next year. They added the substitutions would take place at a pace of 30 per cent in 2020, 50 per cent in 2021, and 20 per cent the year after, earning the policy the nickname “3-5-2”.

      The 3-5-2 policy is part of a drive for China’s government agencies and critical infrastructure operators to use “secure and controllable” technology, as enshrined in the country’s Cyber Security Law passed in 2017.

      But unlike previous pushes for self-sufficiency in technology, recent US sanctions have added urgency to the project, said Paul Triolo of consultancy Eurasia Group.

      “China’s 3-5-2 programme is just the tip of the new spear,” said Mr Triolo. “The goal is clear: getting to a space largely free of the type of threats that ZTE, Huawei, Megvii, and Sugon now face,” he added, naming some of the Chinese companies that over the past two years have been blocked from buying from US suppliers.

      Needless to say, if executed, such a drastic move by China would lead to massive lost revenue. How much? According to analysts at Jefferies, US technology companies generate as much as $150 billion a year in revenues from China, although much of that will come from private sector buyers. Still, it’s probably just a matter of time before Beijing expands the rule to all Chinese organizations, both public and private, especially since in China there is no such thing as purely private sector.

      To be sure, Beijing faces an uphill battle as the proposed pace of replacement is extremely ambitious. Government offices already tend to use Lenovo’s desktop computers, following the company’s acquisition of US giant IBM’s personal computer division. Meanwhile, analysts say that it will be difficult to replace software with domestic alternatives, since most software vendors develop products for popular US-made operating systems such as Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s macOS.

      And although Microsoft did produce a “Chinese Government Edition” of Windows 10 in 2017 with its Chinese joint venture, Chinese cyber security firms now say government clients must move to entirely Chinese-made operating systems.

      The other problem is that organic Chinese replacements don’t really exist yet: “China’s homemade operating systems, such as Kylin OS, have a much smaller ecosystem of developers producing compatible software.”

      Defining “domestically made” is also challenging. Even though Lenovo is a Chinese-owned company that assembles many products in China, its computer processor chips are made by Intel and its hard drives by Samsung.

      The take home message here is that US PC and software giants are about to lose billions in sale to Chinese customers, a move that will infuriate Trump who will, correctly, see such attempts to isolate the Chinese PC market from US vendors.

      Meanwhile, as China seeks to onshore its reliance on US computers and operating systems, we are confident that Bloomberg’s Terminal sales in China are safe and sound. After all, recall that in the aftermath of Bloomberg reporter Mike Forsythe and Ben Richardson quitting the media empire over a censored China story, Bloomberg LP chairman Peter T. Grauer said publicly that the company should have reconsidered publishing critical articles about Chinese President Xi Jinping because they harmed Bloomberg’s bottom line.

      In other words, when it comes to Bloomberg’s integrity, there are two key loopholes: coverage of Mike Bloomberg’s own affairs, reporting on Bloomberg’s democratic competitors in the presidential primary and, of course, coverage of China.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 23:18

    • Russia: Friend Or Foe?
      Russia: Friend Or Foe?

      Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

      Ever since the end of the Cold War, it has been the mission of the U.S. national-security establishment to re-institute the relationship of hate, hostility, and fear that existed between the Soviet Union, especially Russia, and the United States during the Cold War.

      That’s what the U.S. post-Cold War invigoration of NATO was all about, especially its absorption of former Warsaw Pact countries. It’s also what NATO’s attempt to absorb Ukraine, oust the Soviets from their long-established base in Crimea, and install U.S. missiles on Russia’s borders were all about.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It’s also what all the anti-Russia brouhaha has been all about. The aim has always been to reconvert Russia into an official enemy, adversary, opponent, and rival of the United States. What better way to keep the American people agitated and fearful? What better way to guarantee ever-increasing budgets for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, the three principal components of America’s deep state?

      Oh sure, the “war on terrorism” has succeeded mightily in making Americans afraid of “the terrorists” and, to a certain extent, the “Muslims.” But many Americans are figuring out that anti-American terrorism is rooted in U.S. interventionism, which the Pentagon and the CIA introduced into the Middle East soon after the Soviet Union called an end to the Cold War racket. As soon as U.S. military and paramilitary forces are withdrawn from the Middle East and Afghanistan, the national-security establishment knows that its “war on terrorism” racket will disintegrate.

      On the other side of the equation are those who say that U.S. officials need to make friends with Russia or, more specifically, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many of those on this side of the equation say the same thing with respect to dictators around the world, such as North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un, Egyptian military Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, or Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

      Actually, both sides are wrong. There is no reason why the U.S. government must have official enemies or official friends among foreign regimes. All that is necessary to help restore a peaceful and harmonious society to America is (1) to rein in the federal government by restraining it from intervening in the affairs of other countries, and (2) to liberate the private sector of the United States, thereby the American people to interact freely with the people of the world.

      With respect to point (1), that means bringing all U.S. troops home from everywhere and discharging them into the private sector. They are not needed and are, in fact, a drain on American taxpayers. It means abandoning all foreign military bases to the host countries. It means a termination of U.S. foreign aid to every foreign regime. No more invasions, coups, assassinations, bombings, shootings, regime-change operations, kidnappings, torture, indefinite detention, and spying.

      With respect to point (2), that means a lifting of all restrictions on the freedom of the American people to interact with the people of the world. That means a lifting of all sanctions, embargoes, trade restrictions, tariffs, and trade wars. It means an end to America’s socialist system of immigration controls and the police state that has come with it. It means unilateral free trade and open immigration, i.e., the free movements of goods, services, and products across borders.

      None of that requires that U.S. officials become official friends or official enemies (or rivals, adversaries, or opponents) of foreign leaders or foreign regimes. All that it requires is reining in the federal government and liberating the American people.

      The American people, including tourists, business people, trade groups, and cultural groups, are our nation’s best diplomats. Pentagon, CIA, and State Department people are our nation’s worst diplomats. The people of the world love the American people. They just severely dislike U.S. government officials, and justifiably so.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 23:05

    • Chuck Todd Goes Nuclear After Ted Cruz Mentions 'Debunked' Ukraine Election Meddling
      Chuck Todd Goes Nuclear After Ted Cruz Mentions ‘Debunked’ Ukraine Election Meddling

      Resistance activist and NBC host Chuck Todd lost his cool on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Ukraine “blatantly interfered” in the 2016 US election.

      Of note, less than three months before Donald Trump was elected, Ukrainian officials working with a DNC operative leaked a “black ledger” containing evidence of off-book payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort – leading to his disruptive ouster, while Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Valeriy Chaly wrote in an Op-Ed for The Hill slamming Trump in the same month.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      While Democrats have sought to ignore or downplay this as a ‘debunked’ theory, Republicans aren’t letting it go – nor are they giving the Bidens a pass for what looks like textbook corruption while then-Vice President Joe Biden was in charge of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.

      Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption. There was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month? $83,000 — that’s a million dollars a year,” said Cruz – adding “The media ought to care if there is actual corruption … Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil?

      Todd then asked Cruz: “Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?” – to which Cruz replied “I do. And I think there is considerable evidence.”

      Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created “a false narrative” in order to hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary – to which Cruz shot back: “Ha, ha, ha. Except that’s not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said in the phone call.”

      “On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here’s the game the media is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the election season.”

      I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway.

      For his insolence, Cruz is of course being labeled a Putin puppet – while Axios showed their true colors with the headline: “Cruz promotes conspiracy that Ukraine “blatantly interfered” in U.S. election.” – Their article, meanwhile, makes no mention of Manafort or the black ledger, which is what Cruz was referring to.

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

      Meanwhile…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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

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


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 22:45

      Tags

    • Where The Rich Are Getting Richer – Mapping America's 200 Wealthiest Counties 
      Where The Rich Are Getting Richer – Mapping America’s 200 Wealthiest Counties 

      Wealth inequality has erupted across the country over the last decade as the Federal Reserve’s policy of ramping asset prices to the moon has widely failed to distribute wealth evenly. If you want to figure out where all the money went on a geographical basisBloomberg has published a new report that shows the 200 wealthiest counties in the US. 

      It’s no secret by now that asset holders (those who own real estate, stocks, bonds, classic cars, wine, and fancy artwork) were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed’s unconventional money printing. 

      The homeownership rate has crashed to decade lows; at least half of Americans work in low wage jobs; most people don’t own stocks and bonds, and at least half of Americans have less than $500 in savings. 

      So the flow of wealth from the Fed’s aggressive easing policy went to the limited few, those who hold assets, we call the top 10%. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      These millionaires and billionaires have been getting richer over the last decade, while the vast majority of Americans have been getting poorer. 

      To find where all the money went, Bloomberg analyzed per-capita income across all US counties and discovered the 200 wealthiest counties that saw the most significant jumps in per-capita income in the last decade. 

      Take, for example, the per-capita income for Teton County, Wyoming, is the top of the list, averaged $156k in 2008, jumped to $252k in 2018, a 40% increase in ten years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Some of the most significant jumps in per-capita income were also seen in New York, New York; Pitkin, Colorado; Bristol Bay Borough, Arkansas; Marin, California; Summit, Utah; and San Francisco California. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Across America, total personal income increased in 3,019 counties, or 97% of the total, and decreased in just 2.9%, according to estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That includes wages, proprietors’ income, dividends, interest, rents, and government benefits by county residents.

      Notably, on a per-capita income basis, which factors in the change in population, 2018 marks the largest share of counties with a positive increase since 1981, based on a Bloomberg analysis.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 22:40

    • Exposing The False Statements Made In The Trump-Impeachment Hearings
      Exposing The False Statements Made In The Trump-Impeachment Hearings

      Authored by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog,

      In the December 4th statement that was made by Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan was this:

      We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is. One of the things we understand most profoundly is it’s not a real democracy, it’s not a mature democracy if the party in power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. I think you heard testimony, the Intelligence Committee heard testimony about how it isn’t just our national interest in protecting our own elections. It’s not just our national interest in making sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here.

      It’s also our national interest in promoting democracy worldwide, and if we look hypocritical about this, if we look like we’re asking other countries to interfere in our election, if we look like we’re asking other countries to engage in criminal investigations of our President’s political opponents, then we’re not doing our job of promoting our national interest in being that shining city on a hill.

      She said: “We have become the shining city on a hill.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here is a list of just a few of the democratically elected presidents and prime ministers in foreign countries whom the U.S. regime overthrew, by coups, in order to install brutal dictatorial regimes there that would do sweetheart deals with America’s international corporations. Also, unsuccessful, merely attempted, U.S. coups are discussed there.

      Furthermore, the scientific studies of whether the U.S. Government is controlled by the public (a democracy) or is instead controlled only by its very wealthiest (an aristocracy) are clear: this country is an aristocracy, not a democracy at all, except, perhaps, in the purely formal senses of that term — our great Constitution. Far-right judges have recently been interpreting that Constitution in the most pro-aristocratic, anti-democratic, ways imaginable, and this might have something to do with why the scientific studies are finding that the U.S. is now a dictatorship. And this fact, of America’s now being a dictatorship, was blatantly clear in America’s last Presidential election, which was actually a s‘election’ by Americas’ billionaires — not  by the American public.

      How, then, can Professor Karlan be respected about anything, if she lives in a dictatorship (by its aristocracy) and is deluded to think that it’s still (which it never was completely) a democracy?

      Furthermore: her statements about Ukraine are equally deluded. She is obviously unaware that the Obama Administration started planning its coup against Ukraine in 2011 and started implementing it in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine on 1 March 2013, and started in June 2013 soliciting bids from U.S. companies to renovate at least one building in Crimea for use by the U.S. Navy to replace Russia’s main naval base — which Russian naval base was and is in Crimea — by a new U.S. naval base to be installed there.

      The craziest thing of all about Karlan’s statement, however, is this part:

      “It’s not just our national interest in making sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here.”

      Imagine if someone said, “It’s not just our national interest in making sure that the Mexico remains strong and on the front lines so they fight the Americans there and we [Russians] don’t have to fight them here.”

      If a Russian were to assert that, would the statement be any more justifiable than what Karlan said regarding Ukraine? Of course not! Even an idiot can recognize this fact. But Karlan can’t.

      On December 5th, the anonymous “Moon of Alabama” blogger, whose opinions and predictions turn out to have been correct at perhaps the highest rate of anyone on the internet, headlined “The Delusions Of The Impeachment Witnesses Point To A Larger Problem” and he not only pointed out the “delusional” beliefs of Professor Karlan (“One must be seriously disturbed to believe such nonsense. How can it be that Karlan is teaching at an academic level when she has such delusions?”), but he noted that:

      How is it in U.S. interest to give the Ukraine U.S. taxpayer money to buy U.S. weapons? The sole motive behind that idea was greed and corruption, not national interest:

      [U.S. special envoy to Ukraine] Volker started his job at the State Department in 2017 in an unusual part-time arrangement that allowed him to continue consulting at BGR, a powerful lobbying firm that represents Ukraine and the U.S.-based defense firm Raytheon. During his tenure, Volker advocated for the United States to send Raytheon-manufactured antitank Javelin missiles to Ukraine — a decision that made Raytheon millions of dollars.

      The missiles are useless in the conflict. They are kept near the western border of Ukraine under U.S. control. The U.S. fears that Russia would hit back elsewhere should the Javelin reach the frontline in the east and get used against the east-Ukrainians. That Trump shortly held back on some of the money that would have allowed the Ukrainians to buy more of those missiles thus surely made no difference.

      To claim that it hurt U.S. national interests is nonsense.

      It is really no wonder that U.S. foreign policy continuously produces chaos when its practitioners get taught by people like Karlan. …

      The Democrats are doing themselves no favor by producing delusional and partisan witnesses who repeat Reaganesque claptrap. They only prove that the whole affair is just an unserious show trial.

      In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the Democrats are doing nothing about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it spent on the impeachment circus to prevent that and other obscenities.

      Do the Democrats really believe that their voters will not notice this?

      (Of course, they do, and they might be right. After all, polls show that Democrats still believe that Barack Obama was a terrific President, just as Republicans believe that George W. Bush was a terrific President. The fact that both  — and Trump himself —were/are among the worst in American history eludes the voters in both Parties. But though I disagree with his opinion on that particular matter, he’s just asking a question there, and I hope that his more optimistic take than mine turns out to be right, and that the voters — in both Parties — are coming to recognize that American politics right now is almost 100% a con-game, in both Parties.)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Why do people pay subscription-fees, to Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post, and to the New York Times, and to other media that are controlled by America’s billionaires, when far higher-quality journalism, like that of “Moon of Alabama” (and like the site you’re reading here) is freely available on the internet? Who needs the mainstream ‘news’-media, when it’s filled with such unreliable claptrap, as respects (instead of exposes) what persons such as Karlan say? Jonathan Turley is to be taken seriously, and he is at the very opposite end from Karlan’s opinions in the impeachment hearings (and regarding much else). (And the hearings-transcript in which both law-professors testified is here.) But the exception is Turley, and Karlan is far more the norm in the U.S.-media mainstream. And virtually all Democratic-Party propaganda-organs (‘the liberal press’) are playing up the Karlan claptrap.

      So: yes, I do think that “the Democrats [referring to the ones in the House of Representatives, of course] really believe that their voters will not notice this.” Most voters are just as “deluded” (misinformed by the ‘news’-media) as Professor Karlan is.

      *  *  *

      Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 22:15

      Tags

    • What To Expect During Nadler's Monday Impeachment 'Trial'
      What To Expect During Nadler’s Monday Impeachment ‘Trial’

      Before House Democrats move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump – which may come later in the week, they’re going to hold a ‘trial’ on Monday in which the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees will present evidence to support their case, according to CNN.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      On Saturday night, the House Judiciary Committee released a 52-page report, an update to previous Judiciary Committee reports issued in 1974 and 1998 during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. While it does not accuse Trump of committing any impeachable offenses, it it lays out what Congressional Democrats consider constitutional grounds for impeachment.

      Here’s now Monday’s hearing will go, per CNN, citing a Democratic official working on the impeachment inquiry:

      • Nadler and Republican Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the committee, will first deliver opening statements
      • House Judiciary Committee counsels will then present opening arguments for an hour (30 minutes for each side). It will be “like a trial,” the official said, presenting “our theory of the case.” The Democratic counsel will be Barry Berke and GOP counsel will be Steve Castor. They will not take questions.
      • House Intelligence Committee counsels will then present findings from their respective reports. First, Democratic counsel Dan Goldman will present for 45 minutes with Castor presenting the GOP report for 45 minutes. Both will take questions afterward.
      • Nadler and his counsel will then have a 45-minute round of questioning followed by a 45-minute round of questioning by Collins and his counsel.
      • Each member will then get their 5-minute round of questioning.

      Democrats plan to argue that President Trump’s abused his power by requesting that Ukraine conduct investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election for Hillary Clinton.

      What you can expect Democrats to argue Monday is that Ukraine is a “part of a repeating pattern” of Trump abusing his office, the source said.

      “That’s why Ukraine is so important,” the source said. They plan to argue that the abuse of power “betrays national security” and involves “corruption of our elections,” the source added. “This is the framers’ nightmare.” –CNN

      On Saturday, House Judiciary Democrats met to hold a mock impeachment hearing, where Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe was present and spoke with committee Democrats, according to the report. Tribe has suggested in the past that Trump could be impeached through an interpretation of the Constitution’s impeachment clause that would allow for fewer Senators to vote in order to remove President Trump – a prospect deemed “not very likey” by the Washingtonian.

      On Sunday, Nadler said that Trump will ‘rig’ the 2020 election if he isn’t impeached and removed.

      “The Framers worst nightmare is what we are facing in this very moment,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said in a statement. “President Trump abused his power, betrayed our national security, and corrupted our elections, all for personal gain. The Constitution details only one remedy for this misconduct: impeachment. The safety and security of our nation, our democracy, and future generations hang in the balance if we do not address this misconduct. In America, no one is above the law, not even the President.”

      Apparently losing a ton of weight makes you a hypocrite.

      Ranking member Doug Collins, meanwhile, demanded on Saturday that Nadler postpone Monday’s hearing after Democrats dumped “thousands of pages of documents” to House Judiciary Republicans “less than 48 hours before Judiciary’s hearing scheduled to examine impeachment presentations from Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

      The document release comes 25 days after Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Chairman Nadler requesting all documents related  to the impeachment investigation according to House Rule XI, 2(e)2(a). Republicans received no response from the chairman. –House Judiciary Republicans

      “Chairman Nadler has no choice but to postpone Monday’s hearing in the wake of a last-minute document transmission that shows just how far Democrats have gone to pervert basic fairness. Nearly a month after every Republican on our committee asserted our clear right to see all underlying documents held by the committees involved in the impeachment investigation, we have received no response from the chairman. Instead, Democrats waited until after Speaker Pelosi announced that articles of impeachment were imminent and chose the eve of the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing to share loads of documents that Chairman Schiff has had since this investigation began. It is impossible for Judiciary members to sift through thousands and thousands of pages in any meaningful way in a matter of hours,” said Collins.

      “Moreover, Democrats still refuse to release all documentation in their possession, though Republicans have demanded this according to rules of the House — which Democrats themselves adopted in January. The information Democrats released today is partial, biased and curated to support accusations that have, to date, been thinner than cotton candy.”

      Americans still don’t have access to any information that Adam Schiff hasn’t chosen to weave into his trail of lies. On behalf of millions of American voters who deserve the truth, Chairman Nadler must postpone this hearing while the Judiciary Committee examines these documents. At the same time, Chairman Schiff must release to House members the complete body of underlying evidence that he has concealed.

      The unfairness and dishonesty of this impeachment sham continue to be unprecedented. In violating the rules that this House adopted democratically, Democrats have violated their oaths of office. Under Speaker Pelosi’s leadership, House Democrats have eroded the integrity of our chamber and sacrificed the confidence of Americans who trust Congress to balance power, not abuse it.

      On Friday, the White House said in a statement that it would be a “reckless abuse of power” for House Democrats to impeach Trump, and “would constitute the most unjust, highly partisan, and unconstitutional attempt at impeachment in our Nation’s history.”

      A White House senior administration told The Hill that they won’t be participating in the House’s efforts. “We don’t see any reason to participate because the process is unfair,” said the source. “Speaker Pelosi has already announced the predetermined result. They will not give us the ability to call any witnesses.”

      “House Democrats have wasted enough of America’s time with this charade,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipillone in the Friday letter to Nadler, calling the impeachment inquiry “completely baseless.”

      “You should end this inquiry now and not waste even more time with additional hearings. Adopting articles of impeachment would be a reckless abuse of power by House Democrats, and would constitute the most unjust, highly partisan, and unconstitutional attempt at impeachment in our Nation’s history,” he added, before concluding that the House should get this over with so that Trump can be acquitted in the Senate.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 21:50

      Tags

    • "The Fed Was Suddenly Facing Multiple LTCMs": BIS Offers A Stunning Explanation Of What Really Happened On Repocalypse Day
      “The Fed Was Suddenly Facing Multiple LTCMs”: BIS Offers A Stunning Explanation Of What Really Happened On Repocalypse Day

      About a month ago, we first laid out how the sequence of liquidity-shrinking events that started about a year ago, and which starred the largest US commercial bank, JPMorgan, ultimately culminated with the mid-September repo explosion. Specifically we showed how JPM’s drain of liquidity via Money Markets and reserves parked at the Fed may have prompted the September repo crisis and subsequent launch of “Not QE” by the Fed in order to reduce its at risk capital and potentially lower its G-SIB charge – currently the highest of all major US banks.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Shortly thereafter, the FT was kind enough to provide confirmation that the biggest US bank had been quietly rotating out of cash, while repositioning its balance sheet in a major way, pushing more than $130bn of excess cash away from reserves in the process significantly tightening overall liquidity in the interbank market. We learned that the bulk of this money was allocated to long-dated bonds while cutting the amount of loans it holds, in what the FT dubbed was a “major shift in how the largest US bank by assets manages its enormous balance sheet.”

      The moves saw the bank’s bond portfolio soar by 50%, and were prompted by capital rules that treated loans as riskier than bonds. And since JPM has been aggressively returning billions of dollars to shareholders in dividends and share buybacks each year, JPMorgan had far less room than most rivals to hold riskier assets, explaining its substantially higher G-SIB surcharge, which indicated that the Fed currently perceives JPM as the riskiest US bank for a variety of reasons.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An executive at a large institutional investor told the FT that what JPM did “is incredible”, adding that the scale of what JPMorgan is doing is mind-boggling . . . migrating out of cash into securities while loans are flat.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The dramatic change, which occurred gradually over the year, and which may have catalyzed the spike in repo rates in September, was first flagged by JPMorgan at an investor event back in February. Then CFO Marianne Lake said that, after years of industry-leading loan growth, “we have to recognize the reality of the capital regime that we live in”.

      About half a year later, the rest of the world did too when the overnight general collateral rate briefly did something nobody had ever expected it to do, when it exploded from 2% to about 10% in minutes, an absolutely unprecedented move, and certainly one that was seen as impossible in a world with an ocean of roughly $1.3 trillion in reserves floating around.

      While readers can catch up on the nuances of what JPM did in our prior post, the bottom line is that the execution of the plan was flawless, and as we said at the start of November, “to ensure that JPM’s tens of billions in buybacks and dividends continue flowing smoothly and enriching the company’s shareholders, Jamie Dimon may have held the entire US financial system hostage, forcing the Fed’s hand to restart “Not QE.”

      To be sure, the mere hint that the September repocalypse was an orchestrated event (in some ways similar to the Lehman failure which ushered in QE1), meant to extract liquidity concessions out of the Fed (NOT QE or QE 4 depending on one’s semantic persuasion) and enrich a handful of bank executives was scandalous enough, and could not be left unaddressed, especially since fears about repo market stability are once again growing now that just three weeks are left until the traditionally liquidity sapping year-end moment.

      Well, to address just that, and to provide a fascinating new perspective on what may have catalyzed the Sept 16 events, which were “this close” from triggering an LTCM-like cascade within the market, the Bank of International Settlements – the central banks’ central bank – today published a paper as part of its quarterly review, titled “September stress in dollar repo markets: passing or structural?“, which “found” several things that we already knew – the September event was not a one-time, passing shock to the repo system contrary to what a handful of “know it all” fintwit accounts claimed but is a structural problem with US liquidity plumbing; it also found that just four commercial banks are now the dominant marginal lenders in the US repo market (and where just one, JPMorgan saw its liquidity provisioning collapse in the course of 2019 as noted above). However, in a novel twist, the BIS also found that hedge funds exacerbated the turmoil in the repo market with their thirst for borrowing cash to juice up returns on their trades.

      Here is what the BIS said:

      US repo markets currently rely heavily on four banks as marginal lenders. As the composition of their liquid assets became more skewed towards US Treasuries, their ability to supply funding at short notice in repo markets was diminished. At the same time, increased demand for funding from leveraged financial institutions (eg hedge funds) via Treasury repos appears to have compounded the strains of the temporary factors.

      The BIS also echoed the now widely accepted justification for the Fed’s recent decision to resume POMOs, saying that it is also possible that the “low” level of reserves, and the financial system’s inability to revert back to normalcy, may also have catalyzed the repo move:

      Finally, the stress may have been amplified in part by hysteresis effects brought about by a long period of abundant reserves, owing to the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchases.

      Here, one can argue that the implication of that sentence alone are staggering, as they confirm what most have already known: there is no way the financial system can ever return to a world without trillions and trillions in “excess reserves.” For the BIS to make that admission is rather striking, as it underscores that the world will never again be able to exist in a regime in which central banks do not constantly create money (or reserves) out of thin air to prop up asset prices.

      Yet while that topic alone is worth a post or several thousand (we have certainly beaten this particular horse to death over the past decade), the core focus of the BIS paper in question was to identify more “usual suspects” on which to blame both the recent, and all future – because these are only just starting – repo crises.

      Enter hedge funds.

      First, a quick detour: when it comes to potentially systemic factors affecting the US financial system, none have more importance and gravity than the repo market. As the BIS writes, “Repo markets redistribute liquidity between financial institutions: not only banks (as is the case with the federal funds market), but also insurance companies, asset managers, money market funds and other institutional investors. In so doing, they help other financial markets to function smoothly. Thus, any sustained disruption in this market, with daily turnover in the US market of about $1 trillion, could quickly ripple through the financial system. The freezing-up of repo markets in late 2008 was one of the most damaging aspects of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

      Keeping the above in mind, here’s a quick remind of what happened on September 16: the secured overnight funding rate (SOFR), the new, repo market-based, US dollar overnight reference rate which is supposed to replace over the next two years – more than doubled, and the intraday range jumped to about 700 basis points when repo rates typically fluctuate in an intraday range of 10 basis points, or at most 20 basis points. Intraday volatility in the federal funds rate exploded. Hot take explanations for this move include a due date for US corporate taxes and a large settlement of US Treasury securities. However, as first we, and then now the BIS admits, “none of these temporary factors can fully explain the exceptional jump in repo rate.”

      Ok, but all of the above was known before. What’s new about the BIS’ paper?

      Well, in the aftermath of Sept 16, attention focused on the role played by banks, which had become reluctant to lend cash into the market despite the higher interest rates on offer. And while the BIS acknowledged that the pullback by banks, especially the “Big Four”, was a significant factor in the shake-up,

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … it also said that cash-hungry hedge funds had amplified the dislocation.

      “High demand for secured (repo) funding from non-financial institutions, such as hedge funds heavily engaged in leveraging up relative value trades,” was a key factor behind the chaos, said Claudio Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS.

      The BIS’s finding is novel, and surprising, as they highlight the “growing clout of hedge funds in the repo market” according to the FT, which notes something we pointed out one year ago: hedge funds such as Millennium, Citadel and Point 72 are not only active in the repo market, they are also the most heavily leveraged multi-strat funds in the world, taking something like $20-$30 billion in net AUM and levering it up to $200 billion. They achieve said leverage using repo.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One increasingly popular hedge fund strategy involves buying US Treasuries while selling equivalent derivatives contracts, such as interest rate futures, and pocketing the arb, or difference in price between the two.

      While on its own this trade is not very profitable, given the close relationship in price between the two sides of the trade. But as LTCM knows too well, that’s what leverage is for. Lots and lots and lots of leverage.

      As the FT notes, people active in the short-term borrowing markets say that to fire up returns, “some hedge funds take the Treasury security they have just bought and use it to secure cash loans in the repo market. They then use this fresh cash to increase the size of the trade, repeating the process over and over and ratcheting up the potential returns.

      In short, and as shown in the chart above, some of the world’s biggest hedge funds are active in the repo market to boost their returns. The problem is what happens when repo rates get unhinged as happened on September 16: for the best example of how market players react when their underlying correlations go tilt, look no further than what happened to LTCM in 1998.

      This also explains why the Fed panicked in response to the GC repo rate blowing out to 10% on Sept 16, and instantly implemented repos as well as rushed to launch QE 4: not only was Fed Chair Powell facing an LTCM like situation, but because the repo-funded arb was (ab)used by most multi-strat funds, the Federal Reserve was suddenly facing a constellation of multiple LTCM blow-ups that could have started an avalanche that would have resulted in trillions of assets being forcefully liquidated as a tsunami of margin calls hit the hedge funds world.

      Here it is the Big Four banks that were once again instrumental in allowing this arb to emerge in the first place. As the BIS notes, “concurrent with the growing role of the largest four banks in the repo market, their liquid asset holdings have become increasingly skewed towards US Treasuries, much more so than for the other, smaller banks. (chart below, right-hand panel). As of the second quarter of 2019, the big four banks alone accounted for more than 50% of the total Treasury securities held by banks in the United States – the largest 30 banks held about 90% (chart below, left-hand panel). At the same time, the four largest banks held only about 25% of reserves (ie funding that they could supply at short notice in repo markets).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ironically, for years this “arb” strategy was once popular among the dealer banks themselves, but higher capital charges since the financial crisis led to their displacement by hedge funds, which have more ability to take on risk.

      This is how the BIS explains, in not so many words, how the financial system came close to the verge of collapse on September 16, poetically enough the 11 year anniversary of Lehman’s bankruptcy:

      Shifts in repo borrowing and lending by non-bank participants may have also played a role in the repo rate spike. Market commentary suggests that, in preceding quarters, leveraged players (eg hedge funds) were increasing their demand for Treasury repos to fund arbitrage trades between cash bonds and derivatives. Since 2017, MMFs have been lending to a broader range of repo counterparties, including hedge funds, potentially obtaining higher returns. These transactions are cleared by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC), with a dealer sponsor (usually a bank or broker-dealer) taking on the credit risk. The resulting remarkable rise in FICC-cleared repos indirectly connected these players. During September, however, quantities dropped and rates rose, suggesting a reluctance, also on the part of MMFs, to lend into these markets (Graph A.2, right-hand panel). Market intelligence suggests MMFs were concerned by potential large redemptions given strong prior inflows. Counterparty exposure limits may have contributed to the drop in quantities, as these repos now account for almost 20% of the total provided by MMFs.

      What this means is that contrary to our initial take that banks were pulling from the repo market due to counterparty fears about other banks, they were instead spooked over exposure by other hedge funds, who have become the dominant marginal- and completely unregulated – repo counterparty to liquidity lending banks; without said liquidity, massive hedge fund regulatory leverage such as that shown above would become effectively impossible.

      Meanwhile, as banks pulled back from the repo market amid their “reluctance” to lend to these markets amid “concerns for large redemptions”, hedge funds have sought cash from new sources, such as non-bank dealers or through a platform run by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation that gives them access to cash from money market funds and other lenders. As a reminder, the “hail mary” thesis of the uber bearish CIO of Horseman Global, Russel Clark, is that clearinghouses will collapse as liquidity is drained from the market:

      LCH claim to have done a quadrillion of compression trades or netting in the last year, this is more than twice the notional of all outstanding interest rate derivatives.

      If initial margins rise significantly, the only assets that will see a bid will be cash, US treasuries, JGBs, Bunds, Yen and Swiss Franc. Everything else will likely face selling pressure. If a major clearinghouse should fail due to two counterparties failing, then many centrally cleared hedges will also fail. If this happens, you will not receive the cash from your bearish hedge, as the counterparty has gone bust, and the clearinghouse needs to pay from its own capital or even get be recapitalised itself.

      The growing significance of these new cash sources “can result in unfamiliar market dynamics“, said BIS’ Claudio Borio. Dynamics such as the one where impossible moves such as repo rates exploding from 2% to 10% in seconds become a daily occurence.

      So where does that leave us? Well, as the BIS concludes, since 17 September, “the Federal Reserve has taken various measures to supply more reserves and alleviate repo market pressures. These operations were expanded in scope to term repos (of two to six weeks) and increased in size and time horizon (at least through January 2020). The Federal Reserve further announced on 11 October the purchase of Treasury bills at an initial pace of $60 billion per month to offset the increase in non-reserve liabilities (eg the TGA). These ongoing operations have calmed markets.”

      We have covered all these “mitigating events”, and the problem is that even though the Fed has now injected $208BN in liquidity via overnight and term repos, and $114BN via permanent T-Bill purchases, or POMO (i.e. “Not QE”), expanding the Fed’s balance sheet by $322 billion, the repo market still remains broken…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … and the world may find just how broken it is as soon as December 31, when the next repocalypse event is tentatively scheduled to strike. The big question is whether the world’s mega hedge funds, the Millenniums, the Citadels, the Point72s afraid they will lose access to the precious repo funding that permits them to lever up as much as 10x, will sharply deleverage ahead of this event, in the process sending risk prices tumbling and precipitating the next market crash.

      But don’t take our word: here again is the top financial expert at the BIS, Claudio Borio, warning that that September’s dislocation suggests that such repo “events” are only just starting and the repo markets “may again find themselves in the eye of the storm should financial stress arise at some point”, a point which as the Fed recently revealed in its October FOMC Minutes could take place as soon as year-end.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 21:33

    • Derensis: Pearl Harbor & The Campaign To Lie America Into World War II
      Derensis: Pearl Harbor & The Campaign To Lie America Into World War II

      Authored by Hunter Derensis via TheAmericanConservative.com,

      Before Pearl Harbor, there was an elaborate British influence operation of forged documents, fake news, and manipulation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A World War II era poster showing portraits of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill with the title “Liberators of The World”. The poster also shows the flags of the Allies, and the sinking of the Japanese battleship Haruna. (Photo by David J. & Janice L. Frent/Corbis via Getty Images)

      Seventy-eight years ago, on December 6, 1941, the United States was at peace with world. The next morning, local time, the Empire of Japan bombed the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later, Nazi Germany issued a declaration of war against the United States. The American people were now unalterably involved in a global conflict that would take the lives of over 400,000 of their native sons.

      But before Japan opened this door to war, the United States had been the target of an elaborate, covert influence campaign meant to push public opinion, by hook or by crook, into supporting intervention on the side of the British. Conducted by the United Kingdom’s MI6 intelligence service, it involved sometimes witting (and often unwitting) collaboration with the highest echelons of the U.S. government and media establishment.

      In the early summer of 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched intelligence agent William Stephenson to North America to establish the innocuous-sounding British Security Coordination (BSC). The Canadian-born Stephenson was a World War I flying ace and wealthy industrialist who had been a close Churchill confidant for several years. Adopting the codename “Intrepid” during his operations, spymaster Stephenson served as the main inspiration for James Bond (whose creator, Ian Fleming, worked with the BSC).

      The BSC’s base of operations was the 35th floor of Rockefeller Center in New York City, which it occupied rent-free. The influence campaign began in April 1941, employing hundreds of agents, including well-placed individuals in front groups, the government, and polling organizations.

      Intrepid had his work cut out for him.

      Entering 1941, upwards of 80 percent of Americans opposed U.S. intervention in the war in Europe, a sentiment expressed through the America First Committee. Founded in September 1940 by a group of Yale students (including Gerald Ford, Sargent Shriver, and future Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart), at its peak the organization had 800,000 dues paying members and 450 local chapters spread across the country.

      “The America First Committee was taking the position that we should not be involved in foreign wars, as we were in World War I,” John V. Denson, a distinguished scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and former circuit judge in Alabama, told The American Conservative. 

      “There was a great deal of criticism of [Woodrow] Wilson taking us into World War I, so there was strong sentiment that we were tricked into that war and therefore that we needed to stay out of European wars. That was the America First position. We didn’t want England or anyone else dragging us into another war.”

      This meant that a primary goal of the BSC was to disparage and harass those Americans opposed to entering World War II. But it couldn’t do this in the open. The Fight for Freedom Committee was (like the BSC) established in April 1941 and also headquartered at Rockefeller Center. There it announced that the United States ought to accept “the fact that we are at war, whether declared or undeclared.”

      In September 1941, when North Dakota Senator Gerald Nye, an anti-interventionist and scourge of the armaments industry, gave a speech in Boston, Fight for Freedom demonstrators booed and heckled him while handing out 25,000 pamphlets labeling him an “appeaser and Nazi-lover.” Similarly, when New York Congressman Hamilton Fish III, an irritable thorn in Franklin Roosevelt’s side, held a rally in Milwaukee, a Fight for Freedom member interrupted his speech to hand him a placard: “Der Fuhrer thanks you for your loyalty.” Reporters, alerted ahead of time, made sure photos of the scene were reprinted nationwide.

      When Charles Lindbergh, the aviator and the America First Committee’s most popular speaker, addressed a rally at Madison Square Garden in October 1941, Fight for Freedom attempted to sow confusion by printing duplicate tickets. Lindbergh still successfully spoke to over 20,000 supporters, not including an agent provocateur who tried to cause a stir by yelling, “Hang Roosevelt!”

      (In actuality, it would be Lindbergh’s infamous September 11 remarks in Des Moines that would do more to damage the non-interventionist cause than any of the BSC-orchestrated hijinks.)

      A 1945 study by BSC historians described their efforts:

      “Personalities were discredited, their unsavory pasts were dug up, their utterances were printed and reprinted…. Little by little, a sense of guilt crept through the cities and across the states. The campaign took hold.”

      To promote the influence campaign, Stephenson gave large sums of money every month to the heads of media outlets like the Overseas News Agency or the WRUL radio station, and in exchange they would publish or broadcast “fake news” overseas. The stories were often fictional accounts of the British war effort and were promptly republished by American newspapers, which believed them to be credible. By the fall of 1941, the BSC was pushing out 20 to 25 phony stories a week.

      Stephenson’s influence campaign was at its most effective when he used his political connections to shape the Roosevelt administration’s policy. It was Stephenson who suggested that prominent lawyer William J. Donovan be made “Coordinator of Information” (whose office was also in Rockefeller Center). Describing this appointment, the late historian Ralph Raico wrote, “Through Stephenson, Churchill was virtually in control of William Donovan’s organization, the embryonic U.S. intelligence service.” Donovan, who the British described as “our man,” later headed the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA.

      With the pieces in place, Stephenson directed British lyricist Eric Maschwitz to create two forgeries: one, a map showing a German war plan to occupy South America; the other, a Nazi plan to abolish the world’s religions. These fake documents were provided by the BSC to Donovan, who gave them to the president.

      “I have in my possession a secret map made in Germany by Hitler’s government—by the planners of the new world order,” Franklin Roosevelt announced during an October 27 radio address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

      “It is a map of South America and a part of Central America, as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. …This map makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States itself.”

      “Your government has in its possession another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government,” continued Roosevelt.

      “It is a plan to abolish all existing religions—Protestant, Catholic, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike. …In the place of the Bible, the words of Mein Kampf will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols—the swastika and the naked sword.”

      Donovan, aware that Stephenson had given him falsified information in the past, almost certainly knew the documents were forgeries. But what about President Roosevelt?

      Henry Hemming, author of Agents of Influence: A British Campaign, a Canadian Spy, and the Secret Plot to Bring America into World War II, explained in an interview with TAC:

      “When [Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs] Adolf Berle comes to see Roosevelt in September 1941, he brings with him a dossier. And in this dossier, he has evidence of three separate occasions in which the British have tried to fabricate proof of a Nazi plot somewhere in South America. …He says, ‘This is a real problem. We have to do something about this.’ And in his notes from that meeting, Berle says the president was curiously reserved and didn’t seem to react in the way he expected him to. And Roosevelt eventually says, ‘You should probably bring this up with Bill Donovan.’”

      “[I]t’s the South American map that’s so interesting,” Hemming said, “because Roosevelt knows that the British are concentrating on South America. This is where they’re trying to create evidence of a Nazi plot. And here is a document which does precisely the same thing, just after he’s been warned that the British are trying to do this. So knowing that, it would have been very strange for him not to think, ‘Hm, this looks and smells like a British fake.’”

      Hemming concludes that it is “extremely likely” Roosevelt suspected the forgery, but proceeded with the speech anyway.

      Denson believes Roosevelt’s motivation for this deception was that American entry into World War II would gift the United States the international system he’d always desired:

      “I think he made up his mind as soon as the Senate didn’t confirm the League of Nations [in 1919]. He decided he could do a better job than Wilson, and he could get a world government like the League of Nations started. I think he was always on that train.”

      The “Declaration of United Nations,” cowritten by Roosevelt and Churchill, was signed in January 1942.

      From manipulating American public perceptions against peace to actively propelling the United States towards war, the influence campaign by Intrepid was a rousing success for the British. And not incidentally, it helped build the modern world.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 21:25

      Tags

    • As Tech War Unfolds, AI Arms-Race Erupts, China Could Overtake US By Next Decade
      As Tech War Unfolds, AI Arms-Race Erupts, China Could Overtake US By Next Decade

      The trade war between the US and China has morphed into a tech war. The Trump administration has blacklisted Chinese companies, like Huawei, restricting these firms from buying high-tech semiconductor chips from American suppliers. There was even a report this week that White House officials considered banning Huawei from its financial system. But why has the trade war transformed into a tech war? 

      The simple reason is that China could overtake the US as a major economic power by 2030. The US has been unconsciously fueling China’s ascension as a rising superpower by supplying high-tech semiconductor chips to Chinese companies. But recent actions by the Trump administration have limited the flow of chips to China, to slow their development in artificial intelligence (AI) and global domination.  

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A new report from the Global AI Index, first reported by South China Morning Post, indicates that China could overtake the US in AI by 2025 to 2030. 

      The index specifies that based on talent, infrastructure, operating environment, research, development, government strategy, and commercial ventures, China will likely dominate the US in the AI space in the next decade. 

      The tech war between both countries, to get more specific, has also blossomed into a global AI race, the report said.

      By 2030, Washington is forecasted to have earmarked $35 billion for AI development, with the Chinese government allocating at least $22 billion over the same period. 

      China’s leadership, including President Xi Jinping, has specified that AI will be essential for its global military force and economic power competition against the US.

      China’s State Council issued the New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (AIDP) back in 2017, stating that China’s AI strategy will allow it to become a global superpower. 

      In a recent speech, Xi said that China must “ensure that our country marches in the front ranks where it comes to theoretical research in this important area of AI, and occupies the high ground in critical and AI core technologies.” 

      Xi added, “China must “pay firm attention to the structure of our shortcomings, ensure that critical and core AI technologies are firmly grasped in our own hands.” 

      Xi also said that AIDP and Made in China 2025 strategies would allow it to surpass the US in the coming decade on an economic basis. 

      The US, irritated with China’s ascension, has launched a trade war, that has morphed into a tech war, along with an AI race, as it fights for its survival with a rising power. 

      Great power competitions have the risk of leading to a shooting war though there’s no evidence that this could happen in the intermediate timeframe. 


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 21:00

    • US Marine Who Smuggled Guns To Haiti Wanted To Take Over Country, Become President
      US Marine Who Smuggled Guns To Haiti Wanted To Take Over Country, Become President

      Authored by John Vibes via TheMindUnleashed.com,

      An active-duty U.S. Marine was arrested for attempting to smuggle guns and ammunition into Haiti in order to train soldiers for an apparent military coup in hopes of eventually becoming president.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to federal prosecutors, Jacques Yves Sebastien Duroseau, a military firearms instructor with the U.S. Marines, admitted to smuggling the guns into Haiti to “teach marksmanship to the Haitian army” to “defeat the thugs” who have destroyed the country.

      However, an informant told investigators that his plans for the weapons were far more ambitious, saying Duroseau was going to attempt to take control of the country and become president himself. The informant, who was not identified in court documents, appears to be an accomplice who turned on Duroseau when the pair were caught flying into Haiti last month. Investigators say that the informant was traveling with Duroseau and the weapons at the time of the arrest.

      Duroseau reportedly purchased a small number of weapons while stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, and then attempted to fly them to Haiti on a commercial flight. He even claimed all of the guns and ammunition in his luggage, including five handguns, three military-style rifles, and body armor. This is a very small number of weapons when considering the needs of an army, but Duroseau reportedly told investigators that the shipment was symbolic, and intended to be a sort of publicity stunt.

      “I know why I brought [the guns]. It’s still a part of the attention I need,” Duroseau reportedly told federal agents, adding that he planned on getting arrested so he could “gain a platform to make a statement.”

      Duroseau and his companion were able to make it through the TSA with the weapons when they left the United States, likely due to their military clothing and credentials, but Haitian officials became suspicious when they landed in Port-au-Prince on November 12.

      “That they became suspicious when they saw the three black cases, two of which were long. Most often the cases mean guns are inside,Haitian officials told the Miami Herald.

      After he was caught, Duroseau admitted that he knew it was illegal to ship weapons and body armor to Haiti, but insisted that he only wanted to teach Haitian soldiers how to shoot.

      According to the indictment, Duroseau told investigators that he wanted to “wear the uniform of the military that’s been established” and “defeat the thugs that have been creating a little bit of part of the instability in Haiti.”


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 20:35

    • The FAANMG Capex And R&D Budget Is Rapidly US Government Defense Spending
      The FAANMG Capex And R&D Budget Is Rapidly US Government Defense Spending

      Authored by Adam Virgadamo, Morgan Stanley equity strategist

      Wrapping up our annual gathering this past week, three common themes across regions and sectors stood out. As 2020 unfolds, we’ll have more to say on these topics, but in the meantime, here are the broad outlines of our dialogue.

      Disruption: Few themes are as evergreen as identifying disruptors and the disrupted, so it was no surprise that we spent much of our day on the subject. Our ideas around the poster children for disruption – e-commerce and the retail industry – came full circle as our retail teams argued that traditional retailers need to disrupt themselves, innovating in order to reinvent their cost structures. Innovation isn’t just driving down costs, but also transforming the way businesses grow – e.g., using digital technologies to scale up, it’s taken upstart Luckin Coffee just two years to match the store count that Starbucks needed 20 years to build in China. We also discussed the hype around 5G, the opportunities it may bring in an increasingly urbanized and data-centric world, and its limitations in transforming manufacturing processes (where investors may need to wait for 6G). And since no discussion of disruption would be complete without addressing the proliferation of the public cloud, we debated the ultimate size of the addressable market and growing risks that not only tech hardware companies but also software firms could see increased disintermediation from the cloud platforms themselves.

      Spheres of influence: The new theme this year was the movement of the US and China away from integration. The idea of diverging spheres of influence – separate universes of economic activity, technological standards and political influence – came up again and again. Intensifying competition for technological leadership, as well as limited market access for companies seen as too closely aligned with one side or the other, will affect fundamentals and multiples. Long term, identifying exposure to these trends will create alpha. For example, we think that China’s buildout of a semiconductor industry is likely to have meaningful implications for US and European players. Whether it’s in big data and AI, payment & networking standards, innovation in biotech, consumer products or social networks, the theme of US-China divergence is bound to be relevant. This new reality also raises the possibility that large global firms may turn their ecosystems into their own spheres of influence, a dynamic that could matter for the FAANMGs (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Google) and BATs (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) of the world. Some food for thought on this: the annual capex/R&D budget for FAANMG is rapidly approaching a similar measure for US government defense spending (Exhibit 1).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Environmental, social, and governance (ESG): The ESG theme is also hardly new, but this year saw a sharpening of focus. Investors are increasingly looking to incorporate ESG into their processes, and some of the world’s largest firms are asking how they can better highlight their ESG initiatives. Trends such as the shunning of fast fashion and “flight shaming” came up, but no ESG topic seems to have more mind share than climate change and a carbon price. Autos aren’t exactly an ESG-friendly sector, and the prevailing wisdom is that a price on carbon could potentially devastate the industry, but our autos analyst has a slightly different take. Might a carbon price force innovation in electric vehicle production that kicks off the greatest replacement cycle in history – 1 billion cars x $25,000/car = $25 trillion? We also debated whether the shift of auto firms from internal combustion to electric engines would be enough to qualify the stocks for ESG-minded portfolios. In other words, should ESG investors look at the rate of change in ESG factors? This second derivative discussion highlighted that ESG processes are still evolving and the relative importance of the “E”, the “S” and the “G” differs across industries.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 20:10

    • Hedge Fund CIO: "If Biden Somehow Gets The Nomination This Time, Progressives Will Go Berserk"
      Hedge Fund CIO: “If Biden Somehow Gets The Nomination This Time, Progressives Will Go Berserk”

      Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

      Primary:

      “First they needed some high-profile endorsements,” said the CIO. “Then they needed to win a couple early primaries,” he continued. “Only then could they raise the big corporate money to fund a campaign.” Few candidates could make it, they’d drop out early, narrowing the field by the end of March. “Now candidates raise money online. And the timeline has accelerated so that 70% of delegates are allocated by March 31, whereas previously it was only 35-40% by then. This will transform the Democratic primary process in ways few people yet understand.”

      “If a candidate gets above 15% of the vote in a state primary, they receive their proportional share of that state’s delegates,” explained the same CIO. “In the past, that was fine because the field narrowed early. But we’re likely to see four candidates make it all the way to the convention in July.” Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders. “It’s highly unlikely anyone will win 50% of the delegates.” So candidates will transfer delegates to the contender of their choice, and that will determine the winner. “This will be America’s first parliamentary-style nomination.”

      We’ll head into the July convention with two voting blocks,” he said. Warren and Bernie (Progressive). Biden and Buttigieg (Moderate). “It will create a lot of uncertainty as to who will prevail, and some people will think this will benefit Trump. But he is an extremely weak candidate.” Trump lost the 2016 popular vote and were it not for 77k voters spread across Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee, he would have lost the Electoral College. “He’s tripling down on a strategy to bring out his base, but there aren’t many ageing, white, rural males left.”

      “If 3rd party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson hadn’t run, Hillary would’ve won,” said the CIO. “And that was with the lowest Black voter turnout since John Kerry ran. That low turnout won’t repeat.” And the youth turnout will be massive this election. “What investors largely fail to appreciate is that it is extremely difficult for the Democrats to lose this election. And not only that, but the whole process will be the messiest primary America has seen in at least 70yrs, with the final Democratic candidate likely to be uncertain until the very end.”
       
      Progressives are still very angry about how Hillary and the DNC treated Bernie in 2016,” he said. “If Biden somehow gets the nomination this time, the Progressives will go berserk. It’ll be the last election that they lose for a very long time.” Trends in the US toward the Progressive agenda are well entrenched, their strength and numbers will continue to rise. “If Trump then wins the general election, the Progressives will go full metal jacket. They’ll go hard left, the Republicans will go hard right, authoritarian. America’s polarization will be complete.”


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 19:45

      Tags

    • The Road To Retirement: Millennials Put Their Faith In Bitcoin But Goldman Says Go With Gold
      The Road To Retirement: Millennials Put Their Faith In Bitcoin But Goldman Says Go With Gold

      “Drop Gold” – the ever-present tagline of Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust TV commercial – appears to be working its magic on a certain cohort of society.

      2019 has seen assets under management in GBTC soar…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      And for Millennials, according to the latest data from Charles Schwab, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trusts is the 5th largest holding in retirement accounts (including 401(k)s) with almost 2% of their assets tied to the success (or failure) of the largest cryptocurrency.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      h/t @jsblokland

      For now this remains a relatively small number…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But, given the increasing acceptance of socialist policies, and the historically-ignorant promise of MMT (and don’t forget UBI), Goldman Sachs suggests that Millennials’ willingness to accept ever-increasing central-planning means gold is the go-to asset to preserve wealth over long-term horizons.

      And, at least in the short-term, gold has held its value (relative to Bitcoin) as the world’s volume of negative-yielding assets has shrunk on the latest round of optimism that ‘this time is different’…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      Indeed, Goldman notes that gold looks attractive particularly relative to DM bonds. Both bonds and gold are defensive assets which go up in value when fear spikes. Exhibit 5 shows that investment and central bank demand for gold has been highly correlated with US 10 year real rates.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      During the next recession gold may offer better diversification value to bonds because the latter may be capped by the lower bound in rates limiting their ability to appreciate materially. This is particularly relevant for Europe where rates are already close to the lower bound. This means that during the next recession when fear spikes, gold may decouple from rates and outperform them.

      Specifically, Goldman says that Gold is a particularly good diversifier for investors with long term investment horizon.

      If we look at week on week changes in gold they tend to be dominated by the dollar. As a result the gold S&P500 weekly changes correlation looks almost identical to correlation of S&P 500 and the dollar (see Exhibit 7).

      However, if we look at 5 year returns gold and S&P 500 display strong inverse relationship with gold performing great during the 1970ies and 2000s when the S&P 500 underperformed (see Exhibit 8).

      This makes sense given that gold is ultimately a hedge against systematic macro risks, which can lead to long periods of equity underperformance. Our strategy team also finds that gold historically has been a good hedge against periods of large drawdowns of the 60/40 portfolio. This was particularly true when a drawdown is caused by accelerating inflation as it was in the 1970ies. Therefore, if one is concerned that the low macro volatility of 2010s will be followed by higher volatility in the 2020s, which would hurt equities, gold would be a good addition to the portfolio.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Geopolitical uncertainty is already translating into greater gold demand. CBs globally have been buying gold at a very strong pace, albeit more recently the rate of CB purchases has cooled off as China and Russia have moderated their buying. Nevertheless, 2019 still looks to be a record year for CB gold purchases with our target of 750 tonnes combined purchases likely to be met (see Exhibit 15).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Rising political risk – together with negative European rates – may be an important reason behind the large share of unaccounted gold investment over the past several years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Exhibit 17 shows cumulative unexplained gold demand based on World Gold Council (post 2010) and GFMS (pre 2010) balances data. It surged since 2016. Similar dynamics can be seen when we look at implied vaulted gold stocks built in the UK and Switzerland, which is calculated as implied cumulative total net imports minus transparent ETF gold stocks. In fact, since the end of 2016 the implied build in non-transparent gold investment has been much larger than the build in visible gold ETFs. This is consistent with reports that vault demand globally is surging.

      Political risks, in our view, help explain this because if an individual is trying to minimize the risks of sanctions or wealth taxes, then buying physical gold bars and storing them in a vault, where it is more difficult for governments to reach them, makes sense. Finally, this build can also reflect hedges by global high net worth individuals against tail economic and political risk scenarios in which they do not want to have any financial entity intermediating their gold positions due to the counterparty credit risk involved.

      Finally, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – which advocates for central bank financed fiscal deficits – has been gaining more airtime recently, with former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and former Fed Vice Chair Stanley Fischer offering similar proposals. The logic is that persistent low inflation and lack of borrowing capacity in many developed markets means that direct CB financing of government deficit is warranted. This is especially true for countries where monetary policy is close to the limits of its capacity. Whilst there are arguments to be made in favor of MMT there are also risks associated with it. Notably some economists stress that if not used responsibly it could lead to a material acceleration in inflation.

      In the next recession, our US economists do not expect governments to adopt direct monetary financing and expect inflation to remain firmly anchored. But this doesn’t necessarily prevent an increase in debasement concerns if conversations around MMT become more widespread — a potential boost to demand for gold as a debasement hedge. False debasement concerns have led to gold rallies in the past. Post 2008 aggressive QE in the US led to a considerable push into inflation protected assets including gold (see Exhibit 19). These inflationary concerns did not materialise and the allocation to gold and inflation protected bonds fell sharply in 2013. Another period, currently is less talked about, is the Great Depression when the Fed pumped a lot of money into the economy leading to debasement concerns (see Exhibit 20). What followed was actually disinflation and the gold price eventually moderated.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Overall, while Goldman acknowledges the risks related to still high gold positions we believe the strategic case is still strong, particularly for investors with long term horizons.

      This is based on a deteriorated attractiveness of long term DM bonds as portfolio diversifiers and real return generation instruments, exposure to growing EM wealth, limited mine supply growth, elevated political risks and a potential increase in debasement concerns sparked by rising airtime of Modern Monetary Theory.

      As such Goldman keeps its 3,6 and 12m forecasts at $1,600toz.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So – will Millennials keep saying “bye gold” or come over the ‘dark side’ and “buy gold”?


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 19:20

    • Bitcoin Halving, Explained
      Bitcoin Halving, Explained

      Authored by Stephen O’Neal via CoinTelegraph.com,

      What is Bitcoin halving?

      An event that halves the rate at which new Bitcoins are created. It occurs once every four years.

      As many know, Bitcoin’s (BTC) supply is finite. Once 21 million coins are generated, the network will stop producing more. That is one of the main reasons Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold” — just like with the yellow metal, there is only a limited amount in the world, and someday, all of it will have been extracted.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

      Right now, there are around 18 million BTC in circulation, which is roughly 85% of the total cap — but it doesn’t mean that the cryptocurrency is about to reach its limit any time soon. The reason is the protocol, which has been coded into the blockchain from the very start: Every 210,000 blocks, it performs the so-called Bitcoin “halving” or “halvening,” and producing new coins becomes more difficult — just like in gold mining where finding new deposits becomes more challenging over time.

      More specifically, the protocol cuts the block reward in half. So, every time a Bitcoin halving occurs, miners begin receiving 50% fewer BTC for verifying transactions.

      Ok, but what’s a “block reward”?

      In short: the amount of BTC a miner receives for every new block they add to the blockchain.

      To explain this concept in more depth, let’s briefly go back to the roots of Bitcoin — the blockchain. In the most basic sense, a blockchain is a digital ledger that stores information about its transactions in blocks that are each around 1 MB in size. For instance, when person A sends Bitcoin to person B, this transaction will be stored on a block, along with around 500 other transactions that happened at around the same time.

      A block reward is the amount of cryptocurrency that miners receive when they successfully validate/mine a new block by solving highly complex mathematical problems with their mining hardware. It is a reward for their hard work.

      How much Bitcoin will miners receive after the next halving?

      Every new block will produce 6.25 BTC. At inception, the reward was eight times as much.

      When Bitcoin was launched in 2009, miners were receiving 50 BTC per block. Thus, a total of 10,500,000 BTC was generated before the next halving took place in November 2012, when miners began to receive 25 BTC for each block.

      It may seem like an overly generous bonus (more than $365,000 per block, based on current value), but the network was only just starting to develop at the time, and no one knew for certain whether people would continue to find the concept worthy of investing their computer processing power into the Bitcoin blockchain to keep it alive.

      Another fact to take into account is that the all-time high market price for that period was $31 per BTC in June 2011, but that “bubble” later burst and Bitcoin was back to $2 before the year’s end. Nevertheless, mining has ultimately turned out to be much more profitable for those who got in early, which is a big part of the reason Bitcoin critics call it a Ponzi scheme. 

      The second Bitcoin halving occurred on July 6, 2016, as block number 420,000 was produced and miners began collecting 12.5 BTC for every new block, which is the current rate. The third halving will reduce that rate in half yet again, which will lower the block reward to just 6.25 BTC, or around $45,000 given the current market price.

      When will the next Bitcoin halving take place?

      The week commencing 18 May, 2020, based on current performance, but it might be 14 May.

      The date is not 100% certain at this point because the time taken to generate new blocks may speed up or slow down. On average, the network produces one block every ten minutes. 

      The very last halving is expected to occur some time in the year 2140 as the 21-millionth BTC is mined. Once that happens, miners will stop receiving block rewards, but will keep the remaining source of revenue — fees paid by the transactions, which they also collect.

      Will Bitcoin miners still be interested?

      Some smaller players might be forced to leave (or at the very least, upgrade their hardware).

      At this point, the majority of Bitcoin mining is performed by giants like Bitmain, the China-based company that was worth $12 billion at some point in 2018. Bitmain validates blocks with thousands of loud, extremely powerful and high-energy-consuming machines called application-specific integrated circuit miners, which are much more efficient compared to the basic setups used by students or other individuals.

      As the block reward becomes less significant, mining rigs that are barely covering production costs will be forced to quit the market. There will still be firms willing to mine Bitcoin at the reduced rate, but the market might become less decentralized as a result (i.e., the pie will be cut into fewer pieces). Still, new and more efficient ways to mine BTC could emerge, potentially enabling smaller businesses to partake.

      Will the Bitcoin price change?

      Historically, the price has gone up following a halving, but it ultimately depends on the supply/demand ratio.

      Essentially, Bitcoin halving cuts down the supply of BTC, making the asset more scarce. If the demand is there, the price is likely to increase. There are also some historical precedents. On Nov. 28, 2012, the day of Bitcoin’s first halving, the cpryptocurrency’s price rose from $11 to $12, and continued to climb up throughout the next year, reaching $1038 on Nov. 28, 2013.

      Roughly four years later, a month before the second halving, Bitcoin’s price started to follow a similar, bullish pattern. It surged from $576 on June 9 to $650 on July 9, 2016 — the day the block’s reward was reduced by half for the second time in the asset’s history. Again, BTC continued to accelerate through the next year, albeit with occasional turbulence, and traded at $2526 on 9 July 2017.

      Will it be the same next time? Skeptics believe that the halving has already been priced in (remember this year’s epic, but short-lived systematic price increase?). Although, there is no scientific way to verify this. 

      Moreover, the industry has drastically changed over the last four years, as cryptocurrencies — and Bitcoin in particular — became an essential part of mainstream news coverage. Still, some people might be tempted to take the chance, especially given the previous patterns exhibited around Bitcoin halvings. 

      Consequently, if history repeats itself and the Bitcoin price starts going up in April 2020, even more traders might start buying the asset out of a fear of missing out, thus stimulating the demand, and, ultimately, the price.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 18:55

    • Convenience Stores Outsmart Amazon With New 'Honor System' Model
      Convenience Stores Outsmart Amazon With New ‘Honor System’ Model

      It’s a time-tested principle: honesty through paranoia.

      After Amazon spent all that time and money developing its cashierless ‘Amazon Go’ convenience store model, where a complex array of sensors and cameras are employed to ensure that customers are charged for their groceries via their Amazon accounts, convenience store chains from Russia to the US have found that allowing customers to pay for their own items at self-checkout counters – a system that relies on customer honesty – is equally as effective.

      It sounds like an invitation to steal, but in the race to make shopping as seamless as possible, it makes sense. And many convenience store owners have found that rates of theft are surprisingly low.

      “Our answer to Amazon Go is a store based on trust,” said Andrey Krivenko, founder and chief executive officer of Vkusvill, Russia’s fastest-growing grocery chain, which started opening what it calls “micro markets” in Moscow office buildings last year. “People scan everything themselves and, in our already sizable experience, there’s virtually no theft.”

      Check out the photo below, taken at a Vkusvill market in Moscow. It’s not quite the Amazon Go walk out with your groceries model, but it’s close. And at a cost of $0.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Some of these markets have come up with truly ingenious psychological tricks to discourage theft.

      Across the globe in downtown New York, beverage-maker Iris Nova sells $10 bottles of brands like Dirty Lemon in a small store in the bottom of a building that doesn’t have employees or a cash register. Customers are trusted to use their phones to pay for drinks via text message. The space has visible security cameras, as well as mirrors that may subconsciously push visitors to pay because they don’t want to see themselves stealing—although the company says the mirrors are purely for aesthetics.

      Such a setup works because “you want to show yourself you’re a good person,” according to Kelly Goldsmith, an associate professor of marketing at Vanderbilt University’s Owen Graduate School of Management, describing it as “self-signaling.”

      The mirror thing has helped the location clock a theft rate below 5%.

      The Iris Nova location has a theft rate below 5%, according to founder and CEO Zak Normandin. Many retailers have rates of stealing, or what the industry calls shrink, of about 2%, but they also pay for deterrents like security systems and employees.

      “People know it’s not right to take things that aren’t yours,” said Normandin, who plans to open similar stores in Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. “When you give consumers an easy way to do that, people are going to choose the right thing.”

      The trend has led to the rise of ‘micro-markets’.

      In Japan, Ezaki Glico Co. has also made a business out of selling on the honor system. The company places snacks such as Pocky and Pretz biscuit sticks in drawers, shelves, and sometimes the office fridge. Those who want to indulge simply drop a coin in a container. Glico says it’s installed more than 100,000 of these units since 2002 and has a 95% recovery rate on payment.

      That may not come as a huge surprise in Japan, where social harmony is prized and crime rates are low, but the same phenomenon is playing out elsewhere.

      In Moscow, Vkusvill’s micro markets are similar, but customers pay using a credit-card machine after selecting snacks, ready-to-eat meals and from fridges and shelves on the office floor.

      Even though it’s hard to imagine that they don’t get robbed blind, customers insist that the convenience factor is fantastic.

      “It’s hard to imagine they don’t get robbed blind,” said Nathan Hunt, the head of Ronald A. Chisholm Ltd.’s Moscow office, who has bought food at a Vkusvill micro market in a skyscraper in the capital. “But the convenience factor is great.”

      Vkusvill is also developing unmanned shops to roll out to the general public that will involve more technology like facial recognition to increase security, Krivenko said.

      Selling based on trust could be hard to expand to general retail environments, said Ilia Filimonov, who runs DC Daily, a cashier-less food service in Moscow that uses sensors and other technology to enforce payment. The idea works best in offices, where employees can easily afford to pay and feel like they’re part of a community.

      These stores have a few limiting factors: Fresh goods are a no-no since they’re difficult to maintain without a vigilant eye. But there’s a lot of potential: as facial recognition technology improves (driven, as always, by the Chinese security-state apparatus and its international suppliers) theft rates will likely continue to drop.


      Tyler Durden

      Sun, 12/08/2019 – 18:30

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 8th December 2019

    • The David Einhorn Podcast: The Fed Is Monetizing Debt Again
      The David Einhorn Podcast: The Fed Is Monetizing Debt Again

      It was back in 2012 that famed contrarian and value investing hedge fund icon, David Einhorn, first took aim at the pinnacle of market manipulation when he slammed the Fed for creating the ultimate toxic cocktail: something he called the Jelly Donut Policy. As the Greenlight founder wrote in May 2012, the Fed is “presently force-feeding us what seems like the 36th Jelly Donut of easy money and wondering why it isn’t giving us energy or making us feel better. Instead of a robust recovery, the economy continues to be sluggish.”

      Seven years later, the recovery is just as sluggish and yet nothing has changed; in fact, just two months ago, the Fed launched what Fed Chair Powell sternly refuses to admit is QE4 but… is QE4. And while Einhorn has been right that the Fed is ultimately destroying the very fabric of not only the US economy, but taking down society with it as the growing wealth and income disparity chasm will eventually culminate in civil war, by fighting the Fed, Einhorn has seen his AUM plummet in recent years, his hedge fund a shadow of what of what it once was, largely due to the relentless ascent of the so-called “bubble basket” of stocks, those names which benefit entirely due to the Fed’s monetary generosity, and which have seen their stocks prices explode in the past decade.

      Which brings us to another Jelly Donut – that’s the name of a new podcast service, which in recent weeks has interviewed, Julian Brigden, Ben Hunt, Miles Kimball, and others. Most notably, among those interviewed is that man responsible for the concept in the first place: David Einhorn.

      While David Einhorn has recently been in the press for yet another feud he is currently waging, this time with Elon Musk, in which he first accused the Tesla CEO of “Significant fraud”,  followed up with even more specific accusations of accounting irregularity profiled here, in the podcast with Ryan – which marked the Greenlight CEO’s first appearance in two years – Einhorn goes back to his roots and takes on his primary nemesis, the Federal Reserve, which is why among the topics covered are QE, ZIRP, MMT, fiscal and central bank stimulus. Oh, and gold, because seven years after the “Jelly Donut policy” was first coined, Einhorn remains just as bullish on the precious metal as the following excerpt confirms:

      We’re running a very high  deficit  to  GDP.  And this is many years into an economic recovery with something that’s very close to full employment… In the event that the economy weakens, there’s going to be an enormous, both natural fiscal  stimulus  that comes from higher benefits, and less tax revenue, as well as an urge for Congress to do things to help  people out in tougher economic times.  So, what you have is a deficit right now that is very high and then you combine that with  an accumulation of debt. You have a situation where the debt to GDP is much higher going into whatever the next down cycle is, and where we’ve had before similarly you have of monetary policy, which has been very aggressive. The balance sheet is much larger than it used to be and the rates going into down cycle are much lower than they used to be. There will be enormous pressure on the central bank to be very aggressive. And, so when you combine aggressive fiscal policy with  aggressive  monetary policy, historically that can lead to a problem with the currency and then when you realize that the same dynamic is essentially in place and in some cases worse in all of the other major developed currencies, it seems to me  it’s a situation where sooner or later it might be good to have a fraction of your assets in gold, which is not subject  to appropriation by the whim of the central banks.

      Or rather, it is not yet subject to appropriate by central banks. Because all it takes is another Executive Order 6102 for all that to change.

      All this and much more in the podcast below (phonetic transcript attached below):

      Transcribed:

      Ryan:  David welcome to the podcast.

      David:  Hi Ryan. Thanks for having me.

      Ryan: Well, it’s great to have you here.  Really appreciate you coming on.  First off, I wanted to  explain  a little bit to the  audience of  why we  have you here,  and  when  I  decided to launch this  podcast,  I  was trying to  think of  a great name that  captured the subject of  the show  everything  related to macro and  monetary policy  and I immediately thought about your article.  So, going back to 2012 you wrote an article called  The  Fed’s  Jelly Donut Policy in The Huffington  Post  and used a story  about The  Simpsons  to  explain  a  long periods of  QE and zero interest  rates  may  actually be harmful  to the real economy.  And  it turns out  a lot of  what you  said,  they’re  panned out  inefficient allocation of Capital  stock  Buybacks with no urgency for corporations  to  invest to reach for yield  from all investors,  especially  to Retirees  so  a lot  has happened  since then  take us  back  to the feedback you  got from the article and  if your views have  changed  since.

      David: Well honestly, I think the best feedback I got from  the article is  somebody’s naming their  podcast  after it. How can  how can you beat that?  And I’m honored to  be here for the first  one of these and I expect after I speak today, you’ll  probably get  all kinds of feedback  and I  will hopefully learn  from listening to the  feedback  you get  because I’m not a trained Economist.  I’m  not  a  macro-economist,  I’ve never worked in the plumbing of the fed  or any of these  things. I’m basically an equity Market investor,  and I  think I  have  a few  observations on  some of  these  things from time  to  time, but I  don’t  profess  to  be  a technical  expert in  all the  mechanics  of everything.  

      Ryan: Right and  what was  considered  unconventional  monetary policy over  decade  ago is  really now  seen as  normal  not just  for the FED  but  central  banks around the world  and  these  policies  seem to only  be  going on for  longer and longer  and uh  others  talked  about using these  tools  and definitely  what’s your  view  on  these  policies as far as  do you ever imagine that  balance  sheet  still  being over $4.5T, you know  taking  up towards  there right now and before  the crisis was  $800B.  Did you see this still going on this long?  And  what’s your thoughts on the Fed using these tools  and definitely?

      David: Yeah. I  don’t know  how to  predict  what  the FED is  going to do with  the size  of the  of the  balance  sheet,  you  know,  basically,  I think  there’s  two main  parts of  fed uh  policy  one  is the interest rate  policy  and then the uh other is  the  balance  sheet  size  the  main  thrust of the  jelly donut thesis  is  that  the interest rate policy  by  setting  rates  too  low  at some point you have a diminishing  return  from  lower rates and  eventually  ultimately  a marginally  negative return  from low rates, which is kind of separate from what you just  raised which has to do with the size  of  the  FED  balance sheet  and the  monetary base  and  how they  choose  to  implement  that.

      Ryan: Yes,  so separating those  out a little bit, obviously with  the  all the easing,  you know,  short-term  rates, they’re able  to target  and  bring  down  low  and now  we’re  having some  issues in  the repo  Market  obviously some  change  some  things change  with  paying  interest  on  excess reserves  and there’s  been  some  other issues  that brought up  as far as the tax bill  and things like this.  What’s your thoughts right now on the  current  issues with the repo market  and  can  the  Fed really  keep  a hold of rates at  this  point?

      David: Well,  I think  the FED ultimately can control whatever  chooses to control  within certainly within rates  or whatever  markets it’s willing  to  intervene in because  it  has  unlimited  fire  power  in  order  to enforce  whatever  policies that it wants . Sometimes eventually if  the fed or a central bank over overdoes it, then people can take it  out on the currency,  which would  be the  normal reaction, but within  the domestic  economy  in terms  of control…. The Fed can  set  any rate  that wants  actually  almost  anywhere on  the curve  by,  you know directly intervening  in the market  with  unlimited firepower.

      Ryan:  Right, and  going  back to  a Bloomberg  interview did  in 2014, you  told  a story about  how  you  ask  Ben  Bernanke and a private dinner about QE  and he talked about how these policies would lead to higher inflation  talking about  usually it  only happens after  a war  and he  talked  about Japan  has done a  lot more  QE  than  the US and they don’t have inflation. Recently  Fed  officials have  said it’s kind of  a  mystery why. CPI  claims inflation hasn’t gone up more but we have seen  inflation in certain pockets: Healthcare, Housing, College tuition and you  mentioned the currency piece.  So  what’s  your thoughts  as far as, where  inflation goes  and  how long  it can actually  stay where it is right now?

      David: When the Fed creates money  and  whether it’s  from  what you would call  money printing  or what they want to  call quantitative easing,  and most recently  they’re doing the same  thing and they  want to tell  us  that  it’s  not  quantitative easing.  I don’t really know what  the difference  between all of  these  things  is  except for  semantics  and messaging  in an attempt  to,  kind of control  things.  When the Fed increases  the money  the money  has to go  somewhere.  It  doesn’t  have the  same  impact  that  it  did  when  there were  fewer  excess  reserves  in the system, but we can  come back to that later.  I’ll just skip  over that for the moment,  but when they create  money, the money does  have to  go somewhere.  Now, the thing is,  they  don’t  have any  control  over where that is.  So it could be that the price of  corn goes  up  or it could  be  the  price  of  healthcare  goes up  or  it could  be  the price of  stocks  go up  or  the price of bonds  or  art  or Real  estate  or  oil  or what not  but it doesn’t  have to be  any of  those  particular  things.  So as  price levels in  general go  up  it may  or may not  be  prices that are measured  within the  CPI  basket,  which is  only,  you know, its a subset of possible places where  new money  can go.

      Ryan: That makes sense.  And  you mentioned kind  of the  mechanics  of  how  QE works.  So  one camp  says  that  this is just an  asset Swap  and that  this  is a  swap  for  bank reserves for  Treasuries,  and  this  is  kind of  normal operations.  Where  the other  camp  says this  is something more like money printing and really something like debt  monetization  since  all the  interests  gets  remitted  back to  the Treasury  and  the so  far  a lot of  these  assets  haven’t actually  rolled off.  How do you actually view that  piece?     

      David: Yeah. I think it’s a little bit of a  semantic  game. By only looking at one side of a transaction, in other words,  like what  happens  after a  treasury  is  issued, you can decide, you know, that this  isn’t  money  printing.  But when you  think about it in the totality  how do  treasuries  get issued, a  treasury is issued because the  government needs to borrow money.  And when the government needs to borrow money, there’s two places  they can borrow  it.  They can borrow it in the private sector  or  effectively they can borrow it  from the central bank.  Now, there’s a  rule that  says  they can’t  sell the debt  directly to the central bank, so they instead  issue a T-bill  to  a leading  commercial bank  and then  the central bank  can buy the  T-bill  and  you’re kind  of in  the same place.   What’s happened is that  the  Federal government  has borrowed  money  and ultimately  that loan  is  held  by  the central  bank  which  increases the central bank’s balance sheet  size  and thereby  in  there  for  the monetary base.  So it’s the equivalent of a debt monetization. When you  question  whether  its quantitative  easing  whether  the current Fed chairman says it’s  something different from that , whether it’s money printing,  it’s really all the same  things  because  all it  is, it’s the Fed  increasing the size  of  its  balance sheet  by buying  Treasuries in  one  form  or another. The difference is  some people want to look at it as a two-step thing where the treasuries are  issued by the Treasury Department  to the private sector and then the Fed  buys it  as opposed to  the  Treasury  issuing  it  directly to the Fed  which  is  illegal,  but the fact  that there’s  two  steps in the  transaction—I don’t think  it  makes any  economic relevance.  So think you have to look  through it  and when you look  through it, when the  Fed  buys  Treasuries,  they’re increasing the balance sheet. They’re increasing the monetary base and  effectively its debt  monetization.     

      Ryan: Right, that makes a lot  of  sense. Now  going  back  to  interest rates  and  kind of  what your  article  focused on,  it’s  arguable  that  interest rates  are really the price of money  and  the  price of money has been manipulated.  Now, as far as  rates rising  on the longer end,  you mentioned  the Fed  can kind of control not just  the  short-end, but also the  longer-end.  We saw  recently when  the  repo  market  spiked up to a 10  from 2, that  people said, okay,  the price  of money is  not really what  the Fed says is  it is  the price  should  be  this.  So, the question is,  could  the Fed lose  control as  far  as  people  losing  faith  in their ability  to  just  start  tinkering and really  micromanage.  And will that show up  maybe on  the long end of the curve  or  how could that crisis  of confidence  happen?

      David: I don’t know that you’ll have a  crisis  of confidence.  But when you think about what just happened in the repo  Market  essentially, there wasn’t a  huge amount  of  active  intervention in the exact moment  that it  spiked.  It spiked  and the Feds  saw what was  happening  relatively quickly after  and  announced new  programs with extraordinary  firepower  in  order  to make sure  that the problem  doesn’t  persist  and that’s  what I  mean by their  having  the ability  to  control  the rate.  So, it spiked for a moment, but  beyond that,  you  know,  they  managed  to  put it  back  together.  As for Relating to the long end the curve,  it  has to  do with how much  intervention  this  the Fed is  willing to do.  Presently, I don’t know that they’re doing a lot of intervention on the long-end, but if you look at other central banks around  the world, Japan and Europe and so forth,  there’s huge  amounts of  intervention  at the long-end of  the curve  and those  banks  have  effectively cornered and controlled those rates as  well.

      Ryan: Yeah, that’s interesting when you look at Japan buying up  huge amount of  the JGBs is  outstanding  and obviously  buying  ETFs  and things like Apple  stock  and  seemingly distorting  markets and doing so.  Now, going  back to the article again, the thesis laid out  talking about  with the  Simpsons, it  was  actually really enjoyable  to  read for people  who are  trying to understand  how  this  is  all working.  And, I think when you look at  retirees,  when you look at  savers  and  obviously  pension plans  and insurance  companies,  a lot of  these  types of  things have really caused  a big  problem as far as rates  being low,  and  obviously for all  investors  going out  on the curve  to  bid up  risk assets.  Do you see a path to normalization  as far as rates  or  concerned?  And what  should the Fed  be doing right now, and  can they normalize  rates  or should they  right now?

      David:  Well, I think it  depends on what  one  thinks about  as  normalized rates.  We’re certainly in  a  situation that  there’s a lot more  leverage in the financial system than 20 or  30  years ago,  which  means that  the  debt  that’s in  the  system  can’t  support  nominal  rates  that  are higher  than a certain  amount,  you  know,  if you  think about what  the  deficit looked like  when  Volcker  raised the  short rates  up into  the teens,  the  debt to  GDP  was nowhere  near  what it is today.  So you didn’t create  a question about the government’s ability  to repay the even in  as rates went  even a short rates  went up  at a  at  a  good clip and  ultimately even cost  for long bonds. They  wanted to  sell  at the time  became  quite  expensive right once you  have debt  to  GDP or incorporate case  debt to EBITDA at higher ratios.   It becomes much more  sensitive  to  increase  rates in terms of, from a  solvency  perspective.  And  so  the situation  is  much different  today  than it  used to be.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ryan:  Yeah,  I’m looking  at  equity markets,  especially here in the U.S.,  when you  look at  share buybacks  and  other  things that  have been going on.  How are you looking at  this  the market  based on these  share buybacks  uh  and  a lot of  people  have been  talking  about  it.  We’ve seen this many times before and it’s  only a matter  of  time until the cycle  has  turned  and  you’ve  talked  a little bit about this over  the past  couple of years,  but  it  really seems  we’re almost  kind of out  of breaking point.  How do  you feel about  the market  right  now?

      David: I  have  no opinion  as to  whether the  market is  anywhere near  a breaking point.  Not the type of  forecasting or  thinking about  things  that  I  think  about,  you  know,  and in terms  of things  like  share repurchases  from my perspective, they are a  tax efficient way  to return  capital  and businesses to their owners  and to the extent that there  aren’t investment opportunities  at  better  returns than returning  capital  to their  owners, I think it’s  a perfectly  appropriate  thing  for  businesses  to do.

      Ryan: Okay, that makes sense  and  you  mentioned  as far as  going  back  to  2008 and  even  previous with  the  derivatives and  all the debt  built  up in the system.  How are you looking at the current environment  compared  to  2008.  Obviously, it was built up more so in the mortgage  market.  How  are you  looking at the  market  now  compared to  back  then.  We now have some of these banking regulations  after Dodd-Frank and  others.  Are we actually worse off or more  levered up?    

      David: Well,  there’s  leverage, but the  leverage is  in a different place  than it  was  last  time  last  time.  I believe (in 2008) that the  leading part  of the leverage  was  in  the real estate market  both  commercial  and  residential  and I  think  today  it’s  more  in  the  public  market  meaning  sovereign debt, municipal  debt,  and also  corporate  debt.   

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>  

      Ryan:  Right  and we’ve seen corporates  levered  up to some of the highest they’ve been…The  last  thing to  touch on is, you’ve held a position  in physical gold  for a while now.  Other investors have  talked  about  hedging  against  inflation or  even a  “Black  Swan” type  event  with real assets.  How are you  seeing  a position  in  real assets  as far  as  hedging  against inflation?

      David:  Yeah.  I don’t know that it’s a hedge against inflation  or a particular  Black Swan event.  But,  our  theory relating  to gold  is that monetary and fiscal policies  combined  are very  aggressive.  Just  take  the United States as an example  right now. We’re running a very high  deficit  to  GDP.  And this is many years into an economic recovery with something that’s very close to full employment… In the event that the economy weakens, there’s going to be an enormous, both natural fiscal  stimulus  that comes from higher benefits, and less tax revenue, as well as an urge for Congress to do things to help  people out in tougher economic times.  So, what you have is a deficit right now that is very high and then you combine that with  an accumulation of debt. You have a situation where the debt to GDP is much higher going into whatever the next down cycle is, and where we’ve had before similarly you have of monetary policy, which has been very aggressive. The balance sheet is much larger than it used to be and the rates going into down cycle are much lower than they used to be. There will be enormous pressure on the central bank to be very aggressive. And, so when you combine aggressive fiscal policy with  aggressive  monetary policy, historically that can lead to a problem with the currency and then when you realize that the same dynamic is essentially in place and in some cases worse in all of the other major developed currencies, it seems to me  it’s a situation where sooner or later it might be good to have a fraction of your assets in gold, which is not subject  to appropriation by the whim of the central banks.

      Ryan:  Right, that makes a lot of  sense.  Well  David,  thank you so much  for coming on, I really appreciate it.

      David: You’re welcome and  good luck with  the  whole  podcast  series.

      The full podcast can be found here.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 23:38

    • Luongo: "Pelosi's Mask Just Slipped"
      Luongo: “Pelosi’s Mask Just Slipped”

      Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

      Nancy Pelosi is a bitch. And in saying that I’m actually being sexist against female dogs, since every one of them I’ve ever met is a higher quality individual than Pelosi.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So, my apologies to dogs everywhere.

      Just when you thought this power-mad harpy couldn’t sink any lower she responds to a simple question from a reporter with the kind of lame, stuttering virtue-signaling that has become her signature move, to attack when confronted with the truth.

      This screed is a masterclass in diversion and doublespeak. Her self-righteous anger is a dead giveaway that she was lying about her motivations for proceeding with this impeachment while scolding the CSPAN reporter who asked the question like he was an impudent child.

      If there is one thing Nancy Pelosi hates it is being called a liar.

      She’s the ultimate keeper of the status quo, of the political order as she sees it and she has determined it shall be.

      But she damns herself by wrapping herself in the false flag of her Catholicism. The false flag of her love for humanity. She is so desperate to deflect away from the truth that she does, in fact, hate the president and all that his election represents, she uses that to debunk the idea that she can hate anyone.

      You know, except for all those unborn children that she advocates murdering or the people overseas she spends zero time stopping from being bombed by the administration.

      This coming from the woman whose own daughter described her as capable of cutting off your head and not know you’re bleeding.

      So, we all have to suffer because of this outrageous woman’s all-consuming love for humanity? That’s what she’s trying to sell now?

      In a word, yes. The mask slipped when she had to run back to the podium to look into the camera and unconvincingly proclaim her love of children. And that she’ll fight anyone who gets in her way, clutching her rosary the entire time.

      Yup, that’s love all right.

      The tough broad act plays well with the bi-coastal shitlib set but the rest of us just look at her and shake our heads wondering who in the holy hell does she think she’s fooling with this stuff?

      Please, I’ve seen more believable acting in your average 1990’s porn flick.

      That thin veneer of compassion masks a cold and cruel calculation and psychopathology which is abhorrent to anyone with any shred of a soul left.

      The sad truth is that Pelosi in her near-dementia might actually now believe some of this stuff she’s spouting. Here she does a CNN Town Hall in which she parrots the current climate hysteria saying that civilization itself depends on removing Donald Trump from the White House.

      Even if this is true, and this is how she sees herself, acting out of a love for humanity rather than her own narrow interests, then she’s simply a classic villain archetype who is willing to break a few eggs to make her omelette.

      And Pelosi, like the people she ultimately represents, are telling us that they will ‘love us all to death‘ to achieve their goals. It’s the most sick and twisted form of manipulation possible.

      She’s morphed from the tough broad from San Francisco to the epitome of Toxic Femininity, the over-bearing mother archetype. And any threat to her power will be met with the cruelest counter-attack.

      She’s Nurse Ratched with Botox.

      And Donald Trump is her R. P. McMurphy.

      And in every way Pelosi knows that she’s locked in an existential battle for control over the future of America. She knows that she’s been tasked with delivering results on destroying Trump and if she doesn’t she’ll be cast aside.

      No rational person can actually think the world is going to end in twelve years when they take even a cursory look at the climate data. But Pelosi is an order-taker not an order-maker in the hierarchy of political dominance.

      And the call has come from above her pay-grade to sell this climate hysteria as the way to keep the program on track to finish the globalist’s dream of universal serfdom for us and perpetual power for them.

      That’s your tell that Pelosi simply does what she’s told. It’s her job to sell whatever it is she’s been told to sell.

      Every religion has it’s apocalypse story and the latest one from the Climate Crazies is this insane notion that time has run out and we need to act now or face extinction.

      You know someone is lying to you when they only present you ultimatums, which are always a false binary choice. Follow our prescriptions or we’re all going to die!

      And Pelosi truly is the enforcer of this edict.

      In her heart she knows this impeachment process is a sham. She knows the premise is faulty and the results for the Democratic Party will be catastrophic. She can see the poll numbers.

      But in her single-mindedness to save the world from itself, Pelosi will do everything she can to force us wayward and mentally-ill citizens back into her institution because her cause is righteous.

      That’s why it’s now a life or death struggle to get rid of Trump. That’s why she’s willing to sell Climate hysteria and that’s why she lost her mind when asked the simplest of questions which she could have brushed off with a wave and a “No.”

      Her vehement denial is her admission of guilt. For a moment, Speaker Ratched lost control and the results were a glimpse into the depths of her evil.

      *  *  *

      Join my Patreon to help me identify the true villains of humanity. Install the Brave Browser if you want to divert capital away from those protecting them.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 23:00

    • “Where In The World Is Inigo?”: The Mysterious Disappearance Of The Billionaires’ Art Dealer
      “Where In The World Is Inigo?”: The Mysterious Disappearance Of The Billionaires’ Art Dealer

      Where in the world is 32 year old art dealer Inigo Philbrick?

      The mysterious young dealer burst onto the art scene years ago, bidding for million-dolllar works before age 30, his name written down in the rolodex of every art-collecting billionaire.

      But now, he has vanished. And as Bloomberg reports, his name was one of the biggest topics of discussion in Miami Beach this week, where Art Basel – one of the biggest events in the art industry – is taking place. 

      His disappearance comes after a wave of lawsuits filed against him for fraud in London, New York and Miami. The aftershock has left the Art Basel crowd fearing that it could stoke broader fears about the often-opaque industry globally. 

      The story, not unlike the industry itself, stretches around the globe. It has links and ties to major auction houses, including an art-finance firm backed by George Soros.  Los Angeles-based art dealer Timothy Blum said: “It checks every box in a bad way. So gross.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The scandal centers around allegations that Philbrick sold the same art works to different investors, often at inflated prices. Just like with rehypothecated collateral, companies in Asia, Europe and the U.S. have all staked claims to the same art pieces. 

      The allegations emerged in October which is when Philbrick disappeared. His gallery in Miami has been closed and he hasn’t been spotted for weeks at the trendy Japanese restaurant where he was once a regular. There was a “For Rent” sign hanging outside of his London gallery.

      Meanwhile, he failed to appear for court last month in both Miami and London and his lawyers in Miami have stopped representing him; his whereabouts have raised questions across the industry. 

      Wendy Goldsmith, a London-based art adviser, asked: “What was he thinking?”

      Adam Lindemann, a dealer and collector, said: “Philbrick seemed to come out of nowhere, and [I] was never quite sure where he got his funding. He had this charming, rogue manner about him. The art world always has people like this.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Lowell Pettit, an art adviser in New York, said: “Philbrick seemed to have a lot of money behind him at a very early point in his career. In short order, his name started to light up.”

      But the lawsuits paint a picture that Philbrick was not who he appeared. One company suing him says he holds $70 million in assets and put the combined value of the art managed by his business at $150 million. His collection includes a single painting, by Jean-Michel Basquiat, that Philbrick agreed to “buy” with a partner at an inflated price of $18.4 million. The price was inflated by about $6 million, the partner later found out.

      Another contested work by Yayoi Kusama is worth about $3.4 million and is drawing crowds in Miami next to Philbrick’s gallery, at Miami’s Institute of Contemporary Art. A German company that bought the work through Philbrick now wants it back. There is just one problem: piece was sold months ago “to the Royal Commission for AlUla in a private transaction through Phillips auction house.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The allegations have also shocked those that know Philbrick. He grew up in an artistic family, but had been estranged from his father for almost a decade. One classmate of his described him as “quiet and artsy”. The mother of his child said they hadn’t been together “in years” and declined to comment. 

      In 2010, Philbrick joined the prestigious White Cube gallery in London as an intern and quickly became a favorite of its owner, Jay Jopling. Jopling said: “He struck me as a smart, ambitious young man with a good eye for art and an impressive commercial sense. He progressed quickly and in 2012 launched Jopling’s secondary-market business.”

      Jopling said he “agreed to support him financially” when Philbrick wanted to go out on his own.

      Now, Jopling finds himself just another person on the long line of those suing Philbrick. 


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 22:30

    • "See You After Jail Guys": Art World Stunned After Man Eats $120,000 Banana Duct Taped To Wall
      “See You After Jail Guys”: Art World Stunned After Man Eats $120,000 Banana Duct Taped To Wall

      Let them eat duct-taped bananas

                   – The US Federal Reserve, probably

      On Friday, we reported on the latest bizarre milestone in the “art” world, when a banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $120,000 at that excess-liquidity conclave of ultra rich and other wannabe poseurs known Art Basel Miami Beach. Worse, a second banana duct-taped to a wall also sold for $120,000. Yet even worse than that, a third banana duct-taped to a wall is expected to sell for $150,000 and so on.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Then on Saturday, at around 1:45pm, the art world was shocked when a random man, allegedly a performance artist, ate said duct-taped banana that sold earlier this week for $120,000.

      New York-based performance artist David Datuna ate the banana early on Saturday afternoon in front of a stunned convention full of “art” lovers most of whom had no idea whether they were witnessing even more “art”, of just some clueless rando eating the world’s most discussed “art” exhibit, the gallery told the Miami Herald.

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

      Perrotin Gallery spokesman Lucien Terras told the Herald that Datuna did not “destroy” the artwork because “the banana is the idea”, or as Magritte would say “Ceci n’est pas une banane.” 

      The controversial piece, called “The Comedian,” was created by Maurizio Cattelan, an Italian artist who had also entertained art lovers from around the globe in 2017 with his “America” 18-carat-gold toilet. The $6-million throne was stolen from England’s Blenheim Palace over the summer according to CBS.

      Emmanuel Perrotin, the gallery founder, told CBS News that Maurizio’s work is not just about objects, but about how objects move through the world.

      “Whether affixed to the wall of an art fair booth or displayed on the cover of the New York Post, his work forces us to question how value is placed on material goods,” he said, although he could have also added “or eaten.”

      He added that “the spectacle is as much a part of the work as the banana.”

      Perrotin was about to head to the airport when he heard about the banana being eaten and rushed back, according to the Herald. An attendee tried to cheer him up by handing him a banana. A borrowed replacement banana was eventually re-adhered to the wall, because “art.” 

      Whereas the “art” world was briefly outraged after the 120,000 rotting banana was calmly eaten, unaware that they themselves were the joke, normals argued this piece is a perfect representation of what the art world has become with its gaping wealth inequalities and where idiotic “art” such as a banana duct taped to a wall sells for $120,000. Others, however, chose not to go as deep and appreciate the simplicity of the art piece. Yet others blamed the Fed for flooding the world with so much money that a banana duct taped to a wall was actually bought by someone for $120,000.

      The artist first came up with the idea a year ago. He “was thinking of a sculpture that was shaped like a banana,” according to a press statement from Perrotin.

      “Every time he traveled, he brought a banana with him and hung it in his hotel room to find inspiration. He made several models: first in resin, then in bronze and in painted bronze (before) finally coming back to the initial idea of a real banana.”

      The artist reported no clear instructions for buyers on whether the bananas start to decompose.

      As for Datuna, who calmly ate the banana in front of a room full of shocked “art” fans before he was confronted by an art gallery worker, his parting words were “see you after jail, guys.”

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


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 21:42

    • "We Are All George Zimmerman Now…"
      “We Are All George Zimmerman Now…”

      Authored by George Zimmerman via AmericanThinker.com,

      Most people know my name, George Zimmerman, largely due to negative stereotypes propagated by the media as a result of the 2012 incident in Sanford, Florida, in which Trayvon Martin died.

      Unfortunately, most people don’t recall the fact that I was exonerated of any wrongdoing after a thorough investigation by the Sanford Police Department in March 2012. They had interviewed dozens of witnesses, analyzed 911 calls, and examined the physical evidence of my broken nose, the lacerations on the back of my head, as well as the bruised knuckles of my assailant.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      George Zimmerman in 2012, following the incident (Photo via the State of Florida)

      This was all backed up by eyewitness Johnathan Good who told police that he saw me screaming for help while blows were coming down on me “MMA style.”

      At the conclusion of the police investigation, Sanford Chief of Police Bill Lee announced that my actions were taken in self-defense and there were no grounds for my arrest. It was not even a “stand your ground” case. What followed immediately was a campaign of race-based defamation and incitement against me, led by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump.

      I am the last person who ever expected to be accused of being a bigot. I am Hispanic. My mother is from Peru. I speak fluent Spanish. I was an Obama supporter and a social activist. Just a year earlier, I had led a community-wide effort to get justice for Sherman Ware, a homeless black man who had been attacked by the son of a white police officer. I was also active in a mentoring program where I spent my spare time (and money) with black teens whose parents were in prison.

      The Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, quickly recruited for his incitement efforts Al Sharpton, a man who was infamous for the 1989 Tawana Brawley race hoax and other incidents of mayhem based on racial incitement over the years. Then, Obama’s Department of Justice sent representatives to Sanford to “investigate,” but they instead helped organize protests demanding my arrest. As the protests heated up and Crump’s false narrative was repeated by the media ad nauseam, even fair-minded people began to demand my arrest without cause. Then, out of the blue, Crump produced a recorded interview of a “phone witness,” whom, he said, was Trayvon Martin’s 16-year-old girlfriend, “Diamond Eugene.”

      In the recorded interview with Diamond Eugene, Crump openly led the witness. She mostly just echoed everything Crump said. Two weeks later, prosecutors went to Miami to interview 16-year-old Diamond Eugene under oath. That’s when, as I recently learned, 18-year-old Rachel Jeantel appeared, claiming she was Diamond Eugene. Despite the discrepancy in name and age, prosecutors interviewed Rachel Jeantel anyway and used her obviously false statements to issue an affidavit of probable cause for my arrest. The rest is history.

      Hollywood filmmaker Joel Gilbert just released a film and book of the same name, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America. He investigated the public records and made a discovery – Rachel Jeantel was an imposter. She was not “Diamond Eugene.” She was not Trayvon’s girlfriend. She was not on the phone with him before our altercation. She lied in court about everything she claimed to have heard over the phone in order to send me to prison for life.

      In The Trayvon Hoax, Gilbert not only proves that Rachel was a fraud, he actually finds Trayvon’s real girlfriend, Diamond Eugene, studying Criminal Justice at Florida State University, of all things! Gilbert also identifies those who knew about the witness fraud, such as Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton, now a 2020 Miami Dade Commissioner candidate. Gilbert also identifies the attorneys who likely knew and/or should have known about the witness switch.

      The damage the trial did to me and my family has been devastating. I suffered from PTSD and, as a result, acted out for a few years before finally returning to the person I was. I was kicked out of college due to threats against the staff by the New Black Panthers. I lost my career path to become an attorney, and to this day I cannot work or even circulate in public. In 2015, someone tried to kill me. The bullet missed my head by inches, and the shooter got 20 years in prison. Today I remain in hiding, as does my family due to constant threats, which appear almost daily in rap songs and social media rants.

      Ironically, Trayvon Martin and I ended up having much in common. We were both used to divide America for a political agenda. Since the trial, I have watched in horror as those who incited against me have divided America along racial lines. Black Lives Matter started as a result of my acquittal. BLM took its vigilante act to Ferguson, and the resulting “Ferguson Effect” led to a sharp rise in homicides in black neighborhoods. Even today, Benjamin Crump continues his false race narrative (and defames me) in his new book entitled, Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People.

      I have now taken up the cause of bringing America back together again, and I intend to do it by revealing how the country was deceived. I feel that if I can expose and hold accountable those at the origin of this evil witness fraud, the healing can begin.

      I have hired attorney Larry Klayman in his private capacity, founder of Judicial Watch and now Freedom Watch. I am suing Rachel Jeantel, Brittany “Diamond” Eugene, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Benjamin Crump, prosecutors Angela Corey, Bernie de la Rionda, John Guy, the state of Florida, the FDLE, and HarperCollins Publishing for in excess $100 million. I don’t care about the money as much as I care about the truth coming out in discovery and at trial.

      Racheal Jeantel lied under oath to deprive me of my constitutional rights and send me to prison for life. The others either suborned perjury or lied under oath to hide their knowledge of the switch of the legitimate phone witness, Diamond Eugene, for Rachel Jeantel, whom they knew was an imposter. My lawsuit is online and can be viewed or downloaded here: Zimmerman v Sybrina Fulton, Crump et al.

      I am bringing this action not only to get justice for myself, but for all those Americans who are falsely accused of racial animus as well as those victimized by fake witnesses and unscrupulous prosecutors.

      This lawsuit is also for the Bell family, whose sons were falsely accused of involvement in a tragic gym accident that caused the death of Kendrick Johnson. This lawsuit is for Officer Darren Wilson of Ferguson, whom even Eric Holder had to admit was falsely accused of shooting a man who allegedly put his hands up. This lawsuit is for the police officers in Baltimore, both black and white, who were falsely accused of harming Freddy Gray in order to justify mob violence. This lawsuit is for Brett Kavanaugh and any future Supreme Court nominees falsely accused of crimes they did not commit to prevent their nominations.

      More than anything else, this lawsuit is for the America I grew up in and still believe in, an America of equal justice for all, where race hoaxes and fake witnesses have no place, an America where the content of one’s character, not race, is the basis for one’s judgement of another.

      With my lawsuit, I hope to make a strong statement that false witnesses will not be tolerated, not in Seminole County Court or any court, and not in the United States Senate chambers. False witnesses must face consequences, or they will continue to ruin lives of innocent people. There is nothing more un-American and irreligious under the Ten Commandments than to bear false witness.

      I look forward to succeeding in my court actions and hope to have enough funds to found a center for falsely accused persons of all races, those railroaded by charlatans, prosecutors, and an all too willing establishment media.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 21:00

    • Saudi Terrorist Hosted Dinner Party To Watch Mass Shooting Videos Night Before Naval Base Attack
      Saudi Terrorist Hosted Dinner Party To Watch Mass Shooting Videos Night Before Naval Base Attack

      Update: The Saudi student who shot and killed three people at a US naval base in Florida hosted a dinner party the night before the attack where he and others watched videos of mass shootings, according to the Associated Press, citing a US official.

      One of the three students at the dinner recorded the shooting outside the building at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday. According to the report, two other Saudi students watched from a car.

      ***

      Six Saudi nationals were taken into custody for questioning near the Florida naval base where an Air Force trainee – also from Saudi Arabia – opened fire Friday morning, killing three before a sheriff’s deputy shot and killed him.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the New York Times, three of the Saudis were filming the attack. It is unknown whether they were students at the base, or whether they are connected to the gunman.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani (via the Daily Mail)

      The shooting spanned two floors in a classroom, according to Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia Country. Two deputies were shot in the ensuing gun battle and are expected to recover.

      The gunman, identified as Saudi Air Force second lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, used a locally bought Glock 45 9mm handgun with an extended magazine, and was carrying between four and six more magazines.

      In his last message on Twitter confirmed by AFP, Alshamrani wrote that America is a nation of evil.

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

      The FBI is leading the investigation into the incident at Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola in Florida, and initially withheld Alshamrani’s name.

      He was allegedly a student enrolled in a Navy training program designed for ” immersing international students in our U.S. Navy training and culture ” to help “build partnership capacity for both the present and for the years ahead,” accoring to Fox News, citing 2017 comments by Cmdr. Bill Gibson, who is the center’s officer in charge.

      “These relationships are truly a win-win for everyone involved,” he added at the time.

      Governor Rick Scott (R-FL) called for a “full review” of the Navy training programs in the wake of the shooting, while investigators have said they are exploring whether the attack was an act of organized terrorism.

      “I’m very concerned that the shooter in Pensacola was a foreign national training on a U.S. base. Today, I’m calling for a full review of the U.S. military programs to train foreign nationals on American soil. We shouldn’t be providing military training to people who wish us harm,” said Scott.

      Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters Friday that although his first priority is supporting the ongoing investigation and determining the shooter’s motives, he also said: “I want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence to understand what are our procedures” concerning the training programs.

      Is it sufficient [et cetera, et cetera] and it may not be — it may be the vetting — are we also screening persons coming to make sure that they have, you know, their life in order, you know, their mental health is adequate,” Esper said. “So we need to look at all that.”

      Esper referred to the shooter as a Saudi national who was a second lieutenant in flight training.

      Sources told Fox News that the scene of the shooting — a classroom, where students usually spend three months at the beginning of the program — indicated that the shooter was a student who was “early” in his training.Fox News

      Approximately 1,500 pilots are enrolled in the Naval training program – with Saudis having attended courses at the Pensacola site since the 1970s. According to the report, as many as 20 students from the Islamic Republic are in any given class – with many of them belonging to the Royal Family.

      Following the shooting, the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed “its deep distress,” offering “its sincere condolences to the victims’ families, and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.”

      The perpetrator of this horrific attack does not represent the Saudi people whatsoever. The American people are held in the highest regard by the Saudi people,” reads a statement from the Ministry. “Building upon the strong ties between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, and in continuation of the ongoing cooperation between the two countries’ security agencies, the Saudi security agencies will provide full support to the US authorities to investigate the circumstances of this crime.”

      President Trump, meanwhile, relayed King Salman of Saudi Arabia’s “sincere condolences,” and gave his “sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack…”

      “The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people,” said Trump.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 20:55

      Tags

    • Papa John's Wife Files For Divorce Same Day He Sues Ad Agency For Leaking Racial Slur
      Papa John’s Wife Files For Divorce Same Day He Sues Ad Agency For Leaking Racial Slur

      After 32 years of marriage, the wife of Papa John’s founder John Schnatter has filed for divorce, claiming their marriage is “irretrievably broken” and that Schnatter is “not employed.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The marriage between petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken,” wrote Cox’s attorney, Melanie Straw-Boone.

      The couple was married in 1987, just three years after Schnatter founded Papa John’s Pizza out of a modified broom closet in the back of his father’s Jeffersonville, Indiana tavern. Schnatter sold his 1971 Camaro Z28 to buy used pizza equipment – which he tracked down in 2009 and bought back for $250,000.

      While the pizza chain’s margins have always been razor thin, Schnatter’s real troubles began in February 2018, when he blamed the NFL kneeling demonstrations for sagging pizza sales. The NFL subsequently canceled their sponsorship agreement, awarding it instead to Pizza Hut.

      Then, in July of that year news outlets reported that Schnatter used the n-word during a conference call with marketing agency ‘Laundry Services,’ saying “Colonel Sanders called blacks niggers and Sanders never faced public backlash.” Shortly after the call, the agency severed ties, while Schnatter stepped down as Chairman the day the story broke – and maintains that he was trying to illustrate that he’s not racist.

      To that end, Schnatter filed a separate lawsuit Thursday against Laundry Services, claiming they broke a nondisclosure agreement when they leaked excerpts of the conference call, according to NBC News.

      A sweat-drenched Schnatter raised eyebrows two weeks ago when he claimed in an interview that the pizza chain is now making substandard pizza, and that they’ve failed at their own slogan of “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza.”

      “I’ve had over 40 pizzas in the last 30 days, and it’s not the same pizza,” he told Louisville, Kentucky Fox affiliate WDRB. “It’s not the same product. It just doesn’t taste as good.”

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


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 20:30

    • Is Russia Overtaking The US In The Realm of Strategic Bombers?
      Is Russia Overtaking The US In The Realm of Strategic Bombers?

      Authored by South Front

      The Russian Armed Forces put into action an ambitious program to modernize and expand the strategic bomber fleet.

      In March 2018, Russia announced that it would completely overhaul its entire Tu-160 long-range strategic bomber fleet by 2030. According to Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, the entire fleet of Tu-160 bombers will be replaced with the newer Tu-160M2 version, in addition to heavy upgrades of all operational aircraft. All on-board radio-electronic equipment and engines will be replaced.

      Serial production of the Tu-160M2 will begin in 2023 and the plan is for it to remain a state of the art warplane for the next 40 years. The Russian Aerospace Forces intend to purchase no less than 50 such aircraft.

      The first such warplane is to be delivered in 2021, with 3 more in 2023. Afterwards serial production will continue with 3 Tu-160M2s being produced per year.

      The Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO codename: Blackjack) is a long range, supersonic, variable geometry wing, strategic bomber -designed to penetrate sophisticated air defense systems at low altitude and supersonic speed. It is the Soviet counterpart to the US Air Force B-1B Lancer strategic bomber.

      Armament (typically nuclear short range and long-range cruise missiles) is carried inside two weapons bays located at the middle of the fuselage.

      The Tu-160M2 is a further development of the Tu-160 strategic bomber with state-of-the-art sensors and weapons.

      In all, the Tu-160M2 is a highly upgraded version featuring detection reduction coatings, new more powerful and efficient engines giving it greater operational range, new avionics, electronics, glass cockpit, communications & control systems, a number of weapons, as well as improved thrust and unrefueled range. It will also be equipped with a new defensive system protecting it from missiles.

      It will boast four new Kuznetsov NK-32 engines. The Kuznetsov NK-32 is an afterburning, three-spool, low bypass, turbofan jet engine, the largest and most powerful engine ever fitted on a combat aircraft. In maximum afterburner it produces 245 kN  of thrust (55,000 lbf).

      It is expected that the Tu-160M2 will be armed with long-range standoff cruise missiles, including the Kh-101/Kh-102 (nuclear variant) air-launched cruise missile and the Kh-55 subsonic air-launched cruise missile.

      The maiden flight of the first Tu-160M2 took place in January 2018.

      The initial contract, signed on January 25, 2018, is for the production of 10 Tu-160M2s and the modernization of all other Tu-160s in the Russian Aerospace Forces by 2030.

      The contract with United Aircraft Corporation’s Tupolev, for the first 10 warplanes, stands at 160 billion rubles (nearly $2.8 bn) and stipulates that the first Tu-160M2 should be delivered by 2023. Delivery of the final bomber in the first buy, according to the contract, is slated for 2027. Relaunching production itself required an investment of 37 billion rubles ($577 mil.).

      The plan is for another 40 units of the Tu-160M2 to be delivered under future contracts yet to be signed.

      In the meantime, the Russian Aerospace Forces operate 10 Soviet-era Tu-160s, and 7 modernized Tu-160M1s, commissioned in 2018. The Tu-160 was first introduced into service in 1987 and was the last supersonic strategic bomber to enter service with the Soviet military.

      The Tu-95 is the oldest strategic bomber in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. There are 48 of the Tu-95MSs and 12 of the modernized Tu-95MSMs.

      The Russian Aerospace Forces also operate Tu-22M strategic bombers which are much smaller than the Tu-160 and Tu-95. All 63 Tu-22s in service underwent modernization. Sixty-one were modernized to the Tu-22M3 variant, 1 to the Tu-22M3M and the last one was turned into a Tu-22MR, which is currently being overhauled.

      The current fleet of strategic bombers in the Russian Aerospace Forces numbers 140 warplanes. The Soviet strategic bomber fleet was much larger. As of 1982, the USSR had 110 Tu-95s, 140 Tu-22s, 70 Tu-22Ms, 75 M4s, and 425 Tu-16s.

      Currently, the US operates three types of strategic bombers – the B-1B, the B-2, and the B-52. The US Air Force has 62 B-1Bs, out of which, according to data from August 2019, only 6 were fully operational, with the others being grounded or undergoing maintenance. They have been in service since 1985.

      The longest serving bomber in the US Air Force is the B-52A which was commissioned back in 1955. The existing fleet was upgraded to the B-52H Stratofortress, commissioned in 1961. It is planned for this warplane to be operated until 2050. As of June 2019, there were 58 B-52 bombers in operation, with 18 more in reserve.

      The B-2 is the only stealth bomber in operation anywhere in the world. It was commissioned in 1993. Thef US Air Force operates 20 such warplanes. There is also the B-21 Raider stealth bomber in development by Northrop Grumman. The first test aircraft is being built in Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, California, facility and has yet to make its maiden flight. The optimistic forecast is that the first bomber should enter service by 2025.

      As of the end of 2019, the US and Russia operate comparable fleets of strategic bombers, with the US being technically ahead of Russia if we focus only on dry figures and do not question the forecast of expected progress for the B-21 Raider program.

      At the same time, a challenge for the US Air Force is that its assets are dispersed all around the world in preparation for possible conflicts with a wide range of possible adversaries, including Russia, China and Iran. In turn, strategic bombers  of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ are mainly needed to deter the United States. This factor negates the numerical advantage of the US strategic bomber fleet.

      As of early 2013, Russia had only 16 Tu-160 strategic bombers. Now, it has 17. Seven of them underwent deep modernization. If the Tu-160M2 program succeeds, and if Russia procures 50 Tu-160M2 bombers by 2030, that will not only put Russia on par with the US, it might put it ahead. All this depends on progression of the US’s B-21 development and modernization of its strategic bombers.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 20:00

    • Epstein Was A Mossad Agent Used To Blackmail American Politicians, Former Israeli Spy Claims
      Epstein Was A Mossad Agent Used To Blackmail American Politicians, Former Israeli Spy Claims

      Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

      Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad asset who was used by Israeli intelligence to blackmail American politicians, according to a former Israeli spy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli spy and alleged “handler” of Robert Maxwell, told the authors of a new book, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales, that Epstein ran a “complex intelligence operation” at the behest of Mossad.

      Believing that Epstein planned to marry his daughter, Maxwell introduced him and Ghislaine Maxwell to Ben-Menashe’s Mossad circle.

      “Maxwell sort of started liking him, and my theory is that Maxwell felt that this guy is going for his daughter,” Ben-Menashe said.

      “He felt that he could bless him with some work and help him out in like a paternal [way].”

      Israeli intelligence bosses gave the green light and Epstein then became a Mossad asset.

      “They were agents of the Israeli Intelligence Services,” said Ben-Menashe.

      When it became clear that Epstein wasn’t very competent at doing much else, his primary role became “blackmailing American and other political figures.”

      “Mr. Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing girls to all kinds of politicians in the United States,” said Ben-Menashe.

      “See, fucking around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it’s not a crime. But fucking a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians fucking fourteen-year-old girls — if you want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that.”

      There’s also a Mossad connection to a different kind of sex offender; Harvey Weinstein.

      Weinstein reportedly hired ex-Mossad agents to suppress allegations against him. Working for an Israeli firm called Black Cube, these agents pressured witnesses and tried to intimidate journalist Ronan Farrow in order to “bury the truth” about Weinstein’s activity.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 19:55

    • How The Dems & The Fed Ensured Trump's Re-Election
      How The Dems & The Fed Ensured Trump’s Re-Election

      Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

      The story I’m not hearing…

      July 31…Debt Ceiling Deal – July 31st of this year, Senate Democrats carried President Trump’s budget deal eliminating the debt ceiling through July 31st of 2021.  This after a majority of Trump’s House Republicans voted against the budget deal but House Democrats overwhelmingly passed it.  And thus the debt ceiling was no more.  Since July 31st, the Treasury has issued over $1 trillion in net new debt but that is just the start.

      July 31…Federal Reserve begins series of interest rate cuts – On July 31st, the Federal Reserve begins cutting rates and has cut rates from 2.4% to 1.55% or a 35% reduction on the cost of overnight intra-bank lending, the foundation of credit.

      August 21.. Federal Reserve restarts QE –  Since August, the Fed ceased quantitative tightening (QT) and restarted quantitative easing (QE).  The Federal Reserve balance sheet has expanded by over $300 billion in short order, with an $180 billion increase in Treasuries held.

      Excess Reserves Not Restarted – With all the new QE, hardly any of it has been added to bank excess reserves…just a paltry $16 billion out of the $306 billion in new currency digitally conjured.

      Direct Monetization – That is $290 billion in new dollars directly in banks hands…and banks do what banks do, which is leverage those dollars by 5x’s to 10x’s (or more), resulting in…

      Asset Explosion – Using the Wilshire 5000 as a proxy (as it represents all publicly traded US equities), US equities have risen $2.42 trillion over the 4 month period as all the new digitally conjured cash has been passed to large banks for the “assets” they held…or about a 8.5x the quantity of new “not QE” and “not excess reserves”.

      What does that look like?

      In dollar terms over the past four months, US debt up over $1 trillion, Federal Reserve held assets up over $300 billion, Fed held Treasuries up $180 billion, Excess Reserves up only $16 billion, direct monetization of $270 billion…resulting in an increase of $2.4 trillion in the Wilshire 5000 market weighted capitalization (chart below).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In percentage terms in just four months, total US debt is up 4.8%, Federal Reserve held assets up over 8%, Fed held Treasuries up 8.6%, excess reserves up just 1.2%, direct monetization up over 18%, and equities up over 8% (chart below). 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Not shown is in addition to all this, the Federal Funds rate was also reduced by 35%.

      Summary

      Trump and the Democrats agreed to spend without limits, Trump and the Federal Reserve agreed to QE4 and mainlining the digitally created cash into the economy (errr…financial assets) via direct monetization.  The result has been to massively enrich the few who own the vast majority of all assets which are surging upwards and pass all the debt along to the working stiffs.

      Trump is truly an evil genius…Dem’s are truly self serving dolts…and the Fed is truly the best central bank money can buy.  Or the Fed is the evil genius, Dem’s still self serving dolts, and Trump is the best president money can buy.  Either way, Trump, the Democrats, Republicans, and the ultra-wealthy are laughing all the way to the bank. And the vast majority of Americans have been sold into debt slavery.

      Post Script – Context

      And for those who stuck around, I’ll try and put the above in a wider context.  The chart below details why this is the greatest asset bubble in modern history.  The chart shows the market value of all household assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) as a percentage of disposable personal income (simply put, the value of all assets held by US citizens versus their total national income that may be invested or saved after all taxes are paid).  As the chart below details, as rates go up, asset valuations go down…and vice versa.  And never have asset valuations been so far beyond underlying incomes to support those valuations as now.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Since 1981, household assets as a percentage of disposable personal income versus federal funds rate with primary sources of debt detailed below.  The breakdown of mortgage debt and surge of federal debt since 2008 are not so hard to see.  Plus the Federal Reserve balance sheet is included as those assets will only be increasing from here on out.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Debt creation by periods, 1960 through 2000, 2000 through 2008, and 2008 through 2019.  Relatively stable corporate debt creation, collapsing mortgage debt, and surging federal debt.  And collapsing mortgage debt and surging federal debt is only just getting started, because…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And finally, why mortgage debt won’t be rising anytime soon and all debt creation will be up to the federal government.  The chart below shows the annual change in young (working age) versus elderly…a surging population of elderly versus huge deceleration of growth among the working age population. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Just a reminder, elderly earn and spend half as much as working age persons and “destroy money” via deleveraging while working age persons “create money” via undertaking new loans (debt).  The current and future situation is one of collapsing credit and collapsing money creation as the growth of deflationary elderly overwhelms inflationary working age growth…and into that entirely predictable situation, steps the Federal government, Federal Reserve, and ludicrous politicians to serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 19:30

    • How To Re-Elect Trump In One Easy Lesson
      How To Re-Elect Trump In One Easy Lesson

      Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

      Radical progressives are up in arms. Ironically, if Trump wins again, they will be the reason

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Not Getting It

      Wall Street Journal writer Jason Riley lamentsBloomberg’s past accomplishments in business and politics are liabilities among today’s Democrats.”

      With that lead-in, Riley tries to explain Why Bloomberg’s Candidacy Is Terminal.

      It isn’t that Mr. Bloomberg doesn’t have a solid record of accomplishments as a private citizen and elected official. He built one of the world’s most successful financial-media companies and is now worth an estimated $54 billion. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, last year he donated $767 million to various charities, second only to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. And as mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013, he oversaw an expansion of school choice for low-income minorities and sharp reductions in violent crime and incarceration.

      Mr. Bloomberg’s problem is that these past accomplishments in business and politics are liabilities among today’s Democrats. To win the support of teachers unions, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have attacked the charter-school movement that Mayor Bloomberg championed. And the social-justice activists now ascendant in the party are far more interested in racial parity among people arrested than in reducing crime rates and keeping the streets safe. Progressives view the Mike Bloombergs of the world primarily as rhetorical punching bags who should have their wealth confiscated by politicians and then sprinkled among others in society who are considered more deserving.

      Mr. Bloomberg is very much aligned with today’s Democrats on any number of other issues. He can check off all the right boxes on climate change, tax hikes and gun control, for example. But none of those views distinguish him in the current field or justify his decision to join the race.

      Pandering to the Radicals

      Riley is correct that a majority of Democrats don’t like Bloomberg.

      So what?

      Forget the Base

      Why appeal to the radicals? Where are they going? I ask the same questions of Republicans and Democrats alike.

      If given a choice between Biden or Bloomberg vs Trump, Progressives will vote for Biden or Bloomberg.

      Q: Why?

      A: Under no circumstances will they vote for Trump.

      So how is Bloomberg a liability?

      What About Independents?

      Independents might easily vote for Biden or Bloomberg. In contrast, they might not easily vote for Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

      In fact, Harris and Warren, darlings of the Progressives, might be the only people that Trump could beat.

      These kinds of honest assessments get me in hot water.

      Flashback 2008

      In February of 2008, before Obama even won the nomination, I made this post: Obama: The Next President Of The United States

      I discussed “Yes We Can“, an excellent campaign slogan, and concluded “Destiny: Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States of America.

      It was a political opinion, and a correct one. I didn’t even vote for Obama (I did not vote Republican either), but I was accused of being an Obama lover for years.

      Hot water

      I am again in hot water today. I responded to a Tweet about Kamala Harris. I called her unqualified.

      Why? Because, and I explained, I do not believe she can be elected. This of course brought out all sorts of Tweets about me being a racist male, especially from a self-proclaimed black feminist.

      Both Extremes

      This post, no doubt will bring attacks from Republicans who believe Trump to be invincible and radical progressives on the other end.

      Simple Question

      Q: Why did Trump Win?

      A: Democrats nominated, Hillary Clinton, the most radical lightning rod at the time. Then Clinton ran what is likely the worst campaign in history.

      Let’s get to the heart of the matter.

      Republicans Cannot Re-Elect Trump, Democrats Can!

      Trump has upset so many people, even in his own party, that I believe the only way he can win is if Democrats nominated another lightning rod.

      At the top of the list are Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

      The US simply is not ready for an extreme radical leftist person like Warren.

      Independents would not vote for her. Independents did vote for Obama, en masse.

      Merely making such statements gets me in hot water.

      But It’s not my desire to elect another white male boomer fogey. I could care less. I do care about ideas.

      Candidate Appeal

      I am a staunch anti-war, fiscal conservative, Libertarian, who does not give a damn about race, religion, sex, or age. I believe in equal rights. I also believe in the right to choose. If two women or two men want to get married, I believe it’s none of my business.

      If either party nominated such a person, young or old, black or white or purple, I would vote for that person.

      I believe many independents feel the same way.

      None of these candidates appeal to me. Among other things, Trump fails the fiscal conservative test.

      Electoral Crapshoot

      Q: Once again, where are the radicals going?

      A: Nowhere, in both parties. The core will vote core.

      To win the election then, a candidate must appeal to the middle. Otherwise, it’s an electoral crapshoot as Democrats found out with Hillary.

      So, if Democrats want to help re-elect Trump, they should nominate the most radical person they can find. One of them just backed out. Elizabeth Warren is still in the batter’s box.

      This does not mean I back Biden. I don’t. Nor do I back Bloomberg. Nor do I back men.

      I back ideas, not people. Age, race, or sex, does not matter.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 19:00

      Tags

    • Biden And Pelosi Snap On The Same Day, Anti-Impeachment Witness Threatened; What's Going On With Democrats?
      Biden And Pelosi Snap On The Same Day, Anti-Impeachment Witness Threatened; What’s Going On With Democrats?

      As public support for impeachment continues to fade, Democrats appear to be coming unglued – with rabid outbursts in public, and privately threatening anyone who might derail their ill-advised gambit.

      To wit, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley says he’s been “inundated with threatening messages” following his Wednesday testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee, where he argued that Democrats have launched a “slipshod impeachment” based on flimsy evidence against President Trump.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record,” Turley wrote in a Thursday Op-Ed.

      Turley was the lone expert at Wednesday’s hearing to warn Democrats that pushing forward with impeachment would be ill-advised because they can’t prove that Trump inappropriately pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Moreover, Zelensky has stated multiple times that there was no pressure, no quid pro quo, and that he didn’t know that nearly $400 million in US military aid had been paused until after his discussions with Trump.

      On edge

      On the same day that Joe Biden snapped at an Iowa voter who pressed him on his son’s sweetheart board seat in Ukraine – calling the man a “damn liar” and challenging him to a push-up contest and an IQ test (his go-to, apparently) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bit a reporter’s head off for asking why she hates Trump.

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

      Meanwhile, a growing number of Democrats have backed away from impeachment.

      Perhaps Democrats are losing it because they’re effectively trapped in their own catch-22, thanks to Rep. Adam Schiff – who hired a former colleague of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella the day after the Trump-Ukraine call.

      If House Democrats move forward with impeachment, it will mean a trial in the GOP-controlled Senate, exposing their leading 2020 candidate and his crackhead son to potentially disastrous testimony next year. We’re guessing the Bidens, like several Trump administration officials, will refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and instead ask the courts to decide. Not a good look for two guys who supposedly did nothing wrong.

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

      If Democrats back down from impeachment and instead censure Trump – avoiding a Senate trial which would ‘exonerate’ Trump, they will look weak for backing down, and exonerate Trump just the same.

      Nancy Pelosi warned her party that this is exactly what would happen if they pushed forward with impeachment. Now, much like Hunter Biden, they’ve gone in unprotected and can’t pull out. 

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


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 18:30

      Tags

    • Japan Is Again Forced To Stimulate Its Troubled Economy
      Japan Is Again Forced To Stimulate Its Troubled Economy

      Submitted by Bruce Wilds of Advancing Time

      Japan faces a wall of debt that can only be addressed by printing more money and debasing its currency. This means they will be paying off their debt with worthless yen where possible and in many cases defaulting on the promises they have made. Japan currently has a debt/GDP ratio of about  250% which is the highest in the industrialized world. With the government financing almost 40% of its annual budget through debt it becomes easy to draw comparisons between Greece and Japan. While adding to the markets move higher across the globe the latest move by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should do little to boost confidence in the small island nation.

      Entering the third quarter of 2019 Reuters reported their monthly Tankan survey showed that Japanese manufacturers had again turned pessimistic about business prospects. Confidence in the service sector also plunged. Amid the escalating Sino-U.S. trade war, and problems in China the prospects for a global downturn remain large.

      Survey results showed the weakest sentiment reading since April 2013. Concerns about weakening global demand intensified after a closely watched bond market indicator pointed to the growing risk of a U.S. recession, and data revealed Germany’s economy was in contraction.

      Japan. the world’s third-largest economy is highly dependent on exports. The U.S.- China trade war in conjunction with Japan’s export curbs to South Korea and the rising yen has put a lid on sales. This has stoked the fears of recession and raised questions over how much longer domestic demand can remain resilient enough to offset rising external pressures. Private consumption constitutes about 60% of the Japanese economy. Adding to the stress is the fact Japan’s economy is now under pressure from a hike in the consumption tax to 10 percent from 8 percent. This increase took place on Oct 1st. The Bank of Japan has estimated this will generate a net burden of 2.2 trillion yen on households in fiscal 2020.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

       

      As a result of its economic growth slowing down and slumping to its weakest point in a year, Japan has put together a large-scale stimulus package totaling 26 trillion yen to prop up the domestic economy. Please note, this is equal to $239 billion. For a country the size of Japan, this is massive. This is the first stimulus package in three years and centers on measures to ignite consumer spending by promoting “cashless sales” and public works spending to bolster infrastructure.  “We have crafted a powerful policy package aimed at…helping overcome economic downside risks,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As part of its economic package to spur consumer spending, the government has created a program to give rebates for cashless payments at small shops from October through June next year. For this, the government will set aside about 280 billion yen. To stimulate personal spending the government is also thinking about giving 5,000 yen to consumers they can spend at stores across Japan if they load 20,000 yen in their account for purchases to be made through their smartphone. This would start in September next year say people familiar with the matter. The stimulus package also contains public sector spending of 13.2 trillion yen which would include low-interest loans to companies involved in building infrastructure projects. Nearly half of the outlay will be used for reconstruction from recent natural disasters and strengthening infrastructure to reduce future damage.

      Abe’s package broadly aims to improve labor conditions, support small companies and promote advanced technology development. This means the government will increase job training services to help people in their 30s and 40s as well as provide subsidies to small and medium-sized companies to spur their capital spending. It will also supply more computers to public schools and support companies in developing wireless technologies that will follow 5G networks. The package also contains steps to help expand exports of farm products to take advantage of a bilateral trade agreement between Tokyo and Washington that is set to take effect next year.

      Still, the key issue here is that after decades of slow growth Japan again finds the need to stimulate its economy. This should be considered more proof that its decades long easing has miserably failed to produce the promised results. Several earlier posts focusing on how trends in Japan, such as the BOJ buying stocks, how Japan’s tight ties with China, and Japan’s reliance on exporting to America help explain how Japan has held its economy together. Years ago before the “Bernanke has all the answers” era, many of us criticized Japan for failing to own its problems. Rather than face up to the mess they had created and do the right thing by letting its zombie banks and industries fail so the economy could move forward.

      Instead, the Government of Japan ran huge deficits and ran up massive debt. While they claim otherwise, in many ways Bernanke and the Fed have put America and the world on a path that mirrors the same unsuccessful path taken by Japan. Since 2008 central bankers have chosen to flood the world with money bailing out the very people that caused many of our problems.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Japanification of the world’s economy, however, may play out far worse for the global financial system than it did for Japan. Over the years Japan has been able to sidestep default due to the good fortune of sporting a huge trade surplus with America and forming tight economic ties with China during its years of very rapid growth. Unfortunately, for Japan, the benefit of both those forces may be waning.

       

      Not all economists see more deficit spending as the answer to Japan’s problems and argue that more spending will only hurt efforts such as the recent consumption tax hike to improve Japan’s overall fiscal health. Japan holds the title of having the industrial world’s heaviest public debt burden. Its debt is more than twice the size of its $5 trillion economy.

      The world’s negative-yielding debt hit a record $17 trillion at the start of September, mostly as a result of most Japanese debt trading in negative territory as the Bank Of Japan continues to monetize the country’s debt. Since that time the amount of negative-yielding debt has fallen. This folds back into what might be viewed as the BOJ’s stealth tapering. Kuroda is now monetizing just a tiny fraction of the bonds the BOJ was mandated with buying because it has almost run out of monetizable debt.

      What we see occurring in Japan stems from a far greater problem than simply slow growth. At some point, reality will set in and the yen will suffer as a result of these policies. The collapse of the yen would debunk the myth that major currencies in our modern world are immune to failure and release a slew of new problems across the world. While this has been expected for some time it most likely will not be the catalyst for global financial collapse since the yen constitutes around only 4% of the world’s reserve currency, however, it would gravely wound fiat currencies and alter how they are viewed.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 18:00

    • A Sinking Deutsche Bank Faces An Existential Question: How Much Can It Spend On Bonuses?
      A Sinking Deutsche Bank Faces An Existential Question: How Much Can It Spend On Bonuses?

      After he backed away from a merger with Commerzbank earlier this year, Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing was pressed by the bank’s board and its biggest investors to unveil a sweeping restructuring program to save Germany’s biggest and most unwieldy financial institution from system-threatening insolvency. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Christian Sewing

      Businesses – including pieces of the bank’s equity-trading apparatus – were either shuttered, sold off or moved to a revived “bad bank” unit. Sewing also embarked on what has been, by some counts, the biggest mass layoffs to rock Wall Street since Lehman’s bankruptcy. So far this year, the bank has fired 5,000 employees, mostly from its investment banking businesses, with another 13,000 to go.

      Amid all of the bloodletting and legal chaos (it wouldn’t be Deutsche Bank without a raft of new civil and criminal actions by regulators across the globe, though the bank recently settled with Frankfurt prosecutors for a small fine, according to Bloomberg), Sewing must now confront a serious problem: With everybody, including senior employees who have been fleeing to rivals en masse, running scared, how will DB retain top talent, especially with a slimmed-down bonus pool, the culmination of several years’ of cuts.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A team of BBG reporters address this question in a Q&A that examines how Sewing can make the best use of his under-€2 billion bonus pool.

      * * *

      How can Deutsche Bank balance departures with hires?

      More than a dozen high-profile executives from the investment banking units that Sewing wants to keep have joined rivals since May, when the CEO dropped the first big hint that he was going to take an ax to the business. Many top performers are only staying because compensation is still comparatively good, even though morale has slumped after years of piecemeal cuts to the business, according to people familiar with the matter. The bank points to new hires and says that attrition in the investment bank is actually down compared with the prior two years. It has hired almost 30 managing directors and directors in corporate finance since the beginning of the year, investment bank head Mark Fedorcik said by phone. “We pay for performance and our clients and team understand and appreciate our strategy and areas of strength,” he said.

      How much money can Sewing spend?

      Deutsche Bank spent 1.9 billion euros ($2.1 billion) last year on bonuses. The bank has said the size of the pool this year will reflect the shrinking workforce, which is down 5% so far, and the fact that it has shuttered equities trading. European investment bankers more generally are facing smaller bonuses this year. The CEO maintains that the bank still has the means to compensate top talent even as it undertakes one of the most radical restructurings in its history. “We will compensate our people according to their operating performance,” he said in July after announcing 18,000 job cuts and a retreat from equities trading. The bank will pay “in a competitive way.”

      What businesses will Sewing focus on?

      Fedorcik said his corporate finance unit seeks to grow advisory and debt origination and he pointed to several recent hires including Paolo Cicchine while promising more next year. He’s also vowed to keep a sizable equity capital markets business despite shuttering equities trading.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      However, that unit — along with M&A advisory — has been particularly hard hit by departures since May.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As for securities trading, equities is essentially gone but the bank wants to remain strong in fixed-income trading, a business overseen by Ram Nayak. The lender has highlighted credit and foreign exchange and the unit has recently added a few people.

      How has the investment bank performed?

      While the CEO has vowed to at least stabilize the investment bank, revenue was down 11% in the first nine months of the year and pretax profit plummeted 47%. The units where most of the departed executives used to work are no exceptions. Income from helping companies raise money through share sales is down 40% over the period. The business of advising companies on deals did better, rising 3%. The malaise is being reflected in a comparison with peers. Deutsche Bank slipped to 15th rank in advising on mergers and acquisitions this year, from 11th in 2018 and eighth the year before, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It has fallen to 12th place in global equity offerings, from eighth. “When I look at our revenues and where we’re heading from a 2019 perspective, I’m very confident versus where we were in ’18,” said Fedorcik.

      What other options does Sewing have?

      The bank in the past increased the spread between bonus payments for top performers and the rest as a way to save money while making sure the most important people stay. To replace expensive executives who leave, Deutsche Bank brought in more junior hires. There’s also an internal debate about how many departures can be filled through reassigning bankers from other parts of the business, the people familiar said, asking not to be identified discussing internal deliberations.

      Source: Bloomberg


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 17:30

    • How’s That Alternative Reality Working Out For You?
      How’s That Alternative Reality Working Out For You?

      Authored by Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic,

      At the end of 1984, Slavery is Freedom, two plus two equals five, and Winston Smith loves Big Brother. The Party has destroyed Smith’s mind, he embraces whatever narratives it promulgates. The fictive Party has solved the conundrum that bedevils any individual or organization seeking to exercise power: coercion can exact physical compliance and the desired verbalizations, but how do you compel the subjugated to think and believe as you want them to think and believe?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Our Party, the confederation of powerful people who promulgate the narratives that always point the same direction—more government and power for the powerful, less freedom for the subjugated—has yet to reach the mind control of Orwell’s Party, but not for want of desire or effort. We know the Party’s narratives: globalism, climate change, surveillance, incarceration, political correctness, open borders, free migration, fiat debt, central economic planning, socialized education and medical care, and wars on terrorism, drugs, poverty, any regime that refuses to toe the Party line, hydrocarbons, private firearms, individual rights, privacy, precious metals and cash, and socialized education and medical care. We know the Party’s institutions: governments, central banks and their central banks, intelligence agencies, military forces, police, permanent bureaucracies, multinational corporations, multilateral economic, political, and financial institutions, foundations, universities, nonprofits, and NGOs. We know the Party’s overlapping mouthpieces: the mainstream media, think tanks, government and intelligence agency propaganda organs, crony executives and their companies, Hollywood, and academia. And we know the figureheads who stock governments and their allied institutions, and the Party puppeteers who pull their strings.

      We also know the Party is not omnipotent. Just as Orwell’s Party went to all that trouble to ensure Winston Smith thought the right thoughts, our Party wants our belief, acceptance, and consent. Control is far easier to exercise on a population that accepts being controlled and gives carte blanche to its controllers. That Donald Trump, who occasionally tells inconvenient truths but has done precious little to actually change the way the government operates, elicits paroxysms of spastic rage shows just how important it is to the Party that we all think the right thoughts.

      There are two problems with the Party’s narrative management: the people who don’t believe it, and the people who do. In the Party’s perfect world, it would have a monopoly on information and interpretation. However, it’s battling a trend that began with the invention of writing: the ever-increasing availability and dispersion of information. The latest untoward development is the Internet, which allows virtually anyone to disclose a secret, reveal a lie, express an opinion, satirize, post a photograph or video, or otherwise challenge Party narratives. The many that wither under Internet scrutiny reveal the Party for what it is: a serial, unrepentant liar.

      Looking at threats to or from the Internet—intelligence agency surveillance, state censorship, and social media companies’ exclusion and elimination of disfavored political views—there is cause for concern. The threats are certainly threatening, but looking at what the Internet has already wrought argues against total despair.

      Twenty years ago, the whole concept of a Deep State was fringe, a notion embraced only by kooks and so-called conspiracy theorists. There was an American Deep State with international connections and it had been running the country since at least WWII, but it really was deep, few people on the outside were aware of it. Now, the phrase is routinely cited by the president, deployed every day in the alternative media, and even the mainstream media occasionally use it.

      In fact, the mainstream media has gone from denying the Deep State to telling us what a great thing it is, the last bulwark against a Trump dictatorship. So the witnesses against Trump in the House impeachment hearings aren’t State Department bureaucrats in love with their own deeply flawed Ukraine policies, protecting themselves and their Democratic cronies from revelations of involvement in Ukraine’s rampant corruption, and using second-, third-, and fourth-hand conversations in an attempt to depose the elected President. No, they’re heroes.

      However, unlike the not too distant past when both bureaucrats and mainstream media commanded a certain respect among most of the populace, the House impeachment hearings got shredded in real time by the alternative media. Somewhere between 45 to 50 percent of the population refuses to believe what they’re told to believe, and that percentage is always growing (once you understand the con you don’t go back to believing it). Even a few Democrats recognized that the hearings flopped and have suggested a face-saving motion to censure Trump rather than refer the case to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it would be a nonstop embarrassment.

      To counter the “Epstein didn’t kill himself” meme that’s run riot on the Internet, Attorney General William Barr recently restated the official conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein’s death was suicide by hanging, resulting from “a perfect storm of screw-ups.”

      This perfect storm of unlucky oopsies include Epstein being taken off suicide watchnot long after a previous suicide attempt and shortly before his successful suicide, suggestionsthat the first attempt may have actually been an assault via attempted strangulation inflicted by someone else, two security guards simultaneously falling asleep on the jobwhen they were supposed to be checking on Epstein, one of those guards not even being an actual security guard, security footage of two camerasoutside Epstein’s cell being unusable due to a mysterious technical glitch, at least eight Bureau of Prisons officials knowing Epstein wasn’t meant to be left alone in his celland leaving him alone in his cell anyway, Epstein’s cellmate being transferred out of their shared spacethe day before Epstein’s death, Epstein signing a willtwo days before his death, unexplained injurieson Epstein’s wrists and shoulder reported by his family after the autopsy, and a forensic expert who examined Epstein’s body claiming that his injuries were more consistent with homicide than suicide.

      Caitlin Johnstone, “Barr Ends All Conspiracy Theories Forever By Saying Epstein Died Via A Series Of Coincidences,” medium.com, 11/22/19.

      It was years before those who questioned the Warren Commission’s conclusions didn’t have their sanity questioned. Now within four months of Epstein’s death the Attorney General felt compelled to respond to the Internet and the alternative and social medias it has spawned. Barr didn’t change a single mind―the meme is still viral—but he has prompted a new SLL word coinage for any effort by the powerful to whitewash their own lies and corruption: Epstein-Barr Syndrome, or EBS.

      Thanks to the Internet, those of us who are paying attention know our Party’s narratives, institutions, mouthpieces, and personnel are evil to their rotten core. We don’t know all the details, but we don’t have to, the incontrovertible truths we have are enough. Epstein could have disclosed devastating truths about Party pedophiles, perverts, and pimps, and we’ve been Epstein-Barred too often to believe he killed himself. Once your eyes are opened, they stay open and you become an expert at spotting EBS. You reflexively reject Party propaganda and by implication, the Party itself.

      Popular discontent and protests, some violent, are breaking out all over the world. A number of causes have been cited: corrupt governments, wealth inequality, domestic interference by foreign governments and institutions, rising taxes, fees, and the overall cost of living, and disconnected politicians, bureaucrats, and institutions. While all of these undoubtedly play a role, there’s one constant that is rarely cited: people are fed up with the lies. They’re enraged by the hidden agendas, incompetence, and evil the lies are meant to hide.

      The Chinese government is typical, it rests on lies. You don’t need to censor the internet or institute a social credit system if truth is your lodestar.  It has told a whopper regarding Hong Kong: that a totalitarian system can accommodate a second system that confers substantially more freedom.

      Undoubtedly the US and British governments are covertly encouraging Hong Kong’s protestors and are trying to capitalize on the Chinese government’s discomfiture. While the Chines government regards the outside influences as illegitimate, it cannot tolerate a free Hong Kong even were the protests to stop because a substantial portion of their own billion-plus repressed citizens would get wind of it and ask why they cannot enjoy the same freedom.

      If China finds the protests of around two million Hong Kong residents troublesome, protests from even one percent of mainland Chinese—roughly ten million people—would be a nightmare. Freedom and totalitarianism are self-evidently incompatible, and sooner or later the Chinese government will try to impose its system on Hong Kong. That’s the truth it cannot tell. The protests may serve as the pretext, or there may be some sort of creeping consolidation before the “One Country, Two Systems” charade ends in 2047. Either way, Hong Kong’s days as a semi-free enclave are numbered. Its citizens know it, and that’s the main fuel for the current conflagration, regardless of what the American and British governments are doing to fan the flames.

      As I say on the Welcome page of Straight Line Logic: The truth always threatens those whose power and wealth rests on lies. Through history that has meant governments and those who align their fates with governments.However, the unbelievers may not be as big a problem for the Party as the believers.

      The Party has morons on its team: those who still believe its narratives. It doesn’t matter if true believers are PhDs, Mensa members, or billionaires, in real-world intelligence they’re not the sharpest tools in the shed. The problem with having morons on your team is that they’re, well, morons. They’re the Party’s allies, but that’s like a military alliance with Haiti. They’re too stupid or lazy to try to figure out the world they live in and aren’t going to get their first clue until the handouts stop. As collapse accelerates and reaches full fruition, the ranks of the disbelieving and cynical will only grow. You quit believing when you’re starving. The Party’s already faltering mind control effort will fail, even among the morons.

      Most of the PhDs, Mensa members, and billionaires who profess belief know the con but go along with it for pelf and power. They have everything but principles and will spout Party proper-speak as long as it’s in their interest. So the Party can count on the support of the venal and the duplicitous, but how staunch and steadfast will that support be when collapse accelerates, chaos reigns, and it’s every man for himself? We’ll see.

      The Party narrative is problematic not just because of the quality of people who believe or profess to believe it. The more significant deficiency is that it doesn’t correspond to reality. You can have millions, even billions, of believers who fervently believe that two plus two equals five, but that means you have millions, even billions, of intellectual cripples who can’t balance a checkbook or perform any other elementary arithmetic function. Or any of the higher operations arithmetic supports—like science and technology.

      The climate change debate is instructive. For years people have tried to model financial markets. There’s a built in incentive: incalculable wealth awaits anyone who gets it right even 60 percent of the time. Yet nobody has done so, because financial markets are extremely complex, are influenced by myriad variables, the relationship among variables and between the variables and the markets change, and we don’t know all the relevant variables.

      The same things can be said about climate modeling, except with more emphasis, because climate is more complex and has more potentially interacting variables—some of which we undoubtedly don’t know about—than financial markets. Climate models should be considered inherently unreliable, and models that purport to explain and predict climate based on one or two variables laughably so. If we can’t predict financial markets we certainly can’t predict climate. The state of human knowledge and predictive acumen just isn’t there.

      Yet, on the basis of these inherently faulty climate models, many of which have already revealed their deficiencies, the world is supposed to reduce its standard of living, embrace radical, costly, and potentially deadly changes in power generation, food consumption, modes of travel, and economic activity, and hand power over to multilateral and global institutions, supposedly the only way with which the predicted consequences can be dealt.

      The problem with morons and what they believe is that reality-based non-morons can’t wall them off to live with each other and the consequences of their collective irrationality and neuroticism. They insist we live according to their moronic dictates. Conflict is inevitable. However, the quality of the two sides will be far more important than their quantity.

      The Party got what it wanted from Winston Smith—a dolt who believed its self-contradictory narratives, but wasn’t much good for anything else. It’s not clear if it was even economically worthwhile for the Party to keep Smith alive. As a dolt could he produce more than he consumed?

      In the coming conflict, one motivated hacker rebel will be worth at least 10 million Winston Smiths. A military specialist rebel able to organize and lead guerrilla operations will be worth at least a million Winston Smiths. And any rebel who refuses to be Epstein-Barred, sees through the Party’s narratives, fights its dictates, and has a unwavering dedication to the truth will be worth at least 100,000 Winston Smiths.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 17:11

      Tags

    • Social Media Goes Wild After Ryan Reynolds Pounces On "Peloton Wife"
      Social Media Goes Wild After Ryan Reynolds Pounces On “Peloton Wife”

      After the internet was triggered by a Peloton ad featuring a yuppie buying a $2,500 exercise bike for his already-thin girl, now known on Twitter as “Peloton wife,” actor Ryan Reynolds came up with a brilliant idea: he hired Peloton Wife – since identified as actress Monica Ruiz – and made a commercial for his Aviation Gin brand (not to be confused with Avion tequila).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Seen by over 6 million people since its Friday release, the ultraviral ad features Ruiz sitting at a bar, flanked by two supportive friends. Clearly shaken from her Peloton experience, she looks at her drink and says “This gin is really smooth,” before downing the entire drink.

      You look great, by the way” says one of the other actresses – playing off the recent outrage over the Peloton commercial in which “Grace from Boston” documents a year in her life since her male partner gave her the expensive exercise bike.

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

      The ad sparked a mass triggering – with some suggesting it was about a thin woman under pressure to lose even more weight for her man. On Monday, writer and comedian Eva Victor made a parody that went viral, in which she passive aggressively thanks her man for a “fucking workout bike for Christmas.”

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

      In response, Peloton shares fell 7.4% last week, while “Peloton” was as more popular search term than “impeachment” according to Google Trends.

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

      Now watch the ads together:

      Ruiz told Deadline that the Peloton team “was lovely to work with,” adding “Although I’m an actress, I am not quite comfortable being in spotlight and I’m terrible on social media.”

      “So to say I was shocked and overwhelmed by the attention this week (especially the negative) is an understatement,” she added.

      “When Ryan and his production team called about Aviation Gin, they helped me find some humor in the situation.”

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


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 16:30

    • Kerry's Endorsement Of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters Of The Iraq War
      Kerry’s Endorsement Of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters Of The Iraq War

      Authored by Paul Norman Solomon via CommonDreams.org,

      On Thursday afternoon, the Washington Post sent out a news alert headlined “John Kerry Endorses Biden in 2020 Race, Saying He Has the Character and Experience to Beat Trump, Confront the Nation’s Challenges.” Meanwhile, in Iowa, Joe Biden was also touting his experience. “Look,” Biden said as he angrily lectured an 83-year-old farmer at a campaign stop, “the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know, and I can get things done.”

      But Kerry and Biden don’t want to acknowledge a historic tie that binds them: Both men were important supporters of the Iraq war, voting for the invasion on the Senate floor and continuing to back the war after it began. Over the years, political winds have shifted – and Biden, like Kerry, has methodically lied about his support for that horrendous war.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Then Senate Democrats John Kerry, Carl Levin, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Joseph Biden take part in a news conference on March 14, 2007 following a procedural vote on Iraq. (Photo: Karen Bleier/AFP via Getty Images)

      The spectacle of Kerry praising Biden as a seasoned leader amounts to one supporter of the Iraq catastrophe attesting to the character and experience of another supporter of the same catastrophe.

      The FactCheck.org project at the Annenberg Public Policy Center has pointed out: “Kerry agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and should be overthrown, and defended his war authorization vote more than once – including saying in a May 2003 debate that Bush made the ‘right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.’ . . . Kerry also told reporters in August 2004 that he would have voted for the resolution even if he had known that the U.S. couldn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.”

      As for Biden, he can’t stop lying about his major role in pushing the war authorization through the Senate five months before the March 2003 invasion. During his current presidential campaign, more than 16 years after the invasion, Biden has continued efforts to conceal his pro-war role while refusing to admit that he was instrumental in making possible the massive carnage and devastation in Iraq.

      Three months ago, during a debate on ABC, Biden claimed that he voted for the war resolution so it would be possible to get U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq – saying that he wanted “to allow inspectors to go in to determine whether or not anything was being done with chemical weapons or nuclear weapons.” But that’s totally backwards.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An explosion rocks Baghdad during air strikes March 21, 2003, via Reuters.

      It was big news when the Iraqi government announced on September 16, 2002 – with a letter hand-delivered to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan – that it would allow the UN weapons inspectors back in “without conditions.” The announcement was a full 25 days before Biden joined with virtually every Republican and most Democratic senators voting to approve the Iraq war resolution.

      That resolution on October 11 couldn’t rationally be viewed as a tool for leverage so that the Iraqi government would (in Biden’s words) “allow inspectors to go in.” Several weeks earlier, the Iraqi government had already agreed to allow inspectors to go in.

      Biden keeps trying to wriggle out of culpability for the Iraq war. But he won’t be able to elude scrutiny so easily. In a mid-October debate, when Biden boasted that he has a record of getting things done, Bernie Sanders (who I actively support) made this response:

      “Joe, you talked about working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what you also got done? And I say this as a good friend. You got the disastrous war in Iraq done.”

      Indeed, Biden – as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – presided over one-sided hearings that greased the war-machine wheels to carry the war resolution forward. He was the single most pivotal Senate Democrat for getting the Iraq invasion done. While sometimes grumbling about President George W. Bush’s diplomatic performance along the way, Biden backed the invasion with enthusiasm.

      Now, dazzled by Kerry’s endorsement of Biden, mainstream news outlets are calling it a major boost. Media hype is predictable as Kerry teams up with Biden on the campaign trail.

      “The Kerry endorsement is among Mr. Biden’s most significant to date,” the New York Times reports. “His support provides Mr. Biden the backing of the Democratic Party’s 2004 presidential nominee and a past winner of the Iowa caucuses.” Kerry praised Biden to the skies, declaring that “I believe Joe Biden is the president our country desperately needs right now, not because I’ve known Joe so long, but because I know Joe so well.”

      This year, many progressives have become accustomed to rolling their eyes at the mention of Biden’s name. A facile assumption is that his campaign will self-destruct. But that may be wishful thinking.

      The former vice president has powerful backers in corporate media, wealthy circles and the Democratic Party establishment. Deceitful and hidebound as he is, Joe Biden stands a good chance of becoming the party’s nominee – unless his actual record, including support for the Iraq war, catches up with him.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 16:00

    • Israel Conducted Nuclear Missile Test "Aimed At Iran": FM Zarif
      Israel Conducted Nuclear Missile Test “Aimed At Iran”: FM Zarif

      Iran is crying foul after Israeli’s Defense Ministry confirmed a major test of a mystery new “rocket propulsion system” on Friday morning. 

      “The defense establishment conducted a launch test a few minutes ago of a rocket propulsion system from a base in the center of the country,” the ministry said. “The test was scheduled in advance and was carried out as planned.” 

      Giving no further details, international reports were rife with speculation over the nature of the rocket, with many saying it was a nuclear-capable ballistic missile. This was enough for Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to go off, saying in a statement posted to Titter“Israel today tested a nuke-missile, aimed at Iran.”

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

      And he further complained that the West looks the other way when it comes to “about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia,” but that it “has fits of apoplexy over our conventional defensive [rockets].”

      The mystery Israeli test was significant enough to require the temporary diversion of all inbound flights to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport.

      Israeli media publications also considered the possibility that it was a ballistic missile test, likely nuclear warhead capable surface-to-surface Jericho system, an intercontinental ballistic missile which according to foreign reports can support a nuclear payload.

      It comes at a tense time in the region following Israeli airstrikes on Syria and even Iraq, against what the IDF alleges were ‘Iranian targets’. According to the Times of Israel

      Israel does not publicly acknowledge having ballistic missiles in its arsenals, though according to foreign reports, the Jewish state possesses a nuclear-capable variety known as the Jericho that has a multi-stage engine, a 5,000-kilometer range and is capable of carrying a 1,000-kilogram warhead.

      And according to a Avi Scharf, the editor of the English version of Haaretz newspaper, the missile test may have had a flight trajectory deep into the Mediterranean, as far West as past the island of Crete. 

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

      Tehran officials, while complaining about the provocative rocket test which they claimed was an ICBM, vowed they are still determined to resolutely continue its activities related to ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles.”

      Israeli residents captured part of the rare launch on video:

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

      Washington has repeatedly condemned similar Iranian launches, even while the program is not formally banned under the 2015 JCPOA, and has leveled sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic’s ability to produce advanced missiles. 


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 15:30

    • Macro Hive: "When We Fall Back Into A Recession And Real QE Returns, Watch Out"
      Macro Hive: “When We Fall Back Into A Recession And Real QE Returns, Watch Out”

      Submitted by George Goncalves of MacroHive; Goerge is a twenty years fixed income markets veteran. Over that time he has covered rates, structured products and credit. He worked both on the buy-side and sell-side.

      Fed’s Challenge To Administer Liquidity Into Year-End And Beyond

      Even with hundreds of billions of dollars in new liquidity created out of thin air, it’s too soon for the Fed to signal a clear coast for repo markets. On the one hand, through heavy liquidity dosages the Fed has doused the fire; but on the other hand, we do not know if that dosage was too much or too little. The true test still lies in the weeks around year-end.

      Fed Fears the Worst

      The Fed has not idled in wait of potential new flare-ups. Since our last update on Fed policy dynamics, it has rolled out more repo operations and added 42-day calendar repos to help provide funding over the year-end turn. These operations have seen nearly double the amount of submissions versus the offering size of $25bn each. This demonstrates that primary dealers aren’t taking any chances either.

      In addition to daily and term repo operations, the Fed has purchased over $100bn T-bills for its SOMA portfolio since October. These so-called ‘not QE’ asset purchases, along with the repo operations, have led to the Fed’s balance-sheet growing at a faster clip than that experienced in the first twelve weeks of QE2 and QE3 (Chart 1). Luckily it’s not QE though, right?

      If that’s true, we come to our primary question: what comes next in 2020? But before we brainstorm that and the implications thereof, we should take stock of what has changed in the key Fed balance sheet categories.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: St Louis FRED and Macro Hive

      The Balance Sheet Changes Since September

      As of November’s last week, the Fed’s balance sheet has grown in size by nearly $300bn since the repo flare-up. This speed goes to prove a concept well known in the marketplace: the Fed tightens slowly and eases quickly. In less than three months the Fed unwound basically half of QT.

      The Fed has imperfect control over its liabilities, so investors should never assume a one-for-one relationship exists between asset purchases and the expansion of excess reserves. For starters, currency in circulation has been on cruise control since the financial crisis (rising at ~6% a year). But it’s the non-reserve items, foreign central bank (FCB) reverse repos, and Treasury general account (TGA) that make it challenging to predict reserve trends.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: St Louis FRED and Macro Hive

      As seen above (Chart 2), total reserves have increased. But the TGA grew much more in total (in fact, the first week post 9/11 was the week that led to the reserve shortfall/repo spike as TGA expanded). It’s as if most of the Fed repos since that period indirectly provided short-term cash to the Treasury as dealers are able to purchase more USTs and ‘temporarily’ fund them with the Fed.

      Now, it’s not that simple and there is overlap with the T-bill purchases which are producing more permanent excess reserves. Nonetheless, the amount of Fed repos nearly matches the growth in TGA. If the Fed had not expanded, its balance sheet there would have been more reserve draining because UST issuance would have mopped up cash needed to restock the TGA. Meanwhile, FCBs have pulled some money from the Fed and are providing relief by reducing their F-RRP allocation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: St Louis FRED and Macro Hive

      The Hand-off From Repo to ‘Not QE’ Reserve Growth

      The effective Fed funds rate is back under control as are repo rates for the most part. That said, there is the occasional drift up in rates and the year-end turn is trading hundreds of basis points above the Fed target. The rest of this month could still see further pressures build as dealers pull back balance sheet usage and shy away from Fed term repos. Dealers will also aim to run a tight ship and will likely operate one day at a time in December.

      But here is the tricky part (and another example of falling into a false sense of security). Clearly with the Fed on notice and providing a laddered safety net of repo liquidity, this year-end should theoretically be better than last year. And once we turn the calendar into 2020, commercial banks should start to open up their balance sheets and so Fed’s repo should decline as well.

      The 2020 Path

      So back to our main concern: 2020. Assuming there isn’t something more nefarious going on in the banking system by some point in early next year, Fed repo assets should decline in size. That said, the handoff from temporary liquidity to ‘not QE’ T-bill purchases may end up being more abrupt than risk markets are comfortable with.

      Case in point: as seen in Chart 3, in the months after the initial spike due to Lehman, some of the Fed’s temporary liquidity programs started to see less usage as the panic subsided. This led to actual reserve declines as QE1 took some time to replace them. On a smaller scale, there is risk of a similar sort of repeat in 1H20. For example, if repo usage dropped to normal levels (i.e. as they were used pre-crisis), repo assets at the Fed could drop by over $200 bn (it would take over 3 months to replace those reserves via T-bill purchases).

      Curve Could Steepen

      Further complicating matters, if the Fed only buys T-bills they may end up enriching enough to encourage money market funds to start using the RRP again (which would drain reserves from banks). If that were to occur, the Fed would likely need to start buying out the curve and buy less T-bills (maybe via a curve control process through 5s). At that point they would need to stop their line that their purchases are “not-QE” (it would clearly be QE). This would favour staying with steepeners outright and/or on a forward basis as the front part of the curve (eg 2ys) would start to get depressed by this QE.

      One way the Fed could avoid having to morph the T-bill purchases into outright QE would be to figure out how to launch a standing repo facility soon. This would be akin to ‘QE on demand’ but more so for reserve expansion for banks whenever they actually need it. All of these moving parts highlight how difficult it becomes for a central bank that is increasingly active on providing cash and collateral to the marketplace.

      Bottom Line: This all feels very technical but, unfortunately, it’s the world we live in since the Fed needs to provide reserves in ample supply to keep using the floor system to set rate policy. If and when we fall back into a recession and real QE returns, watch out. In many ways that is what risk markets are yearning for: forward expectations of QE. Meanwhile, as we wait the risk is that the Fed’s balance sheet can actually temporarily shrink before growing (slowly via the T-bill purchases). Such a scenario is not priced into most asset classes.


      Tyler Durden

      Sat, 12/07/2019 – 15:05

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 7th December 2019

    • Ukraine Was The Origin Of The Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax
      Ukraine Was The Origin Of The Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax

      Authored by Lawrence Sellin via AmericanThinker.com,

      December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects…

      During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial lead over his Republican primary opponents.

      Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on December 7th, a $190 million program to “fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the justice sector,” but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company Burisma, which employed Biden’s son Hunter.

      On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%-funded by Barack Obama’s State Department and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.

      Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where, among other duties, she oversaw the Department’s legal assistance programs to Ukraine.

      By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was experiencing at the time.

      From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.

      Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of Manafort’s intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to Russia against Trump?

      Such awareness of Manafort’s plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance, which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation.

      According to White House visitor logs, on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:

      1. To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe, which involved Vice President Joseph Biden’s son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.

      2. To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul Manafort, whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger Stone.

      That is, contain the investigation of Biden’s son and ramp up the investigation of Paul Manafort.

      Again, according to White House logs, the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building were:

      • Eric Ciaramella – National Security Council Director for Ukraine

      • Liz Zentos – National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe

      • David G. Sakvarelidze – Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine

      • Anna E. Iemelianova (Yemelianova) – Legal Specialist, US Embassy Kyiv and US Department of Justice’s Anti-Corruption Program.

      • Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine’s chief anti-corruption prosecutor

      • Catherine L. Newcombe – attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice

      • Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.

      • Artem S. Sytnyk  – Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine

      • Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC

      • Jeffrey W. Cole – Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI

      Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White House logs, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort (Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:

      • Jose Borrayo – Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

      • Julia Friedlander – Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury

      • Michael Lieberman – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury

      • Scott Rembrandt – Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury

      • Justin Rowland – Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation

      It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. 

      Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a “well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”

      Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the existence of the “black ledger” documents that contributed to Manafort’s prosecution.

      Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with Russia.

      The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump without formally documenting that Trump was the target.

      After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under investigation.

      They lied.

      Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State, the left-wing media and their Democrat Party collaborators.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 23:45

    • Visualizing The New Cryptocurrency Economy
      Visualizing The New Cryptocurrency Economy

      Over a decade ago, the birth of Bitcoin sparked a revolution in the digital world – and just last year, the number of active cryptocurrencies jumped from roughly 1,600 to over 3,000 worldwide.

      As Visual Capitalist’s Ashley Viens details below, cryptocurrencies have now evolved past simple digital currencies, offering solutions to meet the complex needs of modern financial markets.

      Today’s graphic from Abra visualizes the complex, ever-evolving cryptocurrency ecosystem and its real-world applications.

      Characteristics of Cryptocurrencies

      Why are cryptocurrencies important for the future of digital finance?

      • Borderless
        Drastically reduces fees and processing times due to a lack of cross-border restrictions

      • Censorship-free
        Prevents governments or major institutions from blocking financial activities at whim

      • Greater financial control
        Individuals can have total control of their funds

      • Greater security
        Prevents fraudulent alterations from third parties

      • Lower costs
        Lower transaction fees thanks to fewer third parties

      • Greater Accessibility
        Reduces or eliminates traditional barriers to capital markets

      Much like the internet has forever altered how we live and work, cryptocurrencies have the potential to change how people participate in global financial markets.

      Categorizing the New Crypto Economy

      Today’s cryptocurrencies go beyond replacing cash. This new token-based economy is evolving─with unique solutions emerging in finance, security, identification, social engagement, and ownership.

      Cryptocurrencies are generally categorized by their primary application within the ecosystem:

      • Payments
        Digital cash can be used for both ecommerce and brick-and-mortar retailers

      • Store of value
        New form of scarce native currency and a means of settlement

      • Programmable money
        Borderless money that enables easy conversion between currencies

      • Stablecoins
        Crypto version of fiat which is tied to the value of resources like gold or the U.S. dollar

      • Privacy
        Private digital transactions, with some offering anonymity

      • Digital ownership
        Digital handling, storage, and monetization of data

      • Decentralized utilities
        Crypto-enabled networks, products, and services that exchange between assets

      • Alternative finance
        Digital assets such as collectibles, commodities, and tokenized securities

      Cryptocurrencies are adding both value and utility to the digital economy, and to the global financial market as a whole.

      Applications of Cryptocurrencies

      Because cryptocurrencies are programmable, customizable computer code, developers can design and adapt them for many use cases within the digital economy.

      How are these various cryptocurrencies being used in everyday applications?

      Current Projects

      • SPEDN auto-converts crypto to fiat for merchants, reducing exchange rate risk while offering convenient customer payment options.

      • Slice offers real estate investing to anyone for as low as $10,000 through fractional investment.

      Near-future Projects

      • CyClean plans to launch a blockchain-enabled electric vehicle (EV) fleet that mines crypto as users travel—reducing emissions and rewarding users for doing so.

      • Digital construction platform Builderium connects contractors to clients around the world through blockchain, opening up a global marketplace of potential deals.

      These are just a few of the ways cryptocurrencies are breaking down barriers for people and companies worldwide—allowing them to grow personal wealth and enter the global market.

      The Growth of the Crypto Economy

      Worldwide, the numbers show that blockchain-based technology and cryptocurrency use is growing. Blockchain wallet users rose from nearly 9 million in 2016 to over 42 million in 2019.

      Developers produced a mere 100 decentralized apps (DApps) in 2015─with that number skyrocketing to over 3,100 by 2019.

      Overall, cryptocurrencies are helping to create an innovative and accessible financial system around the world.

      Cryptocurrency deserves an opportunity to find a sustainable future in our economy.

      – Adena Friedman, President & CEO of NASDAQ

      While the future of the new cryptocurrency economy is still taking shape, one thing is certain─cryptos are forever altering the way we view and measure the value of money.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 23:25

    • Sociopaths On The Left & Sociopaths On The Right Work To Break Potential US-China Alliance
      Sociopaths On The Left & Sociopaths On The Right Work To Break Potential US-China Alliance

      Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Donald Trump is in a painful bind.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The China-bashing traitors within his own party trying to pass themselves off as American patriots have done everything imaginable to destroy the one chance the President has to save America from the policies of economic and social decay which have mis-shaped the past 50 years of world history.

      Before breaking under the pressure to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act on November 27, Trump attempted desperately to push against the hard liners stating a day earlier:

      “I stand with Hong Kong, but I also stand with President Xi. He’s a friend of mine, he’s an incredible guy. We have to stand, but I’d like to see them work it out, OK? We have to see them work it out. I stand for Hong Kong, I stand for freedom, I stand for all those things we want to do. But we are also in the process of making the largest trade deal in history.”

      Of course, Trump’s desire to use protective tariffs, rebuild decayed infrastructure and industries while reversing the regime change wars abroad are good things. However, the ugly fact is that the Trans-Atlantic financial system is also set to crash, and a serious military confrontation between the US military and the Russia-China alliance is both very real and very dangerous.

      This is also why the passage of the anti-Beijing Bill on November 27 is so tragic, since the desperately needed economic alliance which Trump has desired may have suffered a wound from which it cannot recover. Not only this, but those anti-China hawks pervasive across Washington are now emboldened to go even further starting with Sen. Ted Cruz’s new bill to recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty, thus undoing the 1972 ‘One China’ agreement which established Beijing as the capital of China.

      Cruz’s Taiwan Symbols of Sovereignty Act aims in Cruz’s words to “peel back some of the extreme insults of the Taiwanese that are inflicted by the One-China policy protocol” including the banning of Taiwan officials from visiting US government agencies, and Taiwan students studying at West Point military academy from wearing the Taiwan flag.

      Already, the US-military have vastly amplified their presence on China’s border ever since Obama’s “Pivot-to-Asia” and “Air-Sea Battle” were put into practice in 2011-2012 and which heavily relies on a militarized anti-China force in Taiwan ready to do the US’s bidding.

      Many leading figures in Taiwan are stuck in a Cold War traumatized mindset established 60 years earlier, and still see their life’s mission and Taiwan’s destiny through the outdated lens of their Kuomintang forebears- as the only rightful leaders of China, destined to reconquer the mainland lost to the Communist Party in 1949. These groups would do anything to fulfill that quasi-religious sense of purpose, making them the perfect puppets for the Deep State which would be more than happy to undermine both China and America as viable sovereign nation states undoing the common cause for which both Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Sun Yatsen dedicated their lives.

      Bannon, Soros and Falun Gong: Golems of the Great Game

      An ugly and overlooked example of this operation includes the renewed effort by China-basher Steve Bannon who Trump rightly booted from his team in August 2017. Bannon has been a dangerous character attempting to coral Trump supporters in America and the European right into a new anti-Chinese united front while reviving the neo-con “clash of civilizations” doctrine with a vengeance.

      One of the main conduits Bannon chose to unleash this assault was the Committee on Present Danger-China which he founded alongside a group of raging neocons in March 2019. Labelling China’s Belt and Road as a new empire threatening to undo America and enslave the world, Bannon’s think tank stated:

       “As with the Soviet Union in the past, communist China represents an existential and ideological threat to the United States and to the idea of freedom – one that requires a new American consensus regarding the policies and priorities required to defeat this threat.”

      Bannon has also found himself working ever more tightly with the anti-Beijing CIA-funded cult Falun Gong which has been banned from China since 1999 and used by the CIA as a propaganda weapon against China claiming anecdotal evidence of Beijing-sponsored organ harvesting and killing of religious minorities. Though pushing itself as a meditation group, its leader Li Hongzhi is based in the USA and promotes the idea that he has magical powers that keep the forces of evil from destroying the world.

      Bannon most recently produced the Falun Gong-funded film “Claws of the Red Dragon” putting him into the same boat as his left-handed mirror image George Soros who also supports the Falun Gong through Open Society Foundation’s Freedom House.  The contradiction arising from this alliance of pro-Trump sociopaths working with anti-Trump sociopaths only makes sense when you look at the anti-human game from the top down rather than the bottom up.

      It is here, that we start getting a fuller picture of the nature of the false ‘left vs right’ game being played, as we look at a City of London-based think tank which Bannon leads called the Dignitas Humanitae Institute alongside 5 other highly connected figures which were recently exposed in a powerful expose by journalist Stan Ezrol who described Bannon’s four other co-patrons of this Catholic group as “Archduke Otto Von Habsburg, successor to the throne of the Holy Roman Emperor when it was dissolved; His Royal Highness Charles of Bourbon Two Sicilies and Duke of Castro, a leading figure in the anti-Renaissance wing of European nobility; Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie GCB (Knight of the Grand Cross), LVO (Lieutenant of the Victorian Order), OBE (Order of the British Empire); and Father Matthew Festing.”

      The forces managing this international battle are desperately afraid of the fact that western and eastern renaissance traditions may be awakened in the face of the existential crisis facing the human species today. These groups are very much aware that the essential character of any society fit to survive is rooted on certain moral principles that are found in both Christian and Confucian cultures alike, making the USA and China potentially very strong and organic allies.

      When one reads the writings of such founding fathers of either great nation as Dr. Benjamin Franklin or Dr. Sun Yatsen, the common moral worldview and sense of human nature as a species made in the image of the creator endowed with inalienable rights is electric. It is thus no coincidence that Dr. Franklin saw in Confucius the key for the foundation of America and Sun Yatsen saw in America’s Constitution the key for China’s future. This is a concept which Hong Kong rioters, Taiwan militarists, Open Society ideologues and right wing Bannonites know nothing about.

      Today, Xi Jinping and President Putin exemplify this common outlook wonderfully as their alliance has transformed the international rules of the game on every level, and if Trump wasn’t constrained by such bigoted agents as Cruz, Bannon or the rabid hive of leftist hacks frothing at the mouth for impeachment, then the USA would make an organic ally in this new multipolar alliance.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 23:05

    • Six Saudis Arrested For Questioning After Pensacola Shooting – Three Were Filming Attack
      Six Saudis Arrested For Questioning After Pensacola Shooting – Three Were Filming Attack

      Six Saudi nationals were taken into custody for questioning near the Florida naval base where an Air Force trainee – also from Saudi Arabia – opened fire Friday morning, killing three before a sheriff’s deputy shot and killed him.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the New York Times, three of the Saudis were filming the attack. It is unknown whether they were students at the base, or whether they are connected to the gunman.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani (via the Daily Mail)

      The shooting spanned two floors in a classroom, according to Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia Country. Two deputies were shot in the ensuing gun battle and are expected to recover.

      The gunman, identified as Saudi Air Force second lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, used a locally bought Glock 45 9mm handgun with an extended magazine, and was carrying between four and six more magazines.

      In his last message on Twitter confirmed by AFP, Alshamrani wrote that America is a nation of evil.

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

      The FBI is leading the investigation into the incident at Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola in Florida, and initially withheld Alshamrani’s name.

      He was allegedly a student enrolled in a Navy training program designed for ” immersing international students in our U.S. Navy training and culture ” to help “build partnership capacity for both the present and for the years ahead,” accoring to Fox News, citing 2017 comments by Cmdr. Bill Gibson, who is the center’s officer in charge.

      “These relationships are truly a win-win for everyone involved,” he added at the time.

      Governor Rick Scott (R-FL) called for a “full review” of the Navy training programs in the wake of the shooting, while investigators have said they are exploring whether the attack was an act of organized terrorism.

      “I’m very concerned that the shooter in Pensacola was a foreign national training on a U.S. base. Today, I’m calling for a full review of the U.S. military programs to train foreign nationals on American soil. We shouldn’t be providing military training to people who wish us harm,” said Scott.

      Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters Friday that although his first priority is supporting the ongoing investigation and determining the shooter’s motives, he also said: “I want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence to understand what are our procedures” concerning the training programs.

      Is it sufficient [et cetera, et cetera] and it may not be — it may be the vetting — are we also screening persons coming to make sure that they have, you know, their life in order, you know, their mental health is adequate,” Esper said. “So we need to look at all that.”

      Esper referred to the shooter as a Saudi national who was a second lieutenant in flight training.

      Sources told Fox News that the scene of the shooting — a classroom, where students usually spend three months at the beginning of the program — indicated that the shooter was a student who was “early” in his training.Fox News

      Approximately 1,500 pilots are enrolled in the Naval training program – with Saudis having attended courses at the Pensacola site since the 1970s. According to the report, as many as 20 students from the Islamic Republic are in any given class – with many of them belonging to the Royal Family.

      Following the shooting, the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed “its deep distress,” offering “its sincere condolences to the victims’ families, and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.”

      The perpetrator of this horrific attack does not represent the Saudi people whatsoever. The American people are held in the highest regard by the Saudi people,” reads a statement from the Ministry. “Building upon the strong ties between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, and in continuation of the ongoing cooperation between the two countries’ security agencies, the Saudi security agencies will provide full support to the US authorities to investigate the circumstances of this crime.”

      President Trump, meanwhile, relayed King Salman of Saudi Arabia’s “sincere condolences,” and gave his “sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack…”

      “The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people,” said Trump.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 22:45

    • The Impact Of Increased Political Polarization
      The Impact Of Increased Political Polarization

      Authored by Frank Newport via Gallup.com,

      As I write this, the House Intelligence Committee has voted to adopt the committee’s Impeachment Inquiry Report along strict party lines. All 13 Democrats on the committee voted “Yes”; all nine Republican committee members voted “No.” This party-line split is neither unusual nor unpredictable, but reflects the deep partisanship that is one of the defining aspects of our American society today.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      I use the words “American society” rather than “American politics” here on purpose. We know that personal partisan identity affects one’s views on a wide variety of policy issues, and, of course, partisanship is the defining determinant of people’s views of their political leaders. But recent Gallup analyses show just how much our political identity today is a part of our views of a wide variety of other aspects of life, which often are not directly related to politics. Personal political identity affects views of the nation’s healthcare system, how one views the economy, one’s overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the nation, views of the safety of the nation’s schools, worry about mass shootings, job satisfaction, views of the state of the environment and views of one’s personal life situation, among others.

      The impact of political partisanship appears to be increasing. As my colleague Jeff Jones has documented, the difference between Republicans’ and Democrats’ job approval ratings of President Donald Trump is the largest Gallup has ever measured for a president, eclipsing the already high polarization measured in approval of President Barack Obama.

      Pew Research recently reported on Americans’ views of the opposite political party, concluding that “the level of division and animosity — including negative sentiments among partisans toward the members of the opposing party — has only deepened.”

      An important review of academic research by journalist Thomas Edsall last year highlighted the degree to which the political polarization has increasingly taken on an emotionally negative tone. As Edsall notes: “Hostility to the opposition party and its candidates has now reached a level where loathing motivates voters more than loyalty,” and “The building strength of partisan antipathy — ‘negative partisanship’ — has radically altered politics. Anger has become the primary tool for motivating voters.”

      There Are Some Benefits of Increased Political Polarization

      Is this increasingly pervasive influence of party as a key and defining aspect of the way Americans look at the world around them good or bad? As is true with almost all such questions, the answer is complex.

      There are some benefits to individuals and society from political polarization and conflict between opposing viewpoints. As we know, the Founding Fathers anticipated there would be conflict between factions in our society and set up the three branches of our federal government to deal with them. If handled correctly, optimal solutions are more likely to emerge when everything is subject to skeptical analysis. (Along these same lines, billionaire Ray Dalio defines this process of constant questioning as the search for “radical truth” and contends it is a secret to his business success.)

      Plus, a strong emotional allegiance to one’s political and ideological reference group can have significantly positive effects for individuals, who gain meaning and purpose in life from social solidarity with an in-group while railing against threatening enemies. Partisan “us versus them” perspectives are easier for many individuals to handle cognitively than are complex approaches to issues and situations that attempt to take into account multiple pluses and minuses.

      And importantly, there are real economic benefits for businesses that can take advantage of and monetize the behaviors of emotionally driven partisans seeking reinforcement for their views. Among these beneficiaries: cable news networks, talk show hosts, book publishers, bloggers and podcast producers. And, of course, politicians gain support and maximize turnout when their constituents can be emotionally activated on the basis of perceived threats. As political consultants advise clients, negative campaigning is most often much more effective than efforts to remain positive.

      Significant Costs of Political Polarization

      But today’s increase in partisanship in the U.S. also has significant harmful effects. Most importantly, polarization and partisan conflict lead to inaction, as “my way or the highway,” ideologically rigid mentalities lower the probability of achieving the compromise that should be at the heart of legislative functioning. (We saw this “destroy the village in order to save it” mentality shut down the U.S. government in 2013.)

      As I’ve reviewed previously, the American public as a whole rues this approach to politics, giving Congress and its ability to deal with domestic and international problems very low evaluations (even if the American public itself in some ways causes this political inaction by virtue of its own polarized attitudes).

      We also have the sociological impact of polarization and increasing disapprobation of one’s political opposites. Any functioning society needs to develop and maintain its social institutions — the widely agreed-upon ways in which society handles the core functions necessary for survival.

      But that agreement appears to be waning. Partisans on both sides increasingly see institutions in the U.S. not as beneficial and necessary, but as part of an effort by the other side to gain advantage and to perpetuate its power and philosophical positions. Liberals and Democrats today, for example, have lower trust in traditional family institutionstraditional religious institutions and the economic system. Republicans have lower trust in the scientific processhigher education, the mass media, and the role of the state (government).

      These skeptical views of institutions and social structures skew us toward distrust, anger and internal infighting — not actionable efforts to fix problems and address threats.

      What Lies Ahead?

      As noted, a healthy skepticism of the way things operate in society is often warranted. But our society must continue to function, and that functioning requires an underlying agreement in the legitimacy of societal institutions. This is particularly true today, when there are increasing external threats to our society and way of life from all sides, ranging from rogue states to terrorists to changes in weather and climate patterns to shifting world economies and massively unstable populations.

      At some point, our society must balance the internal conflict resulting from differences in partisans’ views of the world with a broader agreement on how we as a society adapt to external threats and achieve societal objectives. What will it take to do that? Presumably we need leaders who don’t focus as much on taking advantage of, and stoking, partisan differences as they do looking at the larger picture. That’s a difficult challenge, but one to which the American public may well be quite receptive. It’s usually easier to criticize than to make efforts to agree on solutions. But we are going to need more emphasis on the latter in the years ahead, I think, if our society is to thrive and survive.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 22:25

      Tags

    • Science Prof Calls For Fewer Humans To "Strengthen Human Rights"
      Science Prof Calls For Fewer Humans To "Strengthen Human Rights"

      Authored by Lexi Lonas via The College Fix,

      Humanity must ‘act to sustain life’ by reducing fertility (voluntarily)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Will there be “untold human suffering” if humans do not stop having children in order to avoid a “climate emergency?” More than 11,000 scientists signed a paper authored by an ecology professor at Oregon State University making that case.

      OSU’s William Ripple and Christopher Wolf, a postdoctoral research associate at OSU (left and right, below), were the lead authors of the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” published in the journal BioScience.

      Their call to “reduce the world population” is among six solutions. “We need to reduce fertility rates through voluntary family planning,” Ripple told The College Fix in an email.

      The paper cites “proven and effective policies” that can help reduce the population in order to “strengthen human rights.”

      They include access to family planning services for everyone, “full gender equity” and giving everyone “primary and secondary education,” especially women.

      “We believe that prospects will be greatest if decision makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home,” the paper states.

      Ripple maintains a website called “Alliance of World Scientists,” where he encourages scientists to read his paper and sign his petition to show “that you generally agree with our article.”

      The alliance has 15,000 members from 175 different countries, according to the website. While it claims to vet those who seek membership, the alliance specifically seeks “scientists from any scientific discipline, including graduate students in the sciences.” It makes no mention of requiring an institutional affiliation.

      Ripple’s attempt to persuade leaders to implement his agenda stands in contrast to the approach recently favored by Ivy League students. They made themselves a nuisance at the Harvard-Yale football game, delaying it for an hour, in order to protest climate change.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Fewer people, more ‘social integrity’

      This isn’t the first warning Ripple has issued about climate change in a paper. In 2017, he was the lead author of “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,” which drew more than 15,000 signatures from 175 countries, according to the website.

      Ripple’s most recent paper claims that the climate crisis is threatening “the fate of humanity” and everyone has an “urgent need for action.” It cites six areas that need to be addressed: energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food, economy and population.

      “I think we need to transform how society functions and interacts with nature,” Ripple told The Fix in an email.

      “We need to address social justice issues and honor the diversity of humans around the world. I see this transformation leading to a new carbon-free economy and operating within the limits of the biosphere.”

      Reducing the population from its current growth rate of “roughly 80 million people per year or >200,000 per day,” Ripple’s most recent paper says, would actually increase “social integrity.”

      The policies to reduce the population would “strengthen human rights” and will lessen “the impacts of population growth on [greenhouse gas] emissions and biodiversity loss.”

      Another way for humans to save the planet is to switch to a “mostly plant-based” diet “while reducing the global consumption of animal products,” according to the paper.

      The paper also says we need a “carbon-free economy,” but doesn’t specify how to get there. It says the “carbon-free economy” would need to address “human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly.”

      “Goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward supporting ecosystem and human wellbeing by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality,” the paper says.

      It concludes by saying the Alliance of World Scientists is “ready to assist decision makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future,” but it’s not clear how all of the paper’s goals can be accomplished without some coercion of individual choices, such as how many children to have.

      Eat plants or suffer ‘widespread misery’

      The Alliance of World Scientists wants policymakers, the private sector and the public to understand the seriousness of the climate crisis and take steps to “realign priorities for alleviating climate change.”

      This sentiment is similar to Ripple’s paper in 2017 for humanity’s “Second Notice.”

      “Sustainability transitions come about in diverse ways, and all require civil-society pressure and evidence-based advocacy, political leadership, and a solid understanding of policy instruments, markets, and other drivers,” the 2017 paper stated.

      If humans don’t change to mostly plant-based diet and work to lower fertility rates, “reduce wealth inequality,” increase outdoor education, create new environmental policies and create “new green technologies,” there will be “widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss,” it says.

      “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out,” according to the paper, without giving a timeline.

      “We believe that prospects will be greatest if policy makers and the rest of humanity promptly respond to our warning and declaration of a climate emergency, and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home,” the Alliance of World Scientists website says.

      It includes other “Warning Articles” such as: “A Final Warning to Planet Earth,” “Warnings without Power Are Futile” and “Final Jeopardy: Scientists’ warnings to humanity offer stark choices.”

      Ripple has previously used his research to become a policy advocate. He wrote two papers last year: on how scientists can shift policy “ from Growth to [a] Conservation Economy” and protect “Biodiversity and Binational Conservation” from President Trump’s proposed southern border wall.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 22:05

    • Fake News By Omission – The Mass Media's Cowardly Distortion Tool
      Fake News By Omission – The Mass Media's Cowardly Distortion Tool

      Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

      Western mass media have continued their conspiracy of silence on the OPCW scandal, making no significant mention yet this month of the leaks which have been emerging from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons indicating that the US, France and UK bombed Syria last year in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack which probably never occurred, and that OPCW leadership helped cover it up.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      If you haven’t been following the still-unfolding OPCW scandal, you can catch up quickly by watching this seven-minute video.

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

      Mass media’s silence on this hugely important story is noteworthy not just because it has far-reaching consequences for the future of the Syrian regime change agenda and for public trust in US-led war narratives, not just because the leaks have already been independently authenticated by the mainstream press, and not just because scandalous revelations about powerful entities are normally the sort of incendiary click fodder that makes a mainstream news editor hasten behind his desk to hide his arousal. It is also noteworthy because we’re being told by people in the know that even more leaks are coming.

      “Much more to come about the censoring of the facts on Douma at the Poison Gas Watchdog OPCW,” tweeted journalist Peter Hitchens earlier today.

      “It really is time that the Grand Unpopular Press and the BBC, realised this is a major story. Are they too proud to admit they might have been wrong?”

      Hitchens, who was among the very first to publish the leaked internal OPCW email last month revealing multiple glaring plot holes in the official narrative about the alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma, Syria, has been saying this for a while now.

      “More is known by the whistleblowers of the OPCW than has yet been released, but verification procedures have slowed down its release,” Hitchens wrote in his blog last week.

      “More documents will, I expect, shortly come to light.”

      So this is still an unfolding story that is only going to get more scandalous in the coming days. Yet rather than reporting on an important news story (which it may surprise you to learn is actually supposed to be the literal job description of the news media), the mainstream press has been silent. The only times the mass media have commented on this major story has been to spin it as Russian disinformation, and Tucker Carlson’s segment on it last week which was also falsely spun as disinfo by establishment narrative managers like David Brock’s Media Matters for America.

      The blog Left I on the News uses the term “fake news by omission” to describe this obnoxious yet ubiquitous propaganda tactic, where imperial media outlets deliberately distort people’s understanding of what’s going on in the world by simply declining to cover news stories which are inconvenient to the establishment narrative.

      Refusing to tell people about things that did happen distorts their worldview just as much as telling them things that did not happen, yet mass media will never be held accountable for engaging in the former, while engaging in the latter forces them to print embarrassing retractions and lose credibility with the public. For this reason, fake news by omission is their preferred tactic of deceit.

      People sometimes think of the mainstream media as always straight-up lying all the time, just fabricating stories whole cloth about what’s going on, but that isn’t generally how it works. A good liar doesn’t lie all the time, and they don’t even tell full lies unless absolutely necessary. What they do is far more cowardly and far more effective: they spin, they distort, they tell half-truths, they emphasise insignificant details and marginalize significant ones, they uncritically report what government officials are telling them, and they lie by omission.

      However, the total disappearance of the OPCW leaks is unusual for the legacy media. The imperial press have had their ways of hiding inconvenient stories since newspapers began. Running stories late on a Friday, running them on the “graveyard page” of page 2 (so-called because stories go there to die), holding on to them until another big story breaks so they can be published relatively unnoticed, waiting for them to be broken in a disreputable publication so people will be skeptical of it (sometimes known as “fixing” a story), or running an oppositional op-ed at the same time to spin the uncomfortable facts in a more salubrious way. But in the end, they normally run the story, in one way or another, so they can be seen not to be censoring.

      Not this time though. The exceptional silence on the OPCW scandal from imperial news media discredits them completely, but people won’t know about it unless they are told. Spread the word.

      *  *  *

      Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either YoutubesoundcloudApple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

      Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 21:45

    • Follow The Money: BlackRock, Vanguard Await New Opportunities In China
      Follow The Money: BlackRock, Vanguard Await New Opportunities In China

      While the Western world controlled the 20th century, the 21st century could be soon controlled by China. 

      Six of the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and Vanguard, are eager to do more business in China, reported Bloomberg.

      Sources said these firms had told regulators they plan to apply for fully-foreign-owned mutual fund licenses after China Securities Regulatory Commission said in Oct., that it would allow overseas institutions more power over onshore ventures in 2020. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the sources, Fidelity International, Van Eck Associates Corp., Neuberger Berman Group LLC, and Schroders Plc are some of the other firms that have briefed regulators about their big plans for China in 2020. 

      Fidelity told Bloomberg via a statement this week that it’s preparing to file for a mutual fund license in China. 

      These big Wall Street banks see nearly $12.8 trillion of investable assets in Chinese households. 

      Though China’s economy is slowing with growth rates crashing to three-decade lows and a trade war with the US with no immediate resolution, Western bankers understand that by 2030, the center of the global economy could be China, not the US. 

      BlackRock Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink hinted in April that he was exploring options to open up a shop in China. 

      Fink cited a wealthy middle class and organic growth that could power China’s domestic economy in the decade ahead. 

      Vanguard, which currently doesn’t have operations on the mainland, indicates that it could open a firm in China with nearly $5 trillion of assets under management, said Asia CEO Charles Lin, who spoke with Securities Times in July.

      Wall Street gets it. It’s called follow the money! And obviously, the center of the global economy and the world’s wealth is currently shifting to China.  

       


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 21:25

    • Greta Thunberg Enraged After Climate Strikes "Achieved Nothing", Has Yet To Visit China
      Greta Thunberg Enraged After Climate Strikes "Achieved Nothing", Has Yet To Visit China

      Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is angrier than ever. The 16-year-old climate crusader, whose childhood was stolen by everyone except China, says that the wave of climate change school strikes over the past year has “achieved nothing” since greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Speaking from the Madrid climate conference, after arriving via train from Lisbon, Thunberg said she hoped the negotiations would result in “something concrete.”

      Thousands of young people were expected to gather at the UN climate conference and in the streets of the Spanish capital on Friday to protest against the lack of progress in tackling the climate emergency, as officials from more than 190 countries wrangled over the niceties of wording in documents related to the Paris accord.

      In the four years since the landmark agreement was signed, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 4% and the talks this year are not expected to produce new commitments on carbon from the world’s biggest emitters. –The Guardian

      “People want everything to continue like now and they are afraid of change,” she told reporters, without mentioning the world’s #1 polluter by volume, China. “And change is what we young people are bringing and that is why they want to silence us and that is just a proof that we are having an impact that our voices are being heard that they try so desperately to silence us.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Thunberg’s movement began in Sweden in 2017, and has morphed into an organized campaign across the world.

      https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“I’m just an activist and we need more activists,” said Thunberg, adding “I sincerely hope COP25 will reach something concrete and increase awareness among people, and that world leaders and people in power grasp the urgency of the climate crisis, because right now it does not seem that they are.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In September, Thunberg drew criticism from French President Emmanuel Macron after she filed a legal complaint accusing five countries of inaction on global warming in violation of the 30-year-old UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey were named in the lawsuit.

      In response, Macron told Eruope1 that her stance was “very radical” and likely to “antagonize societies.” 

      In October, Thunberg received criticism from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said “Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

       


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 21:13

    • Epstein Was A Mossad Agent Used To Blackmail American Politicians, Former Israeli Spy Claims
      Epstein Was A Mossad Agent Used To Blackmail American Politicians, Former Israeli Spy Claims

      Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

      Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad asset who was used by Israeli intelligence to blackmail American politicians, according to a former Israeli spy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli spy and alleged “handler” of Robert Maxwell, told the authors of a new book, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales, that Epstein ran a “complex intelligence operation” at the behest of Mossad.

      Believing that Epstein planned to marry his daughter, Maxwell introduced him and Ghislaine Maxwell to Ben-Menashe’s Mossad circle.

      “Maxwell sort of started liking him, and my theory is that Maxwell felt that this guy is going for his daughter,” Ben-Menashe said.

      “He felt that he could bless him with some work and help him out in like a paternal [way].”

      Israeli intelligence bosses gave the green light and Epstein then became a Mossad asset.

      “They were agents of the Israeli Intelligence Services,” said Ben-Menashe.

      When it became clear that Epstein wasn’t very competent at doing much else, his primary role became “blackmailing American and other political figures.”

      “Mr. Epstein was the simple idiot who was going around providing girls to all kinds of politicians in the United States,” said Ben-Menashe.

      “See, fucking around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it’s not a crime. But fucking a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians fucking fourteen-year-old girls — if you want to get it straight. They would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that.”

      There’s also a Mossad connection to a different kind of sex offender; Harvey Weinstein.

      Weinstein reportedly hired ex-Mossad agents to suppress allegations against him. Working for an Israeli firm called Black Cube, these agents pressured witnesses and tried to intimidate journalist Ronan Farrow in order to “bury the truth” about Weinstein’s activity.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 21:05

    • The Panopticon Expands
      The Panopticon Expands

      Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

      Precedent always becomes practice.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Having established as legitimate the use of cameras to robotically ticket people for “speeding” and “running” red lights – timed to go red quickly, so as to ensnare as many drivers as possible – it was only a matter of time before the principle was extrapolated – now to include automatically ticketing people for using their cell phones while driving.

      But it’s more than just cameras now – and it will be more than just cell phone use that’s targeted for confiscation (of your money, that is).

      Because why shouldn’t it be?

      If it is okay to steal people’s money (which is what we’re talking about here, shorn of the euphemistic language about “fines”) for those things, why not this thing?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Why not  anything the government and its corporate “partners” who profit from it decide is ungood?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Buckle-up laws, for instance? How about breaking traction?

      In Australia – the same place that is the first place to use the AI cameras to “catch” cell phone “violators” – who will be mulcted to the tune of $344-$457 for not harming anyone – performing a burnout is already a major bust that can result in confiscation (and forfeiture) of the offender’s vehicle.

      But an armed government worker had to witness  the burnout.

      The cameras witness everything – everywhere.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      All the time.

      network is being erected that will make it impossible to “get away” with ignoring any edict issued by the control freaks and busybodies who lord it over us. Pre-Panopticon, the myriad tyrannical laws on the books had the upside of being to a great extent ignorable.

      Armed government workers can’t be everywhere.

      Cameras can. They already are.

      Have a look around – and up – the next time you’re out driving around. In most parts of the  country these Creepy Cams are perched on top of every traffic signal arm, or curbside.

      Armed government worker’s vehicles are being equipped with mobile cameras, also tied into the panopticon. There is talk – and more than just talk – of replacing parking meters in cities with “smart” meters with cameras in them – also tied into the same panopticon.

      Soon, wherever you drive – and park – you will be seen. Anything – everything – that is not in ordnung will be noticed. Not by a human. But by an artificial intelligence overlord that – to quote an eerily predictive line from the original Terminator movie, way back in 1984  – cannot be reasoned with or bargained with . . .

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Literally.

      Another precedent that was allowed to pass into practice with the adoption of camera enforcement was the vitiation of the government’s obligation to establish guilt before fleecing. This was accomplished by shifting traffic offenses from court-adjudicated to civil administrative actions, where it became (and remains) the obligation of the presumed guilty to – somehow – reverse the camera’s verdict.

      The rules of court procedure – of due process – do not apply. The presumed guilty verdict is subject to reversal not by evidence or its lack but rather according to the whim of whomever – or whatever – the government-corporate nexus gives  . . . administrative power to.

      You can sometimes send in an “explanation” – and whatever else you like – but it’s perfunctory, like the practice in Elizabethan times of permitting the condemned to say a few words before the executioner lopped off his head. The head-lopping was never in doubt.

      Today, if the government wants your money, they’ll take your money (to borrow a turn of phrase from another eerily prescient movie).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      There is one upside to all of this, though.

      When it becomes impossible to leave your driveway (and maybe not even that) without being observed – and mulcted – people might begin to object. Try to imagine what it would be like if you had to obey every speed limit – to the letter – else payin’ paper. Full stop – and wait a three second count – at every stop sign. Never dare a right-on-red, an HOV “violation” or an unbuckled ride.

      No “aggressive” acceleration, either.

      Your papers – all of them – always in ordnung.

      That’s what’s coming. Unless we decide to reject the principle – and establish a new precedent. There’s still time.

      The clock, however, is ticking – and midnight approaches.

      *  *  *

      If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.  We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!  Our donate button is here.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 21:05

    • Tennessee Offered Free College To Fix Its Crumbling Educational System. Then Something Unexpected Happened
      Tennessee Offered Free College To Fix Its Crumbling Educational System. Then Something Unexpected Happened

      As the frontrunners in the Democratic Party Presidential nomination race battle each other to offer more and more free stuff (funded by the ‘rich’ paying their ‘fair share’) – most notably “a college education” – one state that did just that has had some rather unexpected results.

      Here’s what the frontrunners are proposing…

      Bernie Sanders
      Abolish tuition and fees at four-year public universities, community colleges, and trade schools. Cancel $1.6 trillion in student debt and expand Pell Grants to cover expenses beyond tuition.

      Elizabeth Warren
      Free tuition and no fees at two- and four-year public colleges, plus forgiveness of as much as $50,000 in student debt for 42 million Americans.

      Pete Buttigieg
      Free tuition at public schools for 80% of American families. Expand the Pell Grant program and create a $1 billion community college fund to pay for ancillary costs of college, such as child care and transportation.

      Joe Biden
      Two years of tuition-free community college or high-quality training for recent high school graduates and many adults. The “first-dollar” program means students can use Pell Grants and other aid toward expenses beyond tuition.

      All sounds awesome, right? Free college, the promise of increased earnings potential, no debt worries to reduce your post-grad consumption capabilities…

      Well, as Bloomberg details,  Republican-controlled Tennessee has tried this “free college” approach with its Tennessee Promise program… and the results are disappointing to say the least.

      The state became the first in the U.S. to offer tuition-free community or technical college for every graduating high school senior when the program was signed into law in 2014.

      • The good news (maybe) – The state’s college-going rate of high school graduates rose to 64% in 2015, the first year of implementation, from 58.1% the year before.

      • The bad news (definitely) – Among the first batch of Promise students, the roughly 16,200 who started college in fall 2015, about 18% dropped out after one semester. After three years, about 49% had quit.

      So, not exactly surprising really – enrollment rates soared (well, it’s free!) and dropout rates remain terribly high (and clearly a waste of ‘rich’ taxpayers money).

      So maybe there’s more to this whole “education” thing than simply being free…

      There are just inherently complex social and emotional factors that a financial aid program doesn’t address,” says Mike Krause, executive director of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission & Student Assistance Corp., which administers the program.

      As Bloomberg notes, Promise is what policymakers call a “last-dollar” program, meaning it pays the cost of tuition not covered by federal Pell Grants or state awards and scholarships. The program doesn’t cover expenses associated with being a student such as transportation, child care, school materials, and other costs. Funds can be used at the state’s community and technical colleges, as well as universities with eligible programs.

      Which means Democrats should focus on not just free college, but free transportantion to college, free child care, and free school materials… because that will fix everything.

      There is one group who are cock-a-hoop at the government paying for students to attend college…

      Terri Bryson, a vice president at Motlow State Community College, which has graduated 1,566 Promise students, proclaims that free tuition has “done a great, huge job, but it’s not a magic wand.”

      Indeed, you get a government-guaranteed income stream and more students!

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So, if what you want for America is more students dropping out of colleges, vote for “free college” – otherwise, let’s leave the meritocracy well alone because government intervention has not worked (just look at the student loan debacle – sponsored by government-provided loans) and more intervention will create – as Tennessee shows – more unintended consequences.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 20:45

      Tags

    • The Fed Detests Free Markets, Part 2
      The Fed Detests Free Markets, Part 2

      Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

      It wasn’t really the plan to make this a series, but it seems to have turned into one. Part 1 is here: The Fed Detests Free Markets. Part 3 will follow soon. And yeah, I did think perhaps I should have called this one “End The Fed” Is No Longer Enough. Because that’s the idea here. But what’s in a name?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Okay, let’s talk a bit more about finance again. Though I still think this requires caution, because the meaning of the terminology used in such conversations appears to have acquired ever more diverse meanings for different groups of people. Up to the point where you must ask: are we really still talking about the same thing here?

      I’ve said multiple times before that there are no more markets really, or investors, because central banks have killed off the markets. There are still “contraptions” that look like them, like the real thing, but they’re fake. You can see this every time a Fed chief opens their mouth and every single person involved in the fake markets hangs on their lips.

      They do that because that Fed head actually determines what anything will be worth tomorrow, not the markets, since the Fed buys everything up, and puts interest rates down so more people can buy grossly overpriced property and assets, and allows companies to buy their own shares so nobody knows what they’re worth anymore.

      The Fed today is in the business of propping up zombies. And when I say the Fed, that also means the ECB and BOJ, western central banks. I won’t get into the PBOC here, but they’re not far behind.

      Recently, Christine Lagarde, the new ECB head, said the most incredible thing (at least to my ears, I guess not to hers):

      We should be happier to have a job than to have our savings protected … I think that it is in this spirit that monetary policy has been decided by my predecessors and I think they made quite a beneficial choice.

      Who on earth ever claimed jobs vs savings is some necessary or inevitable “choice”? Why should it be? If this were true, isn’t that a sign that something is terribly wrong? That you can have a job, but you can’t save anything? And aren’t the central banks to blame for that then?

      The entire system has been built for decades around the notion that people save, either to purchase big items, or for their old age, and that people put money into their pension systems. And now central banks come along and in no time destroy what has been valid for all these years. And they never even warned about it.

      Anyway, after Lagarde’s remarks, I guess the Fed’s Jay Powell felt he couldn’t be left behind and said:

      US central bankers see a “sustained expansion” ahead for the country’s economy, with the full impact of recent interest rate cuts still to be felt and low unemployment boosting household spending, Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell said on Wednesday in remarks that brushed aside any worries of a looming slowdown.

      “The baseline outlook remains favorable,” and the current level of interest rates “appropriate,” Mr Powell said in remarks prepared for delivery to the joint economic committee of congress, a panel that includes some members from the House of Representatives and Senate.

      His comments tracked closely to those in his news conference last month after the US central bank cut rates for the third time this year and signaled it was likely done reducing borrowing costs absent a significant change in the economic outlook. Despite “noteworthy risks” including slowing global growth and fallout from the US-China trade war, “my colleagues and I see a sustained expansion of economic activity … as most likely,” Mr Powell said in his prepared remarks for the hearing.

      Former Goldman and Bear Stearns banker, and friend of the Automatic Earth, Nomi Prins, tweeted yesterday: “Tuesday, the Fed added $95 billion in liquidity to financial markets. Today, Fed’s vice chair told Congress, “The Board’s latest [review] confirms the current health of the banking system. It depicts a stable, healthy, and resilient banking sector…” The Fed’s official for supervision and regulation told Congress, “The Board’s latest Supervision and Regulation Report… describes steady improvements in safety and soundness, with a gradual decline in outstanding supervisory actions at both the largest & smallest organizations..”

      “The baseline outlook remains favorable,” Powell said. That must be why they have been pulling out all the stops and invented new ones, for a decade+. Bernanke, Yellen, the lot of them, all because the baseline has remained so favorable. Why would anyone want to listen to this guy, who so obviously dabbles in complete nonsense? Well, because he’s the one giving the money away.

      I think I can tell Mr. Powell what the “full impact of recent interest rate cuts” will be, what it will feel like, and it won’t be anywhere near what he pretends it will be. I must think he knows that too, or he’s an utter fool, and I don’t think he is. He’s just doing a job, while he’s worth $100 million, and that job is very different from how it’s presented to the public.

      I’ll tell you about that full impact in part 3 of this Fed essay, which I left on the shelf for a long time because I thought people would declare me nuts, but which now, with increasing chatter of a next recession, maybe can be exposed to daylight. It’s about how grave the damage is that central banks have inflicted on their economies, something I never see discussed. Powell and Draghi/Lagarde and Kuroda are not just the ones giving the money away, they’re also taking it away, just not from the same people. And that latter part is much more important to societies and economies.

      A third quote, just to complete the “circle”, deals with BOJ chief Kuroda; it’s from a June 2019 Reuters article entitled How Japan Turned Against Its ‘Bazooka’-Wielding Central Bank Chief:

      The direction taken by the BOJ could determine whether Japan’s banking sector avoids a hard landing and whether Abe or his successor will lean on the central bank to take the most extreme step remaining: printing money for the explicit purpose of financing a national debt that is now more than twice the size of Japan’s economy. That could risk a costly downgrade by credit rating agencies for Japan, and, by extension, Japanese corporate borrowers.

      The spurning of Kuroda-nomics also has political implications. It is part of a broader public dissatisfaction with what has been labeled “Abenomics” – the prime minister’s plan to reflate the economy out of prolonged stagnation through a combination of aggressive monetary easing, bold fiscal spending and fundamental structural reforms in the economy.

      “Kuroda’s radical stimulus kept interest rates low, allowing politicians to delay reforms to get Japan’s fiscal house in order,” said Koichi Haji, executive research fellow at NLI Research Institute. “The foot-dragging could cost Japan dearly. The options left for the BOJ all seem extreme.”

      Options left for the BOJ will be even more extreme because Japan’s Birth Rate Has Hit Its Lowest Level Since Records Began In 1899. As a Dutch comment on that report said: “by 2050 there will be one working Japanese for every child or pensioner [..] Japan adopted a law in April designed to make it easier for foreigners to work in Japan. The goal was to attract 350,000 foreign workers. 8 months later, just 400 had arrived”.

      And just this week we read that Japan is preparing another $120-$230 stimulus package. Extreme has become normal in no time. Only, the ratings agencies could lower their rating for Japan, because of this. Then again, why should they do it only for Japan? Everyone’s in “extreme” territory, or as Ben Bernanke called it in 2008, “uncharted territory”. Same difference.

      But Lagarde is right on one thing: it is “the monetary policy decided by her predecessors” that has destroyed savings -and pensions-. How on earth she can call that “beneficial” is very hard to grasp. What is the goal, what is all these central bankers’ goal? That in the end nobody has any savings or pensions anymore, and they all must go into debt or perish? That would create entire societies made up of zombies. And that’s “policy”?

      It’s policy to spin a fantasy tale so people like Jay Powell can claim that “the baseline outlook remains favorable” and “sustained expansion” lies ahead for the economy, and it’s policy to pay for that fantasy with money that belongs to savers and pensioners, and that you can then hand out to a bunch of zombie “investors”. That’s policy.

      The role of today’s central bankers is possible only because the public are made to think these are very smart people that have the interest of Joe Blow at heart, and because they have “unlimited resources” to make stocks and bonds and the housing market look good. But what would happen if Joe Blow knew what is going on?

      The Fed is now considering “policy” that “makes up for lost inflation”. No, stop laughing, I’m serious. Their extreme policies in uncharted territory have failed so dismally, they’ve obviously not been extreme enough.

      Once they’ve gone down the path of extreme stimulus (not that they call it that), there’s no way back. Because they’ve just destroyed the markets, and then they go: let’s see how the markets react to that. Well, they don’t. They’re dead. You killed them. There are parties left who love feeding off of your free money teats, but they’re not the markets or even market participants. They’re rich socialists. But they’re also the only ones the Fed cares about.

      Still, a central bank that doesn’t have the population at large, at the center of its policies, is a scourge on a society and/or country. And it should be abolished. But in the case of the Fed, ECB and BOJ, it is probably already too late for that. They have done their damage. “End The Fed” is no longer enough. Societies need to develop emergency measures to counter the damage done, or face untold misery, unrest and eventually, revolution.

      People don’t see this, because these central banks -temporarily- taper over the disaster they’ve wrought with their “policies”. Time for the media to step in? No, it’s too late for that too, and besides, what media? They’ve been silent all along, why would they speak up now?

      More in part 3.

      *  *  *

      Please support the Automatic Earth on Paypal and Patreon so we can continue to publish.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 20:25

    • November Heavy Duty Truck Orders Resume Collapse, Down 39% To Weakest Since 2015
      November Heavy Duty Truck Orders Resume Collapse, Down 39% To Weakest Since 2015

      The collapse in heavy duty trucking is getting tougher to blame on difficult YOY comps and is more and more looking like the symptom of a real manufacturing recession in the U.S.

      Class 8 orders against collapsed in November, culminating a dismal year that some thought had seen a reprive with October’s improved bookings. But new data from FreightWaves shows that the collapse has continued its trend, indicating that the sluggish economy is to blame for lackluster replacement demand. 

      Orders totaled 17,300 units for the month, which marks the slowest November since 2015 and a 39% collapse from November 2018. The slowdown in orders is prompting layoffs of hundreds of production workers by companies like Daimler Trucks North America, Volvo Trucks North America, Paccar Inc. and Navistar International Corp.

      Other names in the Class 8 supply chain are also dealing with the negative effects. For instance, engine manufacturer Cummins Inc. is “laying off 2,000 white-collar employees globally in the first quarter of 2020”.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Meanwhile, November used to be a month when fleets would be busy placing orders for the upcoming year. After October’s slight tick up in orders, many analysts thought November could follow suit. That didn’t happen, and sequentially November’s order book was down 21% from October. 

      Tim DeNoyer, ACT Research vice president and senior analyst said: “The freight market downturn worsened in the past month, and uncertainty surrounding trade and tariffs continue to weigh on truck buyers’ psyches.” 

      Don Ake, FTR vice president of commercial vehicles commented: “The stalling of freight growth is causing fleets to exercise caution in placing orders for 2020. There will still be plenty of freight to haul, so we expect fleets will continue to be profitable and to replace older equipment. However, there won’t be a need for much additional equipment on the roads.”

      “The industry thrives on stability, but we are now on a rocky road,” Ake concluded.

      The rolling 12-month average for Class 8 orders is now 180,000 units and the industry backlog has collapsed to less than half of what it was in December 2018.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 20:05

    • The Moral Case For Decoupling From China
      The Moral Case For Decoupling From China

      Authored by David Archibald via AmericanThinker.com,

      One of the first people to see that the infatuation with China would end in tears was Robert Kaplan. In 2005 he wrote an article entitled “How We Would Fight China”, though he didn’t say when or why we will be doing that fighting, or even the how as per the title.

      Well the tears are flowing now as the relationship is mostly over. China’s share of world exports peaked just shy of 15% in 2015 and is now contracting. China’s share of world GDP is also about 15% and that too will contract.

      In Carroll Quigley’s ‘Tragedy and Hope’ first published in 1966, he wrote that the Chinese Communist regime in the first years after its founding was “insanely aggressive.” The Chicoms reverted to type about ten years ago and went back to ‘snarl diplomacy.’  Only being poor had kept them from trying to impose their will on others.

      The corporate retreat from China is proceeding as fast as factory production can be relocated. But even if China wasn’t in breach of its WTO obligations to have a free market economy and a convertible currency, didn’t steal intellectual property, and wasn’t bullying its neighbours, there is another reason why we should completely decouple from China and it is a reason that is overarching and critical to our self-worth as a civilisation.

      Dr Arthur Waldron, now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has been studying China for over 50 years. He married a Chinese lady so his views are not those of an inherent Sinophobe. In an online interview he provides interesting detail on the mistakes made in our relationship with China, starting with Nixon.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Dr Waldron starts the interview by reminding us that:

      China is the most evil regime the world has seen since the Third Reich, setting aside the Soviet Union.

      The whole 68-minute interview is interesting but where he is a thought leader is in his parable of the delicatessen, transcribed below:

      Suppose you lived on 86th st and at the local delicatessen with fine produce, at the front of the shop were all these goodies.

      But if you went to the very back of the shop there were sort of vats which were kept just above freezing which had freshly harvested kidneys and livers and hearts and all the things which are used at this moment. …

      People are being killed so their organs can be used for transplants. Many of which go to the very elderly Chinese leadership or their children. The son of one of the recent leaders of China has had cancer and he has had many organs replaced.

      Well, what would you say about this shop. Would you say, well, I think I’ll just shop in the front of the shop and I won’t pay any attention to the fact that there are all these living human organs, God knows where they came from, that are in the back.

      What you would say is ‘What the heck is this shop doing in America?’

      You can’t decouple these things. This is one integral system.

      And that is one of the reasons we have to quarantine China economically.

      A rationalisation for saying ‘Well yes it’s true that there is some question with what Hitler is doing with the gypsies and the Jews but Leica still makes a hell of a good camera.”

      In the late 1930s when it was quite evident that Hitler was persecuting and killing minorities, would you have bought any German goods, knowing that in doing so you were an enabler of that evil regime? It is no different today. Every Chinese plastic toy or Christmas decoration plucked off the shelves at Walmart contributes to a future U.S. combat death, but beyond that there are also metaphorical vats of human organs at the back of the Walmart store that the buyer is enabling.

      Thankfully killing people for their organs is repugnant to us and that needs to continue if we are to remain a good and kind civilisation. But trading with, speaking with, interacting with people who kill people for their organs debases us.

      If we continue trading with such people that makes us morally complicit in their barbarism. For our souls, for our self-respect at least, we must stop trading with such people, and training them in our universities, and letting them into the country.

      Dr Waldron’s view is that without our trade the Chinese polity will disintegrate; their state-owned enterprises aren’t enough to sustain their economy. The Chinese people’s best chance of liberation is if we nudge things in that direction.

      Thank-you Dr Waldron for your insights.

      *  *  *

      David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 19:45

    • New Data Reveals Which College Grads Earn Most And Which Carry The Most Debt
      New Data Reveals Which College Grads Earn Most And Which Carry The Most Debt

      Prospective college students now have official government data they can use to gauge which colleges and which major programs will make the most fiscal sense. The Trump administration released the data last week, which offers the nation’s most granular look into the finances of recent college graduates yet. 

      By looking at the median income versus the median debt of graduates from different schools and different levels of degrees, the data finally offers a tangible risk/reward for students considering a range of colleges and degrees. And some of the examples of the data are stunning, according to the Wall Street Journal

      For example, Bismarck State College can now say its business majors earned a median of $100,500 one year after graduating – higher than many elite business schools. And highlighting the amount of debt that students left college with also becomes and important part of the equation. Dentists leaving NYU’s graduate program, for example, left school with a median of $387,660 in debt while earning just $69,600. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The data shows that graduates typically earned more in their first year than what they borrowed in total, but 15% of programs resulted in graduates carrying a debt load greater than their income. In 2% of instances, graduates owed more than twice their annual salaries. 

      The data was uploaded to a consumer website that was initially created by the Obama administration called the “College Scorecard”. It offers data on more than 36,000 programs at about 4,400 colleges. The data allows consumers to compare programs and “defies years of efforts by the higher-education lobby to keep much of this information hidden.”

      For profit colleges may not like some of the comparisons. Computer engineering students leaving DeVry University-Illinois, for example, owed $53,391 at graduation while earning just $37,800. Meanwhile, students at Wichita State in Kansas leave the same program with just $31,000 in debt while earning $61,800.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The effort is part of a Trump administration ethos that making the college landscape a more competitive free market will help bring tuition and student debt down. The administration has been working with companies like Google to find ways to make the data more accessible to families. And to protect privacy, the government isn’t introducing data on programs with limited numbers of students. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement: “The best way to attack the ever-rising cost of college is to drive real transparency.”

      The debt and earnings data only represents students who got federal financial aid, which can be a small number at some universities. The figures also exclude debt take on by parents on behalf of their children, which has been a growing way for parents to help shoulder the load of student debt for their kids. 

      The data reflects common sense at some points. Science and engineering majors at top schools earned the most. MIT math majors earned a median of $120,300 after graduating while borrowing just $8,219. Those who earned master’s degrees at USC for drama and theater arts shouldered $100,796 in debt while earning just $30,800 their first year out. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And the data is surprising elsewhere. Ivy League schools don’t always see the top salaries. Columbia University rhetoric and writing graduates earned just $19,700 their first year out of school, while taking on $28,556 in debt. 

      Some students have simply struggled to find work in their field after graduating. 22 year old Johnna Ueltschi borrowed about $32,000 to study psychology and criminal justice at UCF in Orlando. She says she has struggled to find a job and now works as a hostess making $10/hour. 

      “I was a good student, I graduated on time, I did everything that I was conventionally supposed to do. Finding a job is a lot harder than they lead it on to be when you’re in school.”

      You can explore all of the data using the Wall Street Journal’s online search tool here


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 19:25

      Tags

    • Things You See At The Top: Woman Calls Pile Of Crap "Artwork", Successfully Sells It For $225,000
      Things You See At The Top: Woman Calls Pile Of Crap "Artwork", Successfully Sells It For $225,000

      Artist Portia Munson is known for chaotic looking pieces of “art” which often times features thousands of pieces of ephemera per piece. Ephemera comes from the Latin word for “things you can find at a yard sale or tucked away in your grandparents garage“. 

      Case in point is her work “The Garden”, which she made in 1996 and contains more than 1500 separate objects from plastic flowers to stuffed animals, according to Bloomberg. She calls the piece a “meditation on feminism and climate change”. 

      Because, of course…

      As you can see from the photo, the piece looks more like something you’d see on a Beatles album cover or inside of Cheech and Chong’s Volkswagen bus.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Wendy Olsoff, owner of New York Gallery P.P.O.W., thought it may be a good idea to feature the art at the Meridians section of Art Basel Miami Beach in hopes that she could sell it. 

      Olsoff said: “We thought it would be fantastic. It talks a lot about the environment, which is obviously in dire straits in Florida, and it also taps into feminism and other topics that we always explore in our program.”

      Munson says the objects are arranged in a specific manner that minds the “idea of artificial beauty, consumerism, and cultural ideas around the feminine aspects of nature.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Olsoff hoped to sell the piece and, after shelling out $60,000 to reassemble, fireproof and maintain the pile of crap, she slapped a $225,000 price tag on it.

      Olsoff said: “Maybe if we had done a little homework first and figured out how much it would cost [to install], [we] might not have been so hasty. We didn’t really realize it.”

      It was last on display two years ago and since then, the thousands of items for the piece had been sitting in storage at Munson’s home, collecting dust. Every object had to be catalogued and restored. 

      “When you open a box of plastic after three or five years, there’s going to be pieces that are decaying and disgusting,” Olsoff said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Then, every piece of fabric had to be made fire resistant to meet fire safety guidelines. 

      Trey Hollis, the gallery’s director of art fairs, traveled to Munson’s house upstate, brought everything to an open field, strung up the objects on a clothesline, put on a mask, and sprayed everything with fire-retardant coating. 

      Olsoff did little outreach to existing collectors. “We do normal previews. But this is a little different,” she said. 

      But lo and behold, the piece was only on display for six minutes before Laura Lee Brown and Steve Wilson, the husband and wife founders of the 21c Museum Hotel, took interest in it. It was a match made in liberal heaven. Wilson, standing in the piece, seemed to fit right in with it:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Steve Wilson said: “We own a piece by Munson already, which we bought 12 years ago. And we just bought this piece.”

      They settled at a price under the $225,000 asking price – a small price to pay for a new safe zone where Steve can also meditate on feminism and climate change. 

      “It’s a done deal. It’s a spectacular piece— one of those things that takes my breath away.”

      If you say so, Steve. 


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 18:45

    • Bernstein Analyst Says Masa May Have "Last Laugh" With SoftBank's WeWork Investment
      Bernstein Analyst Says Masa May Have "Last Laugh" With SoftBank's WeWork Investment

      Seemingly unaware that everybody in the world is already laughing at SoftBank’s disasterous “investment” in WeWork, one Bernstein analyst believes that Masayoshi Son is going to have the “last laugh”. 

      Bernstein’s Chris Lane says that he believes WeWork can still have a bright future if SoftBank is able to overhaul the business plan (isn’t that true for any business?). Lane says the company should focus on the corporate office market and likens WeWork’s model to Starbucks, where its branding and global scale can give it an advantage, according to Bloomberg.

      He believes the company can achieve profitability by pulling back on “extraneous areas” and slowing its expansion to focus on its existing space. He thinks this will lead to the company being able to grab 8% of an emergent market for pre-fitted offices for corporate clients. 

      Lane wrote in his report: “We think investors should think of the basic business as being similar to Starbucks. While profitable, the scale of profits that can be generated from a single site is small. Starbucks as a corporation only makes sense if you plan to open thousands of outlets.”

      Lane spoke to management and says he thinks there’s an opportunity for WeWork to move beyond the niche of selling office space for entrepreneurs and onto offering flexible real estate for a broad range of companies. Hilariously, he is referring to it as “managed space as a service” and thinks WeWork can make $500 per month on memberships as an “ongoing annuity”

      We used to just call this “being a landlord”.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Lane is also confident in WeWork’s new management:

      SoftBank named Marcelo Claure, the former chief executive at Sprint Corp., executive chairman of WeWork and put him in charge of the turnaround effort. Under his leadership, Lane says the company will be able to focus on profitability by stopping any incremental expansion, filling its existing space and slashing overhead by getting rid of expansion staff and non-core businesses. WeWork’s ability to gather data about office-use and optimize layouts — while not entirely substantiated — could prove disruptive to the industry, he added.

      He estimates that WeWork’s revenue will rise to $1.5 billion per quarter, up from $720 million a quarter, if it can push occupancy to 90% on its current portfolio. He predicts the company will once again try to go public, but not until 2023. He thinks the company could have an EV of $28.8 billion by 2025, which would make SoftBank’s stake worth $19.1 billion. 

      Lane concluded: “We believe WeWork’s valuation is justified if you believe in the long-term, ‘office space’ will be a managed service outsourced to professionals – and that WeWork will be the leading global player. Despite the huge embarrassment WeWork has been for SoftBank this year, we suspect SoftBank will have the last laugh when they bring the company back to market in a few years – bigger and profitable.”

      We’ll believe it when we see it. 

      Recall, after SoftBank’s initial investment in WeWork, the company started chasing its losses and re-invested in the company months ago. WeWork’s shares are down about 30% from their peak and the $14 billion Softbank has invested has been decimated – WeWork is now valued at less than $8 billion. 


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 18:25

    • "My Faith In Humanity Is Restored": Elon Musk Cleared In "Pedo Guy" Defamation Lawsuit
      "My Faith In Humanity Is Restored": Elon Musk Cleared In "Pedo Guy" Defamation Lawsuit

      A year after Elon Musk hit the jackpot when the SEC decided to merely slap his wrist over his infamous “funding secured” securities fraud, the Tesla creator struck legal gold again on Friday afternoon, when a Los Angeles federal jury found that Elon Musk did not defame British cave explorer Vernon Unsworth by calling him a “pedo guy” on Twitter.

      “My faith in humanity is restored,” Musk told reporters in the hallways of the courtroom after shaking hands with his lawyer moments after hearing the verdict in the Los Angeles courtroom. He did not address Unsworth, whose team had told the court earlier on Friday the Tesla CEO should pay at least $190 million in damages for his tweets about the diver.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The lawsuit had pitted a 64-year-old financial adviser earning a salary of about $33,000 against one of the richest and most famous men in the world, who told the jury he was worth about $20 billion…. but was “short on cash.” The dispute stems from the Tesla and SpaceX chief’s involvement in the Tham Luang cave rescue in June and July 2018, which saw 12 young football players and their coach successfully extracted from a flooded cave system by a team of British cave divers.

      On 13 July 2018, after the successful completion of the rescue, Unsworth said in an interview with CNN that the rescue pod Musk had delivered to the cave site was a “PR stunt”, adding that he should “stick his submarine where it hurts”. A video clip of the interview went viral, drawing the ire of Musk.

      The billionaire entrepreneur responded in a series of tweets on 15 July, suggesting that Unsworth’s presence in Thailand was “sus[picious]” and calling him “pedo guy”.

      Musk eventually deleted the tweets and apologized to Unsworth.

      The jury had been tasked with determining whether a reasonable person would understand the tweets to mean that Musk was calling Unsworth a pedophile. Musk’s attorneys argued that the tweet was not a statement of fact, but an insult, which is considered protected speech. They also attempted to show that Unsworth’s reputation had not been seriously damaged.

      According to The Guardian, Unsworth’s attorneys introduced evidence of the broad dissemination of Musk’s tweets, which were reported in 490 English-language articles on 361 websites in 33 countries. They also introduced evidence of Musk’s behavior after the 15 July tweets, including his hiring of a private investigator to seek proof of Unsworth’s “nefarious behaviour”.

      As Bloomberg notes, the four-day civil trial marked the first time that Musk has been called as a witness at trial. The Tesla CEO told the jury the tweet shouldn’t have been taken literally and was fired off in anger after Unsworth, in a TV interview, insulted his effort to help rescue members of a Thai soccer team from a flooded cave in 2018.

      It’s another win for Musk, 48, who’s managed to get out of legal trouble relatively unscathed. Musk agreed to step down from his role of chairman of Tesla Inc. for three years in 2018 to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit over a tweet the regulator said misled investors. But he’s run Tesla and SpaceX as usual.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 18:03

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 6th December 2019

    • Betraying The Constitution: Who Will Protect Us From An Unpatriotic Patriot Act?
      Betraying The Constitution: Who Will Protect Us From An Unpatriotic Patriot Act?

      Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

      “It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

      – Thomas Paine

      While Congress subjects the nation to its impeachment-flavored brand of bread-and-circus politics, our civil liberties continue to die a slow, painful death by a thousand cuts.

      Case in point: while Americans have been fixated on the carefully orchestrated impeachment drama that continues to monopolize headlines, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law legislation extending three key provisions of the USA Patriot Act, which had been set to expire on December 15, 2019.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Once again, to no one’s surprise, the bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle—Democrats and Republicans alike—prioritized political grandstanding over principle and their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

      As Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) predicted:

      Today, while everyone is distracted by the impeachment drama, Congress will vote to extend warrantless data collection provisions of the #PatriotAct, by hiding this language on page 25 of the Continuing Resolution (CR) that temporarily funds the government. To sneak this through, Congress will first vote to suspend the rule which otherwise gives us (and the people) 72 hours to consider a bill. The scam here is that Democrats are alleging abuse of Presidential power, while simultaneously reauthorizing warrantless power to spy on citizens that no President should have… in a bill that continues to fund EVERYTHING the President does… and waiving their own rules to do it. I predict Democrats will vote on a party line to suspend the 72 hour rule. But after the rule is suspended, I suspect many Republicans will join most Democrats to pass the CR with the Patriot Act extension embedded in it.

      Massie was right: Republicans and Democrats have no problem joining forces in order to maintain their joint stranglehold on power.

      The legislation passed the Senate with a bipartisan 74-to-20 vote. It squeaked through the House of Representatives with a 231-192 margin. And it was signed by President Trump—who earlier this year floated the idea of making the government’s surveillance powers permanent—with nary a protest from anyone about its impact on the rights of the American people.

      Spending bill or not, it didn’t have to shake down this way, even with the threat of yet another government shutdown looming.

      Congress could have voted to separate the Patriot Act extension from the funding bill, as suggested by Rep. Justin Amash, but that didn’t fly. Instead as journalist Norman Solomon writes for Salon, “The cave-in was another bow to normalizing the U.S. government’s mass surveillance powers.”

      That, right there, is the key to all of this: normalizing the U.S. government’s mass surveillance powers.

      In the 18 years since the USA Patriot Act—a massive 342-page wish list of expanded powers for the FBI and CIA—was rammed through Congress in the wake of the so-called 9/11 terror attacks, it has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

      The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments—and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well.

      The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience are now considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

      The Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens—no doubt a reflexive impulse shared by small-town police and federal agents alike.

      This, according to Washington Post reporter Robert O’Harrow, Jr., was a fantasy that “had been brewing in the law enforcement world for a long time.” And 9/11 provided the government with the perfect excuse for conducting far-reaching surveillance and collecting mountains of information on even the most law-abiding citizen.

      Federal agents and police officers are now authorized to conduct covert black bag “sneak-and-peak” searches of homes and offices while you are away and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence.

      The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited (at least 545 libraries received such demands in the first year following passage of the Patriot Act).

      In the name of fighting terrorism, government officials are now permitted to monitor religious and political institutions with no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government has subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation; monitor conversations between attorneys and clients; search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without showing probable cause; and jail Americans indefinitely without a trial, among other things.

      The federal government also made liberal use of its new powers, especially through the use (and abuse) of the nefarious national security letters, which allow the FBI to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies at the mere say-so of the government agent in charge of a local FBI office and without prior court approval.

      In fact, since 9/11, we’ve been spied on by surveillance cameras, eavesdropped on by government agents, had our belongings searched, our phones tapped, our mail opened, our email monitored, our opinions questioned, our purchases scrutinized (under the USA Patriot Act, banks are required to analyze your transactions for any patterns that raise suspicion and to see if you are connected to any objectionable people), and our activities watched.

      We’re also being subjected to invasive patdowns and whole-body scans of our persons and seizures of our electronic devices in the nation’s airports. We can’t even purchase certain cold medicines at the pharmacy anymore without it being reported to the government and our names being placed on a watch list.

      It’s only getting worse, folks.

      Largely due to the continuous noise from television news’ talking heads, most Americans have been lulled into thinking that the pressing issues are voting in the next election, but the real issue is simply this: the freedoms in the Bill of Rights are being eviscerated.

      The Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

      Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches and the like—all sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—a recitation of the Bill of Rights would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

      We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document. However, the reality we must come to terms with is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

      What once were considered inalienable, fundamental “rights”  are now mere privileges to be taken away on a government bureaucrat’s say-so.

      To those who have been paying attention, this should come as no real surprise.

      As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Constitution has been on life support for some time now, and is drawing its final breaths.

      The American government, never a staunch advocate of civil liberties, has been writing its own orders for some time now. Indeed, as the McCarthy era and the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. and others illustrates, the government’s amassing of power, especially in relation to its ability to spy on Americans, predates the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.

      What the Patriot Act and its subsequent incarnations did was legitimize what had previously been covert and frowned upon as a violation of Americans’ long-cherished privacy rights.

      After all, the history of governments is that they inevitably overreach.

      Thus, enabled by a paper tiger Congress, the president and other agencies of the federal government have repeatedly laid claim to a host of powers, among them the ability to use the military as a police force, spy on Americans and detain individuals without granting them access to an attorney or the courts. And as the government’s powers have grown, unchecked, the American people have gradually become used to these relentless intrusions into their lives.

      In turn, the American people have become the proverbial boiling frogs, so desensitized to the government’s steady encroachments on their rights that civil liberties abuses have become par for the course.

      Yet as long as government agencies are allowed to make a mockery of the very laws intended to limit their reach, curtail their activities, and guard against the very abuses to which we are being subjected on a daily basis, our individual freedoms will continue to be eviscerated so that the government’s powers can be expanded, the Constitution be damned.


      Tyler Durden

      Fri, 12/06/2019 – 00:05

      Tags

    • Where Are All The Billionaires' Super-Yachts? Slump Signals Recession Dead-Ahead 
      Where Are All The Billionaires’ Super-Yachts? Slump Signals Recession Dead-Ahead 

      Investors looking for signs of a recession might want to focus their attention on recreational boating and mega-yacht sales, an industry that tends to decline ahead or during economic turning points. 

      The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NNMA) is worried about a weakening consumer next year. So far, sales are up for personal watercraft, wake sport boat, and larger fiberglass boat sales, but there’s a notable decline in freshwater fishing boat sales.

      In recent quarters, the manufacturing recession has successfully transmitted weakness into consumers and services. Ten months of an employment slowdown, consumer confidence is expected to shift lower in 1H20. Deteriorating consumer confidence could lead to slumping boat sales in 2020, which would be another warning sign that a recession is ahead.

      Superyacht dealers are also seeing a slowdown in sales because the ultra-wealthy are spooked by the real threat a global trade recession could arrive sometime next year. The ultra-wealthy are usually in the know of economic turning points, way ahead of the average person. They’re sometimes the smartest money in the room, and make moves before the broader shift occurs. And perhaps, the rich, abandoning their love for yachts this year is also another sign that a domestic and global slowdown will persist into 2020.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bloomberg notes that superyacht dealers have reported only 102 sales through September, which is likely going to come in significantly weaker than the 199 sold in all of 2018. 

      Thom Conboy, a superyacht broker for Dutch shipbuilder Heesen Yachts, said wealthy clients purchase yachts based on confidence in the global economy, and if there’s turmoil around the world, the clients don’t buy. 

      Boating is a luxury; it all comes down to the disposable income of the middle class and ultra-wealthy consumers. So when pessimism and uncertainty unfold across the domestic and global economy, spending on boats and yachts tend to decline.

      It seems that the boating industry could have a demand issue in 2020 when the global economy is expected to stumble into a trade recession. 

      Must be nothing…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 23:45

    • Gun Control Groups Hide Behind Bogus "Police" Think-Tank To Disarm Americans
      Gun Control Groups Hide Behind Bogus “Police” Think-Tank To Disarm Americans

      Authored by Duane Norman via FMShooter.com,

      The myth that police support gun control legislation is one of the most frequent crutches used by gun control groups to support disarming Americans. At the forefront of this is the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a DC-based think tank with a long anti-gun history.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This is all done with your tax dollars, no less, as the Nationalist Review recently exposed the DOJ’s funding of PERF:

      Between 2001 and 2017, PERF has received a combined $35.2 million in funding from federal, state, and local governments in the form of grants and contracts, according to 990 tax filings submitted by the DC based think tank. In addition to this funding, PERF receives millions more annually in the form of fees charged for training ($9,500 per officer for a three week course) and conference registrations ($3.3 million in 2018 alone)

      Made up of police chiefs and executives from large cities, PERF policies have resulted in a “soft federalization” of policing, with “training courses” that yield almost zero flexibility for officers in the field, and this rigidity extends to the push to restrict civilian firearms ownership at every juncture.

      Unsurprisingly, PERF was one of the major backstops for former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s first foray into gun control.  The push to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment (legislation protecting the privacy of gunowners’ personal information) was spearheaded by Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and supported by none other than PERF’s very own Chuck Wexler:

      Mayors Against Illegal Guns last Tuesday stood on Capitol Hill with law enforcement officials and members of Congress to urge the repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment.

      Members of Congress at the event included… Chuck Wexler, Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum.

      Lest we forget, Mayors Against Illegal Guns was disbanded in 2014 and rebranded as Everytown for Gun Safety after the group’s mayors either turned against Bloomberg, or turned up in possession of illegal firearms:

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

      While Bloomberg was restructuring his gun control apparatus, Wexler remained as PERF’s Executive Director, where in 2017, he pushed back against one of the only noble causes championed by then-AG Jeff Sessions – a drive to have police departments enforce immigration laws:

      In 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatened to withhold federal funds from police departments that refused to enforce immigration laws, it was Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, who pushed back against him. Wexler claimed that if police departments assisted in detaining illegal immigrants, they would inhibit their ability to gain information from the community about recent crimes.

      PERF supports every gun control policy imaginable, including, but not limited to:

      • Restrictions on firearm magazine capacity

      • Implementation of Universal Background Checks

      • “Red Flag” Laws

      • Microstamping technology in all new firearms

      • Opposition to removal of suppressors from NFA restriction

      • A reinstatement of Senator Dianne Feinstein‘s 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, where she famously stated on 60 Minutes that she would support door-to-door gun confiscation:

      As previously mentioned by the Nationalist Review, PERF relies on failed retreads and anti-gun fanatics to head their departments, and there is perhaps no bigger example than former NYPD commissioner James O’Neill.  O’Neill even took his gun control platform to the national stage, appearing on 60 Minutes to plead againstNational Concealed Carry Reciprocity:

      Cyrus Vance: I think it would be a disaster for New York City. And I think for major cities around the country.

      James O’Neill: I think it’s insanity.

      Vance and O’Neill have established a formidable coalition of prosecutors and police chiefs from nearly every big city in America to lobby senators to keep the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act from becoming law.

      Of course, O’Neill continues to support support lackluster firearms training for NYPD officers, and the NYPD continues to be the only police department in the country with a mandated 12lb firearm trigger, a major contributor to poor firearm accuracy:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Comparison of a professional marksman shooting an NYPD trigger vs a stock trigger

      When you hear about the NYPD taking 16 shots to kill one bad guy and accidentally wounding nine civilian passers-by, or officers firing 84 shots at a murder suspectand missing 83 times (with the only hit registering in the suspect’s calf), don’t blame the officers—blame their poor training and equipment, mandated by O’Neill all throughout his tenure as commissioner.

      And yet, PERF is cited by nearly every liberal organization that supports gun control.  Former Connecticut Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty, one of Bloomberg’s most endorsed candidates (via his Moms Demand and Everytown proxies), used PERF to proclaim that “every” major law enforcement organization opposed CCW Reciprocity.

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

      This was her platform, right up until she was forced to abandon her re-election campaign in the wake of a sex scandal involving her chief of staff:

      In early 2018, Esty faced public criticism after news reports revealed that her former chief of staff had been accused of sexual harassment and threats of violence against staff but that she kept him on the payroll for another three months and wrote him a positive letter of reference.

      California Rep. Salud Carbajal recently used PERF to justify his push for “Red Flag” laws:

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

      But it is hardly just politicians themselves who use PERF as a gun control crutch.  Parkland “victim” Cameron Kasky, another anti-gunner who exists solely on Bloomberg donations, used PERF police chief and noted gun-grabbing liar Chief Art Acevedo to promote his advocacy:

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

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

      Rifles PERF wishes to ban frequently save lives:

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

      Even the “conservative” Koch Brothers have donated hundreds of thousands to PERF:

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

      Make no mistake about it, PERF anti-gun policies have infiltrated the Trump administration as well:

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

      Remember Chuck Wexler? Here he is with none other than the architect of Fast and Furious: former Attorney General Eric Holder:

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

      Ironically enough, Holder opposed Project Exile, a program which aimed to force federal prosecutions and guaranteed prison sentences for illegal firearms possession charges.  For a man who had no problem with the “soft federalization” of police throughout his career, it is rather amusing that he opposed the one tool that is lauded by both the NRA and police everywhere as a major contributor to a drastic drop in violent crime rates.

      But perhaps no one more blatantly clings to PERF than Monsanto lobbyist and “stay-at-home mom” Shannon Troughton.  If you haven’t heard of her in the past, it’s because she changed her last name to Watts to try to duck her past as a lobbyist for big corporate interests when she joined Bloomberg’s newly rebranded Everytown:

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

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

      Watts had the temerity to follow Hillary Clinton’s debunked suggestion that suppressors make firearms more deadly.  Sadly enough, PERF is all too willing to go along with both Hillary and Watts:

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

      Ever wonder why former Speaker Paul Ryan never brought CCW Reciprocity or removal of Suppressor NFA restrictions to a vote?  Look no further than his connections to PERF:

      Burlington’s police chief spent Martin Luther King Jr. Day meeting with other police leaders and U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin to speak about law enforcement use of force.

      The topic: A new policy created by the Police Executive Research Forum with the help of law enforcement partners across the country. Ryan’s hometown police department in Janesville recently adopted the policy, del Pozo said. The Burlington chief was one of five police leaders who helped forum members present the policy to Ryan.

      Unfortunately, PERF does the exact opposite of what Ryan claimed to oppose – the soft federalization of local police:

      “(Ryan) has never been interested in federalizing local functions, and he considers police a local function,” del Pozo said. “But he was interested in hearing what local police have done sort of on a voluntary basis to improve use-of-force outcomes in policing. We were just explaining the curriculum.”

      Make no mistake about it, PERF has infiltrated every layer of our country’s policing and law enforcement apparatus, and draconian gun controls are all over their list of objectives. Whenever anyone states that there is “police support” for a gun control initiative you can bet your bottom dollar that PERF is one of the “police organizations” they’ll use to make that argument.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 23:25

    • US Fertility Rate Hit Record Low In 2018
      US Fertility Rate Hit Record Low In 2018

      The US fertility rate dropped for the fourth straight year in 2018, and has fallen approximately 15% since 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics – which reports that there were 59.1 births for every 1,000 women of childbearing age.

      In total, 3,791,712 births were recorded across the country last year – extending a steep decline that began during the 2008 Recession, according to the New York Times.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As one user in Reddit’s “Childfree” forum notes: “Babies are expensive, and we’re all broke,” to which another user replied “Also, pregnancy and its effects on the body are gross and not worth it.”

      There you go.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      While teen pregnancy rates dropped the most at 7.4%, women between 20 – 24 years of age recorded the second steepest decline of any age demographic, while mothers aged 40-44 rose 2% from 2017 – a demographic which has risen almost continuously since 1985 as women choose to have children later in life.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “It’s clear that the traditional age-fertility pattern that held for Baby Boomers and Gen X women is shifting,” said Brookings Institution senior demographer William Frey, who notes that over 50% of women who had children in their late 30s last year had college degrees – eclipsing women in their late 20s.

      “The data suggest that people want to establish themselves before having children,” said Johns Hopkins demographer Alison Gemmill. “They also want to make sure they have adequate resources to raise quality children.”

      Meanwhile, suicide rates among young Americans are at 20-year highs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Times notes that Demographers have been scratching their heads over whether this is a “temporary phenomenon or a new normal, driven by deeper social change.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Fertility rates tend to drop during difficult economic times, as people put off having babies, and then rise when the economy rebounds. That is what happened during and after the Great Depression of the 1930s. But this time around, the birthrate has not recovered with the economy. A brief uptick in the rate in 2014 did not last.

      It is hard for me to believe that the birthrate just keeps going down,” said Kenneth M. Johnson, a demographer at the University of New Hampshire.

      Mr. Johnson estimated that if the rate had remained steady at its 2007 level, there would have been 5.7 million more births in the country since then. –New York Times

      The Times also notes that “Other sweeping social changes have accompanied the delay in childbearing. New data from the Census Bureau show that the median age of first marriage is now 28 for women and nearly 30 for men; in 1970, the median ages were 21 and 23,” according to Frey said. “This is a far cry from the 1950s, or even the 1980s and the 1990s.”

      Meanwhile, this poor guy is just trying to reproduce:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 23:05

    • Prohibition Ended Today 86 Years Ago
      Prohibition Ended Today 86 Years Ago

      Authored by D.W.MacKenzie via The Mises Institute,

      Today is an interesting milestone for Libertarian minded people, as well as those with a fondness for trivia.

      86 years ago today FDR 86’d prohibition.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Drinking became a crime starting on January 17th 1920, and remained a crime until December 5th 1933. Prohibition serves as a leading example of what happens when people in a largely free society lose part of their freedom. Prohibition did not stop Americans from drinking, it just drove an industry underground and into the control of gangs. Consequently, gang violence escalated during the prohibition years.

      Prohibition also escalated police raids against harmless commerce. Prohibition fueled speakeasies as dispensers of beer & booze. Speakeasies obviously dealt with violent gangs as suppliers, but speakeasy customers engaged in voluntary transactions for desired goods. Police raids on speakeasies drove willing customers out of these businesses now and then, and these raids prompted both corruption and a minor change in the English language.

      One speakeasy was “Chumley’s” located at 86 Bedford Street in Manhattan. Some police acted as informants to the bartenders at Chumley’s: shortly before a raid they would call with the message to “86 the customers”, to stop business and push all customers out the door. Hence the term 86’d began as a term for putting a stop to illicit business in one bar, but developed subsequently into a more general term for getting rid of something or refusing service. Prohibition ended 86 years ago today.

      This is perhaps the only day during any year that Libertarian minded person might find it appropriate to raise a toast to FDR.

      Cheers to the 32nd President, for just this one occasion.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 22:45

    • China Will Use Millions Of Zimbabwe Citizens To Improve Facial Recognition Accuracy
      China Will Use Millions Of Zimbabwe Citizens To Improve Facial Recognition Accuracy

      As China spreads its economic footprints across multiple continents with The Belt and Road Initiative, and exercises more and more control over the lives of its subjects via a combination its Social Credit Score system and vast surveillance state, it appears Beijing’s Big Brother has run into an issue that needs to be addressed to achieve world domination… inaccuracy!

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Facial recognition systems are becoming more and more mainstream and accepted by an increasing number of ‘average joes’ around the world as the cost of security (or just ease of life). The problem is, as we detailed previously, for some segments of society, it is wildly inaccurate.

      Specifically, after Oakland and San Francisco voted against the use of facial recognition, Rep. Tashida Tlaib claimed that “the error rate among African-Americans, especially women,” was 60 percent.

      During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.

      Some tech firms have tried to ‘fix’ this extremely high-level of inaccuracy for certain cohorts by tricking black people into being scanned.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But China’s tech behemoths have taken the process of training their algos on non-white faces to a whole new level.

      As The FT reports, a deal between Chinese facial recognition company CloudWalk and the government of Zimbabwe means the latter will send data on millions of African faces to the Chinese company to help train the technology.

      African states tend to go along with what is being put forward by China and the ITU as they don’t have the resources to develop standards themselves,” said Richard Wingfield, head of legal at Global Partners Digital, a company working on human rights on the internet.

      Perhaps somewhat shockingly, The FT reports that over the past few years, Chinese surveillance infrastructure has swept across regions from Angola to Zimbabwe. For example, earlier this year South African company Vumacam installed 15,000 surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities in Johannesburg, supplied by Hikvision.

      In August, Uganda confirmed the nationwide installation of Huawei surveillance cameras with face recognition capabilities. Similarly, the Singapore government plans to install facial recognition cameras on its lampposts, a contract that Chinese start-up Yitu has bid for, according to local reports.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As Foreign Policy previously noted, this agreement will also enable Zimbabwe, a country with a bleak record on human rights, to replicate parts of the surveillance infrastructure that have made freedoms so limited in China. And by gaining access to a population with a racial mix far different from China’s, CloudWalk will be better able to train racial biases out of its facial recognition systems – a problem that has beleaguered facial recognition companies around the world and which could give China a vital edge.

      “People did not consent to the use of their biometric data in this way,” Hove said.

      “Unfortunately, people do not have any way of holding the government accountable as there are no laws in place or any regulatory body tasked with the protection of people’s privacy or data protection.

      Zimbabwe’s 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act doesn’t cover biometric data or cross-border flows of data, and, as Hove notes, “the government has rarely ever acted in the people’s interests.”

      The CloudWalk deal is built on the back of a long-standing relationship between former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe’s regime, seen by China as an ideological ally, and Beijing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And like every other foreign deal done by a Chinese firm of late, it has been wrapped into China’s increasingly all-encompassing Belt and Road Initiative.

      “We are concerned about the deal, given how CloudWalk provides facial recognition technologies to the Chinese police,” said Maya Wang, a senior China researcher for Human Rights Watch.

      “We have previously documented [the Chinese] Ministry of Public Security’s use of AI-enabled technologies for mass surveillance that targets particular social groups, such as ethnic minorities and those who pose political threats to the government.”

      Whether or not the technology is activated, the panopticon effect of visible surveillance – especially when labeled as facial recognition – has been claimed to reduce crime.

      However, as Michael Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center recently notedfacial recognition puts every person who crosses its path into a perpetual lineup without any probable cause. It tramples restrictions on government power intended to protect our right to privacy. It feeds into the broader federal surveillance state. And at its core, it does indeed fundamentally undermine liberty.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But, for Zimbabweans and Angolans – who perhaps face little choice when the ‘partner’ in multi-billion-dollar investment plans is China – giving up liberty and freedom is preferable to yet more hyperinflation. For Natasha Msonza, the co-founder of the Digital Society of Zimbabwe, “it feels like [CloudWalk] is looking for guinea pigs,” she said, adding, “I don’t believe that the Zimbabwe government gave this proposition much thought before volunteering its citizens to be subjected to racial facial recognition experiments.”


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 22:25

      Tags

    • November Payrolls Preview: This May Actually Matter
      November Payrolls Preview: This May Actually Matter

      With the Fed now on hold well into 2020 (by which we mean no rates hikes ever and a rate cut as soon as the S&P drops more than 10%), Powell’s reaction function is once again data-dependent, which is why tomorrow’s payrolls report might actually matter to markets: if very strong, it may just skewer stocks as the odds of a rate hike, improbable as they may be, will rise; if ugly – which is far more likely after our analysis over the weekend and yesterday’s disastrous ADP – it could send the S&P to new all time highs as traders anticipate another rate cut in the coming months.

      With that in mind, here’s what consensus expects the BLS to release tomorrow at 8:30am ET: An above trend 180k in November; The unemployment rate is seen unchanged, though some gauges suggest the jobless rate could be subject to upside risk. The pace of wage growth is seen rising a touch in the month. Other indicators have been mixed; the ADP gauge of payrolls missed expectations, but did not contain the positive impact from GM workers returning from strikes; jobless claims data surged to a five-month high in the survey week, though has subsequently fallen towards the low end of its recent range, providing a mixed signal. The ISM manufacturing survey’s employment sub index was weak, though the services gauge, which is more representative of the US economy, ticked up slightly. Meanwhile, announced job cuts are down on a monthly and yearly basis, though the YTD measure in November was the highest since 2015.

      Here is a summary of the key expectations, courtesy of RanSquawk

      • Non-farm Payrolls: Exp. 180k, Prev. 128k.
        • Private Payrolls: Exp. 175k, Prev. 131k.
        • Manufacturing Payrolls: Exp. 38k, Prev. -36k.
        • Government Payrolls: Prev. -3k.
      • Avg. Earnings M/M: Exp. 0.3%, Prev. 0.2%.
        • Avg. Earnings Y/Y: Exp. 3.0%, Prev. 3.0%.
      • Avg. Work Week Hours: Exp. 34.4hrs, Prev. 34.4hrs.
      • Unemployment Rate: Exp. 3.6%, Prev. 3.6%. (FOMC currently projects 3.7% at end-2019, and 4.2% in the long run).
        • U6 Unemployment Rate: Prev. 7.0%.
        • Labour Force Participation: Exp. 63.3%, Prev. 63.3%.

      TREND RATES:  The street looks for 180k nonfarm payrolls to be added to the US economy in November, slightly above recent trend rates (3-month average 176k, 6-month average 156k, 12-month average 174k). While the jobless rate is seen remaining at 3.6%, analysts note that the differential between jobs ‘plentiful’ and jobs ‘hard-to-get’ in the CB consumer confidence data narrowed from 35.1 to 32.1, leaving some risk of a rise in the unemployment rate. Consumers are seemingly optimistic on wage growth, with the latest confidence data showing the anticipation of an improvement in future wages rising slightly in the month (from 21.4 to 21.8), while those expecting a decrease declined slightly (6.9 to 6.2).

      INITIAL JOBLESS CLAIMS: In the payroll survey week, initial jobless claims printed 228k, the highest weekly print since May, with the four-week moving average rising to 221.25k (compared to 213k weekly print in the October survey week, where the four-week moving average was 215.25k). Pantheon Macroeconomics said that the data got its attention, given it has printed five-month highs in two consecutive weeks. Its economists, however, said that at this point, it cannot be sure if it was a real sign of a change in the labour market, not least because some of the increase appeared to be due to the California wildfires. “We need to see more data before making any sort of macro call, but a clear and sustained increase in claims would be a real warning sign,” Pantheon writes, “so far, all the downshift in job gains has been due to slower hiring; if layoffs rise too, payroll growth will weaken substantially further.”

      ADP: According to the ADP’s measure of payrolls, 67k jobs were added to the US economy in November – short of the 145k consensus, and missing even the most pessimistic forecast  (range was between 120-188k); Capital Economics says the data presents downside risks to its 170k forecast, though does note that the official payrolls data will be boosted by an approximately 50k rise in auto sector employment after GM workers returned from strike — the ADP’s data did not include this effect. “This report adds to signs that the labour market is still losing momentum, suggesting that income growth and thus real consumption growth will slow a little further in the near term,” Capital Economics writes, “but it would take a much sharper downturn in employment growth to raise recession fears and prompt the Fed into additional rate cuts.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      ISM: The ISM manufacturing survey saw the employment subindex fall by 1.1 points in the month, taking it to 46.6 points, with the contraction extending to four months. ISM said that three of the six big industry sectors expanded employment, and three contracted during the period, an improvement from the previous month, and also said that labour force-reduction concerns remained generally constant. (NOTE: ISM says that an employment sub-index above 50.8, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the BLS data on manufacturing employment (you have to go back to the July data for the latest print above that level). The employment sub index within the non-manufacturing ISM told a better story, rising 1.8 points in November to 55.5, with respondents stating “we are in a workforce crisis, unable to attract and/or retain workers” and “hiring more personnel to support operations.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      CHALLENGER JOB CUTS: Challenger announced job cut announcements by US firms fell to a rate of 44,569 in November, from 50,275 in October – – down 11% M/M and down 16% Y/Y; however, the YTD figure is higher, with employers announcing plans to cut 559,713 jobs, which is 13.1% higher than the 494,775 cuts announced through November 2018, and the highest January-November total since 2015, when 574,888 cuts were announced. Challenger also said that job cuts announced in 2019 have already surpassed the full-year total in 2018, when 538,659 cuts were announced. The report said “employers did not make large-scale job cut plans in November. While concerns of a downturn may linger, consumer confidence is strong and companies are holding on to their employees in a tight labour market.” On a more optimistic note, the report noted that hiring plans by US companies were at a record high, and that through October, companies announced 1,181,438 hiring plans, 564,781 of which are for the holiday season.

      Arguing for a Weaker Report:

      • Winter weather. Snowstorms during the survey period in Chicago and other parts of the Midwest may have weighed on November payroll growth. As shown in Exhibit 1, our population-weighted snowfall dataset was above average during the November survey week. While the impact is uncertain, we are assuming a weather impact of around -10k in tomorrow’s report.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      • Holiday retail hiring. Thanksgiving was relatively late this year (November 28th n ) and this could reduce the number of holiday retail employees reflected in the November survey period. As shown in Exhibit 2, retail job growth tends to be weak in similar calendar configurations, decelerating relative to the 3-month average in each of the last four instances (though the magnitude of this drag may be waning over time).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      • ADP. The payroll-processing firm ADP reported a 67k increase in November private employment, 68k below consensus and well below the 135k average pace over the three prior months. While the inputs to the ADP model argued for a weak reading, the shortfall was considerably larger than expected. The fact that job creation slowed “across all company sizes” in the ADP panel also indicates some legitimate weakness in November job growth.
      • Job availability. The Conference Board labor market differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—retrenched by 4.0pt to +32.1 in November. Other job availability readings were similarly softer: JOLTS job openings declined to their lowest level since early 2018 (-277k to 7,024k in September) and the Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online index fell (-3.0pt to 100.5 in October)

      Arguing for a Stronger Report:

      • End of GM Strike. As indicated in the BLS strike report, 46k General Motors employees did not work during the October payroll period due to a United Auto Workers strike. The return of these workers is set to boost tomorrow’s manufacturing growth reading by 46k (a 2k metalworkers strike will provide a slight offset to the overall payroll impact).
      • Labor market slack. With the labor market somewhat beyond full employment, we see the dwindling availability of workers as one factor weighing on job growth this year. However, as shown in Exhibit 3, first-print November job growth often accelerates when the labor market is tight—for example in 1988, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2006. We believe some firms may have pulled forward hiring or reduced year-end layoff activity, anticipating a shortage of applicants in future months.
      • Employer surveys. Business activity surveys were mixed in November (roughly unchanged on net for headline manufacturing surveys but somewhat stronger for services). While the employment components generally declined for the manufacturing sector (tracker -0.7 to 52.8), they improved for the much larger services sector (+1.0 to 52.4). Service-sector job growth was 157k in October and averaged 136k over the last six months, while manufacturing payroll employment contracted by 36k in October, below its +3k average over the prior six months but quite strong given the 46k drag from the GM strike.
      • Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas declined by 6k in November to 46k (SA by GS), and were 10k below their November 2018 level. The sequential decline in announced layoffs primarily reflects a reversal in the technology (-8k) sector.
      • Census hiring. Temporary employment related to the 2020 Census declined 19k in October as address-canvassing operations wound down. There were still 9k Census employees in the October payroll counts, and we expect a further modest drop in November (we assume -5k)

      Source: RanSquawk, Goldman


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 22:24

    • Shale's Debt-Fueled Drilling Boom Is Coming To An End
      Shale’s Debt-Fueled Drilling Boom Is Coming To An End

      Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

      The financial struggles of the U.S. shale industry are becoming increasingly hard to ignore, but drillers in Appalachia are in particularly bad shape.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Permian has recently seen job losses, and for the first time since 2016, the hottest shale basin in the world has seen job growth lag the broader Texas economy. The industry is cutting back amid heightened financial scrutiny from investors, as debt-fueled drilling has become increasingly hard to justify.

      But E&P companies focused almost exclusively on gas, such as those in the Marcellus and Utica shales, are in even worse shape. An IEEFA analysis found that seven of the largest producers in Appalachia burned through about a half billion dollars in the third quarter.

      Gas production continues to rise, but profits remain elusive. “Despite booming gas output, Appalachian oil and gas companies consistently failed to produce positive cash flow over the past five quarters,” the authors of the IEEFA report said.

      Of the seven companies analyzed, five had negative cash flow, including Antero Resources, Chesapeake Energy, EQT, Range Resources, and Southwestern Energy. Only Cabot Oil & Gas and Gulfport Energy had positive cash flow in the third quarter.

      The sector was weighed down but a sharp drop in natural gas prices, with Henry Hub off by 18 percent compared to a year earlier. But the losses are highly problematic. After all, we are more than a decade into the shale revolution and the industry is still not really able to post positive cash flow. Worse, these are not the laggards; these are the largest producers in the region.

      The outlook is not encouraging. The gas glut is expected to stick around for a few years. Bank of America Merrill Lynch has repeatedly warned that unless there is an unusually frigid winter, which could lead to higher-than-expected demand, the gas market is headed for trouble. “A mild winter across the northern hemisphere or a worsening macro backdrop could be catastrophic for gas prices in all regions,” Bank of America said in a note in October.

      The problem for Appalachian drillers is that Permian producers are not really interested in all of the gas they are producing. That makes them unresponsive to price signals. Gas prices in the Permian have plunged close to zero, and have at times turned negative, but gas production in Texas really hinges on the industry’s interest in oil. This dynamic means that the gas glut becomes entrenched longer than it otherwise might. It’s a grim reality plaguing the gas-focused producers in Appalachia.

      With capital markets growing less friendly, the only response for drillers is to cut back. IEEFA notes that drilling permits in Pennsylvania in October fell by half from the same month a year earlier. The number of rigs sidelined and the number of workers cut from payrolls also continues to pile up.

      The negative cash flow in the third quarter was led by Chesapeake Energy (-$264 million) and EQT (-$173 million), but the red ink is only the latest in a string of losses for the sector over the last few years. As a result, the sector has completely fallen out of favor with investors.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But gas drillers have fared worse, with share prices lagging not just the broader S&P 500, but also the fracking-focused XOP ETF, which has fallen sharply this year. In other words, oil companies have seen their share prices hit hard, but gas drillers have completely fallen off of a cliff. Chesapeake Energy even warned last month that it there was “substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.” Its stock is trading below $1 per share.

      Even Cabot Oil & Gas, which posted positive cash flow in the third quarter, has seen its share price fall by roughly 30 percent year-to-date. “Even though Appalachian gas companies have proven that they can produce abundant supplies of gas, their financial struggles show that the business case for fracking remains unproven,” IEEFA concluded.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 22:05

    • New ATF Study: 423 Million Guns In Hands Of Americans
      New ATF Study: 423 Million Guns In Hands Of Americans

      Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

      Violent crime rate has decreased by 48.6 percent in tandem with ownership rise…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Newly released figures from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives shows that there are now a whopping 422.9 million guns in the hands of Americans. The number equates to 1.2 guns for every person in the country.

      The figures also show that in 2018, 8.1 billion rounds of ammunition were produced by the gun industry.

      The figures also reveal that the most popular firearm in the country is the much maligned sporting rifle, often mis-identified as an “assault rifle”, the AR-15 being one of the more popular models.

      The findings highlight that there are now 17.7 million of them in private hands, a record high, and more than half (54%) of all rifles produced in 2017 were modern sporting rifles.

      The ATF figures also reveal that firearms-ammunition manufacturing accounted for nearly 12,000 jobs in the US, creating over $4.1 billion in goods shipped in 2017.

      “These figures show the industry that America has a strong desire to continue to purchase firearms for lawful purposes,” said Joe Bartozzi, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

      “The modern sporting rifle continues to be the most popular centerfire rifle sold in America today and is clearly a commonly owned firearm with more than 17 million in legal private ownership today.” Bartozzi continued.

      “The continued popularity of handguns demonstrates a strong interest by Americans to protect themselves and their homes and to participate in the recreational shooting sports,” Bartozzi added.

      Bartozzi also noted that “as lawful firearms ownership in America continues to grow, criminal and unintentional misuse of firearms is falling.”

      “During the 25-year period covered in this report (1993–2017) the violent crime rate has decreased by 48.6 percent and unintentional firearm-related fatalities have declined by 68 percent.” he added.

      One reason why the popularity of the sporting rifle continues to grow may be because it is routinely criticized and targeted in arguments for stricter gun control.

      Justin Anderson of Hyatt Guns, one of the biggest firearm retailers in the country noted that “Sales have definitely been brisk, especially of small, concealable handguns. We also saw a spike in sales of tactical rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s, for which I think we can confidently thank Beto O’Rourke.”

      During a failed presidential run, Beto said on multiple occasions that he would ban AR-15s, and even go door to door to confiscate the weapons from Americans.

      With a near record high of gun sales on Black Friday last week, Americans are sending a clear message in exercising their Second Amendment rights.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 21:25

    • Hillary Casually Drops 'Russian Asset' Smear On Bernie Sanders In New Interview
      Hillary Casually Drops ‘Russian Asset’ Smear On Bernie Sanders In New Interview

      Hillary Clinton went on the Howard Stern show this week for a wide-ranging interview with the popular radio host, specifically focusing on her loss to Trump and what 2020 looks like — a race she’s recently dropped hints she could be prepared to enter, however unlikely that might be. 

      While the Wednesday interview was widely covered in the media, there’s one segment largely overlooked in the mainstream, but which is stunning nonetheless. We’ve grown used to her ‘Trump is a Russian asset’ line in her typical blame game fashion anytime she makes a media appearance; however, she did repeat the less common conspiracy that links rival Democrat Bernie Sanders to the Kremlin.

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

      She wasn’t even asked, but briefly voluntarily inserted the reference while discussing the Mueller investigation.

      Speaking of the Russians, she claimed, “They were like – ‘hey let’s do everything we can to elect Donald Trump’. Those are quotes… those are words [they used]… And they also said Bernie Sanders.” 

      “But you know that’s for another day…” 

      Stern runs with it: “Do we hate Bernie Sanders?” 

      “I don’t hate anybody,” but agrees with Stern’s assessment that he took a while to endorse her: “He could have. He hurt me, there’s no doubt about it.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders at a debate on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. Getty Images

      Then she delivered the final punch at a moment Sanders continues to gain in the polls, especially among young voters: “And I hope he doesn’t do it again to whoever gets the nomination. Once is enough.”

      There it is: her disastrous 2016 loss continues to be the fault of everyone else, who are apparently all somehow Russian puppets, even the Leftist Jewish Senator from Vermont (and let’s not forget the Green Party’s Jill Stein). 

      * * * 

      If you can stomach watching it, she elsewhere describes in detail ‘how she felt’ being present for Trump’s inauguration ceremony. “Which was one of the hardest days of my life, to be honest!”


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 21:05

    • Bill Gates Wants to Export India's National ID System Around The Globe
      Bill Gates Wants to Export India’s National ID System Around The Globe

      Authored by Daniel Taylor via OldThinkerNews.com,

      It’s not just a social credit score system spreading around the world from China that threatens the free people of the world; India’s Aadhaar National ID program has the full support of Bill Gates and the World Bank as a model for other countries to follow.

      Gates said in a 2018 CNBC interview that it was “too bad” if someone thought that Aadhaar was a privacy issue:

      The Gates Foundation has pledged to fund the World Bank in an effort to take the ID program to other countries.

      Despite Gates plea that there are no privacy issues with Aadhaar, several court cases have gone to India’s supreme court on grounds of privacy violations.

      The ID system has had serious security breaches, with access to a billion identities being sold for less than $10 through WhatsApp.

      One of the court filings (Mathew Thomas vs Union of India) details the rise of China’s social credit system, comparing the Indian Aadhaar initiative to the Chinese program.

      Perhaps the most sensational angle to this story is that the same international tech company that provides the infrastructure to Aadhaar also makes drivers licenses in the United States.

      Idemia (formerly Morpho), is a billion dollar multinational corporation. It is responsible for building a significant portion of the world’s biometric surveillance and security systems, operating in about 70 countries. Some American clients of the company include the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the FBI.

      The company website says that Morpho has been “…building and managing databases of entire populations…” for many years.

      In the United States, Idemia is involved in the making of state issued drivers licenses in 42 states.

      Idemia is now pushing digital license trials in the U.S. Delaware and Iowa are among five states involved in the trials this year. With the mobile licenses, law enforcement will be able to wirelessly “ping” a drivers smartphone for their license.

      The Indian government recently announced a facial recognition program to monitor all social media platforms, called the Advanced Application for Social Media Analytics.

      Big tech companies are using China, India, South Korea and other countries as testing grounds for smart cities, surveillance systems and command and control tech that are being stealthily rolled out in the west.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 20:45

    • JPMorgan Issues 2020 Alert: Recession Odds Jump After The Election, As The Fed's Credibility Is Questioned
      JPMorgan Issues 2020 Alert: Recession Odds Jump After The Election, As The Fed’s Credibility Is Questioned

      When it comes to Wall Street’s recent flurry of 2020 forecasts, most banks – perhaps with the notable exception of SocGen – agree that the first half of next year will be more of the same smooth sailing for US equities observed for much of 2019 (if not the violent rotations we witnessed below the surface that crippled quant returns this year).

      Where where the consensus goes downhill and things gets stormy, is the outlook for the second half of 2020, whose dominant feature will be the November presidential election. And few are as concerned about what the second half of next year may bring than JPMorgan. The bank, which has been steadfastly bullish stocks – and in retrospect correctly so, if for all the wrong reasons (for example, JPM’s bull thesis was predicated on economic growth, not its inverse, and certainly not the barrage of global rate cuts and the Fed’s launch of QE4), retains its cheerful forecast for the first half of 2019, but when it comes to the second half of 2020, not even JPM’s chief equity strategist, Mislav Matejka warns that the “negatives could begin to materialize” and the market might start to discount these some time in the second half of 2020.

      Among the factor listed by Matejka are that US politics could become a lose-lose proposition, and trade uncertainty, as well as hard Brexit risk, could come back. Worse, in a striking admission, none other than the largest US bank admits that next year, the “Fed’s credibility might start to be questioned,” as earnings overshoot their trend, while rising credit concerns could come to the fore.

      Finally, while JPMorgan repeats that it has “consistently” argued that one should not expect the next US recession ahead of the presidential elections, it then spoils the ending, and in previewing what happens after next November, says that “the odds of a recession might go up significantly.”

      ** *

      We will spare readers the cheerful side of JPM’s year ahead forecast as it is a repeat of many themes covered here previously by the “bullish” JPM and instead focus on the gloomier aspects of the bank’s year ahead predictions, as those are decidedly new and represent a reversal to JPM’s years of relentless optimism.

      The first notable item is the US election road map

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to JPM, both the US election and US politics in general, could become a dominant issue relatively soon, as the Democratic nomination process will be heating up towards the end of Q1.

       

      As JPM notes, “we might end up with two candidates who are potentially on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. The exhibit above compares the policies of a select number of Democratic candidates and president Trump, based on our interpretation of published policies and public comments. The divergence of policy proposals between the different  Democratic candidates is probably as extreme as the comparison between Trump’s policies and that of any of his Democratic adversaries.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Of the prominent Democratic candidates, Biden’s nomination is likely to be seen as more market favourable than a Warren nomination, but at the same time the probability of Trump winning vs Biden could be seen as smaller than the probability that he beats Warren.

      The key point here, is that the US politics could end up looking like a “lose-lose” proposition for the markets in the runup to and post the US elections according to Matejka. To summarize the possible outcomes, we might either have 2nd Trump’s term, but with the return to confrontational China stance, as he will not be constrained by the markets anymore, or we might have a shift to less equity friendly tax and regulatory regime, in the event of a Democrat victory.

      The risk of trade uncertainty escalating again, post the current truce

      JPM’s base case over the past months was that Trump will be compelled to move towards a truce with China, given what were the rising risks to the economy, and in particular to the US consumer. The risk is that the current improving sentiment with respect to trade doesn’t hold for too long, and that potentially re-elected Trump resumes his aggressive stance.

      An inflecting credit cycle

      Some of the credit indicators will soon be turning into a headwind for equities, as we move through 2020.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Notably, G4 credit standards appear to be tightening for both the businesses and for the consumer of late. One typically  sees tightening standards ahead of the downturns.

      Corporate leverage is surging

      US corporates have been levering up over the past years, with median US company net debt-to-equity ratio at the record highs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Why is this a risk? Because “if the credit markets weaken, this could reduce the pace of corporate buybacks.” Because where would we be without buybacks…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Economic indicators are looking decidedly late-cycle

      The US cycle is now officially the longest one since the WW2, and some of the cycle indicators appear to be rolling over. One such indicator is that job opening rate appears to have peaked. This is what usually happens ahead of the downturns.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Earnings have significantly overshot the trendline

      Another key JPMorgan concern is that US profits are now starting to appear stretched vs their long term trendline.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here Matejka notes that one of the arguments that kept him bullish all this time was the finding that US profits don’t tend to peak for the cycle before they significantly overshoot their long term trend. The size of these overshoots was on average of the order of 20-30%. The current overshoot is at 19%

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Profit margins have peaked, which typically bodes negatively for the longevity of the expansion cycle

      As we noted recently when discussing real, operating profits, one doesn’t usually have a recession before US profit margins, as measured by NIPA, peaked. The lead-lag between margins peak and the next recession was sometimes very significant.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      However, as of this moment, JPM finds that “we are now in unchartered territory”, with US profit margins appearing to have peaked in Q3 ’14, leading to the longest lead-lag on record, and counting…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … while a key profit margin proxy – a difference between the output prices and the input costs – appears to be deteriorating further.

      * * *

      Putting it together, JPM concedes that while “the time is likely approaching when one should be contrarian again”, this time around through turning bearish vs presently growing consensus bullishness, the bank still thinks that “one should not cut risk-on trades too early, as the bear capitulation, which is currently under way, could have legs.” The only question is when does someone, or something, pull the rug from under the market’s melt-up, triggering what even JPMorgan now see as a coming, and long overdue, day of reckoning for the markets


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 20:26

    • The Average Person Will Watch Over 78,000 Hours Of Television "Programming" Over The Course Of A Lifetime
      The Average Person Will Watch Over 78,000 Hours Of Television “Programming” Over The Course Of A Lifetime

      Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

      If you want to waste your life, a great way to do that is to spend tens of thousands of hours watching television. Today, it is so difficult to get people to leave their homes and get active in their communities, because most of us are absolutely glued to one screen or another. After a long day at school or a hard day at work, most of us understandably want to relax, and from a very early age most of us have been trained to turn to the television as our main source of relaxation. But of course there is great danger in allowing anyone to pump thousands upon thousands of hours of “programming” into our minds.

      More than 90 percent of the “programming” that we consume is controlled by just a handful of exceedingly powerful corporations, and those corporations are owned by the elite of the world. So when you endlessly consume their “programming”, you are willingly being bombarded by news and entertainment that reflects their beliefs, their values and their agendas. They openly admit that they are trying to shape the future of society, and up to this point they have been extremely successful.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Unfortunately, we live at a time when most people need television or some other insidious addiction to take their minds off of the gnawing emptiness that they feel deep inside of them. As I was doing some research the other day, a comment that someone posted on an Internet message board really struck a chord with me

      As a kid life seems so amazing and you can dream of big things and have faith. The older you get it seems the world tries to take away your faith. I have had 8 jobs in my life starting in high school and I’m just sick of this ****. I’m lucky to make 100 a day . I know that’s poverty level. But I manage. But thinking ahead I have to do this every day for the next 30 years . How the hell do you guys and gals cope with reality.

      I’m on empty.

      I want out.

      In just a few sentences, this individual summed up what millions upon millions of Americans are feeling.

      The harsh realities of modern society have absolutely sucked the life out of so many people around us, and the vast majority of Americans are barely getting by and are living lives of quiet desperation.

      If television allows them to forget about their troubles for a while, it is understandable why so many use it as a crutch.

      But do we have to watch so much of it? One recent survey found that the average adult will watch more than 78,000 hours of television over the course of a lifetime…

      Television has become such a common part of all of our lives that most don’t even think about just how much time they spend staring at their TV screen. Of course, all of those hours are undoubtedly adding up, and a recent survey of 2,000 British adults finds that the average TV viewer will watch an astounding 78,705 hours of programming (movies, sports, news, etc) in their lifetime. That’s a whole lot of screen time that may have been better spent on more productive endeavors.

      On a day-to-day basis, the average adult watches TV for three-and-a-half hours, amounting to 1,248 hours each year.

      I know that some of my readers will point out that this was a British survey, but the truth is that Americans actually watch even more television. The following comes from Wikipedia

      In the US, there is an estimated 119.9 million TV households in the TV season 2018/19.

      In 2017 alone, an average U.S. consumer spent 238 minutes (3h 58min) daily watching TV.

      Those numbers are absolutely staggering. And when you break them down further they become even more alarming. In the first survey that I mentioned above, the researchers actually discovered that the average person “will watch 11,278 different TV series”

      The survey, commissioned by LG Electronics, broke down those numbers even further and concluded that the average adult these days will watch 3,639 movies at home, and 31,507 episodes of TV during their lifespan. As far as different programs, the average person will watch 11,278 different TV series as well.

      Are there really 11,278 television series worth watching?

      I would think that you would have to go really deep into the well to watch that many, but apparently that is what many people are doing.

      Of course I am not entirely against television. For example, I think that “Poldark” is an absolute masterpiece. But everything should be done in moderation.

      The fact that we are endlessly watching so much television could help to explain why our society has become so “dumbed down”. Yesterday, I discussed a recent study that found that 15-year-old U.S. students are about four grade levels behind 15-year-old Chinese students in math.

      I bet those Chinese students are spending a lot more time studying and a lot less time watching television.

      At this point, America has truly become an “idiocracy”.

      For example, have you heard what the hottest new toy for this holiday season is?

      It is actually a “fart launcher” that allows children to blast foul smelling air at one another. The following comes from the New York Post

      Toy insiders and wincing parents tell The Post that the Buttheads Fart Launcher 3000 — a Nerf gun-like gadget that shoots farts instead of darts — is topping off kids’ wish lists this year.

      “This is my worst nightmare,” mom Angie Wong, the 42-year-old founder of the private Facebook group Brooklyn Moms, tells The Post. She recently caved and got the gas-blasting gizmo for her 5-year-old son, Will, and 7-year-old daughter, Maddie. “I can see that thing [being] used on my face one unsuspecting morning.”

      Of course a “fart launcher” is not the end of the world, but as I document regularly in my articles, there are literally thousands of signs that the fabric of our society is coming apart all around us.

      If our society continues to degenerate at this rate, there is only one way that our story can end.

      Sadly, most people seem to think that everything is going to be just fine, because that is what their televisions are telling them to think.

      Most of us are willingly plugging ourselves into “the matrix” for multiple hours every day, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise that most of us see the world the way that the elite want us to see it.

      If you want to start making positive changes in your life, breaking free of your addictions is one of the most important things that you can do.

      And at this point, for many Americans watching television is one of the most insidious addictions of all.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 20:05

    • Beijing No Longer Seems Interested In Footing The Bill For Electric Vehicles
      Beijing No Longer Seems Interested In Footing The Bill For Electric Vehicles

      EVs were once thought to be the unlimited silver lining behind an automotive industry that has all but collapsed into severe recession in China. 

      But now, it’s looking like Beijing isn’t so excited to help sustain the EV niche of the market anymore, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

      And Beijing’s ambivalence is starting to show up in the numbers. EV sales fell off a cliff after June of this year, when the government slashed purchase subsidies. From July to October, sales of new energy cars were down 28% from the year prior. 

      Many buyers prior to this had purchased vehicles in anticipation of the subsidy cut, which makes the sales “hangover” even worse. But the drop, on its own, still suggests that demand could be waning under the surface without government incentive. EVs are still priced above conventional cars when they are not stapled to a government subsidy. 

      Luxury EVs have buyers in places like Shanghai and Beijing, partially because they are exempt from the country’s license plate rationing in these areas. But restrictions on convention ICE cars are now starting to relax as the government continues to seek ways to end the country’s auto recession. Shenzhen and Guangzhou increased their license-plate quota in June and other cities may do the same.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bernstein analyst Robin Zhu predicts that ride sharing and taxi companies accounted for about 70% of EV sales in the country and that they could represent a large portion of the remaining demand, as they have less sensitivity to subsidy cuts. 

      But Beijing hasn’t given up on EVs entirely. It still wants one in four new cars sold by 2025 to be electric, according to a draft of its 15 year plan released this week. This raises its previous target released two years ago. EVs currently only make up about 5% of the country’s market. 

      Subsidies are unlikely to come back, however, to meet this target. The government is now aiming for “quality instead of just quantity”, noting that subsidies would be more costly than they were a few years ago, when the market was smaller. Instead, Beijing will spend the money on building out its infrastructure, like its charging stations. 

      Maybe Tesla could take a hint from this idea…

      Regardless, automakers will continue to push out EVs in China, even if they aren’t profitable. The same is expected to happen in the EU. Beijing, similar to Brussels, requires a certain percentage of cars to meet new energy requirements, which could cause a glut in the market. 

      One last shred of demand hope comes from channel stuffing actually comes from the automakers themselves, many of whom are setting up their own ride sharing networks. With this being the case, the “ride” for the EV market looks like it could be bumpy and grim going forward…


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 19:45

    • Subway Loses Lawsuit Against Journalists Who Discovered Chicken Strips Only 43% Actual Chicken
      Subway Loses Lawsuit Against Journalists Who Discovered Chicken Strips Only 43% Actual Chicken

      Four years after learning their longtime spokesman was a giant pedophile, Subway has suffered yet another embarrassment after a Canadian court threw out a $210 million lawsuit against journalists who tested the company’s meat, only to discoer that Subway chicken contains as little as 42.8% actual chicken.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In February 2017, the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s Marketplace DNA tested six different pieces of chicken from five fast food restaurants – finding that poultry from A&W, McDonald’s, Tim Hortons, and Wendy’s contained between 88.5% and 89.4% chicken DNA.

      Subway?

      53.6% for their oven roasted chicken contained actual chicken, and 42.8% of their chicken strips. According to the CBC, the rest of it was soy protein, according to VICE.

      Needless to say, Subway was a little upset – filing a $210 lawsuit against the CBC, claiming the study was “recklessly and maliciously” published and that the DNA test “lacked scientific rigor.”

      The company claims lost customers, lost reputation, and that they had lost a “significant” amount of sales according to the report.

      “The accusations made by CBC Marketplace about the content of our chicken are absolutely false and misleading,” the company said after the report was published.

      Nearly three years later, the suit has been tossed.

      But at the end of November, the The Ontario Superior Court threw Subway’s lawsuit out, ruling that the CBC’s program was an example of investigative journalism, and was protected under an anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) statute that “encourages individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest,” without the fear that they’ll be sued if they speak out. (John Oliver covered SLAPP lawsuits and how they’re used to stifle public expression on a recent episode of Last Week Tonight.) –VICE

      “The Marketplace report dealt with the ingredients of sandwiches sold by popular fast food chains. It relayed the results of DNA tests performed by the Trent laboratory, which indicated that two types of Subway chicken products contained significantly less chicken DNA than other products tested,” wrote Justice E.M. Morgan in his ruling.

      “Furthermore, the Marketplace report raised a quintessential consumer protection issue. There are few things in society of more acute interest to the public than what they eat. To the extent that Subway’s products are consumed by a sizable portion of the public, the public interest in their composition is not difficult to discern and is established on the evidence.”

      VICE notes, however, that Justice Morgan did note that Subway’s claims had substantial merit because their own testing revealed just 1% soy filler, not the 40% claimed by the CBC.

      The CBC stands by their results, and hired their own expert to vouch  for the lab’s testing.

      Subway told VICE in a comment after publication:

      Statement from Subway Restaurants:
      “The case has not been dismissed in its entirety, and this decision does not validate the tests performed by Trent University. In fact, the judge’s opinion states: ‘The record submitted by Subway contains a substantial amount of evidence indicating that the Trent laboratory tests were of limited or no value in determining the chicken content of Subway’s products,’ and ‘…there is considerable evidence that suggests the false and harmful nature of the information conveyed to the public in the Marketplace report.’

      The CBC Marketplace story at issue is wholly inaccurate and built on flawed research, which caused significant harm to our network of Franchise Owners. In 2017, two independent laboratories in Canada and the U.S. found our chicken to be 100 percent chicken breast with added seasoning, verified that the soy content was only in the range of 1 percent, and contested the testing methodology.

      The quality and integrity of our food is the foundation of our business, and we will continue to vigorously defend Subway ® Franchise Owners against false allegations such as those made by CBC’s Marketplace program. We are reviewing the recent decision by the Ontario court and are confident in the ability to continue our claims against Trent University while an appeal against the CBC is under review.”


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 19:25

    • Brazilian Car Production Plunge Sparks Widespread Cutback In Work-Hours
      Brazilian Car Production Plunge Sparks Widespread Cutback In Work-Hours

      Investors searching for “green shoots” in the global manufacturing sector might not discover them in Brazil.  

      Brazil’s auto industry trade group Anfavea reports vehicle production plunged 7.1% in November, on a YoY basis. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Anfavea said 227,455 vehicles (light vehicles, trucks, and buses) were produced last month, versus 244,771 over the same period the previous year. For the first ten months of the year, vehicle production increased 2.7% from 2,702,306 in 2018 to 2,774,484 in 2019.

      The trade group said the number of vehicles exported from Brazil continues to decline.

      November vehicle exports were down 7.9% over the year. For the first ten months, vehicle exports plunged 33.2% over the prior year.

      Brazil is one of the top five automakers in the world. The sector has struggled in the last several years as a synchronized global downturn gained momentum.

      Brazil almost entered a recession during 1H19, mostly due to a manufacturing slowdown, could register below-trend growth as soon as 1H20.

      The global macroeconomic situation across the world and in Brazil is so troubling at the moment that Ford had to close its plant in Sao Paulo. 

      As a result of the downturn, Anfavea has said production in Q4 has fallen so sharply that three fewer working days have been seen for laborers in factories. 

      Last week, we noted that the global auto industry continues to deteriorate, namely due to broke consumers after a decade of low-interest rates and endless incentives

      We said, “the auto slowdown has sparked manufacturing recessions across the world, including manufacturing hubs in the US, Germany, India, and China. A prolonged downturn will likely result in stagnate global growth as world trade continues to decelerate into 2020.”

      As shown in the chart below, global car sales have crashed at a rate not seen since the last financial crisis. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A global economic rebound depends on the auto industry, with no turn up visible, it’s likely the global economy will continue to decelerate into 2020. 

       


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 19:05

    • Twitter Censorship Confirmed: "Shadow Banning" Is Now Written Into The Platform's New Terms
      Twitter Censorship Confirmed: “Shadow Banning” Is Now Written Into The Platform’s New Terms

      Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

      Twitter has written “shadow banning” aka, censorship, into their new terms.  The platform will now intentionally “limit the visibility” of some users. Expect those who dissent from the official narrative to be the ones censored.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Critics have accused Twitter of censorship for quite some time now.  But this time, it’s official. The company has admitted they will attempt to silence those critical of the ruling class. According to RT, the news terms will be taking effect in January of 2020. While the new terms don’t look like much to write home about, some tweaks to the language could have larger repercussions for users, limiting their reach behind the scenes without their knowledge.

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

      “We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Serviceslimit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you,” the new terms state.

      The social media giant is telling users that it reserves the right shadow ban or “throttle” or censor certain accounts. And it is not clear on what basis will it make those decisions, although we guess (based on their past which is rife with censorship) that accounts that aren’t parroting the government’s official narrative will be on the list.

      While Twitter has previously insisted point-blank “we do not shadow ban, in the pre-2020 terms the company split hairs between shadow banning and ranking” posts to determine their prominence on the site, and acknowledged deliberately down-ranking bad-faith actors” to limit their visibility.

      In January 2018, conservative media watchdog group Project Veritas published footage showing Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter software engineer, discussing shadow banning as a strategy the company was at least considering, if not already using. “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned because they keep posting and no one sees their content,” Vadrevu said. “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

      The new terms will make shadow bans an official policy, all but guaranteeing continued cries of bias and censorship from the platform’s many critics will be silenced.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 18:45

    • Russia Ready To Extend New START Arms Pact "Without Preconditions" By Year-End: Putin
      Russia Ready To Extend New START Arms Pact “Without Preconditions” By Year-End: Putin

      Since the recent collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the world has witnessed a hardening of positions on the part of the US, Moscow, and some European powers, also as the ‘Open Skies’ treaty is on the White House chopping block. And it goes without saying that these treaties are designed to prevent the kind of Cold War arms race which nearly took the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, thus many analysts fear once removed there’s no putting the lid of a major arms race back on. New START, which is the landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by the two superpowers in 1991 and took effect in 1994, is set to expire in February 2021, which would be a mere weeks after the next presidential inauguration.

      A little over a month ago the Russian Foreign Ministry declared of the potentially soon to be expired pact: “The ball is now in the Americans’ court”; however, on Thursday Putin made a significant overture and is apparently holding out an open hand, lest this final major arms reduction treaty joints the dust bin of history like the INF.

      Russia is ready to immediately, as soon as possible, before the end of the year, extend the New START treaty without any preconditions, so that there would be no double, triple interpretation of our position later. I’m saying this officially,” the Russian president pointed declared according to Interfax. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image source: DPA/DW.com

      Addressing a Russian defense meeting, he explained further that he hopes to avoid a new arms race with the United States, and vowed to in good faith refrain from deploying intermediate and shorter range missiles there where there are none.

      “Russia is not interested in triggering an arms race or deploying missiles where there are none,” Putin said. He also invited the US and European countries to join a Russian proposed moratorium on such new deployments and weapons. So far only France has greeted the proposal positively. Indicating the offer is conditional, he warned, “No reaction from other partners followed. This forces us to take measures to resist the aforesaid threats.”

      He also took Washington to task for prematurely quitting the INF while attempting to falsely place blame on Russia for being in violation for years. “There is nothing to support this stance. Nevertheless, such attempts are being made,” he concluded, in statements reported by TASS.

      Some analysts in the West agree with him. As The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison recently observed, “Refusing to renew the treaty is the same as killing it, and the US will be to blame for the collapse of the last limits on the biggest nuclear arsenals on earth.”


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 18:25

      Tags

    • How To Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession
      How To Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession

      Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

      It’s becoming more and more apparent that the United States will not be going back to “business as usual” after Donald Trump leaves office, and it is easy to imagine that the anti-Trump parties will use their return to power as an opportunity to settle scores against the hated rubes and “deplorables” who dared attempt to oppose their betters in Washington, DC, California, and New York.

      Certainly, this ongoing conflict will manifest itself in the culture war through further attacks on people who take religious faith seriously, and on those who hold any social views unpopular among degreed people from major urban centers. The First Amendment will be imperiled like never before with both religious freedom and freedom of speech denounced as vehicles of “hate.” Certainly, the Second Amendment will hang by a thread.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But even more dangerous will be the deep state’s return to a vaunted position of nearly untrammeled power and obeisance from elected officials in the civilian government. The FBI and CIA will go to even greater lengths to ensure the voters are never again “allowed” to elect anyone who doesn’t receive the explicit imprimatur of the American intelligence “community.” The Fourth Amendment will be banished forever so that the NSA and its friends can spy on every American with impunity. The FBI and CIA will more freely combine the use of surveillance and media leaks to destroy adversaries.

      Anyone who objects to the deep state’s wars on either Americans or on foreigners will be denounced as stooges of foreign powers.

      These scenarios may seem overly dramatic, but the extremity of the situation is suggested by the fact that Trump — who is only a very mild opponent of the status quo — has received such hysterical opposition. After all, Trump has not dismantled the welfare state. He has not slashed — or even failed to increase — the military budget. His fights with the deep state are largely based on minor issues.

      His sins lie merely in his lack of enthusiasm for the center-left’s current drive toward ever more vicious identity politics. And, of course, he has been insufficiently gung ho about starting more wars, expanding NATO, and generally pushing the Russians toward World War III.

      For even these minor deviations, we are told, he must be destroyed.

      So, we can venture a guess as to what the agenda will look like once Trump is out of the way. It looks to be neither mild nor measured.

      If the effort at preventing any future Trumps succeeds, it will signal essentially the final victory over so-called “Red State” America.

      And then what?

      In that situation, half the country may regard itself as conquered, powerless, and unheard.

      That’s a recipe for civil war.

      The Need for Separation

      So long as most Americans labor under the authoritarian notion that the United States is “one nation, indivisible” there will be no answer to the problem of one powerful region (or party) wielding unchallenged power over a hapless minority.

      Many conservatives naïvely claim that the Constitution and the “rule of law” will protect minorities in this situation. But their theories only hold water if the people making and interpreting the laws subscribe to an ideology which respects local autonomy and freedom for worldviews in conflict with the ruling class. That is increasingly not the ideology of the majority, let alone the majority of powerful judges and politicians.

      Thus, for those who can manage to leave behind the flag-waving propaganda of their youths, it is increasingly evident that the only way to avoid a violent conflict over control of the national government is breaking the United States up into smaller pieces. Or at least decentralizing power sufficiently to allow for meaningful autonomy beyond the reach of federal power.

      As I’ve noted in the past, this notion has long been gaining steam in Europe, where referendums on greater local autonomy are growing more frequent.

      And conservatives are increasingly seeing the writing on the wall. Among the more insightful of these has been Angelo Codevilla. In 2017, Codevilla, writing in the Claremont Review of Bookslaid out a blueprint for local opposition to federal power and noted:

      Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?

      Now that identity politics have replaced the politics of persuasion and blended into the art of war, statesmen should try to preserve what peace remains through mutual forbearance toward jurisdictions that ignore or act contrary to federal laws, regulations, or court orders. Blue states and red states deal differently with some matters of health, education, welfare, and police. It does no good to insist that all do all things uniformly.

      And by 2019, the need for separation was becoming more urgent. Last week Codevilla continued in this line of thinking:

      [A]fter the 2020 elections ordinary Americans will have to deal with the same dreadful question we faced in 2016: How do we secure and perhaps restore our fast-diminishing freedom to live as Americans? And while we may wish for help from Trump, we have to look to ourselves and to other leaders for how we may counter the ruling class’s manifold assaults now, and especially in the long term…

      The logical recourse is to conserve what can be conserved, and for it to be done by, of, and for those who wish to conserve it. However much force of what kind may be required to accomplish that, the objective has to be conservation of the people and ways that wish to be conserved.

      That means some kind of separation.

      … [T]he natural, least stressful course of events is for all sides to tolerate the others going their own ways. The ruling class has not been shy about using the powers of the state and local governments it controls to do things at variance with national policy, effectively nullifying national laws. And they get away with it.

      For example, the Trump Administration has not sent federal troops to enforce national marijuana laws in Colorado and California, nor has it punished persons and governments who have defied national laws on immigration. There is no reason why the conservative states, counties, and localities should not enforce their own view of the good.

      Not even President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would order troops to shoot to re-open abortion clinics were Missouri or North Dakota, or any city, to shut them down. As Francis Buckley argues in American Secession: The Looming Breakup of the United States, some kind of separation is inevitable, and the options regarding it are many.

      It is notable that Codevilla’s strategy is not marked by grandiose gestures of independence or a yearning to re-create the glorious military victories of the days of yore. Such were the mistakes of the Confederates in the mid-nineteenth century.

      Interestingly, Codevilla’s more sensible approach shares quite a bit in common with the strategies recommended by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his essay “What Must Be Done.” The idea is to assert local control and refuse cooperation with federal policymakers. But with restraint. Hoppe writes:

      It would appear to be prudent … to avoid a direct confrontation with the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and non-cooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every federal law. One assumes the following attitude: “Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only obligation is to my local constituents.”

      Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the central government’s power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing else than trying to mind their own business. Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal, accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.

      Some will be unable to break out of the mindset that the United States must forever be governed by a singular national policy. They will insist any attempt at decentralization of this sort must necessarily result in violence.

      Writing at The American Conservative, Michael Vlahos, for example, appears unconvinced that violence can be avoided. But even he concedes the violence is unlikely to take the form of mass bloodshed as seen in the 1860s:

      Our antique civil wars were not bound to formal rules, yet somehow they held to well-etched bounds of expectation. American society today has very different norms and expectations for civil conflict, which certainly will constrain how we fight the next battle.

      Today’s America no longer embraces a national landscape of an industrial-lockstep battlefield (think Gettysburg, D-Day). Our next civil war — as social media so eloquently reminds us — will enact its violence on a battle campus of equal pain, if less blood.

      Many devotees of perpetual federal supremacy, of course, won’t admit even this. Any attempt at decentralization, nullification, or secession is said to be invalid because “that was decided by the Civil War.” There is no doubt, of course, that the Civil War settled the matter for a generation or two. But to claim any war “settled things” forever, is clearly nonsense.

      It is true, however, that if the idea of a legally, culturally, and politically unified United States wins the day, Americans may be looking toward a future of ever greater political repression marked by increasingly common episodes of bloodshed. This is simply the logical outcome of any system where it is assumed the ruling party has a right and a duty to force the ways of the one group upon another. That is the endgame of a unified America.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 18:05

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 5th December 2019

    • From Russia With Sense: Putin Says "Nyet" To PC Radicals Replacing 'Mothers' & 'Fathers'
      From Russia With Sense: Putin Says “Nyet” To PC Radicals Replacing ‘Mothers’ & ‘Fathers’

      Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      When it comes to protecting children, families and Russian traditions, Vladimir Putin has few rivals in the developed world. But will Russia be able to holdout forever against the globalists’ ultra-liberal agenda now threatening the planet?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Had Peter the Great known what strange ideas would come to fixate the Western mind, perhaps he never would have built his northerly city of St. Petersburg, designed to throw open a ‘window to the West’. Indeed, he most likely would have evacuated the swampland, ditched his Europe-inspired beard tax and retreated inland as far as possible.

      There is some craziness in this world, however, that could not have been predicted 30 years ago, to say nothing of 300 years. The new realities have forced Russian lawmakers to reflect upon the future of Russian identity in the face of radical liberal tendencies emanating from the West like some modern plague.

      “You said the word mother ‘can’t be replaced.’ It turns out, perhaps, it can,” Putin reminded delegates at a meeting of the Council for Interethnic Relations, a Kremlin advisory group.

      “In some countries, they now have ‘parent number one’ and ‘parent number two.’ I hope we never have that (in Russia).”

      The Russian leader’s comment elicited chuckles from the assembled officials, long inured to the occasional Western crackups. Yet that good-natured response masked the looming uneasiness that yet another crazy train has departed the Western station and is on a collision course with Russia, as well as the rest of the world.

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

      Indeed, Putin was referencing a law passed in France earlier this year that mandates schools refrain from using ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ substituting it for ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ in an effort to accommodate passage of a 2013 same-sex marriage law.

      “We have families who find themselves faced with tick boxes stuck in rather old-fashioned social and family models,” said Valérie Petit, MP from the party of President Emmanuel Macron.

      “For us, this article is a measurement of social equality.”

      In case anyone thought that would settle the confusion, the issue has now turned to the question as to which parents will be designated ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2.’

      Marine Le-Pen, leader of the far-Right National Rally, remarked that “the mask has fallen” from the Macron government regarding its views on family values.

      Meanwhile, back in Russia, Putin began adjusting his country’s sails against such radical liberal experiments back in June 2013 with passage of a federal law entitled, ‘Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values’. Western media outlets quickly pounced on the legislation, portraying it as dangerous to homosexuals, even warning they risked arrest if they visited the 2014 Sochi Olympics.

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

      As Harvey Fierstein argued in the New York Times, for example, Putin’s ‘anti-gay’ law means that “any Olympic athlete, trainer, reporter, family member or fan who is gay — or suspected of being gay, or just accused of being gay — can go to jail.”

      That was either deliberate fake news or extremely shoddy journalism, but since the New York Times article cited Huff Post, which in turn quoted an obscure travel blog, we’ll give the Grey Lady some benefit of the doubt and go with the latter possibility.

      The fact is, what the Russian law explicitly forbids is the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relationships” to children. Full stop. Adults can behave any way they want in the privacy of their own homes or hotels, but please keep the underage children away from the spectacles. Sounds pretty logical, right? In fact, if the Western media had not become sold-out sycophants of the LGBTQ movement, together with the insidious induction of children into the act, they would probably find that the overwhelming majority of Westerners would gladly stand behind the Russian law as well.

      “We have no problem with LGBT persons,” Putin said in an interview with the Financial Times.

      “God forbid, let them live as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles.”

      He added:

      “Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”

      This is an issue that few Western leaders are willing or able to promote: the traditional family, which is increasingly portrayed as some sort of radical institution in Western eyes. At the same time, the average citizen has absolutely zero say in the LGBTQ indoctrination program that is happening practically everywhere in the West, including inside of the public school system.

      As a consequence of the madness, the West is facing demons of its own making as hundreds of adolescents who underwent so-called ‘sexual reassignment surgery’ – the removal of the breasts in women, the penis in men, together with the ingestion of powerful and potentially deadly sex hormones – want to change back to their original selves. Unfortunately for them, that is nearly mission impossible.

      Meanwhile, transgender females, that is, biological males at birth, are now triumphing on the field of dream against their female competition. Needless to say, this radical new development in the world of sports has set back feminism to the somewhere around the time of the Moon landing.

      And here is where the next great East-West showdown will get ugly – at some future Olympic event when the West insists on fielding transgender females against the East’s more feminine counterparts. In fact, the debate on the transgender issue is already underway ahead of the Tokyo 2020 Games.

      One thing is clear from all of this nonsense: Vladimir Putin and other like-minded leaders have their work cut out for them in a world gone absolutely mad.


      Tyler Durden

      Thu, 12/05/2019 – 02:00

    • UN's Agenda 2030 Translator: How To Read The UN's New Sustainable Development Goals
      UN’s Agenda 2030 Translator: How To Read The UN’s New Sustainable Development Goals

      Via Truthstream Media,

      It’s that time again: the United Nations is officially releasing the all new Agenda 2030 sustainable development plan, or what some have hailed as “the new Agenda 21 on steroids,” at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit kicking off today in New York City.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Since these supposedly non-binding international agreements can sometimes be a bit tricky to decode, what with all the weaponized buzz terms and semantics games, we’ve prepared a handy dandy translator on the 17 new Agenda 2030 goals below.

      Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

      Translation: Centralized banks, IMF, World Bank, Fed to control all finances, digital one world currency in a cashless society

      Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

      Translation: GMO

      Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

      Translation: Mass vaccination, Codex Alimentarius

      Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

      Translation: UN propaganda, brainwashing through compulsory education from cradle to grave

      Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

      Translation: Population control through forced “Family Planning”

      Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

      Translation: Privatize all water sources, don’t forget to add fluoride

      Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

      Translation: Smart grid with smart meters on everything, peak pricing

      Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

      Translation: TPP, free trade zones that favor megacorporate interests

      Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

      Translation: Toll roads, push public transit, remove free travel, environmental restrictions

      Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries

      Translation: Even more regional government bureaucracy like a mutant octopus

      Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

      Translation: Big brother big data surveillance state

      Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

      Translation: Forced austerity

      Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

      Translation: Cap and Trade, carbon taxes/credits, footprint taxes (aka Al Gore’s wet dream)

      Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

      Translation: Environmental restrictions, control all oceans including mineral rights from ocean floors

      Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

      Translation: More environmental restrictions, more controlling resources and mineral rights

      Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

      Translation: UN “peacekeeping” missions (ex 1ex 2), the International Court of (blind) Justice, force people together via fake refugee crises and then mediate with more “UN peacekeeping” when tension breaks out to gain more control over a region, remove 2nd Amendment in USA

      Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

      Translation: Remove national sovereignty worldwide, promote globalism under the “authority” and bloated, Orwellian bureaucracy of the UN

      But, don’t worry, it’s all for your own good!


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 23:55

    • Buffalo Bishop Resigns Over Sex Abuse Cover-Up
      Buffalo Bishop Resigns Over Sex Abuse Cover-Up

      The Catholic Church in America is suffering yet another in a series of seemingly never-ending crises stemming from the Church’s rampant mishandling of sex abuse and misconduct claims. But finally, it looks like one of the biggest problems for the church’s image in New York State has just stepped aside: The New York Times reports that Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo has resigned after weeks of pressure from inside and outside his diocese, which is one of the largest in the US, with 600,000.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Richard Malone

      The Vatican reportedly accepted Malone’s resignation on Wednesday, hopefully bringing an end to a period of turmoil for Buffalo Catholics, who organized to try and oust Malone.

      “I have concluded, after much prayer and discernment, that the people of Buffalo will be better served by a new bishop who perhaps is better able to bring about the reconciliation, healing and renewal that is so needed,” Malone wrote in his goodbye statement. “It is my honest assessment that I have accomplished as much as I am able to, and that there remain divisions and wounds that I am unable to bind and heal.”

      As CNN points out, for more than a year, a dedicated group of parishoners has been trying to convince Malone to leave. They’ve done everything from circulate petitions to try and meet the bishop’s plane.

      Since the Catholic church’s sexual abuse scandal reignited in 2018, bishops across the country have come under greater scrutiny for the crimes and cover-ups alleged to have occurred during their tenure. That’s what got Malone: records showing he actively sought to protect pedophile priests.

      In one incident back in March 2018, Bishop Malone released a list of 42 priests accused of abuse over decades. But Siobhan O’Connor, a source worked in the bishop’s office, had seen 117 names on a draft list in the diocese’s secret files, and began photocopying and then leaking the documents to WKBW, the local ABC affiliate.

      The leaks revealed that Bishop Malone, who had been the highest official in the diocese since 2012, clearly tried to minimize disclosure of the full extent of the diocese’s sex abuse issues.

      “We did not remove him from ministry despite full knowledge of the case, and so including him on list might require explanation,” lawyers wrote to Bishop Malone about one priest who was accused of having sex with a teenager .

      Back in August came the final blow: Secret audio recordings where Bishop Malone can be heard fretting about a scandal involving sexual harassment of a seminarian by a pastor, which he worried “could be the end of me as bishop.”

      Shortly after, the Vatican sent another Bishop to investigate the claims against Malone, but this bishop was also implicated in a sex abuse scandal.

      One advocate for the victims said that with Malone gone, people can believe in change once again.

      “People were so frustrated and angry at Bishop Malone that they were losing their faith over it,” said Ms. O’Connor, who is now an advocate for the abuse victims. His resignation “is a sign for people that change can happen,” she said.

      All bishops are required to submit their resignation to the Pope when they turn 75, but Malone is retiring a couple of years early at 73.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 23:35

    • George Zimmerman Sues Trayvon Martin's Family, Others For $100 Million In New Lawsuit
      George Zimmerman Sues Trayvon Martin’s Family, Others For $100 Million In New Lawsuit

      Authored by Emma Fiala via TheMindUnleashed.com,

      Despite having gotten away with murder, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has just filed a $100 million lawsuit against the family of Trayvon Martin and attorney Ben Crump, claiming that they engineered false evidence against him.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Zimmerman, who was acquitted of homicide charges in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, is being represented by high-profile lawyer, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, and former US Department of Justice prosecutor, Larry Klayman in a lawsuit seeking damages for defamation, abuse of civil process, and conspiracy.

      Martin was shot and killed on February 26, 2012 when he was returning to his father’s home, whom he was visiting, after purchasing candy at a local store. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious in a call to police. Zimmerman claims he followed Martin after making the call and was attacked by the teen before killing him. Martin was unarmed, carrying only the Skittles and a drink he had just purchased.

      The lawsuit, to be filed Wednesday in Polk County where Zimmerman lives, alleges that Rachel Jeantel, a key witness in the 2013 murder trial, actually wasn’t a witness at all and was instead “an imposter and fake witness” coached by the family and their lawyers to take the place of Diamond Eugene.

      Information cited in the case comes from the book and accompanying documentary The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America, which accuses the family of creating false testimony. The film was scheduled to be screened in Coral Gables, Florida but, in light of recent developments, Coral Gables Art Cinema announced it would be canceling the event along with a press conference with the film’s director, Joe Gilbert.

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

      According to the book, Martin’s cell phone records prove that Eugene, whom they say was Martin’s actual girlfriend at the time, was on the phone with him at the time of the shooting. The book accuses Martin’s family and lawyers for swapping Eugene out for Jeantel when Eugene refused to testify. The book charges that Jeantel “lied repeatedly to cause Zimmerman’s arrest and to try to send him to prison for life.”

      A media advisory posted on Klayman’s website prior to the filing of the suit mentions the now cancelled press conference and screening and explains the inspiration behind the suit:

      “Specifically, the complaint alleges that in March 2012, the Sanford Police Department thoroughly investigated the shooting of Trayvon Martin and closed the case as self-defense. A week later, Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump produced a recorded audio tape of “Diamond Eugene” whom he said was Trayvon’s 16-year-old girlfriend who was on the phone with Trayvon just before the altercation. However, two weeks later, 18-year-old Rachel Jeantel, the alleged imposter, appeared before prosecutors claiming to be “Diamond Eugene” and provided false statements to incriminate Zimmerman based on coaching from others.

      These allegations are the result of newly discovered evidence just published in a book and film by Hollywood film director Joel Gilbert, called The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America. Based on Trayvon’s cell phone records, they allegedly show that Rachel Jeantel was not Trayvon’s girlfriend, was not on the phone with Trayvon before the altercation, and that she lied repeatedly to cause Zimmerman’s arrest and to try to send him to prison for life. The research also allegedly reveals that Trayvon’s real girlfriend and legitimate phone witness was in fact Miami resident Brittany Diamond Eugene, who was switched out for Jeantel when Eugene refused to bear false witness against Zimmerman.”

      According to the Miami Herald, the film’s director distributed a copy of the suit, which does not yet appear in the online docket of the Polk County court system, to media.

      Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, is the lead defendant in the suit. Since her son’s death, Fulton has become somewhat of a national figure both as an advocate for reducing gun deaths and as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Fulton is currently running for a seat on the Miami-Dade County Commission.

      The family’s lawyer, Ben Crump, also a defendant in the suit, responded in a statement on Wednesday:

      “I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is—another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others.”

      The suit also names book publisher Harper Collins over Crump’s book Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People, as well as Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father; Florida prosecutors Bernie de la Rionda, John Guy, and Angela Corey; the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; and the state of Florida.

      Zimmerman contends that his version of events that took place on the evening of February 26, 2012 are correct while Martin’s family engineered a false narrative. All of the defendants in the suit are accused of “knowing about or should have known about the witness fraud, obstructing justice” or repeatedly lying “under oath in order to cover up their knowledge of the witness fraud.”


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 23:15

    • Trump's "Trade Optimism" Wanes Amid Declining Soybean Exports 
      Trump’s “Trade Optimism” Wanes Amid Declining Soybean Exports 

      This week, the veil has been lifted on President Trump’s trade war narrative of an imminent trade deal with China.

      Investors are starting to figure out that many trade headlines in the last 12 months from the White House, other Trump administration officials, and unnamed sources at major wirehouses have been mostly fake trade news, with one intention and one intention only: pump the stock market.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Investors discovered this week that an actual phase one trade deal might not occur this year; nevertheless, the signing of a full trade deal might not happen until after 2020. This was a shock to many PhDs on Wall Street, who have based their entire growth models for 2020 on a trade resolution. With no trade resolution likely and no massive rebound in growth, markets are setting up for a disappointment phase that could begin if an escalation of the trade war is seen on Dec. 15.

      The Trump administration has learned this week that their control of the “trade optimism” narrative is becoming harder and harder.

      For instance, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue had to spill the beans on CNBC this morning and indicate that China isn’t purchasing US soybeans. Perdue said the latest export numbers for US soybeans this year have been rather depressing, citing China wasn’t living up to its purchase commitments and Brazil and Argentina “trying to infringe on our market time here.”

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

      Though if readers remember, President Trump tweeted in early October that he signed the most fantastic trade deal that was going to do wonders for “Great Patriot Farmers.”

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

      As we’ve clearly outlined for readers in the last five months, China started to heavily source agriculture products from Brazil and Argentina, as a way to quickly diversify away from the US, though, at the same time, President Trump promoted huge deals for “patriot farmers.”

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

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

      And it seems that President Trump lied not just about the trade deal several months ago, but also lied about all the agriculture purchases China was executing.

      The reason for President Trump threatening to impose metal tariffs on Brazil and Argentina is because China ditched US farmers for South American ones.

      China isn’t going to source agriculture products from the US altogether, the reason: Beijing understands that President Trump could hold back purchases whenever he wants and call it a “national security” threat. So the fantasy about China purchasing all these agriculture products from the US was once again nothing more than a fabrication to pump stocks.

      And props to CNBC’s Eamon Javers, who called out the Trump administration on Tuesday for their questionable trade deal President Trump tweeted in early October. Even the mainstream is starting to get it.

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

      Even the senior editor of China’s Global Times trolled President Trump Wednesday morning for pumping fake trade news: “I predict there is a high probability that President Trump or a senior US official will openly say in a few hours that China-US trade talks have made a big progress in order to pump up the US stock markets. They’ve been doing this a lot.”

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

      What happens next could be a credibility issue forming where investors lose faith in the Trump administration for peddling an entire year of fake trade news with absolutely no progress.

      The president has said it the best: 

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


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 22:55

    • The Destruction Of American Liberty
      The Destruction Of American Liberty

      Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

      The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were a watershed event for the United States, not only because of the large death toll and property destruction but, more important, because they spelled the death knell for American liberty.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Americans had already lost a large portion of their freedom when the federal government was converted into what is called a “welfare state,” a governmental system that is based on the concept of mandatory charity. Examples of mandatory-charity programs include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, corporate bailouts, foreign aid, and every other program by which the government takes money from people to whom it belongs and gives it to people to whom it does not belong.

      There is no way to reconcile a system of mandatory charity with the principles of a free society. A genuinely free society is one in which people are free to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their own money. An unfree society is one in which the government mandates that people be good and caring to others.

      In 1913, Americans brought into existence the progressive income tax, which became the primary engine for funding America’s welfare state. To enforce the collection of the tax, Americans called into existence the IRS, which became one of the most tyrannical agencies in U.S. history. In the same year, the Federal Reserve was established, a central bank that would ultimately debase and destroy the gold-coin monetary system that the Constitution established and that had been America’s monetary system for well over a century.

      Prior to the 9/11 attacks, Americans had lost another large portion of their freedom with the war on drugs, a governmental program that jails or fines people for possessing or distributing substances that the government doesn’t approve of. As the drug war failed to achieve its goal of a drug-free society, the government initiated an ever-increasing array of harsh enforcement measures that have further contributed to the destruction of freedom, including mandatory minimum sentences, asset-forfeiture laws, no-knock raids, and warrantless searches and seizures.

      There is no way one can reconcile drug laws with the principles of a free society. In a genuinely free society, people have the right to ingest whatever they want, no matter how harmful, dangerous, or destructive a substance might be.

      Americans have also lost a large portion of their freedom through government central planning and regulation of economic activity. Examples include trade and immigration controls, the Federal Reserve, and public schooling. There is no way one can reconcile socialist central planning and economic regulation with freedom. In a genuinely free society, people plan their own lives and coordinate their activities with others in a free-market environment.

      It is not a coincidence that for the first 125 years of American life, there was no income tax, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, drug laws, central planning, economic regulation, public schooling, Federal Reserve, or other parts of what can also be labeled the “paternalistic state.” Our American ancestors understood that those things violate the principles of liberty.

      The federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks completed the destruction of American liberty. Seizing on the attacks as an opportunity to expand power at the expense of freedom, U.S. officials, especially those in the national-security branch of the government, ended up with omnipotent power over the American people. When a regime wields omnipotent power, there is no way that people in that society can legitimately be considered free.

      Irreconcilables

      Owing to the 9/11 attacks, we now live in a society in which a vast, permanent, and ever-growing military establishment wields the power to take Americans into custody and incarcerate them in military dungeons or detention centers for as long as the military desires. All that military officials have to do is label the American detainee a “terrorist” or a “threat to national security.” Once that designation is made, there is nothing the person can do about it. He will find no relief in the federal courts because the courts have made it clear that they are not about to interfere with military operations, especially during time of war, including the ongoing, never-ending, post–9/11 “war on terrorism.”

      That is what the José Padilla case was all about. That case established the power of the military to take Americans into custody and keep them incarcerated as part of the federal government’s “war on terrorism.” Since the war on terrorism is going to last for decades, perhaps forever, the military detention of American citizens as terrorists or as threats to national security will also last for decades or forever.

      It is true that the military is not currently exercising its power by incarcerating Americans in military dungeons or detention centers. But whether a tyrannical power is being exercised is not the test of a free society. The test is whether the government wields omnipotent powers, ones that can be exercised later on during an “emergency” or “crisis.” If the government wields omnipotent powers, even if it isn’t exercising them, there is no way that people in such a society can legitimately be considered free.

      For example, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. “Due process” is a phrase that stretches back to Magna Carta in 1215, when the barons of England forced their king to acknowledge that his powers over the English people were limited. Due process entails notice and trial. Thus, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving people, including Americans, of liberty without notice and trial.

      But as a consequence of the 9/11 attacks, that is precisely what the Pentagon now wields the power to do as part of its ongoing, never-ending war on terrorism. Despite the Fifth Amendment, the military now has the power to take Americans into custody and jail them forever without notice or trial, simply by labeling them “terrorists” or “threats to national security.”

      As a consequence of the 9/11 attacks, the American people also now live under a government that wields the power to assassinate them, again without notice or trial. It is virtually impossible to find a more tyrannical power than the power to kill people, including a government’s own citizenry. That’s what the post–9/11 case of Anwar al-Awlaki was about — the power of the federal government to kill American citizens who are labeled “terrorists” or “threats to national security.” The federal judiciary has made it clear that as long as the government is waging its ongoing, never-ending, post–9/11 war on terrorism, the federal courts will not interfere with this extraordinary power.

      Once again, the fact that U.S. officials are currently exercising this power primarily against foreigners does not affect the destruction of freedom here at home. A free society is measured not by whether a certain power is being exercised but rather by whether the government even possesses that power. That’s why the Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits the federal government from killing anyone without due process of law, which, again, means notice and trial. The idea behind that provision was that freedom necessarily entails a government that does not possess the power to assassinate people.

      The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks also eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Even before the attacks, the federal government had made inroads on the search-and-seizure provision of that Amendment by lowering the probable-cause requirement for searches entailing the gathering of foreign intelligence. That’s what the super-secret FISA court was all about. Meeting in secret and scared to death to second-guess any warrant request entailing national security, the FISA judges effectively became rubber-stamps for the national-security establishment. But at least there was a thin barrier between domestic criminal investigations and foreign-intelligence investigations.

      That barrier came crashing down in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. That’s what the USA PATRIOT Act accomplished. It enabled U.S. officials to secure search warrants at a reduced standard for both intelligence investigations and criminal investigations and to do it before a super-secret court whose decisions could not, as a practical matter, be challenged by those who were being targeted for secret surveillance.

      The 9/11 attacks led to expanded mass-surveillance powers for the NSA, enabling this secretive agency to conduct warrantless surveillance on the American people. Operating under a misguided concept of patriotism involving unswerving allegiance to the government, some of America’s telecommunications companies were induced to illegally betray their clients by illegally providing their personal data to federal officials.

      It is still impossible for Americans to know precisely what the NSA is doing to spy on them, given the highly secretive nature of the agency and the refusal of the federal courts to permit any piercing of its operations, especially since NSA officials know that nothing bad will happen to them if they are later caught violating the law or lying about it to prevent disclosure. That’s what the James Clapper episode was all about. When that director of National Intelligence was caught lying to Congress about illegal surveillance of the American people, neither Congress nor the Justice Department dared to seek a criminal indictment against him.

      There is no way to reconcile a society in which a regime wields the omnipotent power to conduct secret surveillance on the citizenry with a genuinely free society. Freedom necessarily entails an absolute protection of privacy.

      And then there is torture, which, although conducted by the military, is actually the specialty of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is the third component of the national security establishment (the other two being the military and the NSA). While the CIA had engaged in torture before the 9/11 attacks, it was always done secretly and with the understanding that the torture was illegal. With the 9/11 attacks, the CIA and the Pentagon were effectively given a license to torture people, including Americans, with impunity.

      Both Pentagon and CIA officials know that they can torture anyone they want with impunity. As long as the person being tortured is labeled a “terrorist” or a “threat to national security,” military officials and CIA officials know that no one is going to be prosecuted for torture. Indeed, when the CIA knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately destroyed its videotapes depicting its torture of people, it did so with full certainty that no one would be prosecuted for destroying evidence of criminal misconduct. The CIA is simply too powerful for that.

      It is worth noting that the post–9/11 power to torture people extends to American citizens. That principle was established in the José Padilla case, where the military knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately — and with impunity — subjected Padilla to psychological torture with the aim of causing him permanent mental damage.

      It is impossible to reconcile a system in which the government wields the omnipotent power to torture people with the principles of a free society. Freedom necessarily entails a system in which the government lacks even the power to torture. That is why the Eighth Amendment expressly prohibits the federal government from inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments” on people.

      The way we were

      It wasn’t always this way in America. For more than 150 years, the American people lived under a governmental system in which federal officials lacked the power to deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and the power to torture them. While federal officials would, from time to time, violate the express restrictions on power enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, everyone understood that such violations constituted breaches of the law rather than an established legal structure within the law.

      In fact, if the proponents of the Constitution had told the American people after the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution was bringing into existence a national-security state in which federal officials would wield the power to assassinate, indefinitely detain, spy on, and torture them, as well as a welfare state that would mandate charity, to put them into jail for drug possession, and to centrally control and manage their economic activity, they would have summarily rejected the deal and continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, the governmental system under which they had been operating and one in which the powers of the federal government were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.

      That’s how our American ancestors who established this country wanted it. They understood that the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of the citizenry lies with their own government. The reason they accepted the Constitution is that they were assured that it would bring into existence a government of few and limited powers — that is, only those that were enumerated within the document itself. To make certain that federal officials got the point, the American people demanded that the Constitution immediately be amended to expressly prohibit federal officials from destroying their rights and liberties.

      For more than 100 years, there was no mandatory charity, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, and foreign aid, income taxation, IRS, economic regulations, minimum-wage laws, price controls, central management of economic activity, immigration controls, Federal Reserve, fiat (i.e., paper) money, public (i.e., government) schooling, drug laws, gun control, and most of the federal departments, agencies, and programs under which Americans today live.

      More important, there was no Pentagon, vast military establishment, foreign military bases, CIA, NSA, or FBI. Therefore, there were no endless undeclared wars, torture, indefinite detention, spying on the citizenry, foreign military bases, coups, conscription, draft registration, alliances with foreign dictatorships, foreign aid, or assassination programs.

      Americans had chosen a type of governmental system known as a limited-government republic, which is the opposite of a welfare state and a national-security state. Americans kept everything they earned and decided for themselves what to do with it. They weren’t subject to indefinite detention, torture, conscription, regulations, drug laws, secret surveillance, or endless undeclared wars. The citizens, not the federal government, were sovereign.

      Losing liberty

      That all came to an end, first with the adoption of the progressive income tax and the Federal Reserve, followed by the conversion of the federal government to a welfare state and, later, the conversion to a national-security state. Those two conversions began the road toward the destruction of American liberty, a destruction that was completed after the 9/11 attacks.

      The justification that Americans were given for the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state was that the federal government needed to wage a Cold War against America’s World War II partner, the Soviet Union. Once the Cold War was over, however, the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA opposed the reconversion of the federal government to a limited-government republic.

      Instead, after the Cold War suddenly and unexpectedly ended, the Pentagon and the CIA went into the Middle East and began wreaking death and destruction in that part of the world, knowing full well that such actions were likely to produce massive anger and rage that could manifest itself in terrorist counterstrikes. They waged the Persian Gulf War, killing countless thousands of Iraqis. They intentionally bombed the water- and sewage-treatment plants in Iraq, with the aim of spreading infectious illness among the populace. They imposed and enforced one of the most brutal sanctions regimes in history, one that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. They openly declared that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were “worth it.” They maintained “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which they used to kill more Iraqis. They stationed U.S. troops near Muslim holy lands. They unconditionally supported the Israeli government.

      They knew exactly what they were doing. In his pre–911 book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, the noted scholar Chalmers Johnson, warned that if they continued with their interventionist policies in the Middle East, the result would be a major terrorist attack on American soil. Here at FFF, we were publishing op-eds prior to the 9/11 attacks saying the same thing. Others were issuing the same warning.

      Moreover, U.S. officials were warned by actual events. There were the pre–9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, all of which, the terrorists had openly declared, were motivated by the death and destruction that U.S. officials were wreaking in their post–Cold War interventions in the Middle East.

      Yet none of those pre–9/11 warnings and attacks induced U.S. officials to cease and desist their interventionist policies. When the 9/11 attacks came, U.S. officials were being clearly disingenuous when they declared that the terrorists had been motivated by hatred for America’s freedom and values.

      It was no surprise when U.S. officials seized upon the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to complete the destruction of American liberty. Of course, that’s how people throughout history have lost their liberty at the hands of their own governments — during crises and emergencies, when fearful people are eager and willing to trade their liberty for “security” and government officials are eager and willing to oblige them.

      What must be done to regain our liberty?

      • The first step is for Americans to come to the realization that they are no longer a free people.

      • The second step is for a sufficient number of Americans to fervently desire to regain their freedom.

      • The third step is the repeal, abolition, and end of all mandatory-charity programs, central planning of economic activity, economic regulations, drug laws, and trade and immigration controls.

      • The fourth step is the dismantling of the national-security state — i.e., the Pentagon, military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA — and the restoration of a limited-government republic to our land.

      • The final step is the repeal of the taxes that fund America’s welfare-warfare state.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 22:35

    • Elon Musk's Father Has A Baby With His Step-Daughter, 40 Years His Junior
      Elon Musk’s Father Has A Baby With His Step-Daughter, 40 Years His Junior

      As goes the news cycle, sometimes one piece of news can begat another.

      And in this case, amidst all the talk about Elon Musk referring to Vern Unsworth as “pedo guy” and standing trial for it, Google searches for “Elon Musk” and “pedo” turned up another very interesting result: a little covered article by The Telegraph that claims Elon Musk’s 72 year old father, Errol Musk, has a baby with his 30 year old step daugther, Jana Bezuidenhout, whom he has known since she was 4.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Errol Musk

      Errol married Jana’s mother Heide when Jana was four but says he doesn’t consider her to be his stepdaughter because she had been “raised away from the family for long periods of time.”

      Errol Musk also described the baby he had with Jana as “exquisite”. He also had two children with Jana’s mother, before divorcing her after 18 years of being married. Errol claims that Jana contacted him in 2017 after splitting up with a boyfriend. 

      “We were lonely, lost people,” Errol Musk said. “One thing led to another — you can call it God’s plan or nature’s plan.”

      Two months later, Jana was pregnant. Paternity tests confirmed that Errol Musk was, indeed, the father. 

      “Jana is a delightful girl and a wonderful mother. She said I had changed her life,” Errol said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Jana Bezuidenhout

      Elon Musk has always seemed to have tension with his father, calling him a “terrible human being” in a Rolling Stone magazine interview. As of The Telegraph’s report in 2018, Musk had not spoken to his father in over a year.

      Elon said of his father: “You have no idea about how bad. Almost every crime you can possibly think of, he has done. Almost every evil thing you could possibly think of, he has done.”

      Recall, during Elon’s examination yesterday while on trial, Musk was asked by his own attorney about his childhood in South Africa. 

      “It wasn’t good,” Musk responded. 

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


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 22:15

    • "We're Sitting Ducks" – Australian Politicians Warn Of Threat From Chinese Regime
      “We’re Sitting Ducks” – Australian Politicians Warn Of Threat From Chinese Regime

      Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times,

      More than a dozen Australian senators voted Tuesday calling for an investigation into Australia’s relationship with China, with one politician saying that Australia is a “sitting duck” to foreign influence from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

      “We’re sitting ducks here. We’re leaving ourselves open and we’re letting the Communist Party in China come in here and undermine our democracy,” Jacqui Lambie, an independent Australian senator, said late Tuesday in response to a motion to start a Senate inquiry into Australian’s relationship with China.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The motion, led by crossbencher Rex Patrick, was supported by all the other crossbenchers: Senators Lambie, Stirling Griff, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, and Cory Bernardi. Senators from the Greens party also supported the motion.

      The motion, which required a 23 majority vote to pass, failed at 15 votes. No senators from Australia’s two major political parties—the Liberal and Labor parties—indicated their support. A total of 38 votes were cast against the motion.

      Patrick said that the inquiry should examine all aspects of Australia’s relationship with China, including trade relations between the two countries, Chinese investment in Australia’s infrastructure and agriculture, and the influence and alleged interference in Australia, which includes the CCP-linked activities in Australian university campuses, as well as the CCP’s role in cyberattacks.

      ‘Existential Threat’

      Prior to the vote, Lambie accused the Liberal and Labor parties of lacking the courage to protect Australia from Chinese foreign influence, saying that such parties have not only been influenced by money from the CCP, but also have been causing Australia to be more economically dependent on China.

      Both Lambie and Patrick noted how Duncan Lewis, the former Director General of Security at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), told Nine newspapers in November that the CCP is seeking to take over Australia’s political systems through “insidious” foreign interference investigations.

      “It’s about time the people in this place woke up to China’s attempts to infiltrate our economy and our democracy,” Lambie said, later adding, “Everyone knows that the communist Chinese government uses money to influence our political processes.”

      Lambie cited multiple examples of such alleged attempts, including a case earlier this year where AU$100,000 ($68,284) in cash was donated to the New South Wales Labor party that became part of an investigation by the state’s corruption watchdog.

      “Now we’ve heard that Chinese attempts to infiltrate our politics go even further … They’re not just trying to influence politicians with money; they’re trying to get elected to sit in this chamber … wherever they can buy or get seats in the Australian parliament, they’re coming,” Lambie said.

      “There are no security checks, there’s little to stop it from happening. It’s absolutely beyond shocking.”

      “People are literally showing up dead. Someone who was supposedly cultivated by the Chinese government to run as a Liberal Party candidate in the Commonwealth Parliament has shown up dead,” Lambie added. “Nothing’s been proven but it’s really concerning … I think we all know what’s going on here.”

      Bo “Nick” Zhao, a Melbourne luxury car dealer, was found dead in a Melbourne motel room in March. His death is under investigation. Zhao had earlier told ASIO that he was offered “a seven-figure sum” to run for a seat in Australia’s federal parliament.

      “What is clear is that China is actively trying to reshape our democracy, and no one seems to be talking about that seriously enough. Honestly, where’s your courage? What are you scared of? This is not some wacky conspiracy theory. This is happening,” Lambie said.

      “This is an existential threat to our society, and Australians are scared,” she later said. “They’re scared that our country is being bought up … it is being bought up.”

      Patrick noted how the Director General of Security Mike Burgess “couldn’t bring himself to actually name” China last week when he announced an ASIO investigation into allegations that the CCP tried to implant Zhao into Canberra.

      “Obviously, there are considerable diplomatic sensitivities involved and we have allowed ourselves to become hugely economically dependent on the export of raw materials to the Chinese market,” Patrick said.

      “But it is a worrying thing when debate in this parliament is politically constipated for fear of reaction from Beijing.”

      On trade, Lambie expressed disappointment and said that Liberal and Labor parties have failed to manage Australia’s economic dependence on China.

      The major parties have turned a blind eye … We’re selling off Australian values for a quick buck,” she said.

      “A third of Australian exports are China-bound. We ship out more than $120 billion in iron ore and coal exports to China and our universities—shame on them!—rake in over $32 billion from international students.

      All up, we trade nearly $194 billion worth of goods and services between China and Australia—more than we trade with Japan and the United States combined. Who does that? Who leaves us in a position like that? All that money is making us complacent. There’s no reason for us to be singularly focused on China.”

      Prior to the vote, the Greens’ Senator Nick McKim said that the Liberal and Labor parties were “riddled with CCP influence as they are, riddled with dirty CCP money as they are—are going to collude, once again, to vote such an inquiry down.”

      “I’m telling you now, you’re all standing on the wrong side of history here. History will be written one day,” McKim added.

      History will record those who stood up and tried to address this situation, and history will record those who rolled over and let the CCP tickle their collective bellies. And unfortunately, it remains the case that both major parties in this place will be on the wrong side of history.”


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 21:55

      Tags

    • China Set To Make History With Record Number Of Bond Defaults In 2019
      China Set To Make History With Record Number Of Bond Defaults In 2019

      While China is bracing for what may be a historic D-Day event on December 9, when the “unprecedented” default of state-owned, commodity-trading conglomerate Tewoo with $38 billion in assets may take place, it has already been a banner year for Chinese bankruptcies.

      According to Bloomberg data, China is set to hit another dismal milestone in 2019 when a record amount of onshore bonds are set to default, confirming that something is indeed cracking in China’s financial system and “testing the government’s ability to keep financial markets stable as the economy slows and companies struggle to cope with unprecedented levels of debt.”

      After a brief lull in the third quarter, a burst of at least 15 new defaults since the start of November have sent the year’s total to 120.4 billion yuan ($17.1 billion), and set to eclipse the 121.9 billion yuan annual record in 2018.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The good news is that this number still represents a tiny fraction of China’s $4.4 trillion onshore corporate bond market; the bad news is that the rapidly rising number is approaching a tipping point that could unleash a default cascade, and in the process fueling concerns of potential contagion as investors struggle to gauge which companies have Beijing’s support. As Bloomberg notes, policy makers have been walking a tightrope as they try to roll back the implicit guarantees that have long distorted Chinese debt markets, without dragging down an economy already weakened by the trade war and tepid global growth.

      “The authorities have found it hard to rescue all the companies,” said Wang Ying, a Shanghai-based analyst at Fitch Ratings, perhaps envisioning at least two banks that have experienced depositor runs in the month of November in the aftermath of an unprecedented succession of bank failures earlier in the year.

      It’s not just banks however: this year’s debt woes have spread to a broad array of industries, from property developers and steelmakers to new-energy firms and software makers. The types of borrowers facing repayment difficulties has also expanded from private companies and local state-run firms to business arms of universities, an obscure and loosely regulated corner of China’s corporate world.

      China’s two latest defaults involved just such a company; on Monday Peking University Founder Group shocked investors after failing to repay a 2 billion yuan bond. The same day, Tunghsu Optoelectronic Technology, a maker of photoelectric display components, also failed to deliver early repayment on both interest and principal for a 1.7 billion yuan note.

      Meanwhile, as we reported last week, the signs of stress have ominously spread to China’s offshore market, which has so far been more insulated from defaults: next week, Tewoo Group, a Fortune 500 company and major commodities trader from the northern city of Tianjin, is set to become the most high profile state-owned enterprise to default in the dollar bond market in more than two decades.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The company has recently offered a debt restructuring plan that entails deep losses for investors or a swap for new bonds with significantly lower returns, the first of its kind for an offshore SOE issuer. On December 9, Tweoo bondholders need to decide if they accept a distressed exchange offer on a $300 millionbond that is likely to default on Dec. 16.

      Still, despite the drumbeat of bad news, analysts remain cheerful and claim the threat of a systemic debt crisis in China remains distant.

      “I don’t think it is a tipping point,” Bank of Singapore managing director Todd Schubert said. “China is a big market with a lot of issuers. In a functioning capital market, one would naturally expect some defaults.”

      And while China is set to make a new record in the amount of default, the lack of a substantial increase from last year means that China’s onshore default rate is expected to remain the same as last year’s 0.5%, according to S&P.

      Not that Beijing has much of a choice of course: faced with a non-financial corporate debt pile that swelled to a record 165% of GDP year, Chinese policy makers are selectively allowing more bond failures in part to impose increased discipline on borrowers and investors. But not too much discipline, as the alternative could be a panic across the country’s bond market.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Rising defaults should be a natural part of credit-market cycle,” said Anne Zhang, head of Asia fixed income for JPMorgan Private Bank. “It is long-term positive for any market to develop a good pricing mechanism for risks.”

      The problem is that for Beijing it still remains a highly selective process, picking winners and losers at will; to be sure, the process would be less rocky for investors if policymakers could improve the transparency around defaults, according to Cindy Huang, an analyst at S&P Global Ratings.

      “The regulators’ intention is to reduce moral hazard” while at the same time ensuring any defaults “won’t undermine socioeconomic stability or trigger systemic risks,” said Ivan Chung, head of greater China credit research and analysis at Moody’s, adding that whereas state support may be available for companies engaged in social welfare projects, for those that are more commercial in nature, “government support may not be so forthcoming.”

      “So far, defaults and recovery can be unpredictable,” Huang said. “This will hinder market confidence and weaken the healthy development of China’s credit market.”

      Which is why when it comes to Chinese corporate defaults, there is just one certainty looking ahead: there will be many more of them. In fact, Moody’s expects 40-50 new defaults in 2020, up from 35 this year. Considering that China is set to post its first sub-6% GDP growth year in history in 2020, this will prove an overly optimistic forecast.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 21:35

    • No Setup? Horowitz To Claim Mifsud Wasn't US Asset, Yet Papadopoulos Says He's Italy's Spook
      No Setup? Horowitz To Claim Mifsud Wasn’t US Asset, Yet Papadopoulos Says He’s Italy’s Spook

      The Washington Post reports that Attorney General William Barr’s hand-picked prosecutor could not confirm that Russiagate figure Joseph Mifsud is a US intelligence asset – thus, according to the Post, the Russiagate counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign could not have been a setup.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The revelation comes from the Post‘s Matt Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett (the latter of whom had a direct line to former FBI attorney Lisa Page according to her text messages), and will reportedly appear in the forthcoming report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

      In short, Horowitz asked US Attorney John Durham if Mifsud was a US intelligence asset “deployed to ensnare the campaign,” to which Durham – who is conducting a separate review of the 2016 US election – responded that his investigation “had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point,” according to the Post.

      Of note, Mifsud told (or seeded) 2016 Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton, on April 26, 2016. Two weeks later, he repeated it to Australian diplomat (and Clinton ally) Alexander Downer at a London bar, who relayed the Kremlin ‘dirt’ rumor to Australian authorities, which alerted the FBI – kicking off the official counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, dubbed Operation Crossfire Hurricane.  

      That said, the Post adds “The Washington Post has not reviewed Horowitz’s entire report, even in draft form. It is also unclear if Durham has shared the entirety of his findings and evidence with the inspector general, or merely answered a specific question.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Papadopoulos, meanwhile, has posited that Mifsud is (or was) an Italian intelligence asset “who the C.I.A. weaponized,” according to an October New York Times report. Moreover, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News in April that Mifsud was “a counterintelligence operative, either Maltese or Italian,” who may have participated in a “counterintelligence trap” against the Trump campaign aide.

      Notably, AG Barr himself traveled to Italy in Mid-September to discuss Mifsud, and was reportedly told by the head of the Italian Security Intelligence Department, Gennaro Vecchione, that Mifsud was not one of their assets.

      According to a former Italian government official, Barr first met with Gennaro Vecchione, the head of Italy’s Security Intelligence Department, on Aug. 15, essentially to establish contact, and returned Sept. 27 for a second meeting with the heads of Italy’s domestic and foreign intelligence services.

      Barr, the official said, “asked if Italian intelligence knew anything about Mifsud and if the Italians were aware of his role” in the Russia investigation “in terms of being involved in Italian intelligence itself or if he was politically tied with Italian political leaders allied with the Democrats.” The Italians, the official said, “explained that there is no involvement by the Italian intelligence services in this — and the fact that we don’t have any evidence of this plot.”

      They confirmed no connections, no activities, no interference,” the official said. –Washington Post, Oct. 6

      As we have noted ad-nauseum, Mifsud has bragged about being a member of the Clinton Foundation. Meanwhile, here is a timeline of Mifsud’s interactions with Papadopoulos, via The Markets Work:

      We know that Papadopoulos met multiple times with Mifsud in the first half of 2016:

      • March 14 2016 – Papadopoulos first meets Mifsud in Italy – approximately one week after finding out he will be joining the Trump team.
      • March 24 2016 – Papadopoulos, Mifsud, Olga Polonskaya and unknown fourth party meet in a London cafe.
      • April 18 2016 – Mifsud introduces Papadopoulos to Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called Russian International Affairs Council.
      • April 26 2016  – Mifsud tells Papadopoulos he’s met with high-level Russian government officials who have “dirt” on Clinton. Papadopoulos will tell the FBI he learned of the emails prior to joining the Trump Campaign.
      • May 13 2016 – Mifsud emails Papadopoulos an update of “recent conversations”.

      Note: Papadopoulos and Mifsud reportedly both worked at the London Centre of International Law Practice. –The Markets Work

      So – was Mifsud an asset of any state intelligence apparatus – or was he working with any on behalf of Hillary Clinton?

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

      And let’s not forget that during Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI sent operative Stephen Halper and a mysterious woman named “Azra Turk” to befriend and conduct espionage on Papadopoulos for events which took place on UK soil – and which AG Barr has said he considers spying.

      Halper – who was paid more than $1 million by the Pentagon while Obama was president – contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Daily Caller – and would later fly him out to London under the guise of working on a policy paper on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel – for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during his stay, “having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman’s club frequented by international diplomats.” 

      As the New York Times noted om May, the London operation “yielded no fruitful information,” while the FBI has called their activities in the months before the 2016 election as both “legal and carefully considered under extraordinary circumstances,” according to the report.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 21:15

      Tags

    • Natgas Ready To Soar? Next Cold Pattern Could Spark Energy Demand For 118 Million Americans 
      Natgas Ready To Soar? Next Cold Pattern Could Spark Energy Demand For 118 Million Americans 

      The Global Forecast System (GFS) weather model shows for the next 6-10 days, below-average temperatures could be seen up and down the East Coast. The result of colder than average temperatures would increase energy demand for nearly 118 million people, reported Ed Vallee, head meteorologist at Empire Weather, adding that increased energy demand could put a bid in natural gas spot prices.

      “We continue to watch for much colder risks next week across the Mid Continent as the pattern re-shuffles. This will bleed into key heating demand areas of the Great Lakes and Northeast later in the 6-10 day period, upping demand risk with temperatures well below normal. Beyond this time frame into mid-month, most data remains cooler than normal, especially in the northern tier of the country, and into the Northeast. This would allow heating demand to remain elevated, but upcoming weather data and forecasts will help drive price action as this challenging forecast period is sorted out,” said Vallee.

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

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

      Heating degree days (HDD) for the Northeast shows an above-trend reading through next week, which the amount of energy it takes to heat a building will jump.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      HDD readings for the Southeast are also above trend, spiking in the latter parts of next week.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Natural gas spot prices for Algonquin Citygate (New York) and Transco (New York) have been elevated for the last month thanks to colder weather in the Northeast.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas spot prices have remained in a descending channel for November and into early December. Warming conditions and oversupply issues remain significant fundamental issues weighing on prices. Though if energy demand on the East Coast picks up in the next 6-10 day period, spot prices could start to stabilize.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 20:55

    • Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
      Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

      Authored by Michael Shellenberger via Forbes.com,

      Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said 

      “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” 

      Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latter said,

      “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” 

      Says Thunberg in her new book,

      “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” 

      Sometimes, scientists themselves make apocalyptic claims.

      “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that,” if Earth warms four degrees, said one earlier this year. “The potential for multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” said another. If sea levels rise as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, another scientist said, “It will be an unmanageable problem.”

      Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change. In October, an activist with Extinction Rebellion (”XR”) — an environmental group founded in 2018 to commit civil disobedience to draw awareness to the threat its founders and supporters say climate change poses to human existence — and a videographer, were kicked and beaten in a London Tube station by angry commuters. And last week, an XR co-founder said a genocide like the Holocaust was “happening again, on a far greater scale, and in plain sight” from climate change.

      Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing. I have been politically active on the issue for over 20 years and have researched and written about it for 17 years. Over the last four years, my organization, Environmental Progress, has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists to prevent carbon emissions from rising. So far, we’ve helped prevent emissions increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.

      I also care about getting the facts and science right and have in recent months corrected inaccurate and apocalyptic news media coverage of fires in the Amazon and fires in California, both of which have been improperly presented as resulting primarily from climate change. 

      Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.

      I feel the need to say this up-front because I want the issues I’m about to raise to be taken seriously and not dismissed by those who label as “climate deniers” or “climate delayers” anyone who pushes back against exaggeration.

      With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.

      First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.

      “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.

      “These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”

      “But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through IPCC reports and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children in 20 years. How would they die?”

      “Mass migration around the world already taking place due to prolonged drought in countries, particularly in South Asia. There are wildfires in Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, the Arctic,” she said.

      But in saying so, the XR spokesperson had grossly misrepresented the science.

       “There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide,” notes IPCC, “but limited evidence that climate change or sea-level rise is the direct cause” 

      What about “mass migration”? 

      “The majority of resultant population movements tend to occur within the borders of affected countries,” says IPCC.

      It’s not like climate doesn’t matter. It’s that climate change is outweighed by other factors. Earlier this year, researchers found that climate “has affected organized armed conflict within countries. However, other drivers, such as low socioeconomic development and low capabilities of the state, are judged to be substantially more influential.”

      Last January, after climate scientists criticized Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for saying the world would end in 12 years, her spokesperson said

       “We can quibble about the phraseology, whether it’s existential or cataclysmic.”

      He added, “We’re seeing lots of [climate change-related] problems that are already impacting lives.”

      That last part may be true, but it’s also true that economic development has made us less vulnerable, which is why there was a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters since its peak in 1931. 

      In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did.  And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.

      What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?

      Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.

      What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines. 

      The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

      Nobody is suggesting climate change won’t negatively impact crop yields. It could. But such declines should be put in perspective. Wheat yields increased 100 to 300% around the world since the 1960s, while a study of 30 models found that yields would decline by 6% for every one degree Celsius increase in temperature.

      Rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation, and fertilizer than on climate change, says FAO.

      All of this helps explain why IPCC anticipates climate change will have a modest impact on economic growth. By 2100, IPCC projects the global economy will be 300 to 500% larger than it is today. Both IPCC and the Nobel-winning Yale economist, William Nordhaus, predict that warming of 2.5°C and 4°C would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by 2% and 5% over that same period.

      Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Not at all. 

      One of the reasons I work on climate change is because I worry about the impact it could have on endangered species. Climate change may threaten one million species globally and half of all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in diverse places like the Albertine Rift in central Africa, home to the endangered mountain gorilla.

      But it’s not the case that “we’re putting our own survival in danger” through extinctions, as Elizabeth Kolbert claimed in her book, Sixth Extinction. As tragic as animal extinctions are, they do not threaten human civilization. If we want to save endangered species, we need to do so because we care about wildlife for spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic reasons, not survival ones.  

      And exaggerating the risk, and suggesting climate change is more important than things like habitat destruction, are counterproductive.

      For example, Australia’s fires are not driving koalas extinct, as Bill McKibben suggested. The main scientific body that tracks the species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, labels the koala “vulnerable,” which is one level less threatened than “endangered,” two levels less than “critically endangered,” and three less than “extinct” in the wild. 

      Should we worry about koalas? Absolutely! They are amazing animals and their numbers have declined to around 300,000. But they face far bigger threats such as the destruction of habitat, disease, bushfires, and invasive species. 

      Think of it this way. The climate could change dramatically — and we could still save koalas. Conversely, the climate could change only modestly — and koalas could still go extinct. 

      The monomaniacal focus on climate distracts our attention from other threats to koalas and opportunities for protecting them, like protecting and expanding their habitat.

      As for fire, one of Australia’s leading scientists on the issue says,

      “Bushfire losses can be explained by the increasing exposure of dwellings to fire-prone bushlands. No other influences need be invoked. So even if climate change had played some small role in modulating recent bushfires, and we cannot rule this out, any such effects on risk to property are clearly swamped by the changes in exposure.”

      Nor are the fires solely due to drought, which is common in Australia, and exceptional this year. “Climate change is playing its role here,” said Richard Thornton of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, “but it’s not the cause of these fires.”

      The same is true for fires in the United States. In 2017, scientists modeled 37 different regions and found “humans may not only influence fire regimes but their presence can actually override, or swamp out, the effects of climate.” Of the 10 variables that influence fire, “none were as significant… as the anthropogenic variables,” such as building homes near, and managing fires and wood fuel growth within, forests.

      Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists. 

      “While many species are threatened with extinction,” said Stanford’s Ken Caldeira, “climate change does not threaten human extinction… I would not like to see us motivating people to do the right thing by making them believe something that is false.”

      I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. “It really does bother me because it’s wrong,” he said. “All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it’s Greta Thunberg’s fault. Not deliberately. But she’s wrong.”

      But don’t scientists and activists need to exaggerate in order to get the public’s attention?

      “I’m reminded of what [late Stanford University climate scientist] Steve Schneider used to say,” Wigley replied.

      “He used to say that as a scientist, we shouldn’t really be concerned about the way we slant things in communicating with people out on the street who might need a little push in a certain direction to realize that this is a serious problem. Steve didn’t have any qualms about speaking in that biased way. I don’t quite agree with that.”

      Wigley started working on climate science full-time in 1975 and created one of the first climate models (MAGICC) in 1987. It remains one of the main climate models in use today.

      “When I talk to the general public,” he said, “I point out some of the things that might make projections of warming less and the things that might make them more. I always try to present both sides.”

      Part of what bothers me about the apocalyptic rhetoric by climate activists is that it is often accompanied by demands that poor nations be denied the cheap sources of energy they need to develop. I have found that many scientists share my concerns.

      “If you want to minimize carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2070  you might want to accelerate the burning of coal in India today,” MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said. 

      “It doesn’t sound like it makes sense. Coal is terrible for carbon. But it’s by burning a lot of coal that they make themselves wealthier, and by making themselves wealthier they have fewer children, and you don’t have as many people burning carbon, you might be better off in 2070.” 

      Emanuel and Wigley say the extreme rhetoric is making political agreement on climate change harder. 

      “You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel.

      “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate.”

      Happily, there is a plenty of middle ground between climate apocalypse and climate denial.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 20:35

    • 3 Victims Injured, Shooter "Contained" At Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard
      3 Victims Injured, Shooter “Contained” At Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard

      Live Feed:

      *  *  *

      Summary:

      • Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on lockdown

      • 3 people injured: 2 critical, 1 stable

      • Shooter “contained” – some reports that he took his own life

      *  *  *

      As we detailed earlier, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii is on lockdown after multiple victims have been reported in an active shooter situation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Sources tell Hawaii News Now that several civilians are among the gunshot victims. The Mirror reports that two victims are said to be critical, while a third is stable.

      The base’s 15th Wing confirmed, there was a shooter on the base. It said on Facebook:

      “ALERT: There is an active shooter on base, please seek a secure location until further notice.”

      A PA system is urging people to take cover. Base personnel also received text messages alerting them of the situation. Witnesses tell Hawaii News Now that the shooting happened at Drydock 2. First responders were called to the scene about 2:30 p.m. local time (730pm ET).

      One witness said he was at his desk when he heard loud pops.

      “I kind of recognize that as gunshots,” the witness.

      “I looked out in time to see the shooter … shoot himself.”

      Developing…


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 20:21

    • Trump-Bezos Round 2: Amazon Faces Broad Antitrust Probe Of Cloud Business
      Trump-Bezos Round 2: Amazon Faces Broad Antitrust Probe Of Cloud Business

      Having lodged a formal complaint (cough, bad loser, cough) after losing the hotly contested contract to provide cloud computing services to the Pentagon, it appears the richest man in the world is about to face round 2 against the most powerful man in the world as Bloomberg reports that, according to people familiar with the matter, U.S. antitrust enforcers have broadened their scrutiny of Amazon beyond its retail operations to include its massive cloud-computing business.

      The contract was a big win for Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who has prioritized cloud computing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As a reminder, in August (before the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI, deal was concluded) the Pentagon’s Inspector General has launched a probe into key aspects of the bid process – including potential conflicts of interest, after The WSJ publicized evidence showing that senior Amazon executives met with senior DoD officials, including then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, to discuss the project before the bidding even began.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The deal did not go Bezos’ way, and so – as is the norm in today’s world, they cried foul and lodged a formal complaint:

      Numerous aspects of the JEDI evaluation process contained clear deficiencies, errors, and unmistakable bias – and it’s important that these matters be examined and rectified.”

      But now, as Bloomberg details, investigators at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have been asking software companies recently about practices around Amazon’s cloud unit, known as Amazon Web Services.

      Specifically, the outreach by the FTC signals that the agency, which is already looking at Amazon’s conduct in its vast online retail business, is taking a broader look at the company to determine whether it could be violating antitrust laws and harming competition.

      One issue the FTC could look at is whether Amazon has an incentive to discriminate against those software companies, which sell their products to clients of AWS, while at the same time competing with Amazon. The fear is that Amazon could punish the companies that work with other cloud providers and favor those that it works with exclusively.

      The dynamic echos that in Amazon’s retail marketplace, where third-party sellers depend on the platform to reach customers because of its size, but in many cases they also compete with Amazon’s own products. That’s a conflict that threatens competition, according to critics.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Clash of the Titans? How long before Amazon lodges another formal complaint about being under an antitrust probe? We are sure not long, but for now, “Bezos vs Trump 2: This Time It’s Personal” is set to accelerate in the coming months…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As for Amazon, the loss of the $10 billion award over 10 years doesn’t stand out as critical, considering the company reported $242 billion in revenue and $11.4 billion in net income over the 12 months ended March 31. But, as we noted previously, a loss of government confidence in AWS (which generated $2.2 billion of net income in the first quarter, up 57% year-over-year and representing two thirds of the consolidated total) could be significant.

      As a D.C.-based observer told ADG in April:

      “The AWS story, as sold to enterprise customers and the Street, is built upon the [C.I.A] reference case and the cash that has come in from that deal.” 

      Gartner puts AWS’s market share at 48% and Microsoft’s at 16 – we wonder how long before that changes?


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 20:15

    • Cartel Violence Explodes – Has Mexico Finally Lost All Control?
      Cartel Violence Explodes – Has Mexico Finally Lost All Control?

      Authored by Sarah Cowgill via LibertyNation.com,

      On the heels of President Donald Trump’s attempts to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), an attack uncomfortably close to U.S. soil has the Mexican government scrambling and the president fuming. At least 22 died over the weekend as rival cartels struggling for Northern Mexico turf dominance clashed with local law enforcement in Villa Union, Coahuila, an hour’s drive from Eagle’s Pass, TX. The brazen attack seemingly was directed at the Mexican government to send a warning as to who is in charge.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The town of Villa Union was, in effect, shredded, riddled with bullets, as a heavily armed group of alleged cartel members stormed the community in a convoy of trucks. When they attacked local government offices, the federales attempted to intervene. Fleeing, the cartel kidnapped locals and their vehicles, including a hearse on the way to a funeral.

      To Designate Or Not

      Mexican officials fear that an FTO designation will allow unilateral interventions across the southern border. But Trump is undeterred, saying as much in a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly:

      “They will be designated. I’ve been working on that for the last 90 days. Designation is not that easy. You have to go through a process, and we are well into that process.”

      At first, there was a lukewarm reception to Trump’s FTO declaration, but now more U.S. government officials support the idea. Former Acting ICE Director Tom Homan believes it’s time for an intervention on Mexican soil. Although he credited the Mexican law enforcement response, he pointed out a failing that allows cartel violence to creep closer to the United States:

      “They’re not well-trained, they’re not well-equipped, and they certainly don’t have the expertise at dismantling large criminal organizations like the U.S. law enforcement does. We’ve proven that in Panama with [ruler Manuel] Noriega, we proved that in Colombia with [Pablo Escobar]. The United States can go down to Mexico and help them address this crisis once and for all.”

      That is, if the cartels are FTO designated. But securing a commitment from Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — who has been clear in denouncing the terrorist label as none of Trump’s business – is simply a pipe dream so far. Lopez emphatically stands his ground, telling the United States to rethink any offensive action in Mexico: “Our problems will be solved by Mexicans. We don’t want any interference from any foreign country.”

      And then we have a dissenting opinion from Ambassador David Johnson, vice president of the International Narcotics Control Board and former assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He is lobbying to stay the course:

      “Terrorists use violence to expand a political goal. These criminals are interested in money, not politics. They don’t want the responsibility and headaches that come with political control since it could interfere with their profit-maximizing goals. The key reason for not labeling them terrorists is because that is not what they are. They are in it for the money. Period.”

      Derek Maltz, former special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration Special Operations Division in New York, is all for doing whatever it takes to stem the flow of violence.  He declared, “Designating the cartels as terrorists and implementing a focused operational plan will save a tremendous amount of lives.”

      Trump Is Stubbornly Dug In

      Trump has made it his mission to stop illegal immigration, illicit drug trade, human trafficking, and violence on the north side of the shared border. A safer Mexico creates a safer America. With the recent uptick in violence in Mexico, it would seem the country should embrace the help it so desperately needs. Perhaps putting away control issues and focusing on the greater good would make Lopez Obrador and Trump shake hands and get the job done.

      Else we may see the violence enacted in Villa Union cross our border.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 19:55

      Tags

    • "Is Something Going Wrong? Is Something Broken?" Quants Running "Scared" As Nothing Makes Sense
      “Is Something Going Wrong? Is Something Broken?” Quants Running “Scared” As Nothing Makes Sense

      It was a year where the S&P put the mini bear market of December 2018 in the dust, and after a dramatic reversal which saw most central banks flip from hawkish to dovish throughout the year…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … the MSCI World index is just shy of its January 2018 highs, and the S&P has returned an impressive 24% (despite the jittery start to December), and stands at all time record highs, despite, paradoxically, a year of record equity fund outflow.

      On paper, this should have been a great year for investors after a dismal 2018. In reality, however, 2019 has been just as painful for not just for hedge funds, which have substantially underperformed the S&P again and in October saw a record 8 consecutive months of outflows, the most since the financial crisis…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … but especially for quants, which after a relatively solid year, suffered the September quant crash that destroyed most of their YTD gains, and have generally been unable to find their bearings in a year in which nothing seemed to work.

      It’s also Georg Elsaesser, a Frankfurt-based fund manager at Invesco, is trying to calm down his newbie quant clients as choppy stock moves make life difficult for anyone trading factors, which wire up all those systematic portfolios on Wall Street.

      “Some of them are kind of scared,” Elsaesser told Bloomberg. “They’re asking the questions: Is something going wrong? Is something broken?”

      Well actually, the answer is yes: the market is broken, and you can thank central banks for that.

      The problem is that the rules-based method of investing based on grouping of stocks by traits like their value, momentum, or balance sheet quality, is misfiring again this year, even more so than it in 2018, when quants suffered their worst year since the financial crisis, and left quant icons such as Cliff Asness’ AQR, suffering its biggest loss since inception.

      Here is another problem: while the broader stock market, propped up by central bank stimulus, rate cuts and “NOT QE”, has been on a tear, a peek below the calm surface reveals a tempest of position reversals and catastrophic, at time, performance as a slew of traditional long-short styles are in the red. Market-neutral portfolios have lost 1% this year, according to a Hedge Fund Research index.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      While there are numerous, often conflicting, explanations why factor portfolios disappointed in 2019, one can offer some generalizations. Persistent caution over the growth outlook whipsawed riskier trades like value and small caps which slumped all year then soared at the start of September, momentum trades worked all year then got crushed in September, the most shorted stocks soared, and the most heavily owned stocks barely outperformed.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Another, more practical explanation, is that in a world where factors are supposed to offer diversification of risk, they did just the opposite, and the correlation between the most popular factors such as growth, value, size, dividend yield, momentum and volatility exploded. As Goldman wrote in its 2020 year ahead outlook, the average realized pairwise correlation of our factors has reached levels only achieved twice in the last 30 years: in 2Q 2009 as the equity market bottomed in the Financial Crisis and in 1Q 1997 as the Tech Bubble began to build. These elevated correlations underscore the importance that risk sentiment in driving recent market rotations, but more importantly explain why, well, nothing worked, as all of these often conflicting strategies eventually ended up offsetting each other.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The soaring correlations can also be explained by the bond market: as interest rates dominated factor returns this year, diversification benefits weakened according to analysts at Nomura Instinet.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In light of this dismal repeat performance, it is easy to see why Elsaesser is on the defensive: he is one of many in the systematic community trying to win back hearts with the pitch that factors are time-tested, designed for the long haul and backed by some of the smartest folk in finance and academia (so was LTCM). But as the investing style closes a year to forget, patience is wearing thin among the market-neutral crowd, which plight Bloomberg covered in an article this morning.

      “The experienced investors say it’s normal noise in the long run,” Elsaesser said. “But it certainly means we need to explain more.”

      You certainly do: after yet another year of carnage for quants, billions of dollars are fleeing the industry which as recently as a few years ago was considered the “next big thing” on Wall Street, now that fundamental analysis no longer matters (again, thanks to central banks).

      Sure enough, outflows have soared, and may also have hit industry performance. Market-neutral equity hedge funds lost nearly $4 billion YTD, according to Eurekahedge. Institutions even redeemed $54 billion from long-only quantitative stock funds in the first three quarters, according to eVestment.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      However, outflows will continue as long as days like Sept 9 occasionally emerge out of the blue.

      On that day, the S&P 500 Index closed flat, equity volatility cruised around its five-year average and commodities were unexciting. Yet factor investors experienced the biggest rotation in a decade after value briefly broke out of its funk at the expense of high-flying momentum stocks. As we showed then, that one day was the most painful for quant funds since the great quant crash of August 2007! And worst of all, nobody knew just why it happened as swiftly as it did.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As a result, Bloomberg writes that quants who failed to diversify into winners like low volatility – which until the September shock would be most of them – are in “soul-searching mode.” Are factors like value structurally broken? Can market-neutral styles roar back to life over the long haul?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The best summary of how nothing for quants has worked this year (and last year) came from Ian Heslop, London-based head of global equities at Merian Global Investors, who did his best LTCM impression: “Some of the themes we expected to diversify our returns in a period of underperformance of value haven’t worked as well.”

      That said, it’s not been all gloom. A handful of long-only factor strategies are posting 20%-plus gains this year. But they’re still lagging cap-weighted indexes. Sanford C. Bernstein estimates systematic long-only managers have lagged their benchmark by 2% points on average.

      The pain is most acute for market-neutral quants, whose strategies including factor styles gained a paltry 1.2% this year as of Nov. 26 compared with 9.8% for equity long-short funds and 8.7% for discretionary macro funds, according to Credit Suisse data. Recent research by Robeco showed that it was the short legs of factor strategies that have been a drag on performance this year, arguing the value of the investing style mostly comes from the long leg.

      Well yes: this is another way of saying that in a manipulated, centrally-planned market, there is no need for short pair trades, i.e., there is no need to hedge. Incidentally, this is precisely what we said all the way back in 2013 when we wrote that the only alpha-generating strategy in a broken market is to go short the most held names and go long the most shorted ones. 6 years later, Bank of America is writing just how correct we were, pointing out that going against the Wall Street crowd has never been more profitable…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And yet, even though we write about this year after year, there will always be those who could never have possibly anticipated this:

      “Whether this has been driven by flow events or not, it is finite, it’s very unusual,” said Heslop. His $4.5 billion Merian Global Equity Absolute Return Fund has seen its assets shrink by more than half this year.

      Then there are those who have been betting – year after year – on mean reversion, certain that value was poised for a rebound. They too were left disappointed. As Bloomberg notes, and as we cautioned, since reviving briefly in September, the factor has flatlined since despite JPM’s Marko Kolanovic predicting the value to momentum rotation is a “once in a decade opportunity.” Here, as Bloomberg accurately notes, its outlook continues to divide quant land between bears citing low yields and weak growth, and bulls touting cheap relative valuations.

      Alas, neither strategy is beating the S&P500 which is the one asset class directly propped up by central banks.

      So where do we stand now?

      Well, after another disastrous year for the sector, some quants are revamping strategies. At Merian, Bloomberg notes that Heslop’s team this year tweaked models to penalize exposure to highly correlated factors and to make allocations more defensive against downside risks; it is now on the hunt for smarter definitions of value. The irony, of course, is that most of Heslop’s peers are also doing precisely the same thing, and the outcome will be yet another year of underperformance for quants who are not only fighting themselves, but are also locked in a fight for survival against central banks who have turned the logic of investing and Finance 101 on its head.

      Some funds are also deploying alternative data and machine learning in a bid to re-invent now widely known factor strategies. That said, such newfangled methods are a contentious move for a community that’s netted billions riding established factors back-tested over decades. Invesco’s Elsaesser for one is skeptical.

      “It’s like a perfect storm for factors at the moment, but they have done what you would expect them to do,” he said. “We’ve seen these drawdowns; we’ve seen them recover. We know the essence of them is the very strong factor logic.”

      There is just one problem: when you have a centrally planned market, you don’t have logic. We wonder just how many more year it will take the best and the brightest to finally grasp this simple observation which we have been pounding the table on since our inception in 2009…


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 19:35

    • "…The Road-Map Ahead Is A Market Crash, Followed By Obscene Fiscal Stimulus…"
      “…The Road-Map Ahead Is A Market Crash, Followed By Obscene Fiscal Stimulus…”

      Via AdventuresInCapitalism.com,

      Investing is all about probabilities. If the perceived odds of an event are high, certain securities will be priced based on those expected probabilities. The corollary is that when an event is perceived as almost impossible, securities do not price in any chance of it occurring. If that event does occur, all sorts of securities need to re-price—often quite rapidly. I like to spend my time pondering what potential events the market completely ignores. Of all potential economic outcomes, the one that is least anticipated and least priced in, is an uptick in inflation.

      It is said that generals always fight the last war. In terms of macro-portfolio wars, Japan’s experience with deflation colors all views. This seems odd to me because we have over two millennia of history showing inflation and currency debasements to be universal constants, with one outlier in Japan. The question is if Japan is the new normal or a true outlier?

      Academics have studied the causes and effects of inflation ever since emperors and kings fixated on halting its effects. Despite a massive body of work, there is little agreement amongst experts on the causes of inflation. Since I tend to ignore “experts,” let me start by giving you the Kuppy definition of inflation. “Inflation is when too much of a certain currency chases a scarce resource and pushes its price higher when defined in terms of that currency.” Using that definition, we’ve actually had rather dramatic inflation over the past decade—it just hasn’t shown up yet in the core consumer goods that central bankers are often concerned about.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Did they time-stamp the cyclical low in yields?

      When a country prints money, no one knows where within the economic ecosystem it will ultimately flow. If a resource is scarce, it tends to experience inflation—when it is artificially scarce, it has even more extreme inflation. Just think of where the money printing has ended up this cycle; bonds (central banks restricted supply by buying them), stocks (PE and buybacks have restricted supply), gateway city residential housing (local municipalities have restricted supply), medical costs (systematic dysfunction has restricted supply), vintage wines (they aren’t being produced anymore), college education (supply restricted again), I can go on, but you get the point. Meanwhile, traditional inflation stalwarts like food and energy have remained suppressed due to technological advancements, reduced logistical costs and excess liquidity, which has allowed capacity to overshoot and lead to price deflation. To say that we’ve not had inflation over the past decade is wrong, we just haven’t had inflation in places that are key components of the CPI basket.

      However, that may be changing. I believe that the number of sectors with restricted supply are starting to expand. Let’s look at labor, which historically has been a primary source of inflation. It’s no secret that US unemployment is at historic lows, laborers now have bargaining power and wages are rapidly increasing—with increases made more extreme by minimum wage laws, healthcare inflation and new mandates in various states. The cost of labor goes into almost every finished good—particularly in a labor-intensive service economy. Politicians on both sides seem willing to pass laws that give labor a bigger share of the pie—what will that do to inflation?

      Now think of energy; it’s a crazy world out there and global energy security is no longer guaranteed. Prices have been suppressed for the past few years by excess production due to uneconomic shale—that’s clearly reversing as the funding has been cut off. Where do you think energy prices go if shale growth flat-lines or goes in reverse? What about when key producing regions devolve into chaos? Tanker rates are also expanding—that increases energy prices as well.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Now think about consumer goods; the past few decades were all about increased globalization where manufacturing migrated to the cheapest possible location. Trade wars and regional balkanization upend this trend. Now there ought to be an implicit geopolitical risk premium priced into gross margins on every good. Supply chain disruptions further increase costs. If globalism was deflationary, isn’t the reverse inflationary?

      Think about what venture capital has done to costs. Thousands of businesses are losing hundreds of billions a year to gain market share in rather prosaic industries. Think about what Uber has done to transport costs or Chewy has done to the cost of dog food. These are all subsidized by VC firms so they can dump IPOs on unsuspecting retail bag-holders. As these businesses are forced to raise pricing in order to become sustainable, what will that do to consumer inflation? Won’t all sorts of sectors also gain pricing power, now that they don’t have to compete with someone who sells a Dollar for 80 cents hoping to make it up with volume? Isn’t the collapse of the Ponzi Sector bubble inherently inflationary?

      What about all the supply restriction as ESG takes its toll on economies? If you can’t get permits to build a new coal mine or oil pipeline, yet demand keeps growing, won’t pricing increase as well?

      I can go on and on. All the trends that were deflationary are slowly going in reverse. We haven’t seen the effects of this show up in the data yet, largely because the global economy is rapidly deteriorating, which is putting a brake on the demand side. However, even with the global economy slowing, inflation is starting to tick up in the US. Can the rest of the world be far behind us?

      Of course, government policy drives all of this. I think it is obvious that we’ve finally reached the limits of monetary policy. Does the ECB taking rates 10 basis points more negative do anything but accelerate the bankruptcy of the Eurozone banking system? Does it increase consumption or capital expenditures? Of course not. If anything, it just starves the system of capital by taking everyone’s return on capital investment down towards zero and below. Who invests when expected returns are negative? What the world needs is a big reset of the system where leveraged firms default, solvent firms pick up the pieces and get to earn excess returns due to their past fiscal sobriety. Since we live in a democracy, that won’t happen, instead we will have extreme fiscal stimulus in order to kick the can further down the road.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In October, I spent 15 hours in the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow (damn connecting flight never showed). It hasn’t seen a dollar of cap-ex in years, but it’s still light years ahead of LaGuardia or LAX. Just wait until corporations learn how much they can make from a never-ending airport renovation project. Now multiply that by hundreds of airports in America that desperately need capital investment. Now add bridges, roads, bullet trains, water infrastructure and our electrical grid. Why are all the lobbyists trying to get us into wars with third world nations? Corporations would make more money fixing our infrastructure and it’s going to be a lot less politically contentious.

      If you think deflation is a fact of life, you clearly haven’t paid attention to history. Governments around the world have experienced a unique decade where they ran deficits and printed money without “bad inflation” which upsets voters. They think this is a new normal with no consequences. It isn’t. They’re already panicking with the S&P a few ticks from all-time highs. Soon politicians will go into ludicrous mode with fiscal stimulus.

      What will fiscal stimulus do to the equity market? I’m reminded of the 1970s—inflation is no friend to most stocks. What happens to trillions in negative yielding long-dated bonds if inflation ticks up? What happens to bond proxies like global large-cap equity indexes or real estate? What happens to risk-parity funds that are leveraged a few times over expecting bonds and equities to increase over time? What if both legs of the trade drop at the same time? No one is ready for inflation, but I believe it’s coming. Maybe not today or next week, but there is a powder keg of monetary supply just waiting to be unleashed by governments who think that inflation can never happen again. At first, markets will cheer a bit of inflation—then they’ll panic. The markets often do whatever the fewest people are positioned for. Who’s positioned for inflation? That’s about as contrarian as buying Argentine sovereign debt.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      I think the road-map ahead is a market crash, followed by obscene fiscal stimulus. As always, I’m trying to think a few steps ahead here. I’m making a list of beat-down sectors who benefit from this change in government policy. I want to be ready to buy as soon as they get serious about unleashing the stimulus.

      You need a crisis that’s severe enough that both political parties can agree on stimulus. We’re not there yet, but we will be. If you thought QE was nutty, wait until you see what drunken sailor mode looks like. Inflation is coming. Be VERY careful if you own assets with duration risk.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 19:15

    • For First Time Since 2012, A China IPO Flopped…
      For First Time Since 2012, A China IPO Flopped…

      On Wednesday, a Chinese IPO closed below its listing price for the first time since 2012, signaling that the public’s former unquestionable love affair with risk and equities is fading as the economy continues to decelerate,.

      • LUOYANG JALON MICRO-NANO NEW MATERIALS SAYS TRADING IN SHARES TO DEBUT ON DEC 4 IN SHANGHAI

      Luoyang Jianlong Micro-Nano New Materials shares debuted on the Shanghai Stock Exchange on Wednesday. The stock immediately dropped 7% in the first hour of trading, closing down 2% on the session.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Luoyang Jianlong’s disastrous IPO debut was the first time a mainland Chinese stock closed below its listing price since 2012. The last time this happened, Haixin Foods plunged 8% below its first day listing price in 4Q12. 

      “Luoyang Jianlong’s debut flop sends a clear signal to the market that buying into IPOs has become more and more risky,” said Jiang Liangqing, a money manager at Ruisen Capital Management in Beijing.

      “It will become more difficult for companies to raise money from the capital market as the deteriorating performances of new listings will deter investors,” he said. “On the other hand, it shows that things are becoming increasingly market-driven.”

      For at least a decade, China’s IPO market has been one of the strongest in the world, with every newly public stock closing at or near limit-up. Though now it seems large-cap IPOs are showing signs of waning interest from investors as the economy continues to decelerate through year-end, and likely to continue slowing into 1H20. To counter the IPO market bust, China has tried to calm markets by increasing domestic firms with more access to credit to keep equity markets humming along. 

      State-run media outlets have published frontpage stories telling investors not to worry about the IPO market, and enough liquidity will be provided through 2020. 

      China’s economy is growing at the weakest point in nearly three decades. A massive turn up in growth in China and across the world is unlikely in early 2020, mostly due to China’s credit impulse faltering. 

      We warned back in September that the global IPO market was going bust, mostly due to the synchronized global slowdown that has deterred investors from buying IPO shares in companies that don’t make money ahead of a recession. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The rebellion against unicorn IPOs in the US in 2019 shows that investors have lost interest in speculative growth companies.  Some of the high-profile US IPO flops this year have been Uber and Lyft. In September, the Peloton IPO plunged 7% below its offering price, making it the third-worst trading debut for a large US IPO since 2008.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 18:55

    • How Dumb Have We Become? Chinese Students Are 4 Grade Levels Ahead Of US Students In Math
      How Dumb Have We Become? Chinese Students Are 4 Grade Levels Ahead Of US Students In Math

      Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

      How in the world is America supposed to remain “the greatest country on Earth” when other nations are absolutely running circles around us when it comes to education?  As you will see below, one survey found that 15-year-old students in China are almost four full grade levels ahead of 15-year-old students in the United States in mathematics.  This is one of the most damning indictments of our education system that I have ever come across, and it is yet another clear indication that what we are doing is simply not working.  Our children are not being given the tools that they need to compete in our modern society, and we have only ourselves to blame.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Perhaps you are thinking that the survey must be flawed somehow.

      Well, this wasn’t some fluky survey that was only given to a handful of students.  Every three years, the Program for International Student Assessment evaluates 15-year-old students all over the world in a variety of subject areas, and in 2018 approximately 32 million students participated

      The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a survey given to 15-year-old students around the world every three years, which tests the core subjects of reading, mathematics, and science. In 2018, 79 countries and economies participated, representing about 32 million 15-year-olds.

      When your sample size is 32 million students, I think that it is safe to say that the results of the survey should be taken seriously.

      And what the survey discovered is that U.S. students continue to fall behind in math.  In particular, we have fallen way, way behind the Chinese.  The following comes from Psychology Today

      There is no excuse for the US when students in Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang (B-S-J-Z) performed near four grade levels ahead of US students in mathematics.

      In addition, the survey also discovered that the “most disadvantaged” students in China actually performed on par with the average U.S. student

      “The 10% most disadvantaged students in Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Zhejiang (B-S-J-Z) or in Macao or Estonia… those students actually do as well or better than the average student in the US. So clearly some countries do better with their disadvantaged students, where you see less variability with students from the most privileged backgrounds,” said Andreas Schleicher.

      What in the world has happened to us?

      We used to have the best education system in the entire world, but now we have become a nation of drooling idiots that can’t even think straight.

      Let me give you an example.  According to Fox News, a police officer in Los Angeles was recently caught sexually fondling a dead woman by his own body-cam…

      The veteran Los Angeles cop, who is assigned to downtown’s Central Division, was caught on his own body-cam footage allegedly fondling the dead woman, and his supervisors have reviewed the video, according to the Los Angeles Times.

      The alleged incident took place when the LAPD officer and his partner responded to a call about a possible dead woman in a residential unit, the newspaper reported, citing sources.

      That is dumb on so many levels, and now that police officer’s career is over.

      Let me give you another example of how dumb we have become.  South Dakota has decided to crack down on the meth epidemic in their state, but unfortunately not a lot of thought was put into the advertising slogan for the campaign

      The state of South Dakota has a new anti-drug campaign, but its slogan is raising eyebrows.

      Because it is “Meth. We’re on it.”

      Which could be taken the wrong way.

      You think?

      Of course it is much dumber to actually be on meth.  Approximately 24 million Americans have taken an illegal drug within the last 30 days, and it is getting worse with each passing year.

      I know that I am being very hard on the United States in this article, but there is no excuse for what has happened to us.

      We were once a great light to the rest of the world, but today a large chunk of our population can barely read, write, speak or function in society.  Just consider the following numbers

      #1 One recent survey found that 74 percent of Americans don’t even know how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights.

      #2 An earlier survey discovered that 37 percent of Americans cannot name a single right protected by the First Amendment.

      #3 Shockingly, only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government.

      #4 During the 2016 election, more than 40 percent of Americans did not know who was running for vice-president from either of the major parties.

      #5 North Carolina is considering passing a law which would “mean only scores lower than 39 percent would qualify for an F grade” in North Carolina public schools.

      #6 30 years ago, the United States awarded more high school diplomas than anyone in the world. Today, we have fallen to 36th place.

      #7 According to the Pentagon, 71 percent of our young adults are ineligible to serve in the U.S. military because they are either too dumb, too fat or have a criminal background.

      #8 For the very first time, Americans are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than they are in a car accident.

      #9 One study discovered that one-third of all American teenagers haven’t read a single book in the past year.

      #10 A recent survey found that 45 percent of U.S. teenagers are online “almost constantly”.

      #11 Today, the average American spends 86 hours a month using a smartphone.

      #12 Overall, the average U.S. adult “logs 6 hours, 43 minutes of total screen time daily”.

      #13 In more than half of all U.S. states, the highest paid public employee in the state is a football coach.

      #14 During one seven day period last summer, a total of 16,000 official complaints about human feces were submitted to the city of San Francisco. And apparently the problem is very real because one investigation found 300 piles of human feces on the streets of downtown San Francisco.

      #15 Every 24 hours, more than a third of all Americans eat fast food.

      #16 Less than half of all Americans know which country used atomic bombs at the end of World War II.

      #17 Even though we fought a war in Iraq for eight long years, 6 out of 10 young adults cannot find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. And that same survey found that 75 percent of our young adults cannot locate Israel.

      #18 Today, the average college freshman in the United States reads at a 7th grade level.

      Are you convinced yet?

      As a society, we have become exceedingly “dumbed down”, and we can even see this at the highest levels of our government.  Just take a look at some of the people we have representing us in Congress.  If George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were alive today, what do you think that they would make of our current crop of politicians?

      When our founders spoke, their language was so elegant.  But of course we couldn’t have politicians speak to us that way today because nobody would be able to understand what they were saying.

      Our society is literally in a death spiral, but nobody seems to have a way to stop it.

      Educating our children properly is one of the most basic things that needs to be addressed, but unfortunately the left has total control of our public schools now, and that means that there is no hope of a major turnaround any time soon.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 18:35

      Tags

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 4th December 2019

    • The UK & The EU Should Prevent Mutual Assured Damage
      The UK & The EU Should Prevent Mutual Assured Damage

      Authored by Jean Pisani-Ferry via Project Syndicate,

      Nothing can be taken for granted in the United Kingdom these days, but it is now very likely that 2020 will be the year when Brexit finally happens. A majority of UK citizens will probably be relieved to bring this seemingly endless agony to a close, while most European leaders will likely be glad not to have to argue over another postponement. But questions will remain.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      To the question of “Who lost Britain?”, the answer must be, first and foremost, Britain itself. Whatever mistakes the European Union’s other 27 members may have made, they cannot be held responsible for the extraordinary behavior of the UK’s three equally amateurish governments of the last five years.

      Yet, there are deeper lessons to be drawn from what happened in Britain. The first, as Wolfgang Münchau pointed out in the Financial Times, is that the battle in the UK over EU membership was lost long before it was fought. Since the 1990s, leading pundits and media outlets have routinely portrayed the EU as a stifling bureaucracy obsessed with expanding its own power; few senior politicians have dared to confront such prejudices.

      Unfortunately, similar trends are currently visible in other core EU countries. In France, 56% of citizens – as many as in the UK – tend “not to trust” the EU. Working-class voters are especially negative. Confidence in the EU is stronger in Germany, but the European Central Bank’s policies are under attack. For years, horror stories circulated about hidden transfers to the South. Germany’s best-selling tabloid Bild now claims that German savers lost €120 billion ($132 billion) during the tenure of former ECB President Mario Draghi (or “Count Draghila,” as the editors called him). Many politicians, like their British counterparts before them, find it easier to pander to such perceptions than to oppose them. This is paving the way for future backlashes.

      At the same time, the EU should not exempt itself from a bit of soul-searching. When the UK’s then-prime minister, David Cameron, sought a temporary limit on immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, it might have been advisable to work out a solution with him. And after the EU started Brexit negotiations with Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, it might have been wise to respond to her calls for a “bespoke” arrangement for the UK. Since the June 2016 Brexit referendum, the EU27 have been surprisingly united, remarkably consistent, and astoundingly bereft of a strategy. Their stance has been motivated not so much by a desire to limit mutual damage, but rather by the fear that any softening in negotiations with the UK could lead to further fragmentation. Their apparent strength concealed internal weakness.

      Bygones are bygones. The EU’s priorities now should be to keep mutually beneficial cooperation alive and to avert the danger of the UK pursuing an aggressive regulatory competition strategy.

      Joint defense initiatives involving the UK and continental partners will most likely survive, cooperation within the multilateral system will almost certainly continue, and ad hoc projects will probably flourish. But the big casualty of Brexit risks being economic integration with the European single market.

      A screw is a screw, and a bolt is a bolt. But the UK no longer produces screws and bolts. It is a major exporter of banking, insurance, accounting, communication, and professional services, half of which go to the EU. Moreover, most of these services are regulated.

      If the Brexiteers’ “take back control” slogan means anything, it implies substituting UK laws for EU legislation. On the day after Brexit, Britain’s regulatory regime will be identical to that of its EU trading partners, because the UK’s 2018 Repeal Bill copy-pasted all EU laws into domestic legislation. But as the UK Parliament gradually amends these laws, and the EU introduces new laws of its own, the two legal systems will start diverging. The question is: how far can they diverge without endangering economic linkages and destroying prosperity?

      There are two possibilities.

      One is that the UK adopts laws that differ from those in the EU but are based on the same core principles. For example, there can be different ways to guarantee that insurance contracts offer the same degree of consumer protection, or to uphold bioethics standards. In that case, UK national laws would embody different approaches to regulation, and yet create only limited obstacles to trade in services.

      The second possibility, however, is that the UK attempts to undercut EU legislation. In this scenario – often dubbed “Singapore-upon-Thames” – Britain would impose less stringent standards for financial stability, be softer on data protection and, or perhaps relax its labor laws, in the hope of attracting more investors and selling cheaper services. Such a move would rightly be regarded as uncooperative by the UK’s European partners, and would result in the EU cutting off market access for British services exporters (most of which currently supply their continental clients directly from their UK base).

      Which route will Britain follow?

      Ideally, it would agree with the EU on common principles and credibly commit to sticking to them. But because some of the most adamant Brexit supporters openly dream of completing the Thatcher revolution and turning the UK into a low-regulation paradise, the EU is understandably wary. There is a serious risk of a negative spiral of aggressive British deregulation and forceful EU tightening, with damaging consequences for services trade.

      The EU should not ask the UK to copy slavishly its legislation. But it should make clear that aggressive regulatory competition is unacceptable and present the UK government with a black-and-white choice: either it agrees to commit to common principles and exercise regulatory self-restraint in order to maintain good access to the European market, or it refuses – and exposes British firms to a severe, across-the-board curb on their ability to export to Europe.

      Assuming Brexit happens, future historians will probably remember 2020 as the year when an enfeebled and vulnerable Europe chose to make itself feebler and more vulnerable. The task for its leaders now is to avoid making matters even worse.


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 02:00

    • Russian Gas Mega-Pipeline To China Goes Online As Putin & Xi Hail Closer Ties
      Russian Gas Mega-Pipeline To China Goes Online As Putin & Xi Hail Closer Ties

      Late Monday Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin jointly launched the major unprecedented cooperative project that had been years in the making called the ‘Power of Siberia’ gas pipeline.

      The China-Russia east-route pipeline is now providing China with Russian natural gas, which according to Chinese state media is expected to reach 5 billion cubic meters in 2020 and increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024.

      Crucially, S&P Global Platts estimates that total sales through the pipeline is projected to meet nearly 10% of China’s entire gas supply by 2022, ensuring vital energy security as Beijing continues to feel the pressure and uncertainty of the trade war with Washington. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A Chinese section of the China-Russia East Route natural gas pipeline in Heihe, China. Image source: CNN/Getty Images

      The ceremony to officially bring the pipeline online was held as a video call between Xi and Putin was underway. Xi told Putin: “The East-route natural gas pipeline is a landmark project of China-Russia energy cooperation and a paradigm of deep convergence of both countries’ interests and win-win cooperation.”

      The deal had been cemented in May 2014 when Russian gas giant Gazprom signed a 30-year contract with China National Petroleum Corp, after which the pipeline agreements were signed with both leaders present in Shanghai in later 2014.

      Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller announced to both leaders that the pipeline had been opened via video link. “Gas is flowing to the gas transmission system of the People’s Republic of China,” he said.

      A 30-year deal was signed by Putin and Xi in 2014, and while a final figure has not been announced, it is believed to be worth more than $400 billion. — CNN

      Gazprom will oversee operation of the mammoth pipeline which runs more than 8,100 kilometers (5,000 miles) across the two countries.

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

      Xi hailed the pipeline’s inauguration as signaling a new start in future China-Russian cooperation and partnerships. And as Putin noted in his comments, the pipeline’s launch date coincided with the 70th anniversary of Russia-China diplomatic ties.

      Putin also projected that 1 trillion cubic meters of natural gas will flow through the pipeline from Russia over the next 30 years. 

      The pipeline crosses over to China from Russia’s Blagoveshchensk, also site of the first major road bridge between the two.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Via Gazprom

      “That step brings the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership in the energy sector to a whole new level,” Putin stated to TASS news agency.

      In a worrisome sign for Washington as Moscow further cements its energy dominance in the east, the ‘Power of Siberia’ is but the first of a planned for three total major pipeline projects. It will later be joined by ‘TurkStream’ and ‘Nordstream2’, according to official statements. 


      Tyler Durden

      Wed, 12/04/2019 – 01:00

    • Operation Condor 2.0: After Bolivia Coup, Trump Dubs Nicaragua "National Security Threat" And Targets Mexico
      Operation Condor 2.0: After Bolivia Coup, Trump Dubs Nicaragua “National Security Threat” And Targets Mexico

      Authored by Ben Norton via TheGrayZone.com,

      After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a “national security threat” and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as “terrorists” and refused to rule out military intervention.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it seems.

      Immediately after overseeing a far-right military coup in Bolivia on November 10, the Trump administration set its sights once again on Nicaragua, whose democratically elected Sandinista government defeated a violent right-wing coup attempt in 2018.

      Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.

      Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country’s left-leaning President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.

      As Washington’s rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region’s few remaining progressive governments.

      These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing dictatorships across the region.

      Trump admin declares Nicaragua a ‘national security threat’

      A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington’s target list: “These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua,” Trump declared.

      On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing Nicaragua as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

      This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring a state of “national emergency” on the Central American country.

      Trump’s 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing coup attempt in Nicaragua. The US government has funded and supported many of the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.

      The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In December the US Congress approved the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business with Managua.

      Trump’s new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its democratically elected government — which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by Washington — as a supposedly violent and corrupt “regime.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.

      Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic sanctions. And Trump’s renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on Nicaragua.

      The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media, but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.

      And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington’s hybrid warfare against Managua.

      More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua

      Voice of America (VOA), the US government’s main foreign broadcasting service, noted that the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.

      Washington’s ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, “The pressure against Nicaragua is going to continue.”

      The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.

      VOA stated clearly that “Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic pressure on to bring about regime change.”

      This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.

      And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a “more comprehensive set of regulations,” strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Voice of America’s report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more US pressure against their country.

      Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua’s military in particular.

      “The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that the military will like act the military in Bolivia,” Jagger said, referring to the military officials who violently overthrew Bolivia’s democratically elected president.

      Many of these military leaders had been trained at the US government’s School of the Americas, a notorious base of subversion dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to carry out the putsch.

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

      VOA added that “in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable country.”

      VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is supported by the US government’s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

      Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US economic war on his country, telling VOA, “There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua and Bolivia] … the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an effect.”

      Courtney, who was described by VOA as an “expert on the electoral process,” added, “If there is a stick, there must also be a carrot.” He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and political pressure against Nicaragua’s government.

      These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an act of war. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has characterized US economic warfare “financial terrorism,” explaining that it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.

      Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.

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

      The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that brings together numerous opposition groups, several of which are also funded by the US government’s NED, welcomed the order.

      Trump dubs drug cartels in Mexico “terrorists,” refuses to rule out drone strikes

      While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela’s governments is nothing new, Donald Trump is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.

      In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his initials AMLO, is Mexico’s first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and even decriminalize drugs.

      AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking 86 percent approval rating. And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.

      “The neoliberal economic model has been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country,” AMLO has declared. “The child of neoliberalism is corruption.”

      When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador announced the end to “the long night of neoliberalism.”

      AMLO’s left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.

      On November 27 — a day after declaring Nicaragua a “national security threat” — Trump announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as “terrorist organizations.”

      Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.

      Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. “Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them with drones and things like that?” O’Reilly asked.

      The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug cartels in Mexico.

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

      Trump’s announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for a meeting with the US State Department.

      The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.

      Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central America.

      These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed, trained, and funded far-right Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

      This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander Omar al-Shishani, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from Washington when he was fighting against Russia.

      The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to cartels in Mexico.

      Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration’s designation of cartels as terrorists, “They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their national security.”

      “Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in Mexico?” Duarte asked.

      She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to demonize AMLO, portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator who is supposedly wrecking Mexico’s economy.

      Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate Rebels:

      Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.

      AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate any discussion of coups.

      “How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are,” López Obrador tweeted on November 2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, “Now is different.”

      “Another coup d’état will now be allowed,” he declared.

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

      In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.

      AMLO’s government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela’s leftist government, throwing a wrench in Washington’s efforts to impose right-wing activist Juan Guaidó as coup leader.

      AMLO has welcomed Ecuador’s ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina’s left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the presidency.

      In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico for a historic visit.

      Trump’s Operation Condor 2.0

      For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.

      In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing Venezuelans in Miami, Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.

      “The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua and in Cuba as well,” he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in heart of capitalism in the United States.

      While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not occupying its oil fields), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.

      Though the neoconservative war hawk John Bolton is no longer overseeing US foreign policyElliott Abrams remains firmly embedded in the State Department, dusting off his Iran-Contra playbook to decimate socialism in Latin America all over again.

      During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered, and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of the US intelligence apparatus.

      Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem has only begun.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 23:50

    • Drug Cartels Invade Quiet Mexican Town Packed With Americans
      Drug Cartels Invade Quiet Mexican Town Packed With Americans

      The failures of the nationalist Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) are starting to be realized in a huge way.

      First, the economy is decelerating, second, murders across the country are hitting record highs, and third, there are small towns filled with Americans that cartels are now invading. 

      Mexico’s economy entered a recession in 1H19, AMLO promised to “Make Mexico Great Again,” though an economic downturn has unfolded and has derailed his beautiful plans of revitalization. 

      An imploding economy comes at a time of worsening cartel wars and record homicides, a story we’ve been documenting for the past five years. So far this year, 28,741 people have been killed as the socio-economic crisis deepens. 

      President Trump is ready to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups, and this will one day allow the US military to fight drug cartels on Mexican soil.

      And as Bloomberg reports Tuesday, drug cartels have poured into San Miguel de Allende, a colonial-era city in Mexico’s central state, home to 160,000 folks, and approximately 10,000 Americans and Canadians. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      What’s currently happening are violent drug gangs are now a demanding property tax on small businesses and have flooded the town with cocaine, resulting in turf wars and a jump in homicides. 

      The chaos began several months ago, but before that, the small town was peaceful. Now people are dying in a hail of gunfire every week. 

      Cartel members are killing non-compliant business owners who refuse to pay the property tax. 

      Manuel, a local restaurant manager, told Bloomberg that this kind of crime was unimaginable over the summer. “It’s still hard to believe” that there’s so much chaos across the city.

      San Miguel has joined the list of popular destinations, such as Cabo San Lucas, Cancun, and Mexico City, where drug wars have erupted over the last several years. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      ALMO’s laissez-faire approach in crime-fighting has widely been viewed as a failure. 

      “Security is a nation-wide problem now, and unfortunately no one can escape it,” said Javier Quiroga, head of the bar and cantina association in Guanajuato, the state where San Miguel is located. “It’s getting harder for people to go about their regular activities.”

      Local reports said cartels had not attacked the resort part of town, popular with tourists and ex-pats. Large multinationals, such as Volkswagen AG and General Motors Co., who have manufacturing facilities in the area, have also reported that cartels aren’t disturbing them. 

      At the moment, cartels are only targeting small business owners, but that can certainly change. 

      The surge in cartel violence has led to hotel occupancy rates declining in August, down 15% over the year, according to government data. 

      Some shop keepers have fled the city after failing to pay cartel property taxes. Others have been murdered. 

      Cartel members have dropped off sacks of cocaine to shop owners, demanding them pay for the drugs. 

      Bloomberg notes that one reason for the surge in violence is due to “the government crackdown on fuel thefts in the region spurred cartels to look for alternative income sources to finance their operations and turf wars.” 

      Cartels “are looking to make a name for themselves and to get some money quick,” said Gladys McCormick, a professor of Mexico-U.S. relations at Syracuse University in New York. “Extortion is the easiest way to do that.” 

      McCormick said the violence in San Miguel “is a dark cloud on the horizon because it heralds that nowhere is safe anymore. The fact there is such an international presence in San Miguel de Allende guarantees that the fear felt inside the city will echo beyond Mexico.”


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 23:30

    • History Was Supposed To End. What Happened?
      History Was Supposed To End. What Happened?

      Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

      Anyone paying close attention at the turn of the 21st century could foresee the impending failure of the social-democratic consensus throughout the developed world. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The exalted experts who rose to power in the postwar period built gigantic state-based systems of social management and control and took over vast swaths of private society, imposing planning schemes across many sectors of economic life. They imagined themselves to be permanent fixtures of the socio-economic system. After all, this approach won the war (so they said), so why couldn’t it win the peace? 

      But there was a problem: over time nothing worked as it was supposed to. There were massive internal contradictions within the model, as Amity Shlaes shows in her new book on the Great Society. The new systems relied on bureaucratic command, not market signals. There was another problem: they were hugely imposing on people’s lives and property, and people don’t like that. Or rather: they will put up with it so long as they perceive that the benefits exceed or at least match the costs. 

      Building that apparatus – the efforts really began about a century ago, extended through the New Deal, but became a full model of social control in the postwar period – depended fundamentally on its successful sales pitch: these were programs built by workers for the sake of social justice, for the poor, for the marginalized, against plutocratic elites. 

      But as F.A. Hayek had long demonstrated about socialism, the movement was in fact nothing of the sort. It was originated by elites and largely served elites: intellectuals, the people who knew better than the masses, the people in power or wanting power, the winners in the game of political manipulation. 

      These systems reached their breaking point by the late 1970s. For the following three decades we observed piecemeal reform efforts such as those that would re-incentivize investment and work, privatize labor relations, control rates of money printing, deregulate, bring back market forces, cut taxes, and re-empower society. 

      By the time socialism in China, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe were abruptly swept off the map – a devastating blow to the whole model of top-down control – there arose an inconvenient problem. Many institutions constructed in developed capitalist societies were of the same mode: centralized, managed by elites, vastly more expensive than the benefit, ill-managed, and ultimately unworkable.

      The dramatic events abroad further humbled the left in the developed world. In the 1990s, the socialist left mostly went into hiding, as even the Democrats in the U.S. and the Labour Party in the U.K. pursued real reforms to welfare systems. It seemed like everyone had made his or her peace with markets and free enterprise as the only system that truly provides the goods. 

      As always with politics, the reform efforts were too little too late. Public anger at the status quo built until the end of the century even as private enterprise effectively constructed a completely new system based on information and decentralized control. Ten years later, we had the app economy, the ubiquitous cell phone, and globalized commerce to the point that more than 60% of the GNP of the world was attributable to imports and exports. It seemed like there was no going back. 

      Looking at this sweep of events led liberals like me to conclude that history was on the right path. The state was failing in every area and less popular than ever. There were too many anomalies to be sustained. Social consensus was breaking down for a simple reason: the ethos of social democracy presumes that society should operate like a large clan, an impossibility in the context of a modernized globalized economy with mass migration. Politicians came to be loathed alongside the bureaucrats that managed the systems that political forces created. In the course of a half century, public confidence in government had slipped from two-thirds to one-tenth of the public. 

      The experts we put in charge of the state apparatus to rule us through compulsion and coercion had proven to be an enormous flop. Their wars on everything from poverty to drugs to illiteracy to terrorism had made each of the targetted areas actually worse, while market forces themselves – mercifully neglected by the state – were creating vast new technologies in the newly dawned digital age and creating glorious new opportunities for everyone. It was markets, not welfare, that lifted billions out of poverty, opened up information economies, created dazzling new modes of communicating and living, and blasted open the possibilities for progress like we’ve never seen in human history. 

      But we liberals proved naive in our belief that history would march along a linear path toward the light. We had presumed some or another version of the “end of history” thesis that the next stage of history was moving us toward human liberty and that the state would realize its obsolescence and die a merciful death. 

      Looking back, we can see that the very same naive confidence in the capacity of human beings to learn from experience also afflicted the liberals of the late 19th century. Surrounded by the products of liberty, innovations that were dramatically changing the world and leading humanity to a new level of prosperity and peace – flight, internal combustion, the commercialization of steel – they rested on their laurels with a sense that their victory was somehow baked into the narrative story of human evolution. Then came World War I. They had clearly grown overconfident. 

      The equivalent happened to us in the last half decade. My own opinions had previously trended in the direction of believing that everyone would see the obvious failures of the state as an institution and thus would the progress toward liberty continue in the right direction. Instead, something remarkable and unexpected happened (though it is all perfectly obvious in retrospect): the reaction to the failure of leftist-style social democracy was not to embrace liberty but rather to rally around the emergence of a new form of authoritarianism that sought to govern with rightist-style rhetoric. 

      Which is to say: the state reinvented itself to live another day, forestalling the hoped-for push to emancipate humanity from the constructed oppressions of the last one hundred years. 

      The new movements came to power under a global surge of populist agitation. Trump in the US is the most obvious case but a deeper look shows that he was only one player among many in countries all over the world. Rightist movements that were against the old order but for a new form of state-imposed order rose up in Europe, Russia, and Latin America too. 

      I’ve called this new form of populism (which is a method of rhetoric and a means of retaining power) “right-wing collectivism.” It feeds off public resentment of the previous type of elite management of the social order. It rejects the universalism (globalism) of the social-democratic way and embraces instead a new form of nationalism that bleeds into every application of reactionary statism: racism, religious bigotry, misogyny, intolerance. It is invariably restrictionist on immigration and protectionist on trade. It celebrates all the things the left puts down such as faith and family but demands that these institutions serve the common national project under a Carlyle-style great leader. It brings back the leadership principle and executive rule. It is as ill-liberal as that which it replaces but not obviously so since this style of governance is more tolerant toward finance capital and nominally capitalistic production, though also celebratory of industrial planning. 

      Its champions called the model the “politics of human nature” without noting that there are both lower and higher angels of nature: the rightist brand of collectivism was all about tapping into the lowest instincts. 

      The problem was not only the right. What happens on the right somehow always finds its mirror image on the left. The rise of this new form of rightist extremism further fed the resurgence of the same on the left, which similarly tried an experiment with the populist style. Down with the rich. Pillage the millionaires and billionaires. Impose new global plans of economic management. A green new deal. Punitive taxation. The return of socialism itself! 

      The whole thing has been incredible to watch, but this is what happens: one form of extremist paradigm shift creates an appetite for another form, which is precisely why several astute observers have noted the strange overlap in the proposed policies of Trump/Warren/Sanders: statism becomes a kind of echo chamber of voices that seeks control by seizing the machinery of power for their own purposes. 

      In the end, every form of state planning uses the same methods with the same collectivist goal even if the details change depending on the constituency being served. 

      The question that has been on my mind constantly for these last five years has been: when does this all end? At what point does the populist model die the death too?

      I must give credit to David Brooks for drawing my attention to a trend this year that I had missed. His column came and went in the flurry of minute-by-minute information flows but, to my mind, this is one of the most important writings I’ve seen on politics in years. His prescience here could define the look of the next half decade. 

      Have you noticed that the world is on fire?…

      The populist/authoritarian regimes are losing legitimacy. The members of the urban middle class in places like Hong Kong and Indonesia are rising up to protect the political and social freedoms.

      These days, it doesn’t take much to set off a giant wave of anger. In Lebanon it was a proposed tax on WhatsApp. In Saudi Arabia the government raised taxes on hookah restaurants. In France, Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Iran it was rising fuel prices. In Chile it was a proposed 4 percent rise in subway fares.

      The world is unsteady and ready to blow. The overall message is that the flaws of liberal globalization are real, but the populist alternative is not working.

      Bingo! Here’s the problem. The populist must rely on exactly the same means of control as their managerial elite predecessors from the social-democratic project. The state is the state and there is no other kind. Control is control and force is force, and they breed as much popular resentment as the other managerial type from which populism emerged as a reaction. 

      State control does not work. It never has. It can’t because, as it turns out, the people who manage state programs are no smarter than the people they manage; in fact, it is worse because the managers lack access to reliable signals of market forces. Also, a revolution on this scale is bigger than another person who purports to lead it. Rise to power in a revolt and prepare to be the next scapegoat. 

      That is precisely what is happening right now. The new movements of protest are only nominally about left and right, despite the media attempt to make them fit those categories. As Brooks says, “the protests in all these places are leaderless, so it’s unrealistic to expect them to have policy agendas. But the big question is, what’s next? What comes after the failure of populism?”

      He doesn’t dare point to the actual answer because he can’t come around to facing it, because doing so would amount to admitting that a century-long intellectual project is an enormous failure. There is an answer to the question of which paradigm best suits the needs of a modern, progressing, global, diverse world order powered by technological innovation that enshrines human choice as a first principle. The answer is now what it has always been: a free society protected from the wiles of political machines through extreme restraints on the state, any state of any flavor, whether managerial or populist. 

      The next paradigm of history – once we stop experimenting with mad ideologies, populist reactions, fake paths to manufactured progress, and top-down means of enforcement – needs to be human liberty itself. 


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 23:10

    • Warren: I'll Be The "Last American President Elected By Electoral College"
      Warren: I’ll Be The “Last American President Elected By Electoral College”

      Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted a short clip of her speaking at a townhall event over the weekend, indicating that she would eliminate the Electoral College and allow the popular vote to choose the president in 2024, basically implying a massive overhaul of the US Consitution would be coming if she became president, reported The Daily Caller. “My goal is to get elected—but I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College. I want my second term to be elected by direct vote,” she tweeted.

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

      Warren told dozens of people at an Iowa town hall event that she is ready to “get rid of” the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote. 

      “I just think this is how a democracy should work,” she told the townhall. “Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Warren has mentioned before that she would abolish the Electoral College if she became president. There’s even a section on her website that says, “Presidential candidates should have to ask every American in every part of the country for their vote. Add your name if you agree: It’s time to abolish the Electoral College and to have a national popular vote.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Everyone’s vote should count equally — in every election — no matter where they live.

      But right now, presidential candidates don’t even go to places like Mississippi, where I was last night, because it’s a deep red state. They also don’t go to deep blue states like California or Massachusetts because they’re not presidential battlegrounds.

      I believe presidential candidates should have to ask every American in every part of the country for their vote, not just a few random states that happen to be close,” Warren’s website said further. 

      Her critics were quick to respond and bashed the unfair election system that has elected Democrats for decades: 

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

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

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


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 22:50

      Tags

    • L.A.'s Head Of Homelessness Resigns After 33% Increase in People Sleeping On Streets
      L.A.’s Head Of Homelessness Resigns After 33% Increase in People Sleeping On Streets

      Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

      Los Angeles’ head of homelessness is resigning after presiding over a 33% increase in homelessness over the course of just five years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Peter Lynn, head of the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority, announced that he would leave at the end of the year, with the LAHSA having splashed out a total of more than $780 million to no avail.

      The city’s homeless population jumped a further 12% from 2018 to 2019 but despite Lynn’s total failure, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti claimed he did an excellent job and oversaw “historic action.”

      One wonders how badly Lynn would have had to perform for officials to consider his tenure a failure.

      Lynn’s $242,000-a-year role appears to have had little success in addressing not just homelessness, but also the directly related problems of leprosy, typhoid fever and even bubonic plague.

      Earlier this year, Dr. Drew Pinsky said the public health situation in America’s second largest city was in utter turmoil.

      “We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now,” said Pinsky.

      1.5 per cent of rats in L.A. now carry bubonic plague. If that figure hits 2 per cent, the medieval disease will start jumping to humans.

      In other words, if LA doesn’t sort out its trash problem and its homeless problem, the return of bubonic plague is virtually guaranteed.

      And don’t even get me started on San Francisco.

      *  *  *

      My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 22:30

    • "Chill Out About The Candidates": Obama "Does Not Care" If You Like The Nominee, Just Vote Democrat
      “Chill Out About The Candidates”: Obama “Does Not Care” If You Like The Nominee, Just Vote Democrat

      When it comes to the 2020 elections, the Democrats’ most powerful if ineligible candidate, former president Obama, just can’t quite put his finger on who he wants to be the next democratic president. Two weeks ago, Trump’s predecessor cautioned 2020 Democratic candidates not to move too far to the left – a clear warning not to vote for Warren or Sanders – as messages of sweeping societal and government transformations risk turning off the party’s moderate base, the New York Times reported.

      “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality,” said Obama – who told a room of wealthy liberal donors: “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality.”

      “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

      Even odder has been Obama’s failure of explicitly endorse his own vice president and the on again, off again frontrunner in the democratic primary, Joe Biden.

      So as many Democrats look to Obama for inspiration on who to pick amid a field of candidates where nobody sticks out, last week, the former president gave some additional insight into his thought process regarding the coming elections, and last  Thusday Obama simply said that he doesn’t care if his fellow Democrats like the 2020 candidate, he just wants them to pull the lever for whoever wins the nomination.

      “Everybody needs to chill out about the candidates, but gin up about the prospect of rallying behind whoever emerges from this process,” Obama told tech leaders during a fundraiser in Silicon Valley last Thursday, the Daily Wire reported.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Barack Obama

      And though he stressed that he was calling for unity, Obama reiterated some of his latent criticism.

      “When you listen to the average voter — even ones who are stalwart Democrats, are more independent or low-information voters — they don’t feel that things are working well but they’re also nervous about changes that might take away what little they have,” he said. “So there’s always a balance in politics between hope and fear.”

      The event — which featured a top-ticket price of $355,000 — was expected to raise over $3 million for the Democratic National Committee. The fundraiser was hosted at the home of Karla Jurvetson, an ascendant Democratic megadonor in Silicon Valley politics. Other key fundraisers for the event included former Twitter executive Katie Jacobs Stanton and former Obama ambassador Denise Bauer.  Stephen Curry, the star point guard of the Golden State Warriors, also attended alongside his wife Ayesha, who spoke at the event.

      While there are still 15 candidates running for the Democratic nomination (after the withdrawal of Kamala Harris earlier today), only four are polling in double digits, with most either at 1% or 0%. But Obama said whoever gets the nod should get the vote.

      “There will be differences” between the candidates, Obama said, “but I want us to make sure that we keep in mind that, relative to the ultimate goal, which is to defeat a president and a party that has … taken a sharp turn away from a lot of the core traditions and values and institutional commitments that built this country,” those differences are “relatively minor.”

      “The field will narrow and there’s going to be one person, and if that is not your perfect candidate and there are certain aspects of what they say that you don’t agree with and you don’t find them completely inspiring the way you’d like, I don’t care,” he said. “Because the choice is so stark and the stakes are so high that you cannot afford to be ambivalent in this race.”

       

      Obama was directly addressing Silicon Valley’s wealthiest Democratic donors, telling them to “chill” in their debate over the party’s candidates, and seeking to ease the tensions among tech billionaires who have broken into separate camps backing Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and — most surprisingly — Elizabeth Warren, according to recode.

      Obama may have his job cut out for him: with many Democratic voters confused or merely bored silly by the current roster of candidates, two newcomers, Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, entered the race adding further to the confusion. Last month, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, drew fewer than 100 people to a South Carolina “Environmental Justice” forum. And she’s a frontrunner!

      Meanwhile, Gallup released a poll last week that had some troubling news for Democrats, as only 66% of the party faithful said they’re enthusiastic about the upcoming election. And while for Republicans the number is 65%, “this differed from the typical pattern Gallup has seen over the years, whereby those who identify with the political party of the incumbent president have been less enthusiastic about voting than members of the opposing party,” Gallup wrote.

      Ironically, Obama isn’t alone in saying Democrats need to hold their nose when they vote for the eventual nominee. Joe Biden’s wife, Jill, said in August that her husband might not be the best candidate, but told voters “maybe you have to swallow a little bit” and vote for him anyway.

      “Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is,” Jill Biden said on MSNBC, “but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘OK, I personally like so-and-so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

      During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, she repeated the point. “I know that not all of you are committed to my husband, and I respect that. But I want you to think about your candidate, his or her electability, and who’s going to win this race. So I think if your goal — I know my goal — is to beat Donald Trump, we have to have someone who can beat him,” she said.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 22:10

      Tags

    • Will Drones Push The Middle East Past The Point Of No Return?
      Will Drones Push The Middle East Past The Point Of No Return?

      Authored by Jonathan Burden via GlobalRiskInsights.com,

      Unmanned aerial systems (UASs) or drones, both armed and unarmed, have altered how states and insurgents conduct warfare in the Middle East. The widespread proliferation of these weapons, combined with the range of capabilities they confer and their potential to alter the logic of escalation between states, may cause significant inter-state conflict to occur. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An increase in proliferation

      Since the Cold War, the US has attempted to stop the spread of unmanned systems by pursuing a limited export policy. However, states in the Middle East have responded by either producing their own (Israel, Turkey and Iran) or by importing them (Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE). Perhaps the most troubling development is yet to come; in November the US Defense Secretary, Mark Esper warned that China was beginning to export drones with fully autonomous offensive capabilities. Although China’s policy has been described as ‘ask no questions’, it is constrained by its desire to avoid arming non-state actors and therefore legitimising separatist movements. 

      Further, declining costs of commercial drones, combined with some DIY ingenuity has meant that groups such as ISIS and the Houthis rebels have been able to field aerial support, a capability that insurgent-type groups have lacked in the past. ISIS allegedly use UASs as light bombers and as reconnaissance aircraft to help coordinate devastating suicide attacks, whilst the Houthis (with Iranian assistance) have used drones as aerial improvised explosive devices (IEDs) for targeted assassination missions.   

      Evolving capacity, multiplying impact

      One emerging capability of drone operators is ‘swarming’, where multiple systems are used to achieve a shared objective. A crude version of this, in conjunction with cruise missiles, was utilised during the attack on Aramco’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities on September 14 (crude because true swarming requires that the individual systems alter their behaviour based on communication with one another and there is little evidence that this occurred). As a result of the attack, production of 5% of the global oil supply was temporarily halted and, the global price rose by 15%. Although Houthi rebels initially claimed credit, a consensus that Iran was responsible has emerged. The attack was successful, despite the Saudi Aramco sites enjoying protection from the Kingdom’s US ally, in the form of Patriot PAC-2 surface-to-air missile batteries but which proved entirely ineffective.

      The Centre for the Study of the Drone recently found that the number of systems and products claiming to protect against UASs had risen from just 10 in 2015 to 235 by 2018. Perhaps not surprisingly, the counter-drone industry (at least in the civilian world) has been described as “peddling snake oil.” Given that very few sites are of such strategic importance in the Middle East (recall the impact on the global oil supply), this swarm technology may prove extremely effective in crippling key national infrastructure and military installations across the region, especially in lieu of a “silver bullet” solution to countering drones. 

      Likelihood of conflict escalation 

      In the immediate aftermath of the Aramco attack, Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, expressed his deep concern that tensions would increase and accused Iran of “destabilising the whole region.” Nevertheless, the attack, perhaps surprisingly, did not lead to a military response. 

      In 2015, a wargame entitled ‘Game of Drones’ held in Washington DC concluded that that the presence of UASs in contested space had the effect of “lowering the threshold for military action in some circumstances because the perceived risk was lower. However, this relies on the belief that your adversary will not treat the engagement of a manned system in the same way they would a drone in the same scenario. Even as advances in surveillance technology means UASs can reveal more of the battlefield, a new “fog of war” is introduced. This ambiguity, reflected in President Trump’s initial decision to launch counter-strikes against an Iranian attack, and then quickly to cancel, could lead to an escalation via two mechanisms. 

      First, a state could be baited into engaging a UAS, which is then used as a legitimising pretext to launch further strikes. Indeed, it has been suggested that “baiting” has been a significant facet of the Trump administration’s policy towards Tehran. The second mechanism is via miscalculation. Given the right set of conditions (perhaps a hawkish domestic base), repeated attacks on unmanned systems may compel one side to escalate, despite reluctance on both sides. 

      The emergence of autonomous and swarm drone technology across a range of actors, combined with an unclear logic of how targeting unmanned systems affect inter-state relations could, therefore, trigger conflict. The primary risk is that heightened short term tensions over drones lead to a conflict before longer-term issues can be solved. As these systems develop technologically and operationally – the emergence of autonomous systems will complicate the matter – close attention to the mechanisms involved in precipitating conflict in the Middle East must be made. 


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 21:50

    • Clintons Vacationed Extensively At Epstein's New Mexico 'Baby-Making Ranch': Report
      Clintons Vacationed Extensively At Epstein’s New Mexico ‘Baby-Making Ranch’: Report

      The Clintons regularly stayed at Jeffrey Epstein’s weird New Mexico ranch where the deceased pedophile had grand plans to seed the human race with his DNA, according to his estate manager.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bill, Hillary and even Chelsea visited the 10,000-acre estate “almost every year after they left the White House,” according to the Daily Mail. The former first family didn’t stay at the property’s main compound, however – they spent their time in a custom cowboy-themed village Epstein built a mile south of his mountaintop villa.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      the Clinton family bunked down in a special cowboy-themed village created by Epstein, which is a mile south of his own luxury mountaintop villa. They’d use one of the two guest houses, which look like they’re straight out of the 19th century.

      Seen in exclusive DailyMailTV images, the guest homes are next to other traditional Wild West-style buildings such as an old schoolhouse and saloon bar. An American flag is raised high above the village, which is next door to Epstein’s private airstrip, where he arrived on his private planes, including his infamous ‘Lolita Express’.

      This is all according to security expert Jared Kellogg, who was brought in by long-standing ranch manager Brice Gordon to improve security and set up a camera system at the main house and ‘cowboy village’.Daily Mail

      The Clintons maintain that they had minimal contact with Epstein, despite records proving he flew on the disgraced financier’s ‘Lolita Express’ Boeing 727-200 no fewer than 27 times (which Epstein sold one week before his July arrest on suspicion of sex-trafficking minors).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to Kellogg, ranch manager Brice Gordon kept bragging about the Clintons staying at the ranch – one of several of Epstein’s homes were underage girls were reportedly trafficked from all over the world.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pictures from inside Epstein’s main house in New Mexico show a ‘party shower’ for up to eight people with four shelves full of toiletries and oils

      “My contact was Brice, their main concern was that there was no video surveillance on the property at all. I thought this was a simple request, as they wanted surveillance to protect their investment. It’s a huge site,” said Kellogg. “But what was weird was that the whole time I was on site, Brice would be bragging about how the Clintons would visit, the whole family. Not just Bill, but Bill, his wife, their kid, and they would stay on the ranch itself. He had built this Western replica village with a saloon, barn houses, old school house and when you’re walking through it, it feels like you’re walking through the 1800s.”

      “His biggest concern was monitoring and covering that area, so my main focus was mounting cameras on poles to cover the driveways, walkways, the ins and outs of each house and facilities,” the Mail cites Kellogg as adding. “It was like Westworld, it’s like they built a functioning movie set, they put a lot of thought and detail into it, the flooring and facilities in there.”

      ‘I was saying how cool the replica houses were, they’re pretty neat like the 1800s. He said: ”Yeah, they’re built for guests, we get a lot of visitors. It’s really cool the Clintons come out and hang out [with Epstein].”

      ‘It sounded like a normal summer vacation.’ -Jared Kellogg

      As the Mail notes, Epstein had a picture of Bill Clinton in a blue dress hanging in his Upper East Side townhouse – a strange parody of former the infamous cum-stained dress Monica Lewinsky wore (and kept), as revealed by the Drudge Report.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Kellogg says he was stopped from going into certain areas of Epstein’s New Mexico estate, but briefly explored its underground sections.

      In November, a former contractor told the Mail that Epstein had built a secret basement ‘strip club.’

      “My access was very controlled. During the site walk, it was dictated where I could and couldn’t go. There were certain facilities I wasn’t allowed to go in, which was odd, as they were boarded up, and they looked like they could have big parties in them, but I didn’t think much of it.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The large indoor bathing area has a over-sized pool, hot tub and a framed shower behind it

      “They wanted to put very, very limited camera coverage on the main house itself. I was going to put up a couple of cameras on the exterior of the main entrance.

      “At the main entrance, there’s a downward slope at the back that goes into the basement. I was able to briefly go in. There was a long hallway to a big foyer and there was a door and that was about it. The two guest houses I was not permitted to go into,” Kellogg said.

      Due to security reasons, I wasn’t permitted to even put a camera location on the drawing that we would then have on our records.

      What is odd is that as a security professional, for me to give the best protection I can give a customer, I need the full layout of the land. I need to see the nooks and crannies, all the blind spots. They were limiting that access.

      The staff only lived in one house, as far as I was aware, which is the the one nearest to the main gate. The saloon bar is in the center [of the village], there’s a bar area and looks like where they’d throw parties from my own observations. There’s also a barn/hay storage, and they’d put tractors and other vehicles in it.’

      Considering Epstein was a multi-millionaire, Kellogg said Gordon wanted to do the security on the cheap. 

      Instead of using an expensive, robust camera system, which used underground cables, he wanted a ‘point-to-point wireless fluid mesh design’, which means cameras are operating via antenna, and is considerably cheaper. –Daily Mail

      “What was odd to me was that I wasn’t able to interact with Epstein. If it’s your house, you have your concerns, the task had been delegated to Brice, he seemed to be in charge of everything.”

      Maybe it would have been different if Bryce was a 14-year-old girl?


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 21:30

    • Why The Future Needs Us Humans
      Why The Future Needs Us Humans

      Authored by Daniel Taylor via OldThinkerNews.com,

      AI tyranny to be “built into the software that runs our society”.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The future needs real humans with a conscience and the ability to question authority.

      In 2000, Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems wrote an articled titled Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us that detailed the anti-human worldview of the elite.

      If we are to believe Elon Musk, Ray kurzweil and other top Transhumanists, we will need to merge with the machines in order to survive.

      In reality the exact opposite is true. Humanity’s survival depends on remaining human and defying the post human agenda.

      Two recent stories vividly demonstrate the anti-human future that we all face.

      bombshell story from Austin, Texas revealed that the homeless population is being microchipped as a price of entry into shelter.

      In the video clip, a homeless man describes the program, saying:

      “It’s some kind of chip, I guess. Some kind of device you put on your body and then all you do is scan and then you don’t have to pay for anything anymore, you just scan.”

      Another story from China shows the tyranny of social credit scores as a man is held captive and questioned for criticizing police on social media.

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

      The elite are pushing the world into an AI driven nightmare.

      Medical decisions, law practices, education, news and entire cities will be driven by artificial intelligence.

      We are gradually shifting from constitutional law to algorithm driven tyranny.

      Tyranny “built into the software that runs our society”

      Computer scientist and pioneer of virtual reality Jaron Lanier, named in Time Magazine’s top 100 most influential people for 2010, says that “Cybernetic totalists” could “…cause suffering for millions of people.” Lanier writes in the year 2000 in his “One Half A Manifesto” that,

      “There is a real chance that evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, Moore’s Law fetishizing, and the rest of the package, will catch on in a big way, as big as Freud or Marx did in their times. Or bigger, since these ideas might end up essentially built into the software that runs our society and our lives. If that happens, the ideology of cybernetic totalist intellectuals will be amplified from novelty into a force that could cause suffering for millions of people.”

      The elite want a final revolution against the human race.

      Ultimately, the human capacity to defy authority and exercise God-given conscience is to be snuffed out and rendered ineffective.

      It has already begun with big tech censorship (driven by AI) of conservative voices, those who question vaccine safety, and many other prescient issues.

      Simultaneously, a cultural purge of Judeo Christian values is taking place. Historically, these basic principles have held western society together in a system of true tolerance, and a regard for natural law for all mankind under God reigned us in when we went astray. The AI final revolution cannot succeed with these values widely held and practiced.

      In reality, the future does need us. If we robotically sleepwalk into this post-human future we are finished.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 21:10

    • Asian Economic Avalanche: The Good (China), The Bad (Japan), & The Really Really Ugly (Hong Kong)
      Asian Economic Avalanche: The Good (China), The Bad (Japan), & The Really Really Ugly (Hong Kong)

      A smorgasbord of data from AsiaPac tonight poured a big bucket of cold water on the hopes for a trough in global growth.

      Japan was first out of the gate with its Services PMI (slightly better than expected) but the Composite PMI remains below 50 (in contraction)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      A typhoon and bad weather in October have also made it hard to discern the economy’s underlying strength. Economists have long forecast a contraction in the last three months of this year as the sales tax increase hits domestic consumption.

      Commenting on the latest survey results, Joe Hayes, Economist at IHS Markit, said:

      November data is highly discouraging for the Japanese economy. October was difficult to interpret as a consequence of the consumption tax hike and powerful typhoon. A rebound was to be expected in November, but disappointingly, the strength of the recovery was limited, with activity growing only marginally.

      No notable acceleration in new business growth was also seen, suggesting that underlying demand conditions in Japan’s service sector have weakened so far in the fourth quarter.

      “Japan’s service sector has been robust in 2019 so far, doing a good job at offsetting the strong drag from manufacturing.

      However, based on survey data so far in the fourth quarter, a contraction in economic output seems highly plausible as we head into year-end.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Additionally, rubbing salt in the already sore wounds of the Japanese economy, Japanese car sales in South Korea collapsed 56.4% YoY as tensions between the two nations spark backlash.

      But, all will be fixed soon as Japan is preparing an economic stimulus package worth 13 trillion yen (S$163 billion) to support fragile economic growth, two government officials with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg yesterday, complicating government efforts to fix public finances.

      Next up was Australia, where GDP grew at only 0.4% QoQ, weaker than the expected 0.5% with consumption remaining very weak (+0.1%). As a reminder, Australia has gone 28 years without a (formal) recession.

      This follows a drop in Australian services business activity in the middle of the fourth quarter, accompanied by subdued sales growth, which remained constrained by a further fall in export demand. Job creation was marginal.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      November data indicated that the decline in business activity occurred amid subdued demand conditions.

      Then came the real fun as Hong Kong’s Composite PMI crashed to a record low of 38.5 in November, with the sharpest drop in new business since the trough of the crisis in Nov 2008…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The average PMI reading (38.9) for October and November combined indicates the economy is on course for its weakest quarter since the survey’s inception over 21 years ago.

      Commenting on the latest survey results, Bernard Aw, Principal Economist at IHS Markit, said:

      November PMI data indicated that Hong Kong’s private sector suffered its worst downturn since the 2003 SARS crisis, with the latest survey indicators painting a picture of gloom for the Special Administrative Region.

      “The survey showed that the escalating political unrest saw business activity shrinking at the steepest rate since the survey started in July 1998. This occurred concurrently with the sharpest decline in new sales since the depths of the global financial crisis.

      The business outlook unsurprisingly remained gloomy, with confidence still stuck among the lowest levels seen in the survey history. In a further sign of pessimism, firms continued to make deep cuts to purchasing activity and inventories, reducing both at a survey record pace.”

      And finally, Aw notes, “The average PMI reading for October and November combined showed the economy on track to see GDP fall by over 5% in the fourth quarter, unless December brings a dramatic recovery.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And then came the big kahuna – China Services (and Composite) PMI. After China’s government-provided PMI surged magnificently out of nowhere (despite a record collapse in industrial profits), all eyes are on the Caixin data tonight, which also surged dramatically from 51.1 to 53.5 (smashing expectations of 51.2)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      But, oddly, employment fell to 51.0 – the weakest since July 2019.

      Commenting on the China General Services PMI™ data, Dr. Zhengsheng Zhong, Director of Macroeconomic Analysis at CEBM Group said:

      “The Caixin China General Services Business Activity Index edged up to 53.5 in November, a marked increase from 51.1 in the previous month, marking the highest growth rate since April this year. The reading indicates a recovery in activity across the services sector.

      1) The gauge for new business picked up from a recent low in October with a solid rebound in the measure for new export business, indicating domestic and foreign demand both improved.

      2) The measure of outstanding business fell back into contractionary territory after two straight months of expansion, suggesting a strengthening capability on the supply side in the services sector. The employment gauge fell marginally in November from the previous month, which marked the most modest expansion since July.

      3) The gauge for prices charged by service providers rose marginally, but the reading for input costs edged down, indicating greater company profitability. In the meantime, the measure for business expectations picked up strongly, but was still lower than the long-term average, reflecting depressed business confidence.

      This surprising surge in Services sent the China Composite PMI to its highest since Feb 2018

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      “The Caixin China Composite Output Index rose to 53.2 in November from 52 in the previous month, the highest since February 2018. The employment gauge bounced back into positive territory, reflecting easing pressure on the labor market. The measures for new orders and new export orders remained at relatively high levels, reflecting a continuous improvement in demand. The gauge for input prices edged down, pointing to easing pressure on the costs of companies. But business confidence was still weak, with the measure for future output expectations down from October.

      China’s economy continued to recover in November, as domestic and foreign demand both improved. But business confidence remained subdued, reflecting the impact from uncertainties generated by the China-U.S. trade conflicts. That will restrain a recovery in economic growth. The trade dispute is the major reason behind the slowing economic growth this year, and will become a key factor affecting the stabilization and recovery of China’s economy next year.”

      PBOC fixed the Yuan notably weaker tonight as the plunge in offshore yuan accelerated after Washington voted on the China Human Rights bill.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Bloomberg

      This summed things up rather perfectly…

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

      Do you believe in miracles?


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 20:56

    • Former Counter-Intel Officer: Durham Needs To Bring Indictments
      Former Counter-Intel Officer: Durham Needs To Bring Indictments

      Authored by Chris Farrell via The Gatestone Institute,

      There is new evidence that U.S. Attorney John Durham is getting to the root of criminal abuses by senior U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials in their conspiracy to undermine the Trump campaign, transition and presidency. Mr. Durham’s mandate from Attorney General William Barr — to uncover the seditious plot behind the Trump-Russia hoax, if pursued vigorously, will uncover the single greatest threat to the Constitution since the nation’s founding.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Mr. Durham’s apparent interest in FBI source Stefan Halper and the contract vehicles available to the Pentagon think tank, the Office of Net Assessments, for whom Halper worked, is an important clue.

      Likewise, Mr. Durham’s travel to Italy for talks with the Italian government and their intelligence service points to another possible clue concerning the mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud.

      For the purposes of the manufactured Trump-Russia hoax, one need only remember the associations of Halper with Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page — and Joseph Mifsud with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy junior advisor — to the Trump campaign.

      The intelligence agencies of the federal government are prohibited from targeting American organizations in the United States. Executive Order 12333, Section 2.9 states:

      Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
      (a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
      (b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.

      This prohibition on running penetration operations against domestic political organizations is a legal and political “hangover” from the 1960s civil disturbances that saw (among a host of other covert action programs) US Army Counterintelligence agents working undercover against the militant Leftists organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. The U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the “Church Committee,” was empaneled in 1975 under the leadership of Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) to review and make recommendations on intelligence operations. The Church Committee was controversial. Critics claimed the committee exposed the “crown jewels” of U.S. intelligence and hobbled our ability to conduct legitimate collection activities. Today’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Court were inspired by the final reports of the Church Committee.

      The seditious coup plotters working against Trump knew the legal prohibitions on what they planned to do. How to target Trump & Co. in a “legal” manner? Was it possible, or more importantly, desirable, to have a legal finding from Attorney General Loretta Lynch justifying their plan to frame-up Trump & Co.? That would authorize their operation — but would Lynch support it? Could Lynch be counted on? Did they want a piece of paper like that floating around Washington D.C.? No, there had to be a better way to pull off the coup.

      The alternative to a purely domestic intelligence operation targeting a major political party’s candidate for the presidency (and later, president) was to manufacture a foreign counterintelligence (FCI) “threat” that could then be “imported” back into the United States. Plausible deniability, the Holy Grail of covert activities, was in reach for the plotters if they could develop an FCI operation outside the continental United States (OCONUS) involving FBI confidential human sources (Halper, Mifsud, others?) that would act as “lures” (intelligence jargon associated with double agent operations) to ensnare Trump associates.

      We have evidence of these machinations from December 2015 when FBI lawyer Lisa Page texts to her boyfriend, the now infamous FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, “You get all our oconus lures approved? ;).”

      To inoculate themselves from further charges of misconduct and criminality, the FBI’s mutually agreed upon lie is that their investigation of Trump/Russia began on July 31, 2016 with the improbable name “Crossfire Hurricane.” That coincides nicely with their manufactured FCI “event,” allowing the full-bore sabotage of all things and persons “Trump.” The coup plotters used a July 2016 event at the University of Cambridge as the opportunity for Carter Page to meet and develop a friendship with Stefan Halper. This is roughly the same time period that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer reported the supposedly drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos concerning the Russians having Hillary’s emails to the FBI. Papadopoulos had already serendipitously met the mysterious Joseph Mifsud in Rome during the second week of March 2016. Learning that Papadopoulos would be joining the Trump campaign, Mifsud let Papadopoulos know that he had many important connections with Russian government officials.

      In July 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was questioned closely by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) concerning the persons and sequence of events detailed above.

      The summation of Mueller’s testimony was, “Well, I can’t get into it.”

      The coup plot failed, but the chief coup conspirators are free, crisscrossing the country on book tours and appearing as paid contributors to CNN and MSNBC. A bright note in the so far grim saga is that one of the collateral casualties has filed a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against Stefan Halper and MSNBC for defamation, conspiracy and tortious interference. It’s the closest thing we’ve seen to justice to date. The complaint makes remarkable and insightful reading.

      It is now time for Mr. Durham to “get into it,” in a manner Mr. Mueller was either unwilling or unable to do. Time is of the utmost importance. The American public needs to see action. Indictments and trials are the only antidote for the poison of treasonous sedition.

      *  *  *

      Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 20:30

      Tags

    • How To Discuss "Climate Change" With A 'Woke' Teenager
      How To Discuss “Climate Change” With A ‘Woke’ Teenager

      Via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

      After our daughter of fifteen years of age was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN the other day, she became angry with our generation “who had been doing nothing for thirty years.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced of “massive eradication and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.”

      We are now committed to give our daughter a future again, by doing our part to help cool the planet four degrees.

      From now on she will go to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car costs fuel, and fuel puts emissions into the atmosphere. Of course it will be winter soon and then she will want to go by bus, but cycling through the freezing builds resilience.

      Of course, she is now asking for an electric bicycle, but we have shown her the devastation caused to the areas of the planet as a result of mining for the extraction of Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles, so she will be pedaling, or walking.

      Which will not harm her, or the planet. We used to cycle and walk to school too.

      Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heat vent in her room. The temperature is now dropping to twelve degrees in the evening, and will drop below freezing in the winter, we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket.

      For the same reason we have decided that from now on she only takes a cold shower. She will wash her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is simply a power consumer and since the dryer uses natural gas, she will hang her clothes on the clothes line to dry, just like my parents and grandparents used to do.

      Speaking of clothes, the ones that she currently has are all synthetic, so made from petroleum. Therefore on Monday, we will bring all her designer clothing to the secondhand shop.

      We have found an eco store where the only clothing they sell is made from undyed and unbleached linen and jute. Also can’t have clothes made on wool, because the emissions from farting sheep are supposedly causing bad weather.

      It shouldn’t matter that it looks good on her, or that she is going to be laughed at, dressing in colorless, bland clothes and without a wireless bra, but that is the price she has to pay for the benefit of The Climate.

      Cotton is out of the question, as it comes from distant lands and pesticides are used for it. Very bad for the environment.
      We just saw on her Instagram that she’s pretty angry with us. This was not our intention.

      From now on, at 7 p.m. we will turn off the WiFi and we will only switch it on again the next day after dinner for two hours. In this way we will save on electricity, so she is not bothered by electro-stress and will be totally isolated from the outside world. This way, she can concentrate solely on her homework. At eleven o’clock in the evening we will pull the breaker to shut the power off to her room, so she knows that dark is really dark. That will save a lot of CO2.

      She will no longer be participating in winter sports to ski lodges and resorts, nor will she be going on anymore vacations with us, because our vacation destinations are practically inaccessible by bicycle.

      Since our daughter fully agrees with the girl on TV that the CO2 emissions and footprints of her great-grandparents are to blame for ‘killing our planet’, what all this simply means, is that she also has to live like her great-grandparents and they never had a holiday, a car or even a bicycle.

      We haven’t talked about the carbon footprint of food yet.

      Zero CO2 footprint means no meat, no fish and no poultry, but also no meat substitutes that are based on soy (after all, that grows in farmers fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging/canning plants, and trucked once again to the stores) and also no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And absolutely no chocolate from Africa, no coffee from South America and no tea from Asia.

      Only homegrown potatoes, vegetables and fruit that have been grown in local cold soil, because greenhouses run on boilers, piped in CO2 and artificial light. Apparently, these things are also bad for The Climate. We will teach her how to grow her own food.

      Bread is still possible, but butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream come from cows and they emit CO2. No more margarine and no oils will be used for the frying pan, because that fat is palm oil from plantations in Borneo where rain forests first grew.

      No ice cream in the summer. No soft drinks and no energy drinks, as the bubbles are CO2.

      We will also ban all plastic, because it comes from chemical factories. Everything made of steel and aluminum must also be removed. Have you ever seen the amount of energy a blast furnace consumes or an aluminum smelter? All bad for the climate!

      We will replace her memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, with a horse hair pillow.

      And finally, she will no longer be using makeup, soap, shampoo, cream, lotion, conditioner, toothpaste and medication. Facewashers will all be linen, that she can wash by hand, with her wooden washboard, just like her female ancestors did before climate change made her angry at us for destroying her future.

      In this way we will help her to do her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising and the disappearance of entire ecosystems.

      If she truly believes she wants to walk the talk of the girl on TV, she will gladly accept and happily embrace her new way of life.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 20:25

    • World's Biggest Pension Fund Stops Lending Shares To Short-Sellers Amid Threat Of Market Crash
      World’s Biggest Pension Fund Stops Lending Shares To Short-Sellers Amid Threat Of Market Crash

      Ahead of the next market crash, Japan’s public pension fund, one of the largest pension funds in the world, has developed a new market tool where it will no longer allow shares of its $733 billion global equity portfolio to be loaned out for short selling, reported the Financial Times.

      The announcement by Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), comes at a time when the global economy is quickly decelerating into year-end, could see a significant repricing event where global equities correct into 1H20. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      To get ahead of the downturn, about $370 billion of its $733 billion global equity portfolio will no longer be loaned out. It could be used as a weapon to combat evil short-sellers when the market plunges. If other pension funds follow GPIF’s lead, which they likely will, this could be a highly disruptive market tool to stem downside and also create the mother of all short squeezes. 

      The reasoning behind GPIF’s move to discontinue lending of at least half of its global equity book isn’t because it’s “concerned that lending stocks out stopped it exercising proper stewardship over the underlying investments. This included a lack of transparency over the final borrower and how it was using GPIF shares,” as FT notes, but rather it’s an unorthodox market tool that was similarly used by the Chinese government to stem further downside in a 2015 stock market crash.

      GPIF will lose nearly $300 million in fees per year from discontinuing its lending of shares from the foreign segment of its portfolio, FT noted. 

      Traders in Tokyo told FT that other pension funds will likely follow suit. Though they said, the move to stop lending shares to short-sellers wouldn’t have an immediate impact on market fundamentals, though it could prove useful to limit the downside during the next market crash. 

      And it already seems like Elon Musk is already a big fan of GPIF’s market tool:

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

       


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 20:10

    • Epstein Accuser Hits Out Against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz In Wake Of Potential New Evidence
      Epstein Accuser Hits Out Against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz In Wake Of Potential New Evidence

      A woman who claims she was forced to have sex with Jeffrey Epstein and several associates has appealed to Britons for support, after Prince Andrew vehemently denied having inappropriate contact with her.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Virginia Giuffre says Epstein trafficked her to the British prince, bringing her to London in 2001 when she was 17-years-old. In an interview broadcast Monday, she says she was forced to have sex with him three times.

      “He knows what happened. I know what happened, and there’s only one of us telling the truth, and I know that’s me,” Giuffre told BBC Panorama.

      I implore the citizens in the UK to stand up beside me, to help me fight this fight, to not accept this as being ok. This is not some sordid sex story. This is a story of being trafficked, this is a story of abuse and this is a story of your guys’ royalty.”

      In her interview, which was recorded before the prince spoke to the BBC, Giuffre said she was taken to the Tramp nightclub in London by Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Andrew asked her to dance, she said.

      He is the most hideous dancer I’ve ever seen in my life. I mean it was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, like his sweat was like it was raining basically everywhere,” she said.

      Andrew, the eighth-in-line to the throne, said he could not have had sex with Giuffre at Maxwell’s home on the night she alleges because he had been to a pizza restaurant in the commuter town of Woking for a children’s party. –Reuters

      The 59-year-old Andrew insists he has no recollection of meeting Giuffre.

      In response to Giuffre’s interview, Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”

      Andrew, meanwhile, was kicked out of Buckingham Palace and had his 60th birthday canceled by the Queen. Seems extreme for a royal they claim is innocent, no?

      Andrew, meanwhile, gave a disastrous interview to the BBC last month in which he said he regretted his “ill-judged” relationship with Epstein.

      Dershowitz

      On the other side of the pond, Giuffre may add a sex-abuse claim to a defamation lawsuit against famous Harvard attorney and former Epstein pal Alan Dershowitz, who she says she was forced to have sex with.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Giuffre sued Dershowitz in April after he repeatedly denied her claims and called her a liar, according to Bloomberg. Dershowitz counter-sued for defamation and emotional distress.

      Charles Cooper, Giuffre’s lawyer, said in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska that his client may take advantage of New York’s new Child Victims Act, which in August opened a one-year window for people to sue over sex abuse they suffered as children even if the claims would otherwise be too old. New York previously required most childhood sex abuse victims to sue by the time they they turned 23.

      Dershowitz’s lawyer, Howard Cooper, said the act would not apply to Giuffre, whose claims date from the early 2000s, because she wasn’t a minor at the time. –Bloomberg

      Giuffre’s lawyers also brought up a Sunday story in the New York Times regarding a mysterious hacker claiming to have a vast trove of Epstein’s covertly recorded video footage and financial records, which he says he has stored on encrypted overseas servers.

      The man, who called himself “Patrick Kessler,” said he has videos of powerful men in “compromising sexual positions, including rape.”

       


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 19:58

    • Mt. Rainier And The New Madrid Fault Zone Were Both Just Hit By Significant Earthquakes
      Mt. Rainier And The New Madrid Fault Zone Were Both Just Hit By Significant Earthquakes

      Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

      Mt. Rainier and the New Madrid fault zone are both shaking, and a catastrophic seismic event at either location would cause death and destruction on an unimaginable scale.

      Mt. Rainier has been called “one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world”, and scientists tell us that it is just a matter of time before a major eruption occurs. When that day finally arrives, Mt. Rainier has the potential to bury hundreds of square miles with a colossal tsunami of super-heated mud that is literally several hundred feet deep. And since Mt. Rainier is very close to major population centers, we are talking about the potential for the worst disaster that we have seen in modern American history.

      But a massive earthquake along the New Madrid fault zone actually has the potential to be far worse. A very deep scar under the ground that was created when North America was originally formed has made that part of the country very mechanically weak, and many experts believe that a big enough earthquake along that fault zone could literally rip the United States in half.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But before we discuss the New Madrid fault zone, let’s talk about what just happened at Mt. Rainier first.

      According to the USGS, Mt. Rainier was hit by a magnitude 3.6 earthquake on Sunday afternoon

      After a spurt of seismic activity this weekend, Mount Rainier National Park was shaken by a 3.6 magnitude earthquake Sunday afternoon.

      The quake hit at 12:31 p.m. and was felt as far as Kent, nearly 80 miles away, the U.S. Geological Survey reported. The relatively shallow quake was centered roughly a mile beneath the earth’s surface.

      In addition to that quake, there have been quite a few others in recent days.

      In fact, it is being reported that Mt. Rainier has been hit by “more than a dozen” earthquakes since Thanksgiving day.

      The Seattle Times is assuring us that this is perfectly normal, but they are also warning their readers that they “should prepare for what might happen in the event of an eruption” just in case…

      Regardless, people living near Mount Rainier should prepare for what might happen in the event of an eruption, said Wes Thelen, a research seismologist at the Cascade Volcano Observatory. Specifically, an eruption could cause lahars — large volcanic mudflows — to rip down the side of the mountain.

      Many of my readers clearly remember the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, but a catastrophic eruption of Mt. Rainier would be so much worse that the two events would not even be worth comparing. The following comes from Wikipedia

      If Mt. Rainier were to erupt as powerfully as Mount St. Helens did in its May 18, 1980 eruption, the effect would be cumulatively greater, because of the far more massive amounts of glacial ice locked on the volcano compared to Mount St. Helens,[40] the vastly more heavily populated areas surrounding Rainier, and the simple fact that Mt Rainier is a much bigger volcano, almost twice the size of St. Helens.[49] Lahars from Rainier pose the most risk to life and property,[50] as many communities lie atop older lahar deposits. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), about 150,000 people live on top of old lahar deposits of Rainier.[9] Not only is there much ice atop the volcano, the volcano is also slowly being weakened by hydrothermal activity. According to Geoff Clayton, a geologist with a Washington State Geology firm, RH2 Engineering, a repeat of the 5000-year-old Osceola Mudflow would destroy EnumclawOrtingKentAuburnPuyallupSumner and all of Renton.[39] Such a mudflow might also reach down the Duwamish estuary and destroy parts of downtown Seattle, and cause tsunami in Puget Sound and Lake Washington.[51] Rainier is also capable of producing pyroclastic flows and expelling lava.[51]

      A lahar is essentially a giant tsunami of super-heated mud, and they can be hundreds of feet high. If you live in that region, you might be thinking that you will just outrun any lahar that is headed your way, but the truth is that the highways will instantly be jammed once an eruption happens and a lahar can travel at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour. The following is how one author described the danger that those living in the area could potentially be facing…

      The numerous towns and cities that occupy the surrounding valley would all be at risk for not only severe destruction, but complete annihilation. Residents of cities like Orting, Sumner, Buckley, and Enumclaw are estimated to have no more than 30 minutes before the lahar, speeding down from the many rivers that flow from Mount Rainier, buries their homes and businesses beneath as much as 30 feet of mud and debris. Even the larger cities like Auburn, Puyallup, and Tacoma itself are not safe. Auburn and Puyallup, with nearly 80,000 residents between them, would be covered in 20 feet of mud in less than an hour, and Tacoma, at almost 200,000, is estimated to be hit with nearly 10 feet from the lahar.

      As you can see, the death and destruction would be off the charts, and let us hope that such a disaster does not arrive any time soon.

      And as I mentioned earlier, a major earthquake along the New Madrid fault zone has the potential to create even greater death and destruction.

      According to scientists, the New Madrid fault zone sits directly above a very deep geological scar that was created when North America was formed. According to Wikipedia, this immense scar makes “the Earth’s crust in the New Madrid area mechanically weaker than much of the rest of North America”.

      Today, the New Madrid fault zone is approximately six times bigger than the San Andreas fault zone in California. It covers portions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, and the largest earthquakes in the lower 48 states have happened in this region.

      Scientists assure us that it is just a matter of time before more catastrophic earthquakes hit this fault zone, and that is why what has been happening near the town of Ridgely, Tennessee in recent days is so concerning

      A swarm of at least 15 earthquakes reaching up to 2.1 magnitude rattled Ridgely, Tennessee — a small town near the Mississippi River — over a two-day period, the U.S. Geological Survey reports.

      The other quakes in the swarm ranged from 1.1 to 1.5 magnitude, according to the USGS.

      Most Americans have never heard of Ridgely, and it is definitely a very small town, but what makes this so important is that Ridgely sits directly inside the New Madrid fault zone

      Ridgely is home to just 1,657 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and sits less than four miles from the banks of the Mississippi River.

      It’s also part of the New Madrid Seismic Zone — which the Missouri Department of Natural Resources refers to as “the most active seismic area in the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains.”

      In 1811 and 1812, four absolutely massive earthquakes along the New Madrid fault zone opened up very deep fissures in the ground, they caused the Mississippi River to actually run backwards in certain places, and they were reportedly felt as far away as Washington D.C. and Boston.

      Fortunately, very few people populated the region in those days, but if such a quake happened today the death and destruction would be unimaginable. The following description of one of the quakes that happened in 1811 comes from Smithsonian.com, and for a moment I would like for you to imagine what would happen if such an earthquake happened in our time…

      The Midwest was sparsely populated, and deaths were few. But 8-year-old Godfrey Lesieur saw the ground “rolling in waves.” Michael Braunm observed the river suddenly rise up “like a great loaf of bread to the height of many feet.” Sections of riverbed below the Mississippi rose so high that part of the river ran backward. Thousands of fissures ripped open fields, and geysers burst from the earth, spewing sand, water, mud and coal high into the air.

      The New Madrid fault zone has altered the course of the Mississippi River before, and someday it will happen again.

      We live at a time when our planet appears to be getting increasing unstable. In addition to the other earthquakes that I have already mentioned, Alaska was actually hit by a magnitude 6.0 earthquake on Monday.

      Unfortunately, most Americans are not going to start caring about the warning signs until a major disaster has already happened.

      Most people will simply not wake up without a major amount of shaking, and let us hope that such a day can be put off for as long as possible.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 19:50

    • China Vows Response After US House Votes To Sanction Chinese Officials Over Uighur Abuse
      China Vows Response After US House Votes To Sanction Chinese Officials Over Uighur Abuse

      Update: China wasted no time to issue a harshly worded response to the passage of the Uighur bill, and in a statement published moments ago by the Chinese foreign ministry, said that whereas “the US plan to use the Xinjiang-related issue to sow Chinese ethnic relations, undermine Xinjiang’s prosperity and stability, and curb China’s development”, this is “absolutely impossible” and Beijing urges the US to “immediately correct its mistakes, prevent the aforementioned Xinjiang-related bill from becoming law, and stop using the Xinjiang-related issue to interfere in China’s internal affairs.”

      The statement ends ominously, saying that “China will respond further according to the development of the situation.”

      In other words, even more words, and no actions, suggesting that at this point, Xi may have capitulated and is scared of actually doing something instead of just speaking.

      Full statement below from the foreign ministry:

      Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Remarks on the U.S. House of Representatives Passing the “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Bill 2019”

      The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the so-called “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Bill 2019.” The case deliberately discredited the human rights situation in Xinjiang, arrogantly discredited China’s efforts to radicalize and combat terrorism, maliciously attacked the Chinese government’s territorial policies, seriously violated international law and basic principles of international relations, and seriously interfered in China’s internal affairs. China expresses its strong indignation and resolute opposition.

      Xinjiang-related issues are not at all human rights, ethnic, and religious issues, but anti-terrorist and anti-secession issues. Xinjiang has suffered from extremist and violent terrorist activities. Facing the grim situation, the Xinjiang Autonomous Region Government has cracked down on violent terrorist activities in accordance with the law, and at the same time attaches great importance to source governance, including actively promoting depolarization, and continuously promoting economic development, national unity, and social harmony and stability. These measures have ensured that no terrorist attacks have occurred in Xinjiang in the past three years, received universal support from 25 million people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, and made positive contributions to the global cause of counter-terrorism.

      The international community has generally positively evaluated the Chinese government’s policy of governing Xinjiang. Since the end of 2018, more than a thousand people from more than 70 national and regional officials, international organizations, news media, religious groups, experts and scholars have visited Xinjiang, and they have praised Xinjiang’s experience in counter-terrorism and depolarization work. In March this year, the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Islamic Cooperation Organization passed a resolution praising China’s efforts in caring for the Muslim masses. In July, the permanent representatives of more than 50 countries in Geneva sent a joint letter to the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to positively evaluate China’s respect and protection of human rights in its counter-terrorism and depolarization efforts. In October, more than 60 countries spoke enthusiastically during the 74th Session of the Third Committee of the General Assembly, praising China’s huge human rights progress in Xinjiang. All these strongly prove that the US side’s article on Xinjiang-related issues is totally contrary to the facts and completely contrary to the mainstream public opinion in the international community.

      We must tell the US side that Xinjiang affairs are purely China’s internal affairs and that no foreign interference is allowed. The above-mentioned bill on the US side deliberately smears China’s counter-terrorism and de-extremization measures, which will only further expose its double standards on counter-terrorism, and will only let the Chinese people further understand its hypocrisy and sinister intentions.

      The Chinese government and people are unwavering in their determination to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests. The US plan to use the Xinjiang-related issue to sow Chinese ethnic relations, undermine Xinjiang’s prosperity and stability, and curb China’s development is absolutely impossible. We urge the US to immediately correct its mistakes, prevent the aforementioned Xinjiang-related bill from becoming law, and stop using the Xinjiang-related issue to interfere in China’s internal affairs. China will respond further according to the development of the situation.

      * * *

      In the past few days, China’s Global Times twitter troll Hu Xijin has been quite vocal not only about China’s anger over the recent passage of the pro-HK bill that was signed by Trump last Thursday, but also about China’s response to what he said was the imminent passage of a Xinjian-related bill, which would sanction Chinese officials responsible for the repression of over a million Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region.

      Overnight, Hu issued his latest not so veiled threat on the matter saying that “since US Congress plans to pass Xinjiang-related bill, China is considering to impose visa restrictions on US officials and lawmakers who’ve had odious performance on Xinjiang issue;it might also ban all US diplomatic passport holders from entering Xinjiang.”

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

      Yesterday, Hu retweeted a post by The Business Source division of the Global Times, which warned that China would release an “unreliable entity list” soon, which includes relevant US entities, in response to the passage of the Xinjiang-related bill “that will harm Chinese firms’ interests, prompting China to speed up the move.”

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

      His comments came just days after one or more Chinese dissidents leaked the troubling secrets of China’s Xinjiang camps to the foreign media, which prompted the following retort from Hu: “China wants real human rights in Xinjiang: people’s rights to have a peaceful life. West’s hypocrisy won’t affect Xinjiang internally, nor will it influence Muslim countries’ attitude. It’s just a few media outlets and politicians pretending to be representing the world.Pathetic.”

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

      Well, moments ago the U.S. House of Representatives indeed overwhelmingly approved legislation that would impose sanctions on Chinese officials over human rights abuses against Muslim minorities, provoking Beijing to retaliate just as trade deal negotiations between the two sides appear to be on the verge of collapse.

      The bill is an amended version of the Senate’s S. 178 to support the Uighurs, a Muslim ethnic group in western China, and it passed Tuesday, on a vote of 407 to 1. Chinese state media warned before the vote that the government could release a list of “unreliable entities” that could lead to sanctions against U.S. companies. The measure follows legislation supporting Hong Kong protesters signed into law last week by President Donald Trump.

      And now, with Xi Jinping having already lost serious credibility after he failed to forcefully respond to Trump’s signing of the Hong Kong bill, all eyes will be on China, and whether it will indeed trigger visa restrictions and limit travel for US officials to Xinjiang province (something which will never happen) and, more importantly, if Beijing will finally publish its “unreliable entity”, aka black list, which it has been threatening to do since May and which may include such names as Apple and Micron. Well, now that the House has passed the Uighur bill, Beijing may no longer be able to delay, or else it will be seen as a pushover every time a diplomatic – or other – challenge escalates. Needless to say, for a president for life such as Xi Jinping, that is hardly an option, so stay tuned for China’s response which may be due any moment.


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 19:34

      Tags

    • Gundlach: Stocks 'Will Get Crushed' In The Next Downturn
      Gundlach: Stocks ‘Will Get Crushed’ In The Next Downturn

      DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach sat down with Yahoo Finance and discussed how US stocks would get absolutely crushed in the next recession. 

      Gundlach said 2019 was the year when investors could pick “just about anything…Just throw a dart, and you’re up 15-20%, not just the United States, but global stocks as well.” He warns that it could all change in 2020, as a recession is fast approaching.

      He shared his “chart of the year,” which divides global equities into four regions (the US, Japan, Europe, and Emerging Markets). What it shows is an alarming market top forming in US stocks, similar to what happened with the Nikkei 225 in the early 1990s or the Euro Stoxx 50 Index in the late 1990s or MSCI Emerging Markets in 2007/2008.

      “So, where are we today? Today, we have the S&P 500 is killing everybody else over the last ten years, almost 100% outperformance versus most other stock markets,” he said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “My belief is that pattern will repeat itself,” said Gundlach, who has spent much of 2019 warning of a downturn ahead of the 2020 elections.

      “In other words, when the next recession comes, the United States will get crushed, and it will not make it back to the highs that we’ve seen, that we’re floating around right now, probably for the rest of my career, is what I think is going to happen,” he added — suggesting that a recovery won’t be seen for years.

      Last month, Gundlach warned about the levels of government debt, and the US equity markets are not sustainable. He told investors that they should brace for significant disruptions.

      “The corporate bond market in the United States is rated higher than it deserves to be. Kind of like securitized mortgages was rated way too high before the global financial crisis. Corporate credit is the thing that should be watched for big trouble in the next recession.”

      And maybe a downturn in the economy has already started, considering credit markets usually lead. As shown below, significant cracks in the junk bond space are beginning to appear:

      The spreads on CCC US junk bonds have jumped above 1,000bps for the first time in more than three years as a sell-off in energy weighs on the lowest-rated debt.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Blowing the CCC market’s risk out to its widest against single-B since April 2016…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Generic CLO BBB tranche is starting to flash very red…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The broader junk bond market posted negative returns last month… as stocks have soared…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Gundlach’s Sept. presentation titled “The Greatest Economy Ever!” made it clear that the next big move for the dollar is lower, and warned that when the next recession occurs, the US dollar and stocks will be in trouble, recommending investors to diversify into other currencies and markets.

      And since his view on the economy is that it is anything but the “Greatest Ever”, pointing out the sharp slump in 2019 global GDP projections…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And as we’ve said on multiple occasions, the next shoe to drop is likely the consumer. Something that Gundlach is waiting for as well explained in the latest interview with Yahoo. 

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


      Tyler Durden

      Tue, 12/03/2019 – 19:05

    Digest powered by RSS Digest