Today’s News 22nd November 2019

  • China Gives Japan, Korea Ultimatum On Hosting US Missiles After INF Collapse
    China Gives Japan, Korea Ultimatum On Hosting US Missiles After INF Collapse

    The major Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun revealed this week that Chinese officials issued a stern to warning to Japan and South Korea against any move to host intermediate-range missiles on their soil.

    Citing both Japanese and US sources, the newspaper said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi issued the message to his Japanese and South Korean counterparts in August  an action apparently triggered by President Trump’s announced official withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptor, via Wiki Commons

    Given a key administration criticism of the INF is that it doesn’t account for developing technology and advanced missiles of major powers like China, Beijing is said to be worried over the fallout of a potential new US-Russia arms race for southeast Asia.

    According to the report:

    With the INF now invalidated, Beijing is concerned that Washington plans to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Japan and South Korea where they would be capable of reaching China.

    Foreign Minister Wang reportedly told then Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Taro Kono: “If the United States deploys intermediate-range missiles in Japan, that would have a major effect on Japan-China relations” — a message also relayed in a separate bilateral meeting with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha.

    Japan’s Kono reportedly responded firmly with “Chinese missiles are capable of hitting Japan, so China must first work toward reducing its arsenal.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (left) meeting Japanese counterpart Taro Kono in Tokyo on April 15, 2018. Via Reuters

    And further: “Kang told Wang that China should first end its retaliatory measures against South Korea for the deployment of the U.S. military’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system, the sources said.”

    The revelation comes at an interesting moment, given US-South Korea relations reached a low-point this month after the Trump administration in negotiations with Seoul demanded a $4.7 billion annual price tag to keep 28,000+ US troops in South Korea.

    Simultaneously, China has signed a defense agreement with South Korea promising to develop greater security ties. The agreement lays out a near-term plan to “foster bilateral exchanges and cooperation in defense”.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/22/2019 – 01:00

  • Trump Vs. Warren, & The Fake Battle Against The Elites
    Trump Vs. Warren, & The Fake Battle Against The Elites

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    It seems like a simple and easy to identify pattern, but for some reason the public keeps falling for the same old globalist tricks. A well-worn tactic the money elites use to endear certain puppet political candidates to Americans is to encourage those candidates to use anti-elitist rhetoric, only to then flood their cabinets with those same elites once they get into office. The rule of politics seems to be, “Say whatever you want to get the people on your side, but once you’re in office, you do as we tell you…”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These candidates will aggressively attack the banks, corporations and wall street, lamenting the rapid decline of the middle class or “working class”. They will point out that a mere handful of ultra-rich, the top 1%, control more wealth than nearly half of the population combined. They will seize upon the travesties of the poor and argue for “change” to bring balance back to the system. They will pretend to expose the crimes of the banking cabal and the upper echelons of Wall Street. They will put on a grand show; and then, they will do the bidding of their masters and play the role they were groomed for…

    Americans are suckers for fake “people’s candidates” and always have been.

    But perhaps I should expand on this with some real world examples. How about Jimmy Carter, who started out his presidential campaign with a dismal 4% in the Democratic polls. Carter would go on to explode in popularity after attacking what he referred to as the “Washington insiders”, the elites that ran the show from behind the curtain. A widely distributed paperback book that promoted Carter during his campaign called “I’ll Never Lie To You: Jimmy Carter In His Own Words” quoted the candidate as saying at a Boston rally:

    The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get … changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders.”

    His own top aide, Hamilton Jordan, promised:

    If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vance as Secretary of State and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say we failed. And I’d quit.”

    Carter was portrayed as a statesman free from connections to the globalists; a religious man and veritable white knight pure in his associations. This was viewed as an important image to maintain at the time. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the presidential candidacy of true anti-globalist Barry Goldwater and the highly questionable role of Henry Kissinger in Richard Nixon’s administration, the public was growing increasingly suspicious of the nature of government and who was really in charge. Carter was initially seen as a cure for the public’s distrust.

    Of course, as soon as Carter entered office he injected no less than ten members of the globalist Trilateral Commission and numerous other elites into key positions in his administration, including Cy Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski. And of course, his top aide never quit. The elites knew exactly what the public wanted at that moment in history, and so they gave it to them in the form of Jimmy Carter. Carter’s administration would go on to serve numerous globalist interests, but this attracted the ire of the American public, who felt betrayed.

    How about another example of fake anti-globalists and anti-elites?

    Enter Ronald Reagan, the anti-Carter. The conservative (and former democrat) who wasn’t afraid to point out that Carter was surrounded by Trilateral Commission ghouls and question his honesty. Reagan attacked Carter while maintaining a distance from more “conspiratorial” language. Reagan stated in 1980 during his campaign:

    I don’t believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multinational corporations, and so forth. I don’t think that any Administration of the U.S. Government should have the top nineteen positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint. No, I would go in a different direction…”

    Reagan, like Carter, was touted as having no affiliations with the elites. He was pure and unsullied by the globalists. But alas, Reagan also quickly picked at least 10 Trilateral Commission members for his transition team once he was elected, and he served the interests of the elites throughout his two terms in the White House (for the most part) under the watchful eye of George H.W. Bush.

    If this is starting to sound familiar then you are probably more awake and aware than most. The elites use the same strategies over and over and over again, usually with minor variances to keep things fresh. As many of my readers are well aware, I have been consistently pointing out the fraudulent anti-globalist image of Donald Trump the past few years, and his administration has followed a very similar path to those described above with a few important differences.

    Trump ran his campaign as a populist and opponent of the elites. His image was that of a person untouched by the influence of the establishment. In fact, the primary argument among his supporters was that Trump was “so rich” that he “could not be bought”. He criticized Hillary Clinton and her deep state connections with banks like Goldman Sachs and announced that once in office he would “drain the swamp” of special interests in Washington.

    He also made bold accusations against the Federal Reserve, pointing out that the supposed “economic recovery” and the stock market rally was a fraud; a bubble created through stimulus and near zero interest rates that he didn’t want to inherit. Trump was yet another pure white knight ready to expose and do battle with the globalist dragon.

    As many liberty activists are well aware by now, Trump is the furthest thing from an anti-globalist. Like Carter and Reagan, Trump swiftly loaded his cabinet with elites from the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc. His background was also not so pure; Trump had in fact been bought a couple decades in advance by the Rothschild banking family. Rothschild agent Wilber Ross was the man who brokered the deal to bail Trump out of his massive debts in multiple properties in Atlantic City, saving Trumps fortune and his image. Today, Wilber Ross is Trump’s commerce secretary.

    Trump also completely shifted his position on the economy, taking full credit for the stock market bubble as well as the fake GDP numbers and fake unemployment numbers he had attacked during his campaign. Trump has now completely tied his administration to the Everything Bubble – a bubble that has been popped and is now deflating into a hard recession.

    Trump’s theatrical character is different from Carter and Reagan in a couple of ways.

    • First, in the Carter era, the public had a wider trust of the mainstream media, and so, Carter was presented as a media darling. Today, the majority of the public has a severe distaste of the media, and so, Trump was presented as their enemy; a thorn in their side. The media attacks on Trump only garnered him MORE attention and favor with conservatives and independents.

    • Second, Trump’s acting role as an anti-globlist in the new world order screenplay is far more important to the elites than Carter or Reagan. Trump is meant to become a symbol of ALL anti-globalism, a nexus point and representative of sovereignty activism. He is meant to co-opt the entire liberty movement, and then sink it into oblivion. In other words, as the economy crumbles around Trump, conservatives and liberty proponents are made guilty by association.

    Trump serves the elites by pretending to be starkly anti-establishment while at the same time taking credit for their economic works, not to mention the blame for the collapse of the bubble the establishment created.

    But what happens after Trump? Who is next in line to take the lead role in the globalist theater for the American masses? Again, it’s important to remember that the elites are not very imaginative, but they do have a lot of practice with tried and true tactics. They will present us with a candidate that is decidedly anti-Trump, but who also continues certain projects that Trump started.

    Enter Elizabeth Warren…

    Warren is yet another candidate that is being groomed as “unaffiliated” with the elites. Her image as the “daughter of a janitor” from the American midwest who went on to succeed as a woman in a “man’s world” is heavily pushed in the media. But here is why I think Warren is the most likely political anti-thesis to Trump and the most likely Democratic candidate; the screenplay essentially writes itself…

    Consider this – Warren grows up in a lower middle class family in Oklahoma, the daughter of a lowly service worker. Trump grows up rich, the son of a real estate tycoon who inherits a fortune.

    Trump is a billionaire businessman and member of the 1% whose economic policies and tax cuts have consistently favored corporations and stock markets over the middle class. Warren claims she is a “capitalist”, but wants restrictions on stock market buybacks and Wall Street in general, accusing it of being nothing more than a money generator for the super wealthy.

    Trump has faced bankruptcy on numerous occasions and his administration sits at the doorstep of the highest national, consumer and corporate debt levels in American history. Warren’s background is in bankruptcy and bankruptcy law.

    Trump has taken full credit for the economic bubble and boasts about his influence over markets regularly while completely ignoring the crash in fundamentals as well as his own warnings in 2016. Warren is the ONLY democratic candidate so far to predict an economic crash in the near term.

    The differences in image are important here, but there are also some similarities between Trump and Warren in terms of policy.

    Trump’s economic policies demand ever lower interest rates and higher levels of central bank stimulus in order to work. He won’t get exactly what he wants, but he is demanding endless central bank intervention all the same.  Elizabeth Warren is a proponent of Neoclassical Economics, which is closely tied to Keynesian economics. Warren was also on the oversight committee for the TARP bailout, and can claim that she’s intimately familiar with monetary stimulus measures. Real QE4 and near zero interest rates (not just repo purchases) would be more likely under Warren, after the “Trump collapse”.  In fact, it is likely that Warren would demand and get MMT (modern monetary theory) policies passed.

    Trump has instituted aggressive tariff measures against China and the trade war continues unabated so far.  Warren also wants to continue hard-line policies against China, while at the same time blaming Trump for starting the conflict in the first place.

    Finally, like Trump, Warren has long been a hawk in support of Israel and it is likely that US troops will be staying in the Middle East for many years to come if she is elected.  She will criticize certain aspects of Israel’s Palestinian policy to appeal to the Democratic base.  But, like Trump, her actions will not match her rhetoric.

    The setup of this story is almost too perfect. Midwestern middle class girl and self made professional takes on a boastful arrogant billionaire and the 1%. Democrat voters love this kind of garbage. But it doesn’t stop there…

    Warren’s attacks on billionaires are gaining extreme media attention, and the media loves it. Her latest ad campaign criticized four rich guys by name, including Leon Cooperman, the former Ameritrade CEO Joe Ricketts, the former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and the investor Peter Thiel. Some of these men have responded publicly and angrily, and so another great farce of a wrestling match begins and propels another supposedly anti-establishment candidate into stardom.

    But here’s the thing – Warren’s wealth tax is not so anti-establishment. Elites like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have been openly calling for higher taxes on the super-rich.  In tandem with the wealth tax, her climate change position is seen as a shot across the bow of oil companies and the financial power structure.  Yet, her policies are almost exactly in line with the Green New Deal and the UN’s Agenda 2030, which the globalists greatly desire.

    Warren’s image as anti-establishment? It’s as fake as Trump’s image.

    Warren has been featured multiple times in the magazine Foreign Affairs, the official magazine of the Council On Foreign Relations. On top of that they published her article “A Foreign Policy for All: Strengthening Democracy – at Home and Abroad”. For those that are unaware, the CFR is the premier globalist organization and its membership roster is saturated with many of the billionaire elites Warren claims to stand against. Yet, she has courted Foreign Affairs many times and they have written about her favorably.

    Another interesting little fact is that the CFR does not publish articles by presidential candidates often. In fact, candidates that do get their articles published by Foreign Affairs tend to become president, or get a massive boost in their polling numbers and cash support. An example of this would be Richard Nixon, who suffered a stream of campaign failures until his article “Asia After Vietnam” was published in Foreign Affairs in October 1967.  A little over a year later he entered the White House. Another example would be Barack Obama, who published articles in Foreign Affairs in the early stages of his 2008 campaign. Getting an article accepted by the CFR seems to be a signal that the candidate in question is ready to be useful to the establishment.

    Warren’s explosion in the polls relative to candidates like Joe Biden started a few months after her article was published in the CFR magazine. So far she is the only candidate graced with an article in Foreign Affairs.

    Does this mean that the elites want Warren over Donald Trump in 2020? Not necessarily. It is still too early to identify the trend and the signals for the next election. I believe next spring will bring clarity on the matter. However, the point remains that almost every candidate that is given serious consideration within the system is controlled or is seeking favor with the elites. The election process is highly moderated. Good people are not allowed to get though the net. Those that get close are ridiculed and then ignored until their campaigns fade into obscurity.

    The candidates that serve the purposes of the elites get endless attention in the media, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but they are never ignored. And, above all, the candidates that are most likely to be chosen as president are those that pretend to be anti-establishment. This is what sells with the American public, and the globalists know it. Warren is following this pattern, just as Trump did.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/21/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • Watch: Russian Testing Facility Simulates Nuclear Blasts To Test Its Robots And Military Vehicles
    Watch: Russian Testing Facility Simulates Nuclear Blasts To Test Its Robots And Military Vehicles

    Ever wonder exactly what would happen to your everyday items in the event of a nuclear blast?

    Well, so does Russia. In fact, because Russian military vehicles may need to withstand such a blast, they are actually tested for durability in the face of the type of damage that could occur from a nuclear-style explosion, according to RT.

    While Russia doesn’t actually conduct nuclear explosions for testing purposes, there are testing facilities that are set up to produce “near-perfect” models of the effects of a nuclear explosion: an avalanching blast wave, thermal radiation and a devastating electromagnetic pulse. 

    And in addition to nuclear blasts, the testing facility also makes sure that Russian military equipment can withstand occurrences like lightning strikes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The facility – known as the Russian Defense Ministry’s 12th Central Research Institute – recently tested a “family” of military unmanned ground vehicles that includes five models ranging from a small recon robot to a 13 ton armed personnel carrier, which can be manned or under remote control. 

    In addition to the robots, the facility also tested the command posts that would hold the robot’s operators. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One test has a blast wave simulated by using a special blast tube that is over 110 meters long. An explosion at one end of the tunnel is used to create a shockwave that is similar to what happens in a nuclear blast. The blast is enough to “send a seven-ton Soviet BMD-1 infantry fighting vehicle tumbling like a papier-maché model,” according to the report. 

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

    Civilian vehicles didn’t hold up well, either, during the tests. Shockwaves were strong enough to crush a civilian car flat. But the command post mounted on a truck, shown here…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …can withstand the force, however. 

    Other tests involved checking if remotely controlled vehicles could endure electromagnetic pulses and other disturbances. Many of these pulses can knock out electronics, which can be fatal to robots controlled from a distance. 

    You can watch the setup and full tests in this 30 minute Russian TV program that tracked the process closely:


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 23:25

  • Rethinking National Security: CIA & FBI Are Corrupt, But What About Congress?
    Rethinking National Security: CIA & FBI Are Corrupt, But What About Congress?

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The developing story about how the US intelligence and national security agencies may have conspired to influence and possibly even reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election is compelling, even if one is disinclined to believe that such a plot would be possible to execute. Not surprisingly perhaps there have been considerable introspection among former and current officials who have worked in those and related government positions, many of whom would agree that there is urgent need for a considerable restructuring and reining in of the 17 government agencies that have some intelligence or law enforcement function. Most would also agree that much of the real damage that has been done has been the result of the unending global war on terror launched by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, which has showered the agencies with resources and money while also politicizing their leadership and freeing them from restraints on their behavior.

    If the tens of billions of dollars lavished on the intelligence community together with a “gloves off” approach towards oversight that allowed them to run wild had produced good results, it might be possible to argue that it was all worth it. But the fact is that intelligence gathering has always been a bad investment even if it is demonstrably worse at the present. One might argue that the CIA’s notorious Soviet Estimate prolonged the Cold War and that the failure to connect dots and pay attention to what junior officers were observing allowed 9/11 to happen. And then there was the empowerment of al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan war followed by failure to penetrate the group once it began to carry out operations.

    More recently there have been Guantanamo, torture in black prisons, renditions of terror suspects to be tortured elsewhere, killing of US citizens by drone, turning Libya into a failed state and terrorist haven, arming militants in Syria, and, of course, the Iraqi alleged WMDs, the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. And the bad stuff happened in bipartisan fashion, under Democrats and Republicans, with both neocons and liberal interventionists all playing leading roles. The only one punished for the war crimes was former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou, who exposed some of what was going on.

    Colonel Pat Lang, a colleague and friend who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency HUMINT (human intelligence) program after years spent on the ground in special ops and foreign liaison, thinks that strong medicine is needed and has initiated a discussion based on the premise that the FBI and CIA are dysfunctional relics that should be dismantled, as he puts it “burned to the ground,” so that the federal government can start over again and come up with something better.

    Lang cites numerous examples of “incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17 agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” to include the examples cited above plus the failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the domestic front, he cites his personal observation of efforts by the Department of Justice and the FBI to corruptly “frame” people tried in federal courts on national security issues as well as the intelligence/law enforcement community conspiracy to “get Trump.”

    Colonel Lang asks “Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever money they earn.” He then recommends stripping CIA of its responsibility for being the lead agency in spying as well as in covert action, which is a legacy of the Cold War and the area in which it has demonstrated a particular incompetence. As for the FBI, it was created by J. Edgar Hoover to maintain dossiers on politicians and it is time that it be replaced by a body that operates in a fashion “more reflective of our collective nation[al] values.”

    Others in the intelligence community understandably have different views. Many believe that the FBI and CIA have grown too large and have been asked to do too many things unrelated to national security, so there should be a major reduction-in-force (RIF) followed by the compulsory retirement of senior officers who have become too cozy with and obligated to politicians. The new-CIA should collect information, period, what it was founded to do in 1947, and not meddle in foreign elections or engage in regime change. The FBI should provide only police services that are national in nature and that are not covered by the state and local jurisdictions. And it should operate in as transparent a fashion as possible, not as a national secret police force.

    But the fundamental problem may not be with the police and intelligence services themselves. There are a lot of idiots running around loose in Washington.

    Witness for example the impeachment hearings ludicrous fact free opening statement by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (with my emphasis):

    “In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire.”

    And the press is no better, note the following excerpt from The New York Times lead editorial on the hearings, including remarks of the two State Department officers who testified, on the following day:

    “They came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted their lives to serving their country, and for whom defending Ukraine against Russian aggression is more important to the national interest than any partisan jockeying…

    “At another point, Mr. Taylor said he had been critical of the Obama administration’s reluctance to supply Ukraine with anti-tank missiles and other lethal defensive weapons in its fight with Russia, and that he was pleased when the Trump administration agreed to do so

    “What clearly concerned both witnesses wasn’t simply the abuse of power by the president, but the harm it inflicted on Ukraine, a critical ally under constant assault by Russian forces. ‘Even as we sit here today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian soldiers in their own country and have been for the last four years…’ Mr. Taylor said.”

    Schiff and the Times should get their facts straight.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And so should the two American foreign service officers who were clearly seeing the situation only from the Ukrainian perspective, a malady prevalent among US diplomats often described as “going native.” They were pushing a particular agenda, i.e. possible war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine, in furtherance of a US national interest that they fail to define. One of them, George Kent, eulogized the Ukrainian militiamen fighting the Russians as the modern day equivalent of the Massachusetts Minutemen in 1776, not exactly a neutral assessment, and also euphemized Washington-provided lethal offensive weapons as “security assistance.”

    Another former intelligence community friend Ray McGovern has constructed a time line of developments in Ukraine which demolishes the establishment view on display in Congress relating to the alleged Russian threat. First of all, Ukraine was no American ally in 2014 and is no “critical ally” today. Also, the Russian reaction to western supported rioting in Kiev, a vital interest, only came about after the United States spent $5 billion destabilizing and then replacing the pro-Kremlin government. Since that time Moscow has resumed control of the Crimea, which is historically part of Russia, and is active in the Donbas region which has a largely Russian population.

    It should really be quite simple. The national security state should actually be engaged in national security. Its size and budget should be commensurate with what it actually does, nothing more. It should not be roaming the world looking for trouble and should instead only respond to actual threats. And it should operate with oversight. If Congress is afraid to do it, set up a separate body that is non-partisan and actually has the teeth to do the job. If the United States of America comes out of the process as something like a normal nation the entire world will be a much happier place.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • OECD Sees Global Growth At Decade-Low As WTO Warns Of "Doomsday Scenario"
    OECD Sees Global Growth At Decade-Low As WTO Warns Of “Doomsday Scenario”

    Global growth is quickly plunging to levels not seen since the financial crisis as the risk of long-term stagnation has developed, according to the OECD’s latest Economic Outlook.

    The world economy is expected to grow at a decade-low of 2.9% this year and remain in a subdued range of 2.9% to 3% through 2021. Global GDP has quickly decelerated from peaking at 3.5% in 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Paris-based policy forum warned that several years of escalating trade disputes between the US and China have resulted in a synchronized global downturn that has pushed down global growth to alarming levels, not seen since the last financial crisis. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The fragility of the world has led to a cycle of vulnerability where a global trade recession could be imminent or has already arrived. 

     “The alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. Unless governments take decisive action to help boost investment, adapt their economies to the challenges of our time and build an open, fair and rules-based trading system, we are heading for a long-term future of low growth and declining living standards, “OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría recently said.

    OECD warns that China, the driver of global growth the bailed everyone out during the last financial crisis, might not be able to stimulate the global economy this time around as trade tensions soar and a rebalancing of the Chinese economy continues. 

    China will accept sub 6% GDP in 2020, as it’s likely Beijing will not turn on its massive credit spigots anytime soon. 

    China’s credit growth slowed more than expected in October to the weakest pace since at least 2017 as a continued collapse in shadow banking, weak corporate demand for credit, and seasonal effects all suggest that a rebound in the domestic and global economy aren’t likely in the near term. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To make things even more complicated for the global economy, the Trump administration has created a perfect storm that will likely paralyze the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) appeals body in December that could lead to further escalations in the trade war and damage the global economy into a depression. 

     Without WTO’s working appeals system, international trade disputes will go unresolved and could escalate into tit-for-tat tariff wars that spiral out of control.

    “At that stage, the whole thing gets out of hand,” said Stuart Harbinson, Hong Kong’s former representative at the WTO, now a trade consultant at Hume Broph. “I think that will be the doomsday scenario.”

    And with global growth at decade lows, China not able to jump-start the global economy, and the risk that trade tensions could continue escalating — it seems that global equities have priced in a recovery that was only fantasy — what happens next could be a repricing event for risk assets. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 22:45

  • Martin Armstrong Warns Of The Coming "Big Freeze"
    Martin Armstrong Warns Of The Coming “Big Freeze”

    Authored by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

    The BIG FREEZE is upon us.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The volatility in weather that our computer has been forecasting on a long-term basis should result in this winter being colder than the lastIn Britain, the snow has hit an already flood-ravaged country as temperatures plunged to -7C. This is part of the problem we face. The ground freezes down and this prevents winter crops.

    During the late 1700s, the ground froze to a depth of 2 feet according to John Adams. When John Adams set out to travel to Philadelphia, it was bitterly cold and there was a foot or more of snow that covered the landscape that had blanketed Massachusetts from one end of the province to the other. Beneath the snow, after weeks of severe cold, the ground was frozen solid to a depth of two feet. Packed ice in the road made the journey very hazardous.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a letter to his wife, John Adams wrote:

    “Indeed I feel not a little out of Humour, from Indisposition of Body. You know, I cannot pass a Spring, or fall, without an ill Turn — and I have had one these four or five Weeks — a Cold, as usual. Warm Weather, and a little Exercise, with a little Medicine, I suppose will cure me as usual. … Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

    On September 8, 1816, Jefferson described the weather in a letter to Albert Gallatin:

    We have had the most extraordinary year of drought and cold ever known in the history of America. In June, instead of 3¾ inches, our average of rain for that month, we had only 1/3 of an inch; in August, instead of 9 1/6 inches our average, we had only 8/10 of an inch; and it still continues. The summer too has been as cold as a moderate winter. In every state North of this there has been frost in every month of the year; in this state we had none in June and July but those of August killed much corn over the mountains. The crop of corn through the Atlantic states will probably be less than 1/3 of an ordinary one, that of tobacco still less, and of mean quality.”

    It is global cooling, not global warming, that we should fear the most. Climate change people may get their wish to reduce the population. That is usually the result of global cooling, which creates famine as we are witnessing already in North Korea. The past winter 2018/2019 experienced record breaking cold temperatures. We should beat that this winter 2019/2020… and here’s why…

    Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.

    Zharkova was one of only two scientists to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — in fact, only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

    Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy and now suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Grand Solar Minimums are prolonged periods of reduced solar activity, and in the past have gone hand-in-hand with times of global cooling.

    The last time we had a GSM (the Maunder Minimum) only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

    This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 22:25

  • SoftBank To Cut Offer For WeWork, Slash Neumann's Payout After Unprecedented Humiliation By Its Key Banks
    SoftBank To Cut Offer For WeWork, Slash Neumann’s Payout After Unprecedented Humiliation By Its Key Banks

    Two days ago, the Nikkei reported that the millennium’s most iconic juggernaut of epic malinvestment, Japan’s SoftBank – which may well be this bubble era’s “short of the century” – was in talks to receive about 300 billion yen ($2.76 billion) in financing from Japan’s leading banks, as the company scrambled to fund a turnaround at its co-working startup, the scandal plagued and terribly misnamed WeWork… which earlier today fired 20% of its workforce.

    Why did Softbank need the money? Because as part of its bailout of arguably the most disastrous investment of this century, SoftBank had to fund a $3 billion tender offer to raise its stake in WeWork, and provide an additional $3.3 billion through loans and other methods.

    At this point SoftBank ran into a problem: while the bank/telecom/venture capital arm of Japan’s richest man, Masayoshi Son, had more than 2 trillion yen on hand, or about $19 billion, it was hoping to borrow additional funds so it can maintain a certain level of cash reserves. For banks – such as SoftBank’s main lender, Mizuho Financial – this presented a rare moneymaking opportunity amid Japan’s ultralow interest rates.

    Here, Softbank ran into another, bigger problem: many of Japan’s top banks had already lent large amounts of money to SoftBank and were cautious about taking on further risk. Adding insult to injury, these banks were also investors in the SoftBank Vision Fund which suffered a massive loss over WeWork’s aborted initial public offering, not to mention the dismal  investment in Uber, and were said to be nixing an investment in a second fund proposed by SoftBank.

    And then there was the biggest problem: Mitsubishi UFJ, Japan’s biggest bank, was said to withhold additional loans to finance SoftBank’s $9.5 billion rescue package for WeWork, the FT reported overnight. While WeWork had gotten a tacit approval from the bank consortium consisting of Mizuho and Sumitomo Mitsui, the third member of SoftBank’s lending group, MUFG said it would turn down the request, if the loans are to be used to save WeWork.

    And just like that the radioactivity of Adam Neumann’s former company turned gamma.

    According to the FT, Sumitomo also did not want to lend to the WeWork bailout, but acknowledged that it had no real control over how SoftBank used any corporate loans once they had been extended (which is odd because clearly MUFJ had no such qualms).

    According to analysts, the unprecedented cautious stance – in which SoftBank’s closest circle of lenders effectively issued a vote of no confidence in Son’s investment capabilities – could signal a turning point in the close relationship between Japanese banks and SoftBank’s deal-driven founder Masayoshi Son. It would also mean that what we predicted before, is now virtually assured – the next time SoftBank needs money, it will go to the BOJ directly.

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

    To be sure, such a snub of a core client is unheard of, especially in always polite Japan. However, after SoftBank’s recent massive $6.4 billion quarterly loss, and since the “valuation issues” at WeWork which brought down the value of the office subletting company from $47 billion to essentially zero, there has been “a definite change in mood” among the Japanese banks and doubts have emerged over some parts of SoftBank’s investment strategy, said a banker close to SoftBank.

    So what is SoftBank to do?

    Well, as Bloomberg reported late on Thursday, SoftBank execs – finding themselves in a liquidity crunch – have been forced to admit they overpaid for WeWork again, this time when they bailed it out of bankruptcy, and are now looking for a way to reduce the size of a $3 billion offer for WeWork stock as part of its rescue package.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The discussions at SoftBank center around shrinking a $3 billion tender offer for WeWork shares owned by founders, employees and investors, according to people with knowledge of the talks. Such a move would be designed, first and foremost, to limit the amount paid to the company’s megalomaniacal co-founder Adam Neumann, said Bloomberg’s sources.

    Yet while there would be a collective cheer if Neuman were to see his platinum parachute reduced to flaming plastic bag, it’s unclear how SoftBank could renege on its agreement with WeWork investors and most of all, with Neumann. Any effort to re-draw terms could result in an unprecedented, and even more humiliating, legal battle as SoftBank takes on the company that until recently was at the forefront of its historic investment spree and, no joke, “AI Revolution” as SoftBank calls its crazy rollup of dozens of startups.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As part of the deal, Neumann would sell almost a billion dollars, or $970 million worth of largely worthless WeWork stock to SoftBank. Some more details from Bloomberg:

    In recent internal discussions at SoftBank, some executives have said the payout to Neumann is too generous, the people with knowledge of the talks said. It may be a case of buyer’s remorse after WeWork employees expressed outrage over the favorable deal given to Neumann while the business was in turmoil. Representatives for Neumann, SoftBank and WeWork declined to comment.

    Neumann, who just days before the now infamously imploded WeWork IPO was treated as a god by the bank’s underwriters including JPMorgan and Goldman, departed the company’s board as part of the rescue package and was replaced by SoftBank executive and newly appointed Chairman Marcelo Claure. Meanwhile, the size of Neumann’s payout, which also included millions in consulting fees, has incensed some WeWork employees, which dropped by 17% today after the latest mass layoff by the company.

    To be sure, as Bloomberg notes, no decision has been made yet and SoftBank may choose to fulfill the $3 billion tender offer in its entirety without haircuts, however that may prevent the bank from getting the money it hopes to receive from its banks; indeed, as noted above, it now appears that Mitsubishi UFJ will only grant Masa Son the money if Adam Neumann ends up with nothing (at least metaphorically speaking).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Big the biggest joke of all here is that at a recent briefing in Tokyo, SoftBank’s billionaire founder Masayoshi Son acknowledged that this month’s financial results were “a mess” and that overvaluing WeWork was a judgment error. Well, isn’t it ironic that after he massively overvalued WeWork when it was solvent, he also overvalued the office rental company (which.is.not.a.tech.company) when it was about to file for bankruptcy.

    Son said that he had consulted with lawyers to see if he could back out of a $1.5 billion warrant SoftBank had pledged to WeWork, but they said he couldn’t. Instead, Son decided to buy even more shares at a discounted price, lowering the average cost of SoftBank’s equity in the business.

    Because somehow throwing good money after an idiotic investment is supposed to be… good? smart?

    We don’t know the answer, but one thing we are sure of is what we said earlier this week: “Japan is without doubt the dumbest money this bubble cycle.”

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


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 22:05

  • Fake Growth? China "Adjusts" 2018 GDP 2.1% Higher Due To Census
    Fake Growth? China “Adjusts” 2018 GDP 2.1% Higher Due To Census

    In 2016, China admitted its economic data was fake, pointing out that “some local statistics are falsified, and fraud and deception happen from time to time.”

    In 2017, China (again) admitted its economic data was fake, saying that a nationwide audit found some local governments inflated revenue levels and raised debt illegally, with some local GDP data as much as 20% “over-cooked.”

    In 2018, we exposed China’s “cooked” numbers in China’s industrial profits growth data.

    And early in 2019, a team of researchers from the Brookings Institute published a carefully researched paper detailing the exact mechanism by which authorities in Beijing inflate the country’s GDP figures, while estimating that China’s economy is roughly 12% smaller than the official figures would suggest.

    And so here we are, nearing the end of 2019 and China’s economic growth is lagging badly – at or near the lowest since record began over 30 years ago (and expected to grow at less than 6.0% next year for the first time) – we get new from China’s National Nureau of Statistics that 2018’s GDP data is to be adjusted

    Can you guess which way the adjustment went?

    Based on China’s gross domestic product (GDP) accounting system and the results of the fourth national economic census, the National Bureau of Statistics revised the preliminary accounting figures for 2018. The main results are as follows:

    In 2018, the gross domestic product was 91.93 trillion yuan, an increase of 1.8972 trillion yuan over the initial accounting, an increase of 2.1%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The revisions were almost entirely focused in the tertiary sector of the economy, whose growth was “adjusted” 4.29% higher while the primary sector barely moved and the output of the secondary sector was actually adjusted 0.32% lower.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We look forward to 2019’s goal-seeked adjustments… to ensure China’s growth remains above the ‘mandated’ 6%.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 21:44

  • One Bank Was Just Accused Of Violating Money Laundering Laws…23 Million Times
    One Bank Was Just Accused Of Violating Money Laundering Laws…23 Million Times

    Australia’s once squeaky clean banking industry has lost its good reputation, and now the country’s second largest bank, Westpac, has broken anti-terror and AML laws requiring the bank to closely screen transactions with an international component. All told, the bank said it has documented no fewer than 23 million transactions that didn’t receive an adequate level of scrutiny. This includes failing to report $7.5 billion in international transfers.

    But here’s the kicker: According to Australian banking laws, each individual breach could warrant a fine of up to A$21 million ($14 million). That means AUSTRAC, the country’s financial watchdog, could legally choose to pursue hundreds of trillions of dollars in fines, though that likely far outpaces the bank’s ability to pay, WSJ reports.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Though it’s not clear exactly what the bank’s oversight failures mean, in the case it brought against the bank on Wednesday, AUSTRAC accused Westpac of enabling payments from “high risk” countries, and counterparties with specific histories of sex trafficking.

    According to Reuters, the lawsuit dwarfs a case AUSTRAC brought against the larger Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which agreed last year to pay a record A$700 million ($476 million) penalty after admitting that it didn’t properly screen 53,750 payments that violated similar protocols.

    Court filings from AUSTRAC said the transactions that Westpac failed to monitor took place between 2013 and 2018.

    The filing said Westpac maintained relationships with offshore banks without assessing their risks, products, customers or payments, even when those banks disclosed relationships with counterparties in “high risk or sanctioned countries including Iraq, Lebanon, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, and Democratic Republic of Congo.”

    “The risk posed to Westpac was that these high risk or sanctioned countries may have been able to access the Australian payment system,” AUSTRAC said.

    The Sydney-based bank has known about some of these risks since 2013, when it became aware of “heightened child exploitation risks associated with frequent low value payments to the Philippines and South East Asia” but it didn’t set up an automated detection system until 2019.

    One customer who had served a prison sentence for child exploitation set up several of the Westpac accounts in question. Westpac detected suspicious activity in one account, but failed to review the other accounts and “this customer continued to send frequent low value payments to the Philippines through channels that were not being monitored appropriately”, AUSTRAC said.

    The breaches were “the result of systemic failures in its control environment, indifference by senior management and inadequate oversight by the board,” Austrac said in court documents. “They have occurred because Westpac adopted an ad-hoc approach to money laundering and terrorism financing risk management and compliance.”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 21:25

  • Snyder: The Total Breakdown Of Relations With China Could Throw Our Planet Into Utter Turmoil
    Snyder: The Total Breakdown Of Relations With China Could Throw Our Planet Into Utter Turmoil

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    We just witnessed one of the most monumental events of the entire decade, and yet most Americans still don’t understand what has happened. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In recent months, the global economy and stock markets around the world have been buoyed by the hope that the U.S. and China would soon sign a new trade agreement.  Unfortunately, there is no way that is going to happen now.  On Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019”, and the House of Representatives passed the same bill by a 417 to 1 vote on Wednesday. 

    Needless to say, the Chinese are beyond angry that Congress has done this.  In part one of this article, I showed that China is warning the U.S. to “rein in the horse at the edge of the precipice” and that there will be “revenge” if this bill is allowed to become law.  And it looks like this bill will actually become law, because Bloomberg is reporting that President Trump is fully expected to sign it…

    President Donald Trump is expected to sign legislation passed by Congress supporting Hong Kong protesters, setting up a confrontation with China that could imperil a long-awaited trade deal between the world’s two largest economies.

    Before I go any further, there is something that I want to address.  Earlier today, one of my readers emailed me and accused me of siding with China because I am warning about what will happen if trade negotiations fail.  Of course that is not true at all.  I have been writing about the horrific human rights abuses in China for many years, and they are one of the most tyrannical regimes on the entire planet today.  But our two economies have become deeply intertwined over the past two decades, and there are going to be very serious consequences now that we are rapidly becoming bitter enemies.  Anyone that doesn’t see this is simply not being rational.

    As I have detailed repeatedly in recent months, the global economy has already entered a very serious slowdown.  One of the only things that could reverse our economic momentum in the short-term would be a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States and China.  But now that our relationship with China has been destroyed, there isn’t going to be a deal.

    Some mainstream news sources are reporting that all of this rancor about Hong Kong could delay a trade deal, but that is just more wishful thinking.

    Over in China, they are being much more realistic.  In fact, the editor of the Global Times, Hu Xijin, just said that the Chinese are “prepared for the worst-case scenario“

    Few Chinese believe that China and the US can reach a deal soon. Given current poor China policy of the US, people tend to believe the significance of a trade deal, if reached, will be limited. China wants a deal but is prepared for the worst-case scenario, a prolonged trade war.

    And he followed that up with another tweet that openly taunted U.S. farmers

    So a friendly reminder to American farmers: Don’t rush to buy more land or get bigger tractors. Wait until a China-US trade deal is truly signed and still valid six months after. It’s safer by then.

    As the two largest economies on the entire planet decouple from one another, it is going to cause global economic activity as a whole to dramatically slow down.  Corporate revenues will fall, credit markets will start to tighten, and fear will increasingly creep into global financial markets.

    I have repeatedly warned that conditions are ideal for our first major crisis since 2008, and this conflict with China could be more than enough to push us over the edge.

    And already we are getting more bad economic news day after day.  For example, we just learned that U.S. rail traffic this month is way down compared to last year

    Nowhere is the slowdown in the U.S. economy more obvious than in places like Class 8 Heavy Duty Truck orders and rail traffic. We already wrote about how Class 8 orders continued to fall in October and new data the American Association of Railroads (AAR) now shows that last week’s rail traffic and intermodal container usage both plunged.

    The AAR reported total carloads for the week ended Nov. 9 came in at 248,905, down 5.1% compared with the same week in 2018. U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 266,364 containers and trailers, down 6.7% compared to 2018, according to Railway Age.

    Unless a miracle happens with China, the economic numbers are going to continue to get worse.

    Sadly, a miracle seems exceedingly unlikely now.  As I pointed out in part one, the only way that our relationship with China can be fixed is if Congress repeals the bill that it just passed, and there is no way that is going to happen.

    And we better hope that our trade war with China doesn’t escalate into a real war at some point.

    According to a report that was released earlier this year, we are very ill-prepared to fight any sort of a conventional war with China in the Western Pacific…

    The University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre’s new report Averting Crisis, said: ‘China’s growing arsenal of accurate long-range missiles poses a major threat to almost all American, allied and partner bases, airstrips, ports and military installations in the Western Pacific.

    ‘As these facilities could be rendered useless by precision strikes in the opening hours of a conflict, the PLA missile threat challenges America’s ability to freely operate its forces from forward locations throughout the region.’

    In addition, U.S. military officials are deeply concerned by how rapidly China has been upgrading their strategic nuclear arsenal.  For example, they now possess a “submarine-launched missile capable of obliterating San Francisco”

    China has tested a new submarine-launched missile capable of obliterating San Francisco, an insider has revealed, in a massive boost to the country’s ‘deterrent’.

    The Chinese navy tested its state-of-the-art JL-3 missile in Bohai Bay in the Yellow Sea last month, sources said.

    The nuclear-capable missile has a 5,600 mile range, significantly longer than its predecessor the JL-2, which could strike targets 4,350 miles away.

    We certainly aren’t at that point yet, but without a doubt the Chinese now consider us to be their primary global enemy.

    For the moment, it is just a “cold war” that we are facing, and the Chinese are quite adept at playing global chess.  They have lots of ways that they can hurt us, and most Americans don’t realize this.

    But in the end nobody is going to “win” this conflict, and the entire planet is going to suffer.

    Collectively, the economies of the United States and China account for approximately 40 percent of the GDP of the entire world.

    As we cause chaos for one another, everyone else is going to experience tremendous pain as well.

    The stage is set for a global nightmare, and at this point it doesn’t appear that there is a way that we will be able to escape it.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 21:05

    Tags

  • Former Baltimore Mayor Pleads Guilty To Fraud, Tax Evasion, Faces Decades In Prison
    Former Baltimore Mayor Pleads Guilty To Fraud, Tax Evasion, Faces Decades In Prison

    Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh pleaded guilty Thursday afternoon to federal charges in the “Healthy Holly” book scandal, reported WJZ Baltimore

    Pugh pleaded guilty to four of the 11 charges, including wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the US, and two counts of tax evasion. The disgraced mayor faces up to 35 years in federal prison, sentencing is expected in late February 2020.

    Maryland US Attorney Robert K. Hur told reporters on the steps of the US District Court in Baltimore that “the city of Baltimore faces many pressing issues. We need dedication and professionalism from our leaders, not fraud and corruption, if we have any hope of fixing these problems.”

    Pugh’s attorney Steven D. Silverman said her client “sincerely apologizes to all of those that she let down, most especially the citizens of Baltimore whom she had the honor to serve in multiple capacities for decades.” 

    The indictment alleges Pugh used her position of power to defraud the customers of “Healthy Holly” children’s book series for personal use and also to fund her mayoral campaign.

    “The indictment alleges that from November 2011 until March 2019, Ms. Pugh conspired with Gary Brown to defraud purchasers of ‘Healthy Holly’ books to enrich themselves, promote Ms. Pugh’s political career and fund her campaign for mayor,” Hur said. “Mr. Brown helped Ms. Pugh solicit nonprofit organizations and foundations to buy the ‘Healthy Holly’ books.”

    The indictment said for years Pugh evaded paying taxes on the sales of the book. 

    “For the tax year 2016, Ms. Pugh claimed her taxable income was a little over $31,000 and the tax due was a little over $4,000, when in fact her taxable income was over $322,000 with an income tax due of approximately over $100,000. In other words, her taxable income was more than 10 times what she reported to the IRS for that year and she owed more than 20 times more in taxes than she actually paid for that year,” Hur said.

    Pugh resigned in May after the FBI and IRS raided her home amid speculation, she was involved in large book sales to disguise hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the University of Maryland Medical System and managed-care consortium KaiserPermanente. 

    Fraud runs deep in Baltimore…


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 20:45

  • The Origins Of Thought Police… And Why They Should Scare Us
    The Origins Of Thought Police… And Why They Should Scare Us

    Authored by Jon Miltimore via The Foundation for Economic Education,

    There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

    Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

    “When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.

    We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

    Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

    “It was my little daughter,” Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him.

    “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”

    We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

    What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

    Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)

    Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

    Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.

    The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing … It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle,

    he wrote in Homage to Catalonia.

    [E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle … every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

    That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

    Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

    The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.

    …I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

    In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

    This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”

    Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

    The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a “power of facing unpleasant facts”—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

    In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

    It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

    When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000.

    When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

    Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

    The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

    The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.

    That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

    “Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote.

    “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

    In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 20:25

    Tags

  • Jussie Smollett Demands Nigerian Bros And Cops Pay Him For Concocting Hate Crime Hoax
    Jussie Smollett Demands Nigerian Bros And Cops Pay Him For Concocting Hate Crime Hoax

    Jussie Smollett, whose ham-handed hate crime hoax led to the cancellation of Empire, thinks we’re all morons.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The unemployed actor who paid his drug dealing Nigerian friends to buy MAGA hats, bleach and a rope before staging a 2am attack in “MAGA country” – also known as downtown Chicago, has demanded that the city of Chicago, the Nigerian brothers, and former police superintendent Eddie Johnson pay him for conspiring to frame him for concocting the hate crime, according to the Cook County Record.

    Smollett’s case case was mysteriously quashed after Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen, leaned on Cook County top prosecutor Kim Foxx after a grand jury slapped Smollett with a 16 count indictment for lying to the police.

    According to a counterclaim to a lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago, however, Smollett is the victim of a conspiracy.

    On Nov. 19, Smollett, through his lawyer, William J. Quinlan, of the Quinlan Law Firm, filed a counterclaim in Chicago federal court against the city, former police superintendent Eddie Johnson, the Nigerian brothers alleged to have helped Smollett and others. The counterclaim came as the centerpiece of Smollett’s formal answers to the lawsuit brought earlier this year by the city of Chicago, which demands Smollett be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to compensate the city and taxpayers for the costs of the large police investigation into Smollett’s attack claims.

    In the counterclaim, Smollett asserts the hoax allegations emerged as a result of a 48-hour “interrogation” conducted by Chicago Police of brothers Abimbola “Abel” and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, and was then seized on by Chicago Police to advance the story Smollett had orchestrated the attack to gain publicity and public sympathy after he allegedly became unhappy with the lack of response from television executives and others to a threatening racist and homophobic letter he claims to have received weeks earlier. –Cook County Record

    Smollett claims that Chicago PD deliberately ignored exonerating evidence from the alleged attack in the very liberal, very upscale Streeterville neighborhood. According to Smollett, his attackers shouted “This is MAGA country,” before physically assaulting him while he was innocently walking home at 2am from getting a Subway sandwich.

    After evidence suggested it was staged, the two “attackers” – the Osundario brothers – admitted that Smollett paid them $3,500 to carry out the hoax, and that the three of them had practiced beforehand.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    They also said that Smollett was involved in creating a racist letter containing a white substance that was sent to the actor on the Chicago set of Empire. When the letter failed to achieve the desired level of national outrage, the Osundario brothers say Smollett concocted the hate-crime. 

    Or – bear with Jussie – the Osundarios and Chicago PD conspired to frame him for the hate crime hoax.

    (h/t Condor_0000)


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 20:05

  • California Can't Force Trump To Release Tax Returns, State Supreme Court Rules
    California Can’t Force Trump To Release Tax Returns, State Supreme Court Rules

    Authored by Allen Zhong via The Epoch Times,

    California’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Nov. 21 that a law requiring presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the primary ballot there violates the state’s constitution.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Senate Bill 27, which was sponsored by Democrats and became chapter 121 of the California Elections Code after being signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on July 30, requires presidential candidates to file their income tax returns for the five most recent taxable years with the secretary of state in order to have their names listed on a primary election ballot. The secretary of state’s office would make redacted versions of the returns available to the public on its website within five days.

    The bill lays out the same requirements for the candidates for governor but applies to primary elections, not general elections.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye delivers her State of the Judiciary address before a joint session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., on March 23, 2015. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

    The court said the law – the first of its kind in the nation and widely believed to be aimed squarely at President Donald Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, but recently said he would do so before the 2020 election – was unconstitutional because its requirement for disclosure of tax returns to qualify for the ballot added exclusivity.

    “This additional requirement … is in conflict with the Constitution’s specification of an inclusive open presidential primary ballot,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 7–0 decision.

    Ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.”

    A U.S. judge had temporarily blocked the bill from becoming state law, in response to a different lawsuit; the high court ruled quickly because the deadline to file tax returns for getting on the primary ballot is next week.

    The state’s Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson challenged the bill, saying it singled out Trump.

    “Today’s ruling is a victory for every California voter,” Patterson said in a statement.

    “We are pleased that the courts saw through the Democrats’ petty partisan maneuvers and saw this law for what it is—an unconstitutional attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    California Republican Party chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson listens as lawyers present their arguments for and against a recently approved state law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the state’s primary ballot, before the California Supreme Court in Sacramento on Nov. 6, 2019. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

    The state defended the law, saying the release of tax returns is a simple way for voters to weigh candidates’ financial status.

    California Democrats are one of several groups who are pushing for Trump’s tax returns to be made public. On Nov. 18, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stopped a lower court order requiring Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, to turn over his tax returns to House Democrats amid their impeachment inquiry.

    In a separate case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled in favor of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office requiring Trump’s accountants to turn over tax returns.

    Trump’s attorneys have submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that ruling. The justices haven’t said whether they would consider the appeal.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 19:45

  • Former FBI Attorney Under Criminal Investigation For Fabricating Evidence In Russiagate Probe
    Former FBI Attorney Under Criminal Investigation For Fabricating Evidence In Russiagate Probe

    Update 2: The Washington Post claims that “Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said.”

    The attorney forced out of the agency after the incident was discovered.

    The Post says the conduct “did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had a proper legal and factual basis.”

    The Justice Department inspector general has found evidence that an FBI employee may have altered a document connected to court-approved surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser, but has concluded that the conduct did not affect the overall validity of the surveillance application, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

    The person under scrutiny has not been identified but is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the FBI…. –Washington Post

    Update: CNN has updated their story to include that the individual under investigation is a former FBI line attorney.

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

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

    More thoughts:

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

    ***

    An FBI official is under criminal investigation for fabricating evidence related to the agency’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page, according to CNN.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) revealed an altered document which – we assume – was used to bolster the application to obtain the warrant and/or subsequent renewals.

    Evidence of the fabricated document was turned over to John Durham, the federal prosecutor tasked earlier this year by Attorney General William Barr with launching a broad investigation into the FBI’s activities surrounding the 2016 US election.

    As CNN notes, however, “it’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document.” What we do know, however, is that it was significant enough to warrant a criminal investigation.

    Some witnesses who have been interviewed in Horowitz’s investigation have said they expect the inspector general to find mistakes in the FBI’s handling of the FISA process, but that those mistakes do not undermine the premise for the FBI’s investigation.

    Horowitz’s investigators conducted more than 100 witness interviews in their review. During one of interviews this year, they confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said.

    The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn’t yet known, and it’s not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government. No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court. –CNN

    On Thursday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced that Horowitz would release his report on December 9, and would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee two days later.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 19:26

    Tags

  • Restoring Sound Money To America
    Restoring Sound Money To America

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    The U.S. Constitution states:

    Article 1, Section 8

    1. The Congress shall have Power …

    5. To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin….

    6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting … current coin of the United States.

    Article 1, Section 10

    1. No state shall … emit Bills of Credit and make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

    The intent of the Framers could not have been clearer. The Constitution clearly and unequivocally brought into existence a monetary system based on gold coins and silver coins being the official money of the United States.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Notice that the states are prohibited from issuing “bills of credit.” What are “bills of credit.” That was the term used during that time for paper money. The Constitution expressly prohibited the states from publishing paper money and making anything but gold and silver coins official legal money.

    What about the federal government? The Constitution didn’t expressly prohibit it from emitting “bills of credit” like it did with the states. Does that mean that the federal government was empowered to make paper money the official money of the United States?

    No, it does not mean that. In the case of the federal government, its powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. If a power isn’t enumerated, then the federal government is automatically prohibited from exercising it.

    Therefore, it was unnecessary for the Framers to provide for an express prohibition on the federal government to make paper money the official legal tender of the nation. All that was necessary was to ensure that the Constitution did not empower the federal government to issue paper money.

    The powers relating to money that are delegated to the federal government, which are stated above, expressly make it clear that gold coins and silver coins, not paper, were to be the official money of the country. That is reflected by the power given the federal government to “coin money.” At the risk of belaboring the obvious, one does not “coin” paper. Paper is published or “emitted.” It is not coined. Coins are coined.

    The provision on counterfeiting also expressly confirms that the official money of the United States was to be gold coins and silver coins. The Framers didn’t provide for punishment for counterfeiting paper money because there was no paper money. They provided for punishment for counterfeiting “current coin of the United States.”

    Add up all of these provision and there is but one conclusion that anyone can logically and reasonably draw: The Constitution established a monetary system in which gold and silver coins were to be the official money of the United States.

    The power to borrow

    That’s not to say, of course, that federal officials could not borrow money. The Constitution did give them that power:

    Article1, Section 8

    1. The Congress shall have Power …

    2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

    When the federal government borrows money, it issues debt instruments to lenders, consisting of bills, notes, or bonds. But everyone understood that federal debt instruments were not money but instead simply promises to pay money. The money that they promised to pay was the gold and silver coins, which were the official money of the country.

    And in fact, that was the monetary system of the United States for more than a century, one in which gold coins and silver coins were the official money of the American people.

    It is often said that the “gold standard” was a system in which paper money was “backed by gold.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no paper money. The “gold standard” was a system where gold coins, along with silver coins, were the official money of the country.

    Monetary debauchery and destruction

    It all came to an end in the 1930s, when the Franklin Roosevelt regime ordered all Americans to deliver their gold coins to the federal government. Anyone who failed to do so would be prosecuted for a federal felony offense and severely punished through incarceration and fine if convicted.

    In return, people were give federal debt instruments, ones that promised to pay money. But since the money was now illegal, the debt instruments were promises to pay nothing. That’s reflected by the Federal Reserve Notes that people now use to pay for things.

    Roosevelt’s actions were among the most abhorrent in the history of the United States. In one fell swoop, he and his regime destroyed what had been the finest and soundest monetary system in the history of the world, one that contributed mightily to the tremendous increase in prosperity and standards of living in the 19th century.

    What is also amazing is that Roosevelt did it without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. To change a system that the Constitution established requires a constitutional amendment. That is an arduous and difficult process, which is what the Framers wanted. Roosevelt circumvented that process by simply getting Congress to nationalize people’s gold.

    The result of Roosevelt’s illegal and immoral actions regarding money and the Constitution? Moral, economic, and monetary debauchery, which has entailed almost 90 years of plundering and looting people through monetary debasement and devaluation to finance the ever-burgeoning expenses of America’s welfare-warfare state way of life.

    The solution

    The solution to all this monetary mayhem is go further than the Framers did: Separate money and the state entirely, in the same way that our ancestors separated church and state. Terminate all government involvement in money, including by ending the federal government’s central bank, also known as the Federal Reserve. Establish a free-market monetary system, one in which people are free to choose their own media of exchange. That would go a long way toward restoring liberty, peace, and prosperity to our land.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 19:05

    Tags

  • Putin: Scientists Killed In "Mystery" Radiological Blast Were Developing "Unparalleled" Weapon
    Putin: Scientists Killed In “Mystery” Radiological Blast Were Developing “Unparalleled” Weapon

    Three months after a major and still somewhat mysterious rocket explosion in Russia’s far north which caused radiation levels to spike at least sixteen times above normal, President Putin confirmed in statements Thursday that his military is developing a weapon that has “no equal in the world,” according to Interfax news agency.

    “The very fact of possessing such unique technologies is today the most important reliable guarantee of peace on the planet,” Putin is reported to have said while meeting with the families of those killed, Interfax reports further. It’s believed that the blast was the result of a failed experimental test of a hypersonic cruise missile powered by a nuclear core.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Prior statements of top Russian officials indicated that the Aug. 8 radiological accident at the northern port city of Severodvinsk had involved a “small-scale nuclear reactor” and had further confirmed an explosion that centered on an “isotope power source for a liquid-fuelled rocket engine”.

    This information was revealed despite an initial attempt at covering up the radioactive nature of the accident in the days after the explosion:

    Russia covered up the deadly nuclear reactor explosion in August during the salvage at sea of one of Vladimir Putin’s new superweapons, a nuclear-powered cruise missile called Skyfall, a senior State Department official disclosed.

    There had been an alarming run on iodine pills after area residents were warned by emergency alerts that a major event had taken place. 

    “They led a complex, responsible and critical mission,” Putin said of the five scientists that died in the blast while offering condolences. At least three others had been injured in the explosion.

    “We are talking about the most advanced and unparalleled technical ideas and solutions, weapons that are designed to ensure sovereignty and security for Russia for decades to come,” Putin said

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via the AP/RFERL: A screen shot from Russian TV allegedly showing a MiG-31 fighter jet releasing the new Kinzhal hypersonic missile during a test.

    At the time Reuters cited dangerously high levels of radiation emitted from the military test facility: “Greenpeace has cited data from the Emergencies Ministry that it said showed radiation levels had risen 20 times above the normal level in Severodvinsk around 30 kilometers (18 miles) from Nyonoksa.”

    Enough official descriptions of the experimental weapon had been pieced together for analysts to speculate at the time that it had been a prototype nuclear-powered cruise missile known in Russia as the 9M730 Burevestnik and by Nato as the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Putin had first unveiled the experimental technology during a 2018 speech showcasing Russian defense technology developments. The chief stunning claim behind the hypersonic missile is that it can traverse the globe indefinitely at “faster than Mach 5” based on its nuclear powered core. 

    These latest statements reported in Interfax provide further confirmation that Russia continues to pursue its futuristic hypersonic weapons program even after the latest major setbacks. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 18:45

    Tags

  • Amid Impeachment Circus, Dems Sneak PATRIOT Act Renewal Past The American People
    Amid Impeachment Circus, Dems Sneak PATRIOT Act Renewal Past The American People

    Authored by Mark Angelides via LibertyNation.com,

    House Democrats have voted to keep funding the PATRIOT Act in a flurry of partisan hypocrisy. The surveillance legislation that should have every person fearing for their rights and privacy was recently shoehorned through the House, folded into a resolution to keep the federal government funded for three more months. The spending bill was pushed through with not a single Republican vote.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The PATRIOT Act passed in 2001 during the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, but it was originally conceived by former Vice President Joe Biden as the 1995 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act; the law has long been regarded as a major infringement on civil liberties and a reactionary piece of legislation which has passed its time in the sun.

    Hypocrisy

    The re-authorization was introduced late and offered lawmakers only 72 hours to read the entire continuing resolution. High-profile members of the progressive “Squad,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who had previously spoken out against the act, were among those who voted to renew it. On her website, Ocasio-Cortez bemoans the creation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as part and parcel of the PATRIOT Act and its associated legislation. She opines:

    “The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Its founding was part of an unchecked expansion of executive powers that led to the widespread erosion of Americans’ civil rights.”

    Why, then, would she now choose to cast a vote extending said powers?

    A Whiff Of 2020?

    Every Democrat in the House of Representatives voted for the resolution bar two, who abstained. The fact that those few who demurred were not brave enough to vote against the extension tells us something of interest: This was a party whip. It appears the upper echelons determined that the spending would go through come hell or high water, and woe betide those who go against the party leadership. Is there perhaps an element of self-interest at play here? Each decision made and vote taken in Congress sets a permanent record for individual members; is it beyond the party machine to lay traps for primary candidates who the management team does not view as “suitable”? Or perhaps the whole exercise was designed to test loyalty to the party line?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For a group that touts itself as being the defender of civil rights, it was a bold decision for Democrats to publically place themselves in the firing line of those who see the PATRIOT Act as an invasive, right-wing Trojan Horse.

    An Opportunity For Trump?

    If the partisan vote in the Senate matches that in the House, Republicans will decline to pass this resolution. The GOP will get the blame if a budget is not passed by midnight Thursday, in time for President Trump’s signature – but perhaps this could be a vote winner in 2020.

    If the president rallies Republican senators to shoot the bill down, he can lay claim to a position in defence of civil liberties and drag along with him the Fourth Estate, which would have a hard time advocating a Bush-era policy that it has argued against for almost two decades. Add in a smattering of social media, and Trump could become the Civil Rights President … at least until the next storm in a teacup is served.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 18:25

    Tags

  • Demands Grow For FBI To Interview Prince Andrew Over Friendship With Jeffrey Epstein
    Demands Grow For FBI To Interview Prince Andrew Over Friendship With Jeffrey Epstein

    Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein accusers have called on the FBI to speak with disgraced British royal Prince Andrew over his years-long association with Jeffrey Epstein, which would demonstrate “justice and accountability for the victims.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Attorney Lisa Bloom told The Telegraph that while it’s “great” that Prince Andrew is stepping away from his royal duties, he needs to cooperate with US investigators.

    “It’s great that he’s stepping away from his royal duties, but it’s really not about that — it’s about justice and accountability for the victims, so it’s important that he says he’s going to cooperate with law enforcement,” said Bloom.

    Bloom said Prince Andrew should answer questions from all the accusers’ attorneys — in particular the attorney of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who alleges she was coerced into having sex with Prince Andrew on three separate occasions when she was 17.

    Giuffre has offered a detailed account of a March 10, 2001, encounter in which she said she danced with the prince at Tramp nightclub in London before he had sex with her.

    Guiffre publicly released a photograph of her and Prince Andrew in which he has his arm around her waist, which she says was taken at the house of Ghislaine Maxwell, who an ex-girlfriend of Epstein’s who has been accused of acting as his “fixer” at the time. –Business Insider

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, attorney Gloria Allred who also represents Epstein accusers, urged the prince to provide any evidence that might help victims seek justice “without conditions and without delay,” including emails, texts and calendars – adding that the prince’s staff should also provide relevant information, according to the BBC.

    Allred added that if the prince didn’t offer information voluntarily, he might be asked to speak under oath in a criminal investigation into potential Epstein co-conspirators, along with civil lawsuits brought by Epstein’s accusers.

    “I haven’t made a determination yet as to … whether we will need to take Prince Andrew’s deposition,” said Allred, adding “But I’m saying he should provide it in any civil case as well, where his testimony might be relevant.

    “It’s totally extraordinary,” veteran royal watcher and Majesty magazine editor-in-chief Ingrid Seward told CBS on Thursday. “You don’t expect a member of the royal family to be caught up in the life of a seedy pedophile. You just don’t.

    Really Ingrid?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Prince Charles and notorious pedophile Jimmy Saville


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 21st November 2019

  • Hundreds Of "Bleed Control Kits" Issued To Bars Across London
    Hundreds Of “Bleed Control Kits” Issued To Bars Across London

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    320 ‘bleed control kits’ are to be given to bars in the City of London as the UK capital’s knife crime epidemic continues to soar.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The kits will be handed out by City of London police across the 1.12 square mile center of the city at a cost of £25,000.

    Authorities said they were “proud” to launch the initiative, with David Lawes, Chief Superintendent of the City of London Police, telling Sky News that the decision was a “no brainer.”

    “This is a really, really simply piece of kit which can make a big difference. Particularly with the most catastrophic bleeds, if you don’t get help in the first few minutes the person will almost certainly die,” said Lawes.

    “The kits contain tourniquets, trauma bandages, adhesive chest seals and foil blankets, and can help treat both knife and gunshot wounds. Bar staff will be trained in their use, so that victims of violent crime will not bleed out before an ambulance can reach them,” writes Jack Hadfield.

    Knife crime in the City of London jumped by 43% over the last year while in that same time period England saw a record high of 43,000 knife crimes across the country.

    Violent crime levels show little sign of coming down as authorities refuse to tackle some of the core reasons for the bloodshed, which include broken families, weakened police powers and mass migration.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/21/2019 – 02:00

  • US-S.Korea Talks Abruptly Halted Over Trump's $4.7BN Price Tag For Basing Troops
    US-S.Korea Talks Abruptly Halted Over Trump’s $4.7BN Price Tag For Basing Troops

    The Trump administration’s new $4.7 billion price tag suggested to South Korea two weeks ago to cover its share of the costs of housing American troops, which have been stationed on the peninsula as a deterrent against the north via US Indo-Pacific Command forces since 1957, has angered Seoul to the point that negotiations were abruptly cut off Tuesday.

    Though South Korea had successfully negotiated cost sharing agreements for decades, the current timing to the crisis couldn’t be worse, given stalled US-DPRK talks and threats of new missile tests, not to mention the looming US presidential elections next year. CNN reports of the crisis:

    The sudden end to the talks, which were in their third round, comes amid renewed tensions between the allies after President Donald Trump hiked the price tag for US forces roughly 400% for 2020, a move that frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Osan Air Base, South Korea, via US Army/Stripes.

    Prior to the massive nearly $5BN price hike, South Korea already agreed to pay $920 million annually to maintain the roughly 29,000 US troops in the country.

    Negotiations on Monday reportedly began with both sides optimistic, but Seoul said the US side walked out after the South Koreans balked at the Americans’ new whopping sum, and even a “new category” added to the obligations. 

    South Korea’s chief negotiator Jeong Eun-bo had described of the quickly failed meeting: “We couldn’t conduct the talk as plans as the US team left the venue.” 

    He said further, “We maintain our current stance that the cost division (between the US and South Korea) needs to be decided based on the Special Measures Agreement frame in which we have agreed for the past 28 years.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The US side said it is giving their counterparts time to “reconsider” the demands, but no doubt trust has been severely eroded.

    Late last week US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters at a briefing in Seoul that South Korea is “a wealthy country and could and should pay more” for the deployment of US forces on its soil.

    But there’s also be possibility that the US side is bluffing in order to squeeze more money, given that so far Washington hasn’t suggested that it’s willing to reduce troops levels, and certainly won’t abandon its bases altogether.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/21/2019 – 01:00

  • The Elite Controllers Fear The Individual And Individual Intelligence
    The Elite Controllers Fear The Individual And Individual Intelligence

    Authored by Gary Barnett via LewRockwell.com,

    This once great country of America has gone through many changes, and these changes, while implemented by the design of its true rulers, are not understood by the huddled masses that have been taught to accept mediocrity as desired normalcy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The ruling class fully understands that the only way to control people, and to finally control the world, is to stifle individual excellence by creating a society that refuses to think. This has been accomplished through planned conflict, the instilling of fear, the total control of education by the puppet state, by building dependence through public welfare, and by dominating most all positions of power in a myriad of state, corporate, and important intellectual appointments.

    “At its root, the logic is that of the Grand Inquisitor, who bitterly assailed Christ for offering people freedom and thus condemning them to misery. The Church must correct the evil work of Christ by offering the miserable mass of humanity the gift they most desire and need: absolute submission. It must “vanquish freedom” so as “to make men happy” and provide the total “community of worship” that they avidly seek. In the modern secular age, this means worship of the state religion, which in the Western democracies incorporates the doctrine of submission to the masters of the system of public subsidy, private profit, called free enterprise. The people must be kept in ignorance, reduced to jingoist incantations, for their own good. And like the Grand Inquisitor, who employs the forces of miracle, mystery, and authority “to conquer and hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness” and to deny them the freedom of choice they so fear and despise, so the “cool observers” must create the “necessary illusions” and “emotionally potent oversimplifications” that keep the ignorant and stupid masses disciplined and content.”
    ~ Noam Chomsky,

    This quote by Chomsky is correct in that it describes the current condition of the general populace, but is incorrect in that it claims free enterprise is the problem. There is no free market in this country, and there has not been a free market for many years. We live in what is best described as a fascist oligarchy, one that relies on the premise of state and corporate partnership. Without that dynamic in place, the situation would not be as dire as it is today.

    It is important to state that I believe the common people are not incapable of intelligent thought, but have given in to the pressure from their self-appointed overseers, and accepted a subordinate position in society. They have been programmed to suppress their curiosity, and therefore have chosen to hide from responsibility. I refer to this attitude as a fear of freedom, as freedom requires much work, a strong moral base, an active intellect, and constant defense of self-rule. It is difficult to achieve and even more difficult to keep, so most are willing to take the easy way. By doing so, tyranny of the masses is always the resulting societal structure.

    In any society such as this, what the common people perceive as freedom is in realty a type of controlled servitude. While this should be easily recognized by most, it is not, and this is mainly due to a fear of the truth. So pretending that the threat does not exist allows the underclass to avoid conflict, but only temporarily. This avoidance is a natural protection measure, but in the case of a slave society, this hiding from responsibility by the people will eventually become deadly.

    The monopoly of power that is held by the few over the rest of society is all consuming, and the ultimate control sought by these elites is getting ever closer to fruition. It has been affected over long periods of time through incremental measures. It did not happen overnight, but over centuries, and at this point, the final objectives desired are within sight.

    This is the most dangerous time for man as I see it, as the elite design for future economic decision-making for all is to be placed in the hands of so-called chosen experts, with power over the entire world economy. All economic decisions are to be based on a controlled allocation for society, which is simply centrally planned socialism, with a top-down hierarchy of control by the few. This ruling system is known as Technocracy, and when implemented, it will be the end of liberty.

    I do not make these assertions lightly, and this is not theory, it is the current state of affairs. Consider the division among the general population, and the hatred amongst the masses. This is not natural, but has been put in place purposely to achieve a particular outcome by those controlling the now ignorant and indoctrinated general population.

    The new world order that is desired by the ruling class is getting ever closer to becoming reality. This is not conjecture or some wildly fantastic science fiction, but is a plan that is gaining momentum due to a society consumed by blind indifference.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In past history when a ruling class went too far, and exceeded all the bounds of accepted power, the people arose, and a new system emerged. But can that happen in this country in this time of extreme political change and concentrated power? The creation of conflict that is evident today is a driving force in bringing about a world run by the few. And the common people are already relegated to a position of cogs in the wheel of society, as opposed to thinking for themselves and taking control of their own lives. This phenomenon must change in order for freedom to survive, and a reversal of the power structure must be forthcoming, if Americans are once again to control their own destiny.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 23:45

  • Suicide Rates Are Surging Around The World
    Suicide Rates Are Surging Around The World

    Yesterday, November 19, was International Men’s Day and in 2019, the theme is “Making a Difference for Men and Boys”.

    The focus of the day is to “promote the need to value men and boys and help people make practical improvements in men and boy’s health and well-being,” Sadly, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong details in the chart below, suicide rates among men are significantly higher in most countries around the world.

    Infographic: Suicide Rates Around the World | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Of the 25 looked at here, the World Health Organization estimates Russia to have by far the highest rate among men, at 48.3 cases per 100,000 population in 2016. For women, India has the highest rate, with 14.5 cases.

    There are some exceptions however.

    In China, the rate for women is 8.3 while for men it is 7.9.

    While the US ranks 7th overall in the world,  suicide rates are at their highest since World War II, according to federal data and the opioid crisis, widespread social media use and high rates of stress may be among the myriad contributing factors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 2017, 14 out of every 100,000 Americans died by suicide, according to a new analysis released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. That’s a 33% increase since 1999, and the highest age-adjusted suicide rate recorded in the U.S. since 1942.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 23:25

  • Escobar: Iran's "Only Crime Is We Decided Not To Fold"
    Escobar: Iran’s “Only Crime Is We Decided Not To Fold”

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Just in time to shine a light on what’s behind the latest sanctions from Washington, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a speech at the annual Astana Club meeting in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan delivered a searing account of Iran-US relations to a select audience of high-ranking diplomats, former Presidents and analysts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zarif was the main speaker in a panel titled “The New Concept of Nuclear Disarmament.” Keeping to a frantic schedule, he rushed in and out of the round table to squeeze in a private conversation with Kazakh First President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

    During the panel, moderator Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute, managed to keep a Pentagon analyst’s questioning of Zafir from turning into a shouting match.

    Previously, I had extensively discussed with Syed Rasoul Mousavi, minister for West Asia at the Iran Foreign Ministry, myriad details on Iran’s stance everywhere from the Persian Gulf to Afghanistan. I was at the James Bond-ish round table of the Astana Club, as I moderated two other panels, one on multipolar Eurasia and the post-INF environment and another on Central Asia (the subject of further columns).

    Zarif’s intervention was extremely forceful. He stressed how Iran “complied with every agreement and it got nothing;” how “our people believe we have not gained from being part of” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; how inflation is out of control; how the value of the rial dropped 70% “because of ‘coercive measures’ – not sanctions because they are illegal.”

    He spoke without notes, exhibiting absolute mastery of the inextricable swamp that is US-Iran relations. It turned out, in the end, to be a bombshell. Here are highlights.

    Zarif’s story began back during 1968 negotiations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,  with the stance of the “Non-Aligned Movement to accept its provisions only if at a later date” – which happened to be 2020 – “there would be nuclear disarmament.” Out of 180 non-aligned countries, “90 countries co-sponsored the indefinite extension of the NPT.”

    Moving to the state of play now, he mentioned how the United States and France are “relying on nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, which is disastrous for the entire world.” Iran on the other hand “is a country that believes nuclear weapons should never be owned by any country,” due to “strategic calculations based on our religious beliefs.”

    Zarif stressed how “from 2003 to 2012 Iran was under the most severe UN sanctions that have ever be imposed on any country that did not have nuclear weapons. The sanctions that were imposed on Iran from 2009 to 2012 were greater than the sanctions that were imposed on North Korea, which had nuclear weapons.”

    Discussing the negotiations for the JCPOA that started in 2012, Zarif noted that Iran had started from the premise that “we should be able to develop as much nuclear energy as we wanted” while the US had started under the premise that Iran should never have any centrifuges.” That was the “zero-enrichment” option.

    Zarif, in public, always comes back to the point that “in every zero-sum game everybody loses.” He admits the JCPOA is “a difficult agreement. It’s not a perfect agreement. It has elements I don’t like and it has elements the United Stares does not like.” In the end, “we reached the semblance of a balance.”

    Zarif offered a quite enlightening parallel between the NPT and the JCPOA:

    “The NPT was based on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Basically the disarmament part of NPT is all but dead, non-proliferation is barely surviving and peaceful use of nuclear energy is under serious threat,” he observed.

    Meanwhile, “JCPOA was based on two pillars: economic normalization of Iran, which is reflected in Security Council resolution 2231, and – at the same time – Iran observing certain limits on nuclear development.”

    Crucially, Zarif stressed there is nothing “sunset” about these limits, as Washington argues: “We will be committed to not producing nuclear weapons forever.”

    All about distrust

    Then came Trump’s fateful May 2018 decision:

    “When President Trump decided to withdraw from the JCPOA, we triggered the dispute resolution mechanism.”

    Referring to a common narrative that describes him and John Kerry as obsessed with sacrificing everything to get a deal, Zarif said:

    “We negotiated this deal based on distrust. That’s why you have a mechanism for disputes.”

    Still, “the commitments of the EU and the commitments of the United States are independent. Unfortunately the EU believed they could procrastinate. Now we are at a situation where Iran is receiving no benefit, nobody is implementing their part of the bargain, only Russia and China are fulfilling partially their commitments, because the United States even prevents them from fully fulfilling their commitments. France proposed last year to provide $15 billion to Iran for the oil we could sell from August to December. The United States prevented the European Union even from addressing this.”

    The bottom line, then, is that “other members of the JCPOA are in fact not implementing their commitments.” The solution “is very easy. Go back to the non-zero sum. Go back to implementing your commitments. Iran agreed that it would negotiate from Day One.”

    Zarif made the prediction that “if the Europeans still believe that they can take us to the Security Council and snap back resolutions they’re dead wrong. Because that is a remedy if there was a violation of the JCPOA. There was no violation of the JCPOA. We took these actions in response to European and American non-compliance. This is one of the few diplomatic achievements of the last many decades. We simply need to make sure that the two pillars exist: that there is a semblance of balance.”

    This led him to a possible ray of light among so much doom and gloom:

    “If what was promised to Iran in terms of economic normalization is delivered, even partially, we are prepared to show good faith and come back to the implementation of the JCPOA. If it’s not, then unfortunately we will continue this path, which is a path of zero-sum, a path leading to a loss for everybody, but a path that we have no other choice but to follow.”

    Time for HOPE

    Zarif identifies three major problems in our current geopolitical madness:

    1. a “zero-sum mentality on international relations that doesn’t work anymore;”

    2. winning by excluding others (“We need to establish dialogue, we need to establish cooperation”);

    3. and “the belief that the more arms we purchase, the more security we can bring to our people.”

    He was adamant that there’s a possibility of implementing “a new paradigm of cooperation in our region,” referring to Nazarbayev’s efforts: a real Eurasian model of security. But that, Zarif explained, “requires a neighborhood policy. We need to look at our neighbors as our friends, as our partners, as people without whom we cannot have security. We cannot have security in Iran if Afghanistan is in turmoil. We cannot have security in Iran if Iraq is in turmoil. We cannot have security in Iran if Syria is in turmoil. You cannot have security in Kazakhstan if the Persian Gulf region is in turmoil.”

    He noted that, based on just such thinking, “President Rouhani this year, in the UN General Assembly, offered a new approach to security in the Persian Gulf region, called HOPE, which is the acronym for Hormuz Peace Initiative – or Hormuz Peace Endeavor so we can have the HOPE abbreviation.”

    HOPE, explained Zarif, “is based on international law, respect of territorial integrity; based on accepting a series of principles and a series of confidence building measures; and we can build on it as you [addressing Nazarbayev] built on it in Eurasia and Central Asia. We are proud to be a part of the Eurasia Economic Union, we are neighbors in the Caspian, we have concluded last year, with your leadership, the legal convention of the Caspian Sea, these are important development that happened on the northern part of Iran. We need to repeat them in the southern part of Iran, with the same mentality that we can’t exclude our neighbors. We are either doomed or privileged to live together for the rest of our lives. We are bound by geography. We are bound by tradition, culture, religion and history.” To succeed, “we need to change our mindset.”

    Age of hegemony gone

    It all comes down to the main reason US foreign policy just can’t get enough of Iran demonization. Zarif has no doubts:

    “There is still an arms embargo against Iran on the way. But we are capable of shooting down a US drone spying in our territory. We are trying simply to be independent. We never said we will annihilate Israel. Somebody said Israel will be annihilated. We never said we will do it.”

    It was, Zarif said, Benjamin Netanyahu who took ownership of that threat, saying, “I was the only one against the JCPOA.” Netanyahu “managed to destroy the JCPOA. What is the problem? The problem is we decided not to fold. That is our only crime. We had a revolution against a government that was supported by the United States, imposed on our country by the United States, [that] tortured our people with the help of the United States, and never received a single human rights condemnation, and now people are worried why they say ‘Death to America’? We say death to these policies, because they have brought nothing but this farce. What did they bring to us? If somebody came to the United States, removed your president, imposed a dictator who killed your people, wouldn’t you say death to that country?”

    Zarif inevitably had to evoke Mike Pompeo:

    “Today the Secretary of State of the United States says publicly: ‘If Iran wants to eat, it has to obey the United States.’ This is a war crime. Starvation is a crime against humanity. It’s a newspeak headline. If Iran wants its people to eat, it has to follow what he said. He says, ‘Death to the entire Iranian people.’”

    By then the atmosphere across the huge round table was electric. One could hear a pin drop – or, rather, the mini sonic booms coming from high up in the shallow dome via the system devised by star architect Norman Foster, heating the high-performance glass to melt the snow.

    Zarif went all in:

    “What did we do the United States? What did we do to Israel? Did we make their people starve? Who is making our people starve? Just tell me. Who is violating the nuclear agreement? Because they did not like Obama? Is that a reason to destroy the world, just because you don’t like a president?”

    Iran’s only crime, he said, “is that we decided to be our own boss. And that crime – we are proud of it. And we will continue to be. Because we have seven millennia of civilization. We had an empire that ruled the world, and the life of that empire was probably seven times the entire life of the United States. So – with all due respect to the United States empire; I owe my education to the United States – we don’t believe that the United States is an empire that will last. The age of empires is long gone. The age of hegemony is long gone. We now have to live in a world without hegemony. – regional hegemony or global hegemony.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • US-China Exposure Index Signals Next Market Downturn Imminent 
    US-China Exposure Index Signals Next Market Downturn Imminent 

    With ‘Not QE’ inflating risk assets and President Trump promoting a non-existent trade deal, something we outlined last week, new evidence is being communicated by various Chinese sources in the previous 24 hours that suggests a deal is unlikely in the coming weeks, and it now might be time for investors to readjust risk-taking behavior. 

    On Monday morning, CNBC’s Eunice Yoon tweeted, “Mood in Beijing about #trade deal is pessimistic, government source tells me. #China troubled after Trump said no tariff rollback. (China thought both had agreed in principle.) Strategy now to talk but wait due to impeachment, US election. Also prioritize China economic support.” 

    Then on Tuesday morning, Global Times Editor In Chief tweeted, “If President Trump believes China’s economy is crumbling and Beijing will eventually make decisive concessions, he has to wait until Ivanka becomes the president to sign trade deal with China.”  

    The message being broadcasted from China is the polar opposite from President Trump, who recently tweeted, “The deal I just made with China is, by far, the greatest and biggest deal ever made for our Great Patriot Farmers in the history of our Country. In fact, there is a question as to whether or not this much product can be produced? Our farmers will figure it out. Thank you, China!” 

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

    It appears there’s still a significant gap in US-China trade talks, though Western media, influenced by the White House, has already taken a victory lap of President Trump’s “greatest and biggest deal ever made for our Great Patriot Farmers in the history of our Country.”

    So this distortion of reality via Trump admin propaganda has been used to pump the stock market to record highs and lift animal spirits of consumers ahead of a possible recession. 

    Even if there’s a ‘phase 1 trade deal’, it’ll likely to disappoint investors because President Trump publicly overpromised on many fronts. He said in October that the deal would cover 60% of the “total trade deal,” but that amount remains uncertain. 

    So investors could be staring at a disappointment phase, one where President Trump, again, like every other time, overpromised and underdelivered for the sole purpose of pumping stocks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fathom’s China Exposure Index (CEI), which monitors the relative stock market performance of US-listed firms with significant revenue exposure to China, has been seen as a lead ahead of a stock market sell-off triggered by trade pessimism. 

    As shown in the chart below, lower CEI is due to investors selling US firms that do the most business in China, and CEI moves higher as trade optimism appears.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with that being said, the CEI has likely peaked in November as trade talks stall. If the CEI starts to move lower, this means investors are de-risking US companies with high exposure to China first, which implies sentiment in the broader stock market averages will likely peak next. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 22:45

  • Medicare For All Study: 2/3 Of Households Would Be Worse Off
    Medicare For All Study: 2/3 Of Households Would Be Worse Off

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    If Democrats get their way and jack up taxes to attempt to cover a “Medicare for All” plan, not only would jobs be lost, but 2/3 of American households would be worse off. A majority of households would end up worse off financially with less disposable income.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s bad news for an economy that’s holding on by the thin thread of consumer spending. The study is an interesting exercise, but it’s not hard to anticipate the response from the Left.

    Liberals’ preferred Medicare for All estimates tend to assume that a single-payer system could pay doctors and hospitals a lot less than private insurers do and that you could get a long way toward funding Medicare for All by socking it to the rich. Heritage made some key assumptions cutting in the opposite direction, though Heritage’s assumptions are a good bit more plausible than the lefties’ are.

    The study assumes no payment cuts for medical providers at all.

    National Review

    The study was conducted by the Heritage Foundation and the results could impoverish the majority of Americans and widen the “wealth gap” liberals constantly complain about (while pushing policies that only make it worse).

    In general, the study mainly drives home that the expected results of Medicare for All depend mainly on one’s subjective assumptions about how payments would work out and which taxes could plausibly raise that much money. It’s an enormous change from the status quo, and its effects are difficult to predict in an empirical, non-ideological manner. No matter how it worked out, it would require someone to pay a boatload in new taxes, though, which would leave a majority of households worse off than they were before.

    Those increases in taxes too will, in turn, reek havoc on the overall economy. Even a hike in the corporate tax rate will have the net result of lost jobs and not just a few – 413,000 of them. Studies also show that Joe Biden’s plan would decrease the United States’ GDP by one percent. For a country barely hanging on economically, this could prove disastrous.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 22:25

  • Saks Manhattan Flagship Store Crashes 60% In Value
    Saks Manhattan Flagship Store Crashes 60% In Value

    The value of Hudson’s Bay’s Saks Fifth Avenue flagship store in Midtown Manhattan has more than halved in five years, that is according to a new Bloomberg report. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Filings show the building at 611 Fifth Ave. was assessed for $1.6 billion in 2H19, has plunged by 60% in value since it was last appraised at $3.7 billion in 2013. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A Hudson’s Bay spokesperson told Bloomberg that the decline in valuation is mostly due to “the performance of the store relative to expectations in 2014, changes in market rents on New York’s Fifth Avenue, and the changes in the retail landscape.” 

    Ahead of the holiday season, consumers are pulling back, and this is most evident in Manhattan’s retail industry.

    Average asking rents for retail space across Upper Fifth Avenue, between 42nd and 49th streets, saw one of the steepest drops in retail rents in Q3, dropping 25% YoY. 

    Lower Fifth, Broadway, Madison Avenue, SoHo, and Herald Square retail rents over the same period were in free fall. This is a reflection of the weakening consumer base. There were several outliers, Upper Fifth and Times Square retail rents over the same period marginally declined. Meanwhile, the Meatpacking district saw rents jump 7.3% in Q3 YoY. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Patrick Smith, vice chairman at JLL’s retail brokerage, said plunging rents in some of NYC’s most popular shopping districts is a bad omen. 

    A random walk down Manhattan these days and you’ll find vacant retail shops, as landlords begging for tenants slam rents lower. 

    The Real Deal has said Manhattan’s Upper East Side is “facing a retail vacancy epidemic.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer has said more than 188 vacant shops can be found along Broadway. 

    Douglas Elliman, a real estate brokerage, has said 20% of Manhattan retail is likely vacant, up 7% since 2016

    Manhattan’s retail rents and retail vacancy problems are a result of weakening consumer trends.

    Hudson’s Bay Saks Fifth Avenue flagship store will likely take another sharp drop in value during the next recession.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 22:05

  • Futures Spike After China's Top Trade Negotiator Says "Cautiously Optimistic" About Phase 1
    Futures Spike After China’s Top Trade Negotiator Says “Cautiously Optimistic” About Phase 1

    Futures slumped for just over three hours amid fears that the US-China trade deal was hopelessly lost and in anticipation of Chinese retaliation for Congress voting unanimously to support Hong Kong protesters, before a burst of optimism was injected. Only there was a surprise twist: instead of the optimism coming from Kudlow, or Ross, or even a Trump tweet, this time it was China that did what it could to push up US equity futures.

    As Bloomberg reported, China’s chief negotiator and vice premier Lie He, said Wednesday night that he was “cautiously optimistic” about reaching a phase one trade deal with the U.S., even as tensions over Hong Kong soar while trade talks continue to stretch out without even a meeting date still agreed upon.

    How do we know this? Because as Bloomberg reports, “Liu He made the comments in a speech in Beijing” although not in public, but rather to an Impeachment-style whistleblower, i.e., “according to people who attended the dinner and asked not to be identified.”

    It was unclear why, if Liu He was truly “cautiously optimistic“, officials wouldn’t say so in public, and instead we would have to rely on a deep throat Bloomberg source, who refused give his name. This unnamed source said that He also explained China’s plans “for reforming state enterprises, opening up the financial sector, and enforcing intellectual property rights — issues which are at the core of U.S. demands for change in China’s economic system.”

    And while algos focused exclusively on the flashing red Bloomberg headline, reading a bit further into the article reveals that Blomberg’s unnamed “source” Lie He told one of the attendees that he was “confused” about the U.S. demands... but was confident the first phase of an agreement could be completed nevertheless.

    Credible or not, the Bloomberg report was enough to send S&P futs spiking back over 3,100 now that if not order, then at least trade optimism has been (somewhat) restored…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … with the Chinese Yuan jumping as much as 100 pips before cutting gains in half.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The bigger question: now that both the US and China are trying to jawbone US equity futures higher, just how much higher can they go, and a corollary – how much lower is fair value if now one needs both the US and China to spark the occasional trade pessimist short squeeze.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 21:45

  • Media Manipulation: Story About Immigrant 'Kids In Cages' Scrubbed After UN Said It Happened On Obama's Watch
    Media Manipulation: Story About Immigrant ‘Kids In Cages’ Scrubbed After UN Said It Happened On Obama’s Watch

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    A story with the wrong “official narrative” was scrubbed by mainstream media outlets. After reporting on detained migrant children, AFP and Reuters scrubbed the story when the United Nations revealed it happened on Barack Obama’s watch.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Why The “Abject Silence” From The Left About Child Migrant Detentions Under Obama?

    The media is now self-censoring when the numbers don’t align with their narrative. The thought manipulation of the public is on full display. Rather than issue a correction, several news agencies have instead opted to delete a story stating that 100,000 migrant children were detained in US border facilities. This decision to delete comes after the United Nations clarified that the number is years old, predating the age of Trump, according to RT.

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

    Many Twitter users noticed that the story was scrubbed because the numbers reflect poorly on Obama, not their nemesis, Donald Trump.

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

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

    Once responsibility for the vast number of detentions was passed from Trump to Obama, however, the author of the story decided to clarify further that the 100,000 figure referred to the “cumulative number of migrant children detained at any point in 2015”, rather than all at one time, another caveat he conveniently forgot to explain previously.

    Despite frequent and vocal criticisms of President Trump’s border policies, his predecessor’s approach to immigration was not entirely different, even earning Obama the moniker of “Deporter in Chief.” During his first term, President Obama deported some 400,000 migrants each year, setting a record for himself in 2012 at over 409,000. President Trump, meanwhile, has deported fewer than 300,000 each year since taking office in 2017. –RT

    But the story didn’t fit the narrative that the mainstream media is attempting to shove down the throats of Americans, so it was scrubbed – not edited to reflect Obama as the bad guy.

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

    So much for an unbiased and factual press.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 21:45

  • Rail Recession: U.S. Carloads Continue Collapse As Manufacturing Slows
    Rail Recession: U.S. Carloads Continue Collapse As Manufacturing Slows

    Nowhere is the slowdown in the U.S. economy more obvious than in places like Class 8 Heavy Duty Truck orders and rail traffic. We already wrote about how Class 8 orders continued to fall in October and new data the American Association of Railroads (AAR) now shows that last week’s rail traffic and intermodal container usage both plunged.

    The AAR reported total carloads for the week ended Nov. 9 came in at 248,905, down 5.1% compared with the same week in 2018. U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 266,364 containers and trailers, down 6.7% compared to 2018, according to Railway Age

    One of the 10 carload segments that posted an increase YOY was grain, which was barely up 342 carloads to 21,855. Coal was down 9,577 carloads, to 75,180; miscellaneous carloads were down 843 carloads, to 10,944; and petroleum and petroleum products were down 741 carloads, to 12,617.

    So far in 2019, railroads have reported total volume of 11,337,628 carloads, which is down 4.3% from the year prior. The year’s 11,988,234 intermodal units are down 4.6% for the year and total combined traffic was down 4.4% to 23,325,862 carloads. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The numbers for North America in total were also lower. 

    North American rail volume for the week ending November 9, 2019, on 12 reporting U.S., Canadian and Mexican railroads totaled 352,176 carloads, down 4.8% compared with the same week last year, and 352,712 intermodal units, down 6.5% compared with last year. Total combined weekly rail traffic in North America was 704,888 carloads and intermodal units, down 5.6%. North American rail volume for the first 45 weeks of 2019 was 31,852,518 carloads and intermodal units, down 3.4% compared with 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Canadian rail traffic also crashed, down 5.5% with intermodal units down 5.9%. For the year, however, Canada has been the one North American country to edge out a gain on the year, with its cumulative traffic coming in at 6,824,664 carloads, up 0.4% on the year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mexican railroads were able to buck the broader trend, posting a slight increase in carloads for the week. 

    Mexican railroads saw a slight uptick, as it reported 20,097 carloads for the week, up 2.8% compared with the same week last year, and 17,987 intermodal units, down 5.5%. Cumulative volume on Mexican railroads for the first 45 weeks of 2019 was 1,701,992 carloads and intermodal containers and trailers, down 2.7% from the same point last year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We noted this rail recession in the U.S. in early October, citing the manufacturing collapse in the U.S., much of which is being blamed on the trade war, as the main culprit. 

     

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s quite clear is that we’re not yet at a trough. Trains have not yet bottomed,” said Ben Hartford, an analyst with Robert W. Baird & Co. “We need to have some clarity in trade policy.”

    We noted in October that the manufacturing recession is more widespread than the mid-cycle slowdowns in 2012 and 2015/16. The slowdown has been concentrated in manufacturing for well over a year, driven by a downturn in business investments in 2019. 

    We noted last month that there is an indication that the downturn has spilled over into service sector output and employment.

    Now, “there are no pockets of growth,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Lee Klaskow, who said a “railroad recession” could be imminent in a recent report. “There’s really nothing that’s tapping me on the shoulder saying, ‘Hey look at me. I’m going to be your next growth engine.'”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 21:25

  • A Huge Red Flag? India Shutters Power Plants Citing Lack Of Demand
    A Huge Red Flag? India Shutters Power Plants Citing Lack Of Demand

    Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

    Half of India’s power generation capacity using coal and nuclear power is being shut down because of lackluster demand, the Indian Express reports, adding that some of the shutdowns have been temporary, lasting just a few days, but other power plants have been closed for months.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some 65.13 GW in generation capacity has been shut down at one point or another, with the earlier shutdown made in July. There seems to be simply not enough demand for electricity, which is worrying as a lot of this demand comes from the industrial and commercial sectors.

    This is a marked departure from 2012, when the worst blackout in years hit 20 of India’s 28 states, plunging 700 million people into darkness. The blackout was caused by a surge in demand that the local utilities found themselves unable to meet.

    Now, demand is on the decline for India’s coal-powered generation plants as renewables encroach on their territory: coal-fired plants currently account for 63 percent of the country’s energy mix, down from 73 percent three years ago. The country has one of the most ambitious renewables programs in the world, which should result in India deriving 55 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

    To date, the country has 83 GW in renewable generation capacity, with another 31 GW under construction, and a further 35 GW awaiting bidders. All this taken together and with hydropower capacity added, India could cross the 200-GW threshold by 2022, according to the government.

    Yet there are also seasonal factors at play. A longer monsoon season and an early arrival of winter have served to dampen electricity demand faster than usual. The longer monsoon period affected activity in India’s industrial centers, with some of them registering declines in demand for electricity rather than the usual increase for that time of the year.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 21:05

  • Goldman Banker On Trial Had $24,000 Hidden In His Sunglasses Case
    Goldman Banker On Trial Had $24,000 Hidden In His Sunglasses Case

    Every good criminal has their secret stash of cash that they are either hiding from the government or using for illicit “working capital” purposes. Usually, this cash is held in safes, briefcases or good old fashioned sacks with dollar signs on them.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which is why it has piqued the interest of many that a Goldman Sachs banker on trial for insider trading somehow was able to stuff his secret stash of $24,000 into a peculiar place: his sunglasses case. 

    Prosecutors pointed out on Tuesday that the stash was indicative that the banker, Bryan Cohen, could be a flight risk before his trial, according to Bloomberg

    The $24,000 was hidden in a case, which was hidden in a dresser drawer in his closet, prosecutors said. Cohen, who is a French citizen, also has an overseas bank account with more than $533,000 in it and owns four properties in France that are worth over $500,000. 

    Bail was set by U.S. District Judge William Pauley at $750,000 and Cohen has since been ordered to remain under house arrest with a GPS bracelet until his trial. Cohen is seeking to be removed from house arrest. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Cohen’s lawyer – and former Martin Shkreli lawyer – Benjamin Brafman argued on Monday that his client’s confinement to his one bedroom apartment that he is sharing with his girlfriend and mother was “detrimental to his physical and mental health”. 

    Locked in a room with your girlfriend and your mother? We can totally understand that argument. 

    Brafman also argued that it’s not unusual in other cultures to have large amounts of cash at home, including in France. 

    Cohen was arrested in October and charged with two counts of conspiracy for his role in an insider trading ring. Prosecutors say he passed information about pending mergers to another member of the ring using burner phones and speaking in code. He has been placed on leave by Goldman Sachs in the interim. Cohen had fired his first lawyer last month after a judge ordered him under house arrest and tripled his bond, which was originally set at $250,000. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 20:45

  • Google Follows Twitter, Will Restrict Political Ad Targeting, Ban Misleading Info
    Google Follows Twitter, Will Restrict Political Ad Targeting, Ban Misleading Info

    Three weeks after Twitter announced it would ban political advertising, with mixed results so far…

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

    … Google said late on Wednesday it too will limit political advertising as it plans to stop allowing highly targeted political ads on its platform, a move that comes in a time when tech giants are already drawing scrutiny for their rules on political advertising. The company will also restrict misinformation and ban doctored media known as deepfakes in ads following criticism that Google and rival Facebook ran ads from U.S. President Donald Trump that were intentionally misleading.

    Google will first roll out the ban next week in the UK, ahead of the Dec. 12 general election. Then, by the end of 2019, the ban will take effect across the European Union by the end of the year and in the rest of the world on Jan. 6, the company said in a blog post.

    The Google policy changes follow calls for regulation of political advertising online, including from Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub.

    Under the new policy, political ads will only target a users’ age, gender and location at the postal code-level, while more granular aspects of the target audience will no longer be exposed. That said, political advertisers will still be allowed to use contextual targeting, such as serving ads to users reading about a particular topic.

    This is what the company said in the blog post:

    While we’ve never offered granular microtargeting of election ads, we believe there’s more we can do to further promote increased visibility of election ads. That’s why we’re limiting election ads audience targeting to the following general categories: age, gender, and general location (postal code level). Political advertisers can, of course, continue to do contextual targeting, such as serving ads to people reading or watching a story about, say, the economy. This will align our approach to election ads with long-established practices in media such as TV, radio, and print, and result in election ads being more widely seen and available for public discussion. (Of course, some media, like direct mail, continues to be targeted more granularly.) It will take some time to implement these changes, and we will begin enforcing the new approach in the U.K. within a week (ahead of the General Election), in the EU by the end of the year, and in the rest of the world starting on January 6, 2020

    And since political advertisers will henceforth pinpoint accuracy, Google’s political ads will become an even greater nuisance to everyone else too, as advertisers will now have to “shotgun” their target audience, and be forced to buy even more ads to make sure they reach the intended eyeballs… which is precisely what Google’s motive may well be here, because at the end of the day, if Google sells more ads, it means more sales, and a higher stock price.

    Google said it’s updating its overall ads policy to prohibit “misleading claims about the census process, and ads or destinations making demonstrably false claims that could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process”, because of course saying it hopes to boost revenue by “doing no evil” seems just a tad gauche.

    Google previously imposed certain regulations on political advertising for U.S. federal races last year, and it said it would expand those existing regulations to cover U.S. state-level candidates and officeholders, ballot measures and ads that mention federal or state political parties. Google reported $127 million in revenue from U.S. political ads since June 2018, a small amount of the company’s overall sales.

    The new targeting policy will apply to ads on Google Search, YouTube and ads purchased on sites across the web through Google’s ad-buying software.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 20:25

  • Greta Thunberg Meltdown Imminent? China To Unleash Tsunami Of Mega-Polluting Coal-Fired Power Plants
    Greta Thunberg Meltdown Imminent? China To Unleash Tsunami Of Mega-Polluting Coal-Fired Power Plants

    In recent months, emotional eco-activist Greta Thunberg who has become synonymous with the global anti-global warming climate change movement has made consistent appeals at the developed world, demanding an end to its evil, polluting ways. She even went so far as to sue some of the bigger carbon polluters in the world — Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey — for violating her rights as a child by failing to adequately reduce emissions.

    And yet one nation has consistently escaped her steely gaze: China.

    Which is unfortunate, because whereas many of the nations that have provoked Greta’s ire in the past have made concerted efforts to reduce their emissions, it is the world’s biggest polluter, China, that has curiously evaded her anger.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hopefully that is about to change because as the FT reports, China is set to add an army of new coal-fired power plants equivalent to the EU’s entire capacity, as the world’s biggest energy consumer ignores global pressure to rein in carbon emissions in its bid to boost a slowing economy.

    Across China, a whopping 148GW of heavily-polluting, coal-fired plants are either being built or are about to begin construction, according to a report from Global Energy Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors coal stations. Putting that number in context, the current capacity of the entire EU coal fleet is 149GW, or the same as what China is about to add.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s worse, and what has paradoxically not been noted by Greta yet in her global crusade against pollution so far, is that while the rest of the world has been largely reducing coal-powered capacity over the past two years, China is building so much coal power that it more than offsets the decline elsewhere. Ted Nace, head of Global Energy Monitor, said the new coal plants would have a significant impact on China’s already-increasing carbon emissions.

    “What is being built in China is single-handedly turning what would be the beginning of the decline of coal, into the continued growth of coal,” he said, adding that China was “swamping” global progress in bringing down emissions.

    Back in 2016, concerns over air pollution and over-investment in coal prompted China to suspend construction of hundreds of coal stations. But since then, much of the construction has restarted, as Beijing seeks to stimulate an economy growing at its slowest pace since the early 1990s.

    And even as pressure has been growing on China, the world’s largest emitter, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which have been creeping up since 2016, and hit a record high last year, not only is Beijing oblivious to the protests of global environmentalists, it is about to unleash a tidal wave of global pollution the likes of which have never been seen before.

    Ironically, while Trump has gotten much criticism in recent years for exiting the Paris climate accord, China has pledged to peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 as part of the Paris climate agreement. And yet, with a decade left until this deadline, China is doing just the opposite, preparing to add “another Europe” in total emissions.

    And while the report showed that the pace of new construction starts of Chinese coal stations rose 5% in the first half of 2019 compared to a year ago, it is what is coming down the pipeline that is remarkable: about 121GW of coal power is actively under construction in China. This figure still dwarfs the pace of new construction elsewhere.

    Last year China’s net additions to its coal fleet were 25.5GW, while the rest of the world saw a net decline of 2.8GW as more plants were closed than were built.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The renewed push into coal has been driven by Chinese energy companies desperate to gain market share and by local governments who view coal plants as a source of jobs and investment. While electricity demand in China rose 8.5% last year, the current grid is already oversupplied and coal stations are utilised only about half the time.

    In other words, instead of building ghost cities which it did for much of the early years of the decade, China has since moved on to building “ghost coal power plants.”

    “The utilisation of coal-fired power plants will reach a record low this year, so there is no justification to build these coal plants,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a think-tank. “But that is not the logic that investment follows in China . . . There is little regard for the long-term economics of the investments that are being made.”

    Lauri is correct, which is why we are certain that it is only a matter of time before the patron saint of virtue signaling environmentalists everywhere will have some very harsh words about China in the next few hours. Right Greta?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 20:05

  • Get Woke Go Broke – Charlie's Angels Fall To Earth
    Get Woke Go Broke – Charlie’s Angels Fall To Earth

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    Normally I wouldn’t give a cynical piece of schlock like the latest Hollywood reboot like Charlie’s Angels a second thought. In fact, I hadn’t given it any thought whatsoever until I saw it flop completely at the box office to my complete lack of surprise.

    But it was the inane and insipid comments from the “film’s” writer and director, Elizabeth Banks, that really caught my attention.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Michael McCaffrey writing for RT.com pulled them all together in one really good article which goes over the string of ‘Woke Flops’ at the box office of the past few years. But this one is the choice one, highlighting how complete Ms. Banks’ solipsism is.

    “Look, people have to buy tickets to this movie, too. This movie has to make money. If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies.”

    It didn’t.

    And it isn’t because men don’t go see women in action movies. Lest we forget that the first Charlie’s Angels foray on film (not a uniquely terrible experience, unlike its sequel) was a surprise hit in 2000 making more than $264 million worldwide.

    McCaffrey points out recent successes like Wonder Woman ($821 million) and the inexplicable response to Captain Marvel ($1.128 billion). In fact, I would say that of all these films that explicitly pander to feminism and are more woke than stroke, Captain Marvel is the only real success.

    And I would chalk that up to the timing of the juggernaut that was Marvel Studious than it was the strength of the movie itself.

    Which leads me to Ms. Banks’ second honker of a comment.

    “They (men) will go and see a comic book movie with Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel because that’s a male genre.”

    Nope. Sorry. I’m one of the world’s biggest DC comics nerds going. I suffered through seasons 4 through 6 of Arrow for pity’s sake. I’ve earned my stripes. And under no circumstances could you have dragged me into a theater to see Halle Berry stink up the screen as Catwoman ($82 million).

    A movie so terrible it is forever linked in my mind with one of the greatest lines in film criticism’s history, from Walter Chaw at Filmfreakcentral.net:

    A scene where she rubs catnip rapturously over her face is destined to become as legendary as a one-on-one basketball courtship sequence between she {Berry} and {Benjamin} Bratt that’s shot with such blazing, incandescent incompetence that dogs will try to roll in it.

    He may have been wrong about the scene in question, but his line about it, for me, is near perfection. Mr. Chaw himself is so woke that I’m sure he would be horrified to find his work being quoted by a deplorable sub-human like me. But, what can I say, the guy has a way with words.

    All of this must seem churlish of me at this point to point these things out to someone with such obvious first-world problems like Elizabeth Banks.

    But, trust me, there’s a larger point to be made here.

    The truth is that people don’t go to the movies to be talked down to. It doesn’t matter what business you’re in, selling free-range eggs at a farmer’s market or a $90 million movie, your customer doesn’t like being being treated with condescension. Worse, they don’t like being treated with derision.

    And Ms. Banks’ comments about her movie and what it says are both of those things writ large.

    At the end of the day it is your job to figure out who your audience is and tailor your product to hit that audience. And what Ms. Banks just found out is that the audience for her brand of bad-ass women who need a man like a fish needs a bicycle is pretty friggin’ small.

    You can’t build your Story based on your political propaganda, in this case, feminism, and expect people to respond to it. And the reason is that it simply isn’t true at the symbolic level. And people don’t watch movies at the conscious level. It’s all sub-conscious.

    Even the Communist writers in the 1950’s (brilliantly lampooned in the Coen Brothers’ Hail Caesar!) knew that they had to embed their message as sub-text, as setting, rather than as the foundations of Story otherwise it wouldn’t get past the executives, who understood their audiences very very well.

    The audience always knows when they are being talked down to.

    And even though Captain Marvel made more than a billion dollars, I’m hard-pressed among my geek-heavy group of friends to find anyone who actually liked it. They went because it was the next Marvel movie and they were invested in them.

    Let’s see if Captain Wokeness can lead where Tony Stark did. My guess, not happening.

    There was string of these films that were put on the schedule in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal in 2017. And they are a clear example of Hollywood trying to regain some trust with its audience, saying, “See! We don’t all treat women like shit! Believe us!”

    But that’s even worse than just making honest movies with women leads. It’s pandering and pathetic. It’s the response of beta-male accountants and scared executives. Many of these movies came out this year and last and they have all flopped.

    No one wants what they’re selling.

    Because no one believes Hollywood is sincere.

    Trust is a fickle thing in the marketplace. The Free Market is a cruel place. All it takes is one mistake, one real breach of trust and your audience will abandon you.

    And this over-the-top push to marginalize men by modern feminists is resulting in a very strong backlash, not just from incels eating Fritos in their mom’s basement. It’s coming from women as well who don’t want to see their mates and their sons treated with such obvious disdain.

    It’s coming from women who don’t want to be pandered to.

    This is the thing feminists like Ms. Banks will never understand. Feminism is not sexy. In fact it’s really a turn-off. It isn’t cool and it certainly isn’t life-affirming. Being a bad-ass woman isn’t enough.

    There is a world of difference between Ellen Ripley from Aliens and any of the chicks from Charlie’s Angels.

    Being pro-female doesn’t mean being anti-male but that’s where we are in 2019. And it is destroying our ability as a society to even discuss these issues rationally.

    Do you realize how hard it was to get through to people just how wonderful last year’s Mary Poppins Returns ($349 million) was? The expectation that it would betray the original was so high and that Disney would ‘turn her into a tranny’ or whatever that people just stayed home.

    And this was one of the single best movies I’ve seen in years, hands down.

    Being male isn’t inherently toxic. Yes, there are toxic males. But what’s equally true is that there are toxic females. No, not all females are toxic.

    Toxic, destructive female archetypes are just as prevalent and prominent in our mythologies as the destructive male archetypes.

    Push the envelope too far, break the fundamental trust between audience and producer and the backlash will be severe. That was Paul Feig’s problem with his all-female Ghostbusters.

    He’s still making excuses for it.

    Make an irrelevant piece of fluff like Charlie’s Angels into a third-wave feminist manifesto and you shouldn’t be surprised when its met with crickets.

    People are so fed up with this stuff, rightly or wrongly, that they aren’t giving anyone a pass anymore. They will simply stay away and spend that money on something, anything else.

    Hollywood, like the rest of corporate America, is going to learn really quick that pandering to a very select group of people living on borrowed money in California and New York isn’t a long-term growth strategy.

    Moments like these tell me that we’re getting pretty close to Peak Woke because there’s not even any outrage about this.  They can’t turn this failure into an indictment of horrid men.  

    Though cheerless harpies like Ms. Banks will certainly try.  

    See you at the auto show, Lizzie.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon if you think Woke Culture is a dead end Install the Brave Browser if you want to support those who agree.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 19:45

  • Futures Slide After House Joins Senate In Landslide Vote Backing Hong Kong Protesters; Trump Expected To Sign Bill
    Futures Slide After House Joins Senate In Landslide Vote Backing Hong Kong Protesters; Trump Expected To Sign Bill

    Update: the trade deal with China, not that it ever existed, is now dead and buried if Bloomberg’s update that Trump is expected to sign the Hong Kong bill, is accurate.

    According to the BBG report, Trump is expected to sign legislation passed by Congress supporting Hong Kong protesters, “
    “setting up a confrontation with China that could imperil a long-awaited trade deal between the world’s two largest economies.”

    As discussed earlier (see below), Trump’s position is now acutely precarious because Congress would easily be able to override any veto. If Trump signs the bill, he could torpedo the trade talks, while refusing to sign it would give his political opponents a chance to attack him for being weak on China, while at the same time facing an ongoing impeachment process.

    In response, futures slide below 3,100, as not even the massive “gamma gravity” at 3,100 can hold the market any more.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And now we go straight to LeBron James for his hot take on recent developments.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    * * *

    One day after the Senate unanimously passed a Bill backing Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters, and spawning a wave of complaints and threats from China which warned it would retaliate, moments ago the U.S. House of Representatives followed in the footsteps of the Senate, and in a nearly unanimous vote cleared legislation supporting pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by requiring an annual review of whether the city is sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its special trading status, defying objections from China.

    The bill, S. 1838, which would require annual reviews of Hong Kong’s special status under U.S. law and sanction officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses and undermining the city’s autonomy, passed the House 417-1 late on Wednesday afternoon setting up a confrontation with Beijing that could imperil a long-awaited trade deal between the world’s two largest economies.

    The bill now goes to Trump as soon as Thursday to be vetoed or signed into law, according to a congressional aide.

    While the White House declined to comment on whether Trump will sign the legislation, Trump’s position is now acutely precarious because Congress would easily be able to override any veto. If Trump signs the bill, he could torpedo the trade talks, while refusing to sign it would give his political opponents a chance to attack him for being weak on China, while at the same time facing an ongoing impeachment process.

    “The Congress is sending an unmistakable message to the world that the United States stands in solidarity with freedom-loving people of Hong Kong and that we fully support their fight for freedom,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor. “This has been a very unifying issue for us.”

    Trump has been silent as the Hong Kong protests escalated into violence in recent weeks, even as lawmakers of both parties demanded action on the measure. Chinese officials quickly responded to the bill’s Senate passage Tuesday, saying Beijing “firmly” opposes the congressional action, which it considers a grave violation of international law.

    “We stand in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong,” said Republican Representative Chris Smith, who has been pushing the legislation since Hong Kong protests in 2014. “There will be strong sanctions, other ramifications for this crackdown.”

    After dropping 24 hours ago when the Senate first passed the bill, US equity futures dipped modestly following news of the bill’s passage in the House.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, as markets keep an eye on what Trump will do now, they will also be looking at China’s response. As we reported earlier, the Global Times editor in chief Hu Xijin tweeted early on Wednesday that “China wants a deal but is prepared for the worst-case scenario, a prolonged trade war.”

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

    To be sure, any aggressive response by China to the bill’s passage will not only make the passage of any trade deal in 2019 impossible, but will likely lead to even more antagonism and escalation in the coming months, something which Trump has been eager to avoid with the presidential elections less than a year ago.

    On the other hand, even though China’s Xi Jinping doesn’t have to worry about electoral pressure – as he recently crowned himself ruler for life – he also wants to stop the bleeding and avoid more tariff increases, including one still due to take place in December. And Xi may be under pressure within the Communist Party: A rare leak to the New York Times this week of internal documents showing human-rights abuses in Xinjiang signaled some dissent in China’s opaque political system.

    Beijing has other options too: beyond merely delaying trade talks, it could hit out at U.S. companies (most notably Apple), halt cooperation on enforcing sanctions related to North Korea and Iran, recall the Chinese ambassador to the U.S. or downgrade diplomatic relations. It could also further tighten rare earth metal exports.

    Yet according to many, the most likely outcome is that for all its huffing and puffing, China will do, well, nothing. After all, when it comes to Hong Kong, Trump already has enormous leverage, and as Bloomberg notes, under the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, the U.S. president can issue an order removing the special trading status that underpins its economy, potentially with devastating consequences.

    And since Beijing realizes will only do that if extremely provoked, it is likely to limit itself to “very high-sounding, rhetorical responses” rather than concrete actions hitting American economic interests, according to Willy Lam, an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Centre for China Studies, who has authored numerous books on Chinese politics.

    “The Chinese will, of course, cry foul, but the real reaction may not be that severe,” Lam said. “They will watch the situation and make a judgment later.”

    We’ll find out in the next several days if this take was correct.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 19:28

    Tags

  • Boeing's 737 Officially Loses Title Of World's Most Popular Jet To Airbus A320
    Boeing’s 737 Officially Loses Title Of World’s Most Popular Jet To Airbus A320

    The competition with Airbus that led to Boeing cutting corners on the 737 Max to begin has now cost the jet its title as the world’s most popular plane.

    The Airbus A320 has now officially seized the title of the world’s best selling narrow-body airliner, overtaking Boeing’s 737 and 737 Max models, according to RT. Boeing’s 737 was once the best selling commercial aircraft of all time, but that domination is now slipping away. 

    The Airbus A320 had attracted a total of 15,193 orders while the similar class 737 has 15,136 orders on its books as of October. 

    Boeing is still ahead when it comes to deliveries, but that gap is closing quickly also. In October, Airbus shipped 77 aircraft to customers, 59 of which were A320s, while Boeing had only delivered 20 planes. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Airbus is slowly fulfilling the mission put forth for the A320 project when it was developed nearly 3 decades ago: challenge the 737 in the narrow-body jet market and become the aircraft of choice for many airlines in Europe and beyond. Airbus now says that one A320 family jet takes off or lands somewhere in the world every 1.6 seconds. 

    Both jets are similar in nature, despite the Boeing plane being slightly more spacious:

    “Both A320 and 737 feature the six-abreast seating, but from a passenger’s point of view, the American jet is slightly more spacious as its cabin is 15cm wider. Airbus catches up by increasing the jet’s fuel-efficiency, reducing the noise footprint or cutting operational costs.”

    And things look like they could still be getting worse, before they get better, for Boeing.

    Boeing’s newest jet, the 737 Max has been grounded across the world after two fatal crashes that killed 346 people. The crashes have been blamed on carelessness and overlooking features of the plane’s MCAS systems.

    Additionally, yesterday, the NTSB recommended additional retrofits and changes to the 737 as the result of its investigation into last year’s deadly engine blast on a Southwest flight. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 19:25

  • Governor Of Illinois, Home Of Nation's Worst Fiscal Crisis, Slams Door On Pension Reform
    Governor Of Illinois, Home Of Nation’s Worst Fiscal Crisis, Slams Door On Pension Reform

    Submitted by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner of WirePoints

    The argument that “nothing is going to happen in Illinois until things blow up” got a major boost this week when the governor of the nation’s most fiscally upside down state said no to pension reform. Gov. J.B. Pritzker once again rejected calls to put a pension amendment on the ballot in 2020. Illinois’ constitution currently prohibits any reforms that “diminish or impair” pensions. 

    Never mind that Illinois has been in a credit rating free fall for more than a decade and is now just one notch from a junk rating. Or that Illinois is the nation’s extreme outlier when it comes to public sector retirement debts. Or that Chicago, Illinois’ economic heart, is in even worse shape

    A rejection of pension reform by Pritzker means Illinois will continue its slide toward insolvency.

    Illinois’ retirement debts are already one-third of the state’s annual economy – the worst in the nation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ditto retirement costs as a percentage of budget. No state consumes more of its budget for pensions like Illinois does. At 26 percent of budget, Illinois’ pension burden dwarfs those of its neighboring states. Pension costs are crowding out everything in its way.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And Chicagoans are already drowning in pension debts – more so than residents in any other major city. According to Moody’s, each Chicago household is on the hook for nearly $140,000 in overlapping state and local pension debts.

    Expect more Chicagoans to flee as tax rates jump to help pay for those debts.

    Pritzker’s alternative to real reform is to simply pretend that tiny changes will somehow help the crisis. “There are a lot of other ways to address pensions, and we’re going to go after each and every one of them,” he said.

    But Pritzker’s “lots of other ways” – which include buyouts and pension consolidation – will do little to nothing.

    For example, Illinois’ pension buyout scheme, where workers give up future pension benefits in exchange for immediate payouts, has been an absolute failure. Illinois politicians originally projected buyouts would save the state save over $400 million in 2019. Actual results showed savings of just $13 million.

    And while Pritzker calls his recent pension consolidation bill “momentous” – it’s anything but. The consolidation of assets for Illinois’ 650 downstate and suburban public safety pension funds only impacts $12 billion of Illinois’ $280 billion in official pension debts. That’s less than 5 percent of the total official retirement shortfall Illinoisans are on the hook for.

    Pritzker says there is “no silver bullet” to fix the pension crisis, though he’s touted his progressive tax proposal as the solution for all the state’s problems.

    If you were hoping for some sort of sense from the governor in light of recent events – Lightfoot’s request for a state takeover of city pensions and his own consolidation commission’s warning about Tier 2 – any chance of that is clearly dashed.

    Illinois path toward insolvency just got steeper. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 20th November 2019

  • What Will Happen In The 2020s? (Spoiler Alert: Nothing Good)
    What Will Happen In The 2020s? (Spoiler Alert: Nothing Good)

    Authored by ‘Lance Welton’ via VDare.com,

    Peter Turchin And The Coming Crisis Of The 2020s

    Increasingly, social science is dominated by Leftist ideologues who use the remaining respect that academia still has among the public to inculcate students and public alike with their equalitarian dogmas.

    But there are honorable exceptions.

    One of these: Peter Turchin, a Russian who is professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut. Turchin, who did PhD at Duke University, applies his “hard science” training to the Woke world of social science, aiming to make clear and testable predictions about the cycles through which civilizations go. According to Turchin, the West is headed for trouble in the 2020s.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turchin, who keeps a blog about civilization cycles, recently presented his latest findings to the Centre for Complex Systems Studies in Utrecht, Holland, under the heading “A History of the Near Future: What History Tells Us About the Near Future.” [PDF] His conclusions are startling. Based on his detailed number-crunching about events, civilizations that are in decline – as is the USA is – always enter periods of extreme polarization. For the USA, the 2020s will be that period. It will be marred by years of political violence, and intense conflict. Worryingly, Turchin claims that the U.S. more polarized that it was on the eve of the Civil War [ See his Ages of Discord: A Structural-Demographic Analysis of American History].

    Turchin argued in his Utrecht presentation that political instability in the USA and Western Europe in the 2020s will be of unparalleled severity, to the extent that it may well “undermine scientific progress.”

    Turchin began his presentation by quoting himself from almost a decade ago already making this prediction, one which—in a world of Trump, Brexit and the rise of European “populism”—now seems extremely prescient. Spain has just become the latest country to give a right-wing populist party a substantial vote: the Vox party took 3rd place in the country’s November 10th general election. [ Eurosceptics rejoice as Vox becomes 3rd most powerful party in Spanish election ,RT, November 11, 2019]

    “Qualitative historical analysis reveals that complex human societies are affected by recurrent—and predictable—waves of political instability” he wrote in a letter to the leading science journal, Nature, which he quoted at the beginning of his presentation [Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade, February 4, 2010].

    Turchin’s presentation then moved on to highlighting the key forces that, according to his massive data base on historical cycles of violence, appear to auger political instability in the 2020s. There are four of them, and they were last this intense in the early 1970s, also a period of political instability in the West.

    Mass Mobilization Potential

    This, in essence, is “too many workers.” Turchin noted that when “the supply of labor exceeds its demand, the price of labor decreases, depressing the living standards for the majority of population, thus leading to popular immiseration [impoverishment] and growing mass-mobilization potential, but creating favorable economic conditions for the elites.”

    In other words, as gradually occurred in the 1950s and the 1960s in Europe, the rich have grown richer on the back of cheap labor underpinned by mass immigration. This, however, has led to economic polarization and resentment, with the rich getting rich at a much faster rate than the poor. This means a well of angry, resentful people in the working and lower middle class.

    Intra-Elite Competition.

    Turchin argued that “favorable economic conjuncture for the elites results in increasing numbers of elites and elite aspirants, as well as runaway growth of elite consumption levels.” This means that many people who are higher up the hierarchy have to, in effect, become economically poor to maintain the veneer of “elite” status. Turchin added: “Elite overproduction results when elite numbers and appetites exceed the ability of the society to sustain them, leading to spiraling intra-elite competition and conflict.”

    If you over-educate the populace, you have too many people who believe that in some way they have a right to rule—because when they were children, for people had a degree, that was kind of the case. So, if we assume that having a degree used to make you part of an “elite,” then we have “over-produced” this “elite”—over half of young people go into higher education in some Western countries. [More than half of young p eople are going to university for the first time, figures reveal, by Camilla Turner, Telegraph, September 26, 2019]

    Thus there are far too many people qualified as lawyers, far too many college graduates, and thus very intense competition within and resentment between different sub-groups of “elite” people.

    Many of them are not really “elite” other than on paper, but they regard “non-elite” jobs as beneath them. Think of all the baristas with Cultural Anthropology degrees, the wannabe attorneys working as civil servants or for charities; the numerous graduates doing The Office-type tedious jobs. This breeds hatred and conflict among the more educated.

    State Fragility

    This occurs when a “fiscal crisis,” of the kind Turchin claims we have, reduces the power of the government to control the police, the army and other enforcers. The state begins to lack “legitimacy,” meaning that the elites and the populace are less likely to defend its institutions. Thus Trump supporters regard hallowed newspapers as “Fake News.” Brexit supporters label senior judges [ British newspapers react to judges’ Brexit ruling: ‘Enemies of the people’, Guardian, November 4, 2019] and even parliament itself [ Boris Johnson’s attempt to subvert democracy has failed, and he should resign, New Statesman, September 242019] as the “Enemy of the People.”

    International Environment

    The state will be rendered even more fragile if foreign governments support the insurgents within the elite—for example, Trump expressing his support for Brexiteers. And similar insurgencies in other countries spur emulation: Trump supporters could look to the Brexit vote and see that such victories over the Establishment were possible.

    Turchin argues that these factors also existed in the 1920s and 1930s, resulting in a crisis and in war. The elites dealt with this by attempting to create a more equal society, by limiting the size of the work force, by regulating the economy, and by limiting imports. The result was that between about 1930 and 1970, real (inflation-adjusted) wages grew.

    But once the elites forgot about the 1930s, and became focused on their own enrichment, wages started to plateau and fall, leading to crisis by the 1970s. Policies to, in essence, make everyone much wealthier were then instituted across the 1980s.

    But these could only last for so long and, claims Turchin, real wages have effectively been in decline since about the year 2000. And as this has happened, the elites have got richer and larger. For example, the percentage of the USA population worth 1 million dollars (in 1995 dollars) has grown from 2.9% to 6.3% between 1983 and 2007. So there is growing economic polarization.

    The “over-production of elites” leads to aspirant elites challenging the “established elites,” if necessary by violent means. The number of elite positions is limited—there are 50 state governors and 100 senators, no matter the population size—so this leads to political instability. In this regard, Turchin charts how the number of candidates for Congress—the number of elite aspirants—has increased over time, meaning more and more resentful people in the elite, who might be attracted to radical action to get their way.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turchin brings together a variety of “well-being indicators”—employment, real wages, health, family size—and finds that they all follow exactly the same pattern. They are low around 1900, which Turchin argues was a period of conflict and instability. They are very high by about 1960 and then start to rapidly fall. We would thus expect a crisis.

    Serious crises seeming to manifest every 50 years or so. Turchin takes us into what he calls the “deep past”—back even to the history of Rome—to show that these cycles occur again and again in almost exactly the same way, for exactly the same reasons, even involving similar lengths of time, such as instability every 50 years [A History of the Near Future]. Fascinatingly, he shows—setting out the data in a graph—that there is a clear negative association between societal well-being and elite over-production between 1780 and 2010 in the USA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What will happen in the 2020s?

    Turchin argues that one possibility is mass mobilization leading to war, revolution, state collapse, a lethal pandemic, population collapse—and, eventually, the higher living standards that tend to go with a reduced population.

    Turchin, however, is slightly more optimistic for this coming decade. He predicts that the West will undergo something more similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus avoid pandemics and a mass die-off.

    Let’s hope he’s right.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/20/2019 – 00:05

  • China 'Mega Dump' Full Of Trash 25 Years Ahead Of Schedule
    China ‘Mega Dump’ Full Of Trash 25 Years Ahead Of Schedule

    A ‘mega dump’ in China has reached capacity 25 years sooner than anticipated after receiving far more trash per day than originally planned, according to the BBC.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Jiangcungou ladfill in Shaanxi Province – around the size of 100 football fields, was designed to accept 2,500 tons of trash per day. Instead, it received 10,000 tons daily, the most of any landfill site in China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Jiangcungou landfill in Xi’an city was built in 1994 and was designed to last until 2044.

    The landfill serves over 8 million citizens. It spans an area of almost 700,000 square metres, with a depth of 150 metres and a storage capacity of more than 34 million cubic metres.

    Until recently, Xi’an was one of the few cities in China that solely relied on landfill to dispose of household waste – leading to capacity being reached early.

    Earlier this month, a new incineration plant was opened, and at least four more are expected to open by 2020. Together, they are expected to be able to process 12,750 tonnes of rubbish per day. –BBC

    The landfill sites are eventually slated to become ecological parks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China collected 215 million tons of urban household waste in 2017 according to the country’s statistical yearbook, up from 152 million a decade earlier. There are currently 654 landfill sites across the country and 286 incineration plants.

    It’s unknown what their recycling rate is as they have not released figures, however Beijing announced plans to recycle 35% of waste in major cities within the next 13 months, according to a government report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To that end, the sorting and recycling of rubbish was made mandatory in Shanghai this July, leading to a “sense of panic” over people’s social credit scores.

    The plan is ambitious – Shanghai is the largest and most populous city in the world, with more than 24 million residents – three times the size of London or New York. And according to some reports, only 10% of its waste is recycled. Official statistics show that only 3,300 tonnes of recyclables are collected daily, compared to the 19,300 tonnes of residual waste and 5,000 tonnes of kitchen waste that are collected. –BBC

    In 2017 alone, China accepted seven million tons of trash from Europe, Japan and the United States, along with 27 million tons of paper waste.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 23:45

  • Six Conflicting Global Projects
    Six Conflicting Global Projects

    The six major world powers approach the reorganization of international relations according to their experiences and dreams. Prudently, they intend to defend their interests first before promoting their vision of the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    VoltaireNet.org’s Thierry Meyssan describes their respective positions before the fight begins.

    The US withdrawal from Syria, even if it was immediately corrected, indicates with certainty that Washington no longer intends to be the world’s policeman, the “necessary Empire”. It destabilized without delay all the rules of international relations.

    We have entered a period of transition during which each major power is pursuing a new agenda. Here are the main ones.

    The Three “Greats”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The United States of America

    The collapse of the Soviet Union could have caused the collapse of the United States, since the two empires were leaning on each other. This was not the case. President George Bush Sr. ensured with Operation Desert Storm that Washington became the undisputed leader of all nations, then demobilized 1 million soldiers and proclaimed the quest for prosperity.

    Transnational corporations then signed a pact with Deng Xiaoping to have their products manufactured by Chinese workers, who were paid twenty times less than their American counterparts. This led to a considerable development of international freight transport, followed by the gradual disappearance of jobs and the middle classes in the United States. Industrial capitalism was replaced by financial capitalism.

    At the end of the 1990s, Igor Panarin, a professor at the Russian Diplomatic Academy, analyzed the economic and psychological collapse of American society. He hypothesized that the country would break up along the lines of what had happened to the Soviet Union with the emergence of new states. To repel the collapse, Bill Clinton freed his country from international law with NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia. As this effort proved insufficient, US personalities imagined adapting their country to financial capitalism and organizing, by force, international trade so that the coming period would be a “new American century”. With George Bush Jr., the United States abandoned its position as a leading nation and tried to transform itself into an absolute unipolar power. They launched the “endless war” or “war on terrorism” to destroy one by one all state structures in the “broader Middle East”. Barack Obama continued this quest by associating a host of allies with it.

    This policy paid off, but only a very few benefited, the “super-rich”. The Americans responded by electing Donald Trump as president of the federal state. He broke with his predecessors and, like Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR, tried to save the United States by relieving it of its most costly commitments. He boosted the economy by encouraging national industries against those that had relocated their jobs. He subsidized the extraction of shale oil and managed to take control of the world hydrocarbon market despite the cartel formed by OPEC and Russia. Aware that his army is first and foremost a huge bureaucracy, wasting a huge budget on insignificant results, he stopped supporting Daesh and the PKK, negotiating with Russia a way to end the “endless war” with as little loss as possible.

    In the coming period, the United States will be driven primarily by the need to save on all its actions abroad, until it abandons them if necessary. The end of imperialism is not a choice, but an existential question, a survival reflex.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The People’s Republic of China

    After Zhao Ziyang’s attempted coup d’état and the Tiananmen uprising, Deng Xioping began his “journey south”. He announced that China would continue its economic liberalization by entering into contracts with US multinationals.

    Jiang Zemin continued on this path. The coast became a “workshop of the world”, causing gigantic economic development. Gradually he cleaned the Communist Party of its caciques and ensured that well-paid jobs extended inland. Hu Jintao, concerned about a “harmonious society”, repeals the taxes paid by peasants in the interior regions still not affected by economic development. But he failed to control the regional authorities and fell into corruption.

    Xi Jinping proposed to open up new markets by building a huge project of international trade routes, the “Silk Roads”. However, this project came too late because, unlike in antiquity, China no longer offers original products, but what transnational corporations sell at a lower price. This project was welcomed as a blessing by poor countries, but feared by the rich who are preparing to sabotage it. Xi Jinping is taking up positions in all the islets his country had abandoned in the China Sea, during the collapse of the Qing Empire and the occupation by the eight foreign armies. Aware of the destructive power of the West, he formed an alliance with Russia and refrained from any international political initiative.

    In the coming period, China should affirm its positions in international fora, bearing in mind what the colonial empires imposed on it in the 19th century. But it should refrain from military intervention and remain a strictly economic power.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Russian Federation

    When the USSR collapsed, the Russians believed they would save themselves by adhering to the Western model. In fact, Boris Yeltsin’s team, trained by the CIA, organized the looting of collective property by a few individuals. In two years, about a hundred of them, 97% of them from the Jewish minority, took everything available and became billionaires. These new oligarchs fought each other mercilessly with machine guns and attacks in the middle of Moscow, while President Yeltsin bombed parliament. Without a real government, Russia was nothing more than a wreck. Warlords and jihadists armed by the CIA organized the secession of Chechnya. The standard of living and life expectancy collapsed.

    In 1999, FSB Director Vladimir Putin rescued President Yeltsin from an investigation for corruption. In exchange, he was appointed President of the Council of Ministers; a position he used to force the President to resign and get himself elected. He put in place a vast policy of state restoration: he put an end to the civil war in Chechnya and methodically killed all the oligarchs who refused to comply with the state. The return of order was also the end of the Russian Western fantasy. Living standards and life expectancy improved.

    Having restored the rule of law, Vladimir Putin did not stand for re-election after two consecutive terms. He supported a pale law professor, worshipped by the United States, Dmitry Medvedev, to succeed him. But not intending to leave power in weak hands, he was appointed Prime Minister until his re-election as President in 2012. Wrongly believing that Russia would collapse again, Georgia attacked South Ossetia, but instantly found Prime Minister Putin in its path. He then saw the pitiful state of the Red Army, but managed to overcome it thanks to the effect of surprise. Re-elected President, he focused on defence reform. He retired hundreds of thousands of officers, often disillusioned and sometimes drunk, and placed the Tuvan general (Turkish-speaking Siberian) Sergei Choïgou in the Ministry of Defence.

    Adopting a traditional Russian management style, Vladimir Putin separated the civilian budget from part of the military budget. The first is voted by the Duma, the second is secret. He restored military research, while the United States imagined that it would no longer have to invest in this area. He tested a number of new weapons before deploying the new Red Army to help Syria. He experimented with his new weapons in combat situations and decided which ones would be produced and which ones would be abandoned. He organized a quarterly rotation of his troops so that all of them, one after the other, would become stronger. The Russian Federation, which in 1991 was nothing more than nothing, became the world’s leading military power in eighteen years.

    At the same time, he used the Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine to reclaim Crimea, a Russian territory administratively linked to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev. He then faced a campaign of European Union agricultural sanctions that he used to create self-sufficient domestic production.

    He forged an alliance with China and forced it to modify its Silk Roads project by integrating the communication needs of Russian territory to form an “Extended Eurasia Partnership”.

    In the coming years, Russia will try to reorganise international relations on two bases: to separate political and religious powers; to restore international law on the basis of the principles formulated by Tsar Nicholas II.

    Western Europeans

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    When the USSR fell, the United Kingdom subscribed with reservations to the Maastricht Treaty. Conservative Prime Minister John Major intended to take advantage of the supranational state under construction while keeping his currency out of the way. So he rejoiced when George Soros attacked the Pound and forced it out of the EMS (“monetary snake”). His successor, Labourist Tony Blair, restored full independence to the Bank of England and considered leaving the EU to join NAFTA. He transformed the defence of his country’s interests by substituting references to human rights for respect for international law. He promoted the US policies of Bill Clinton, then George Bush Jr., encouraging and justifying the enlargement of the European Union, the “humanitarian war” against Kosovo, and the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In 2006, he developed the “Arab Spring” plan and submitted it to the United States.

    Gordon Brown hesitated to pursue this policy and tried to regain some room to manoeuvre, but his energy was caught up in the 2008 financial crisis, which he managed to get through. David Cameron implemented, with Barack Obama, the Blair-Bush plan for the “Arab Spring”, including the war against Libya, but eventually only partially succeeded in placing the Muslim Brotherhood in power in the broader Middle East. In the end, he resigned after the Brexit voters voted, when the project to join NAFTA was no longer on the agenda.

    Theresa May proposed to apply Brexit with regard to the exit of the supranational state from the Maastricht Treaty, but not with regard to the exit from the common market prior to Maastricht. She failed and was replaced by Winston Churchill’s biographer, Boris Johnson. He decided to leave the European Union completely and to reactivate the kingdom’s traditional foreign policy: the fight against any competing state on the European continent.

    If Boris Johnson remains in power, the United Kingdom should in the coming years try to pit the European Union and the Russian Federation against each other.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The French Republic

    François Mitterrand did not understand the dislocation of the USSR, going so far as to support the generals’ putsch against his Russian counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. In any case, he saw an opportunity to build a European supranational state, big enough to compete with the USA and China in the continuity of the Napoleonic attempt. Together with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, he promoted German unification and the Maastricht Treaty. Worried about this United States of Europe project, President Bush Sr, convinced of the “Wolfowitz doctrine” of preventing the emergence of a new challenger to the US leadership, forced him to accept NATO’s protection of the EU and its extension to former members of the Warsaw Pact. François Mitterrand used cohabitation and the Gaullist Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua, to fight the Muslim Brotherhood that the CIA had made him accept in France and that MI6 used to oust France from Algeria.

    Jacques Chirac developed French deterrence by completing air nuclear tests in the Pacific before moving on to simulations and signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). At the same time, he adapted the armies to NATO’s needs by ending compulsory military service and integrating the Alliance’s Military Committee (planning). He supported NATO’s initiative against Yugoslavia (Kosovo war), but – after reading and studying 9/11 The Big Lie [1]- took the lead in global opposition to aggression against Iraq. This episode allowed him to bond with Chancellor Helmut Kohl and to advance the European supranational state, which he always conceived as a tool of independence around the Franco-German couple. Disrupted by the assassination of his business partner, Rafik Hariri, he turned against Syria, which the United States referred to as the mastermind behind the murder.

    Advocating a radically different policy, Nicolas Sarkozy placed the French army under US command via NATO’s Integrated Command. He tried to enlarge the French area of influence by organizing the Union for the Mediterranean, but this project did not work. He proved his worth by overthrowing Laurent Bagbo in Côte d’Ivoire and, although he was overtaken by Arab springs in Tunisia and Egypt, he led NATO’s operation against Libya and Syria. However, for the sake of realism, he noted the Syrian resistance and withdrew from the theatre of operation. He continued the construction of the United States of Europe by having the Lisbon Treaty adopted by Parliament, even though the voters had rejected the same text under the name of the “European Constitution”. In reality, the modification of institutions, which are supposed to become more effective with 27 Member States, is profoundly transforming the supra-national State, which can now impose its will on Member States.

    Coming to power without being prepared for it, François Hollande followed in Nicolas Sarkozy’s footsteps in a somewhat rigid way, forcing him to adopt the latter¹s ideology. He signed all the treaties that his predecessor had negotiated – including the European Budget Pact allowing Greece to be sanctioned – adding to them each time, as if to apologise for his reversal, a declaration setting out his own point of view, but without binding force. Thus he authorized the establishment of NATO military bases on French soil, putting a definitive end to the Gaullist doctrine of national independence. Or he continued the policy of aggression against Syria, making a verbal overbid before doing nothing on the White House’s orders. He assigned the French Army a mission in the Sahel, as a ground-based substitute for AfriCom. Finally, he justified the CO2 emissions trading exchange by the Paris Climate Agreement.

    Elected thanks to the American investment fund KKR, Emmanuel Macron is first and foremost an advocate of globalization according to Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama. However, he quickly adopted the vision of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac according to which only a European supranational state would allow France to continue to play a significant international role, but in its Sarkozy-Holland version: the Union allows constraint. These two lines sometimes lead to contradictions, particularly with regard to Russia. However, they are united in a condemnation of the nationalism of the Member States of the European Union, a short Brexit, or a desire to restore trade with Iran.

    In the coming years, France should measure its decisions in terms of their impact on the building of the European Union. It will seek as a priority to ally itself with any power working in this direction.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Federal Republic of Germany

    Chancellor Helmut Kohl saw the break-up of the Soviet Empire as an opportunity to bring the two Germanies together. He obtained the green light from France in exchange for German support for the European Union’s single currency project, the euro. He also obtained the agreement of the United States, which saw it as a way to divert the East German army into NATO despite the promise made to Russia not to allow the German Democratic Republic to join.

    Once German reunification was achieved, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder raised the question of his country’s international role, still under attack from its defeat in the Second World War. Although Germany is no longer militarily occupied by the four major powers, it nevertheless hosts huge US garrisons and the headquarters of EuCom and soon AfriCom. Gerhard Schöder used the “humanitarian” war against Kosovo to legally deploy German troops out of the country for the first time since 1945. But he refused to recognize this territory conquered by NATO as a state. Similarly, he is very strongly committed alongside President Chirac against the United States-British war in Iraq, stressing that there is no evidence that President Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11th. He tried to influence European integration in a peaceful way. He therefore strengthened energy ties with Russia and proposed a federal Europe (including Russia in the long term) based on the German model, but he met with opposition from France, which is very attached to the project of a supra-national state.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel returned to the politics of her mentor Helmut Kohl, who handed her over in one night from her responsibilities at the Communist Youth of Democratic Germany to the Federal Government of Germany. Closely monitored by the CIA, which is not sure how to define her, she strengthened Germany’s ties with Israel and Brazil. In 2013, on Hillary Clinton’s proposal, she asked Volker Pethes to study the possibility of developing the German army to play a central role in CentCom if the United States moved its troops to the Far East. She then commissioned studies on how German officers could supervise the armies of Central and Eastern Europe and asked Volker Perthes to write a plan for Syria’s surrender. Very attached to Atlanticist and European structures, she distanced herself from Russia and supported the Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine. In order to be effective, she required that the European Union impose its will on small Member States (Lisbon Treaty). She was very tough during the Greek financial crisis and patiently placed her pawns in the European bureaucracy until Ursula von der Leyen was elected President of the European Commission. When the United States withdrew from northern Syria, she immediately responded by proposing to NATO to send the German army to replace it in accordance with the 2013 plan.

    In the coming years, Germany should focus on the possibilities of military intervention in the framework of NATO, particularly in the Middle East, and be wary of the project of a centralised European super-national state.

    Feasibility

    It is very strange to hear today about “multilateralism” and “isolationism” or “universalism” and “nationalism”. These questions do not arise because everyone has known since the Hague Conference (1899) that technological progress has made all nations in solidarity. This logorrhoea does not hide our inability to admit the new power relations and to envisage a world order that is as unjust as possible.

    Only the three Great Powers can hope to have the means to implement their policies. They can only achieve their ends without war by following the Russian line based on international law. However, the danger of internal political instability in the United States raises more than ever the risk of a generalized confrontation.

    When they left the Union, the British were forced to join the United States (which Donald Trump rejected) or to disappear politically. While Germany and France, which are losing ground, have no choice but to build the European Union. However, for the time being, they assess the time available very differently and consider it in two incompatible ways, which could lead them to disrupt the European Union themselves.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 23:25

  • For Christmas This Year, Teens Want Apple, Nike, And Louis Vuitton
    For Christmas This Year, Teens Want Apple, Nike, And Louis Vuitton

    According to a new survey from Piper Jaffray, Apple, Nike and Louis Vuitton could be the big winners with teenagers this holiday season. And why wouldn’t teenagers, most of whom likely don’t work for a living, ask for luxury brands on the one day of the year where they are gifted things without regard for price?

    Piper surveyed more than 1,000 U.S. consumers and analyzed the responses from the “upper income teenage cohort” to draw its conclusions, according to CNBC. The company found that Apple was the “top-listed consumer brand for teens,” with AirPods as the most popular product. 

    The second most mentioned brand was Nike, with its mentions more than tripling from last year’s survey. And in keeping with the reality distortion field that is the budding U.S. consumer, Louis Vuitton – a brand that many hard working adults can’t afford – rounded out the list of top brands for teenagers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Piper has said of the holiday season: “The consumer remains healthy, but stock selectivity is key given pockets of weakness in the dept. stores, specialty retail stores & mixed views on spending.”

    Other brands that Piper has on watch for the holidays include Activision Blizzard, Crocs, Lowe’s, Boot Barn and YETI.

    Piper believes that strength from “Call of Duty” could help Activision Blizzard while popularity from Fortnite wanes. The firm also thinks that ongoing product collaborations could help Crocs power sales. 

    The strength in the housing market has prompted the watchful eye on Lowe’s, while new product launches have the firm watching Boot Barn and YETI. However, the biggest winner could again be Amazon, according to the survey. Consumers are expected to make 46% of purchases online this year. 

    “Proprietary retail model shows acceleration of AMZN at detriment to department and specialty stores,” the firm said in its note. Piper has overweight ratings on Apple, Nike and Lululemon. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 23:05

  • Impeach The Government: Rogue Agencies Have Been Abusing Their Powers For Decades
    Impeach The Government: Rogue Agencies Have Been Abusing Their Powers For Decades

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper . . . despotic in his ordinary demeanour – known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty – when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity – to join in the cry of danger to liberty – to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion – to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day – It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’

    – Alexander Hamilton

    By all means, let’s talk about impeachment.

    To allow the President or any rogue government agency or individual to disregard the rule of law whenever, wherever and however it chooses and operate “above the law” is exactly how a nation of sheep gives rise to a government of wolves.

    To be clear: this is not about Donald Trump.

    Or at least it shouldn’t be just about Trump.

    This is a condemnation of every government toady at every point along the political spectrum—right, left and center—who has conspired to expand the federal government’s powers at the expense of the citizenry.

    For too long now, the American people have played politics with their principles and turned a blind eye to all manner of wrongdoing when it was politically expedient, allowing Congress, the White House and the Judiciary to wreak havoc with their freedoms and act in violation of the rule of law.

    “We the people” are paying the price for it now.

    We are paying the price every day that we allow the government to continue to wage its war on the American People, a war that is being fought on many fronts: with bullets and tasers, with surveillance cameras and license readers, with intimidation and propaganda, with court rulings and legislation, with the collusion of every bureaucrat who dances to the tune of corporate handouts while on the government’s payroll, and most effectively of all, with the complicity of the American people, who continue to allow themselves to be easily manipulated by their politics, distracted by their pastimes, and acclimated to a world in which government corruption is the norm.

    Don’t keep falling for the Deep State’s ploys.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This entire impeachment process is a manufactured political circus—a shell game—aimed at distracting the public from the devious treachery of the American police state, which continues to lock down the nation and strip the citizenry of every last vestige of constitutional safeguards that have historically served as a bulwark against tyranny.

    Has President Trump overstepped his authority and abused his powers?

    Without a doubt.

    Then again, so did Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, and almost every president before them.

    Trump is not the first president to weaken the system of checks and balances, sidestep the rule of law, and expand the power of the president. He is just the most recent.

    If we were being honest and consistent in holding government officials accountable, you’d have to impeach almost every president in recent years for operating “above the law,” unbound by the legislative or judicial branches of the government.

    When we refer to the “rule of law,” that’s constitutional shorthand for the idea that everyone is treated the same under the law, everyone is held equally accountable to abiding by the law, and no one is given a free pass based on their politics, their connections, their wealth, their status or any other bright line test used to confer special treatment on the elite.

    When the government and its agents no longer respect the rule of law—the Constitution—or believe that it applies to them, then the very contract on which this relationship is based becomes invalid.

    Although the Constitution requires a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in order to ensure accountability so that no one government agency becomes all-powerful, each successive president over the past 30 years has, through the negligence of Congress and the courts, expanded the reach and power of the presidency by adding to his office’s list of extraordinary orders, directives and special privileges.

    All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—were inherited by Donald Trump.

    These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to act as a dictator by operating above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

    Yet in operating above the law, it’s not just the president who has become a law unto himself.

    The government itself has become an imperial dictator, an overlord, a king.

    This is what you might call a stealthy, creeping, silent, slow-motion coup d’état.

    This abuse of power has been going on for so long that it has become the norm, the Constitution be damned.

    There are hundreds—make that thousands—of government bureaucrats who are getting away with murder (in many cases, literally) simply because the legislatures, courts and the citizenry can’t be bothered to make them play by the rules of the Constitution.

    Unless something changes in the way we deal with these ongoing, egregious abuses of power, the predators of the police state will continue to wreak havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.

    It’s the nature of the beast: power corrupts.

    Worse, as 19th-century historian Lord Acton concluded, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a politician, an entertainment mogul, a corporate CEO or a police officer: give any one person (or government agency) too much power and allow him or her or it to believe that they are entitled, untouchable and will not be held accountable for their actions, and those powers will eventually be abused.

    We’re seeing this dynamic play out every day in communities across America.

    A cop shoots an unarmed citizen for no credible reason and gets away with it. A president employs executive orders to sidestep the Constitution and gets away with it. A government agency spies on its citizens’ communications and gets away with it. An entertainment mogul sexually harasses actors and actresses and gets away with it. The U.S. military bombs civilian targets and gets away with it.

    Abuse of power—and the ambition-fueled hypocrisy and deliberate disregard for misconduct that make those abuses possible—works the same whether you’re talking about sexual harassment, government corruption, or the rule of law.

    Twenty years ago, I was a lawyer for Paula Jones, who sued then-President Clinton for dropping his pants and propositioning her for sex when he was governor of Arkansas. That lawsuit gave rise to revelations about Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 21-year-old intern at the White House, and his eventual impeachment for lying about it under oath.

    As Dana Milbank writes for The Washington Post:

    We didn’t know it at the time, of course. But in Bill Clinton were the seeds of Donald Trump. With 20 years of hindsight, it is clear… Clinton’s handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair was a precursor of the monstrosity we now have in the White House: dismissing unpleasant facts as “fake news,” self-righteously claiming victimhood, attacking the press and cloaking personal misbehavior in claims to be upholding the Constitution…. Clinton set us on the path, or at least accelerated us down the path, that led to today.

    It doesn’t matter what starts us down this path, whether it’s a president insisting that he get a free pass for sexually harassing employees, or waging wars based on invented facts, or attempting to derail an investigation into official misconduct.

    If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.

    After all, it is a tale that has been told time and again throughout history about how easy it is for freedom to fall and tyranny to rise, and it often begins with one small, seemingly inconsequential willingness on the part of the people to compromise their principles and undermine the rule of law in exchange for a dubious assurance of safety, prosperity and a life without care.

    For example, 86 years ago, the citizens of another democratic world power elected a leader who promised to protect them from all dangers. In return for this protection, and under the auspice of fighting terrorism, he was given absolute power.

    This leader went to great lengths to make his rise to power appear both legal and necessary, masterfully manipulating much of the citizenry and their government leaders.

    Unnerved by threats of domestic terrorism and foreign invaders, the people had little idea that the domestic turmoil of the times—such as street rioting and the fear of Communism taking over the country—was staged by the leader in an effort to create fear and later capitalize on it.

    In the ensuing months, this charismatic leader ushered in a series of legislative measures that suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights and empowered him as a dictator.

    On March 23, 1933, the nation’s legislative body passed the Enabling Act, formally referred to as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation,” which appeared benign and allowed the leader to pass laws by decree in times of emergency.

    What it succeeded in doing, however, was ensuring that the leader became a law unto himself.

    The leader’s name was Adolf Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Yet history has a way of repeating itself.

    Hitler’s rise to power should serve as a stark lesson to always be leery of granting any government leader sweeping powers.

    Clearly, we are not heeding that lesson.

    “How lucky it is for rulers,” Adolf Hitler once said, “that men cannot think.”

    The horrors that followed in Nazi Germany might have been easier to explain if Hitler had been right. But the problem is not so much that people cannot think but that they do not think. Or if they do think, as in the case of the German people, that thinking becomes muddled and easily led.

    Hitler’s meteoric rise to power, with the support of the German people, is a case in point.

    On January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles. When President Paul von Hindenburg died the following year, Hitler assumed the office of president, as well as that of chancellor, but he preferred to use the title Der Füehrer (the leader) to describe himself. This new move was approved in a general election in which Hitler garnered 88 percent of the votes cast.

    It cannot be said that the German people were ignorant of Hitler’s agenda or his Nazi ideology. Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the future, had papered the country for a decade before Hitler came to power. In fact, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, which was his blueprint for totalitarianism, sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932.

    Clearly, the problem was not that the German people did not think but that their thinking was poisoned by the enveloping climate of ideas that they came to accept as important.

    At a certain point, the trivial became important, and obedience to the government in pursuit of security over freedom became predominant.

    As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free, “Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people‑—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’, without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”

    The German people were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

    The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

    “Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

    Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined:

    “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

    In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into slave labor, life was good.

    This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

    The American kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) has sucked the American people down a rabbit hole into a parallel universe in which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful, and the citizenry is powerless to defend itself against government agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.

    This dissolution of that sacred covenant between the citizenry and the government—establishing “we the people” as the masters and the government as the servant—didn’t happen overnight. It didn’t happen because of one particular incident or one particular president. It is a process, one that began long ago and continues in the present day, aided and abetted by politicians who have mastered the polarizing art of how to “divide and conquer.”

    Unfortunately, there is no magic spell to transport us back to a place and time where “we the people” weren’t merely fodder for a corporate gristmill, operated by government hired hands, whose priorities are money and power.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, our freedoms have become casualties in an all-out war on the American people.

    So yes, let’s talk about impeachment, but don’t fall for the partisan shell game that sets Trump up as the fall guy for the Deep State’s high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Set your sights higher: impeach the government for overstepping its authority, abusing its power, and disregarding the rule of law.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • "It's Really Refreshing And Relaxing" – College Students Ditch Smartphones For A Week, Changed Their Lives
    “It’s Really Refreshing And Relaxing” – College Students Ditch Smartphones For A Week, Changed Their Lives

    Dozens of students at Adelphi University, a private university in Garden City, New York, abandoned their smartphones for a week, it was part of a college course that would break the cycle of addiction of their dependence on technology, reported CBS NewYork.

    CBS2’s Carolyn Gusoff interviewed several students last week who were finally reunited with their smartphones.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     Jacob Dannenberg, a student who took part in the experiment, said he had to use an ‘old school alarm clock’ to wake up. 

    Dannenberg had to write notes and keep a journal of tasks because without a smartphone, he was basically paralyzed from completing some of life’s simplest tasks.

    One student told Gusoff that “I’m freaking out, I could probably cry right now.” The student said she didn’t have a smartphone for a week. 

    Professor Donna Freitas, who experimented with students, said it was a bold challenge for students to recognize just how dependent they’re on technology. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dannenberg told Gusoff that after ditching his smartphone for a week, life is truly amazing. “I’m having a lot of better relationships… it’s a stress-free environment no pressure about social media,” he said.

    Student Adrianna Cigliano said, “I think it’s really refreshing and relaxing… I was able to fall asleep a lot easier” without the phone. 

    Cigliano added that “Doing homework was 100 percent easier. I got it done faster, and I was in the zone.” 

    Freitas said she wanted students to recognize their addiction level to smartphones. 

    “Are the conveniences worth it because the drawback are pretty significant,” Freitas said.

    “The fact that no one can focus, that my students can’t sleep… They feel bad about themselves because of social media, and the list goes on and on.”

    Students told Gusoff that after the week challenge, they would change their smartphone habits and lessen their screentime. 

    “I want to keep that balance and figure out the healthy relationship that we deserve to have with our phones,” Cigliano added.

    “My screen time is definitely going to go down, and I’m going start to appreciate my surroundings more because usually I’m looking at my screen all the time,” Ashley Castillero said.

    Students overwhelmingly said they want to live more in the moment, rather than have their heads buried in the fake social media world. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • "I'm Pissed About Multiple Things Right Now" – Ilargi On Assange, Nitrogen, Pensions, & John Solomon
    “I’m Pissed About Multiple Things Right Now” – Ilargi On Assange, Nitrogen, Pensions, & John Solomon

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    I’m getting pissed off about multiple things right now, too many to make them all separate essays.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let’s give it a combined shot:

    In Holland, the talk of the town is nitrogen emissions. I’d never seen it raised as that kind of problem, but there you go. The government last week decided to lower the max speed limit on highways to 100km (66miles) , from 120-130. Their reasoning was that this would allow the building industry to build more -by now hugely overpriced- homes and apartments.

    Oh, but agriculture (aka cattle) is responsible for 46% of nitrogen emissions. So they have a plan to alter cattle feed (I am still serious here). I understand that neighbors Germany and Belgium have had nitrogen policies in place for years, so their cars can keep on pedaling to the metal because they don’t have a problem. Huh?

    Also in Holland, big discussions about cuts to pensions. Which of course leads to big protests, which in turn makes the government make sure that cuts this year will be minimal. Okay, but how about next year? No comment. Holland is supposed to have one of the best pension systems on the planet, but they don’t get to escape the BIG erosion either.

    Aging population, fewer contributors, lower wages, it’s happening everywhere. Our pension systems are Ponzi schemes. Every single penny you give a pensioner today is taken away from one tomorrow. The entire system is broke, we just don’t want to face that simple fact.

    15 years ago, pensions systems were required by law to hold only AAA-denominated assets. Look at that today. They all have 7-8% in their prospectus, and bonds pay 1%, if that. Unless you gamble. So they have all moved into equities, which look fine because central banks prop them up, but the model itself has changed like Jekyll becames Hyde.

    Then, Sweden decided to drop the 2010 rape charges against Assange 9 years later. In reality, there never WERE any rape charges. But still, prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson re-opened the “investigation” in May 2019. Just so Julian could be dragged from the Ecuador embassy in London on a seemingly legit charge. Eva-Marie Persson should be in Belmarsh prison, not Julian. But she represents the law, and he does not. He has exposed its dim-witted lackeys. My comment earlier today at the Automatic Earth:

    “Sweden has dropped its rape inquiry into Julian Assange. Good f%@$#ing Lord, what year is it? The f%@$#ing job is f%@$#ing done, isn’t, you f%@$#ers? How can you be a Swede and not protest this? What kind of people live in that country? No, I know, the same kind as live in the UK and US. Ignorant f%@$#s.”

    Oh, and now they’re arresting Epstein’s prison guards? Come on guys, you got to recognize a joke as a joke.

    Then a CNN piece about John Solomon, who was thrown out of the Hill recently though he was their best reporter. Now, he was already fired from the Hill despite being their ace reporter, but that’s not enough for CNN, they want the owner too. So for CNN, it’s a direct link from Trump to Giuliani to Solomon to Hill owner Jimmy Finkelstein:

    Jimmy Finkelstein, The Owner Of The Hill, Has Flown Under The Radar

    James “Jimmy” Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill newspaper, is not a widely known media executive, but he is one of the era’s most consequential. Finkelstein resides at the nexus of President Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Solomon, the now-former executive at The Hill and current Fox News contributor who pushed conspiracy theories about Ukraine into the public conversation. While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga.

    One, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, said of one of Solomon’s stories, “I think all the key elements were false.” Pressed further on the matter by Rep. Lee Zeldin, a New York Republican, Vindman said, “I haven’t looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right.” [..] After CNN Business reached out to a representative for The Hill for comment, The Hill Editor-In-Chief Bob Cusack announced in a Monday morning email to staffers that Solomon’s work was under review.

    “As you are aware, John Solomon left The Hill earlier in the fall, but in light of recent congressional testimony and related events, we wanted to apprise you of the steps we are taking regarding John Solomon’s opinion columns which were referenced in the impeachment inquiry,” Cusack wrote. “Because of our dedication to accurate non-partisan reporting and standards, we are reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry,” Cusack added.

    Now, I have followed, and quoted, Solomon for quite some time, and I think he’s thorough, well documented, and in short what a journalist should be (nothing to do with opinion). Calling him conspirational is really quite a jump. But this is CNN. They do conspiracy like no-one else. And apparently they got what they wanted, because the Hill now is this:

    Trump’s Ukraine Scandal Rooted In Fear Of Biden

    Why is President Trump so nervous about the 2020 race? He has a record amount of campaign cash. Russian bots are still working for him. And he still has the backing of more than 80 percent of his party. So, how do I know he’s so nervous? As Trump loves to say: Read the transcript. At the heart of the phone call that has led to impeachment hearings is Trump going out on a shaky limb to ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a “favor.” That “favor” included a request for Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter. The only reason for Trump to risk asking a foreign leader for help getting political dirt on an opponent is that he feared that rival’s power.

    Me personally, I’ll stick with John Solomon for now. I haven’t caught him on a lie, and not on propaganda. Which is much better than I can say about just about every other outlet out there. Yeah, Hannity is a very loose cannon, Tucker Carlson not that much, but it’s the CNN people, and Rachel Maddow, that are far worse when it comes to propaganda.

    And Adam Schiff too, who gets to conduct his fake trial in which he doesn’t have to say a single true word because he’s not under oath and the “witnesses” can be 2nd-3rd-4th hearsay ones. Anyone can say anything as long as it is negative for Trump. You know, that guy the American people elected as their president 3 years ago. Let’s move this into a courtroom -like the Senate- and do away with the absurd theater.

    *  *  *

    Please support the Automatic Earth on Paypal and Patreon so we can continue to publish.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 22:05

  • Baby Boomers Face Most Economic Insecurity In Democratic States
    Baby Boomers Face Most Economic Insecurity In Democratic States

    New estimates from the 2019 Elder Index, calculated by the Gerontology Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston, show that older Americans living alone in mostly Democratic Northeast states are at risk of not having enough financial resources to cover expenses, reported Bloomberg

    The Elder Index tracks the income needed for baby boomers to cover basic needs. The average older adult without a mortgage needs about $21,000 per year to live or about $31,800 if married. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 2019 Elder Index details how older adults living in Northeast states, with several regional exceptions of Hawaii and California, are at the highest risk of financial instability. Some of the costliest states are Democratic ones, while the most affordable ones are Republican. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A well-funded retirement account of a boomer generally has a mix of bonds and stocks that produce income, with the compliments of social security payouts. But since the Federal Reserve has robbed savers over the last ten years by setting interest rates lower than usual — income for boomers has been rather depressing — contributing to their economic demise.

    Economic stress among older Americans has been increasing in the last decade, and at least 25% of boomers are struggling with deteriorating health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. 

    There are about 77 million boomers across the country; many of them are becoming a financial drain on the system. At least 33% of older folks have zero savings, and it could explain why they’re all becoming Lyft and Uber drivers, crowding out insolvent millennials. 

    The take away from this report, if you’re a boomer and broke, don’t live in a Democrat state. If you already do, move while you still can. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 21:45

    Tags

  • C.J. Hopkins: Reclaiming Your Inner Fascist
    C.J. Hopkins: Reclaiming Your Inner Fascist

    Authored (satirically) by C.J.Hopkins via The Unz Review,

    OK, we need to talk about fascism. Not just any kind of fascism. A particularly insidious kind of fascism. No, not the fascism of the early 20th Century. Not Mussolini’s National Fascist Party. Not Hitler’s NSDAP. Not Francoist fascism or any other kind of organized fascist movement or party. Not even the dreaded Tiki-torch Nazis.

    It’s the other kind of fascism we need to talk about. The kind that doesn’t come goose-stepping up the street waving big neo-Nazi flags. The kind we don’t recognize when we’re looking right at it.

    It’s like that joke about the fish and the water … we don’t recognize it because we’re swimming in it. We’re surrounded by it. We are inseparable from it. From the moment we are born, we breathe it in.

    We are taught it by our parents, who were taught it by their parents. We are taught it again by our teachers in school. It is reinforced on a daily basis at work, in conversations with friends, in our families and our romantic relationships. We imbibe it in books, movies, TV shows, advertisements, pop songs, the nightly news, in our cars, at the mall, the stadium, the opera … everywhere, because it is literally everywhere.

    It doesn’t look like fascism to us. Fascism only looks like fascism when you’re standing outside of it, or looking back at it. When you are in it, fascism just looks like “normality,” like “reality,” like “just the way it is.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We (i.e., Americans, Brits, Europeans, and other citizens of the global capitalist empire) get up in the morning, go to work, shop, pay the interest on our debts, and otherwise obey the laws and conform to the mores of a system of power that has murdered countless millions of people in pursuit of global-hegemonic dominance. It has perpetrated numerous wars of aggression. Its military occupies most of the planet. Its Intelligence agencies (i.e., secret police) operate a worldwide surveillance apparatus that can identify, target, and eliminate anyone, anywhere, often by remote control. Its propaganda network never sleeps, nor is there any real way to escape its constant emotional and ideological conditioning.

    The fact that the global capitalist empire does not call itself an empire, and instead calls itself “democracy,” doesn’t make it any less of an empire. The fact that it uses terms like “regime change” instead of “invasion” or “annexation” makes very little difference to its victims. Terms like “security,” “stability,” “intervention,” “regime change,” and so on are not meant for its victims. They are meant for us … to anesthetize us.

    The empire is “regime-changing” Bolivia currently. It has “regime-changed” most of Latin America at one time or another since the Second World War. It “regime-changed” Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Indonesia … the list goes on. It very much wants to “regime-change” Iran, which it “regime-changed” back in the 1950s, before the Iranians “regime-changed” it back. It would love to “regime-change” Russia and China, but their ICBMs make that somewhat impractical. Basically, the empire has been “regime-changing” everyone it can since the end of the Cold War. It has run into a little bump in Syria, and in Venezuela, but not to worry, it will get back there and finish up eventually.

    Now, let’s be clear about this “regime-change” business. We’re talking about invading other people’s countries, and orchestrating and sponsoring coups, or otherwise overthrowing their governments, and murdering, torturing, and oppressing people. Sending in terrorists, death squads, and such. We have organizations that train guys to do that, i.e., to round people up, take them out to the jungle, or the woods, or wherever, rape the women, and then summarily shoot everyone in the head. We pay for this kind of thing with our taxes, and our investments in the global corporations that our militaries and intelligence agencies serve. We know this is happening. We can google this stuff. We know “where the trains are going,” as it were.

    And yet, we do not see ourselves as monsters.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Nazis didn’t see themselves as monsters. They saw themselves as heroes, as saviors, or just as regular Germans leading regular lives. When they looked at the propaganda posters which surrounded them (as the Internet surrounds us today), they didn’t see sadistic mass-murderers and totalitarian psychopathic freaks. They saw normal people, admirable people, who were making the world a better place.

    They saw themselves. They saw “the good guys.”

    This is primarily how propaganda works. It isn’t meant to fool anybody. It is there to represent “normality” (whatever “normality” happens to be in whatever empire one happens to inhabit). It is Power’s way of letting us know what it wants us to believe, how it wants us to behave, who our official enemies are. Its purpose isn’t to mislead or deceive us. It is an edict, a command, an ideological model … to which we are all expected to conform. Conform to this ideological model, and one is rewarded, or at least not punished. Deviate from it, and suffer the consequences.

    It is a question of obedience, not one of truth.

    This is why it doesn’t matter that there is no actual “Attack on America,” and that the Russians didn’t “hack,” “subvert,” “meddle in,” or otherwise significantly “influence” the 2016 presidential election or otherwise put Donald Trump in office. John Brennan and the CIA say they did, and the corporate media say they did, so all Good Americans have to pretend to believe it. Likewise, it also doesn’t matter if an organization like the OPCW collaborated with the empire’s regime-change specialists who staged a “chemical weapons attack” on helpless women and children in Douma (because, no matter what the empire did or didn’t do, Assad is a Russian-backed, baby-gassing devil!), or if The Guardian just makes up stuff about Julian Assange out of whole cloth and prints it as news.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is also why, when The Guardian runs an enormous color propaganda photo of a beneficent-looking Hillary Clinton and her soon-to-be-Democratic senator daughter posing as our last line of defense against the Invasion of the Putin-Nazis, and as the future of Western democracy, and whatever, on the cover of its cultural Review, this isn’t perceived as propaganda. Never mind that this woman (i.e., Hillary) is directly responsible for the deaths and misery of God knows how many innocent people in the course of her lucrative service to the empire. Never mind that this is the same exact person that sadistically cackled on national television when the empire’s associates anally knife-raped and murdered Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and then transformed a developed African country into a hellish human-slavery market.

    For fascists (and authoritarian personalities generally), facts are completely beside the point. The point is to robotically conform to the ideology (or hysterical ravings) of whatever leader or system of power happens to be in charge of things.

    Authoritarian personality types are skilled at determining exactly who that is (i.e, who is really in charge of things) and obsequiously currying favor with them. For some, this is an innate talent; others have this talent conditioned into them (or beaten into them) over the course of years. Either way, the result is the same.

    Put a bunch of random people together in a group and give them a problem to solve, or a complex project or objective to accomplish. Don’t give them any organizational guidance, just put them in a room and watch what happens.

    The first thing that happens is … a “leader” emerges. Someone (or a few people) decides that someone needs to be in charge of this project, and they feel pretty strongly that it should be them. If more than one such “leader” emerges, or if the need for a leader itself is challenged, a struggle for power will immediately ensue. The aspiring “leaders” will compete for the support of the “followers” in the group. Sides will be taken. Eventually, a “leader” will be chosen. Occasionally, this will happen openly, but, more often than not, it will happen unconsciously. Someone in the group will want to dominate … and the rest of the group will want them to dominate. They will experience discomfort until a “leader” is established, and they will feel an enormous sense of relief once one is, and they can surrender their autonomy.

    I assume you’re familiar with the Milgram experiment, but, if not, you should probably read up on that, and maybe read Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality. It’s a bit outdated, and over-focused on the Nazis (it was originally published in 1950), but I think you’ll get the general idea. Once you’ve done that, turn on your television, or your radio, or scan the news on the Internet, or walk down any big city street and compare the content on the digital billboards, movie posters, and advertisements to historical fascist propaganda … that is, if your boss will let you leave the workplace long enough to do that, which he probably will if you ask him in that special way you have learned over time that he likes and generally tends to respond to.

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to get inside your mind. That’s kind of a fascistic thing to do.

    Look, the point is, we all have an “Inner Fascist,” with whom we are either acquainted or not. I’m a playwright and a novelist, which means I’ve got a big, fat, Sieg-heiling Inner Fascist goose-stepping around inside my head. I invent whole worlds, which I dictatorially control. I put people in them and make them say things. It doesn’t get much more fascistic than that. The way I see it, my art is how I sublimate my Inner Fascist, so that he doesn’t run around invading Poland, exterminating the Jews, or “regime-changing” Bolivia.

    I’m not a psychiatrist, or a fascism expert, but I figure this is probably the most we can do … recognize, acknowledge, and find some way to sublimate our Inner Fascists, because, I guarantee you, they’re not going away. (If you don’t believe me, go watch that Planet Earth episode featuring the fascist chimpanzees.) Seriously, I recommend you do this. Get acquainted with your Inner Fascist, in an appropriate set and setting, of course. Give him something safe to dominate and then let him go totally totalitarian. You’ll be doing yourself and the rest of us a favor.

    Ironically, it is those who are not acquainted with their Inner Fascists (or who deny they have one) who are usually the first to make a big public show of loudly denouncing “fascism,” brandishing their “anti-fascist” bona fides, accusing other people of being “fascists,” and otherwise desperately projecting their Inner Fascists onto those they hate, and want to silence, if not exterminate. This is one of the hallmarks of repressed Inner Fascism … this compulsion to control what other people think, this desire for complete ideological conformity, this tendency, not to argue with, but rather, to attempt to destroy anyone who disagrees with or questions one’s beliefs.

    We all know people who behave this way. If you don’t, odds are, one of them is you.

    So, please, if you haven’t done so already, get acquainted with your “Inner Fascist,” and find him something harmless to do, before he … well, you know, starts singing hymns to former FBI directors, or worshipping the CIA, or Obama, or Trump, or Hillary Clinton, or supports the empire’s next invasion, or coup, or just makes a desperate, sanctimonious ass of you both on the Internet.

    I’m not kidding. Reclaim your “Inner Fascist.” It might sound crazy, but you will thank me someday.

    *  *  *

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 21:25

  • Boomers Win Again: Old Americans To Inherit "Unprecedented Amount That Is Incomprehensably Large"
    Boomers Win Again: Old Americans To Inherit “Unprecedented Amount That Is Incomprehensably Large”

    When it comes to the generational conflict at the heart of America’s inequality split, there is no contest: the elderly – those between the ages of 65 and 75 who own the bulk of financial assets – have over 13 times as much wealth as America’s Millennials (see chart below), young people between 25 and 35, who may not be rich, but have come up with a biting, witty response to their much richer elders: “Ok, Boomer.”

    Unfortunately for America’s youth, who may have been hoping to get rich quick when they inherit the wealth of their aging parents, we have some very bad news.

    While it is true that an unprecedented $36 trillion – roughly a third of total US household wealth – will flow from one US generation to another over the next 30 years with the pace of bequests already surging as Americans inherited $427 billion in 2016, up 119% from 1989, it’s not the Millennials who stand to benefit.

    Instead, the beneficiaries of this inheritance tsunami are quite old themselves; according to the the study, from 1989 to 2016 U.S. households inherited more than $8.5 trillion. Over that time, the average age of recipients rose by a decade to 51. Fast forward a few more years, and now, more than a quarter of bequests now go to adults 61 or older.

    In other words, America’s again rich are about to get even richer as their parents pass away.

    “Wealth equal to nearly two times the size of the U.S. GDP is expected to be gifted to charities and heirs over the next few decades,” said United Income founder Matt Fellowes. “It’s a historically unprecedented amount that is almost incomprehensibly large.” However, “instead of diapers and school, inheritances are increasingly going toward medical bills and retirement savings,” Fellowes said.

    The irony is that in addition to virtually every other aspect of US life, one can now add inheritances to the dynamic that’s widening the wealth gap between generations.

    As we noted last week, Americans younger than 50 held just 16% of all investable assets in 2016, down from 31% in 1989, the Fed’s latest triennial Survey of Consumer Finances found, leaving the rest to households 50 and older. It also means that the bulk of America’s “Top 1%” also happens to be 50 or older.

    However, age inequality is most dramatic when comparing the oldest and youngest adults. In 1989, the median household age 65 to 75 held almost eight times more wealth than families headed by 25- to 35-year-olds. By 2016, according to an analysis by the St. Louis Fed, the median baby boomer had close to 13 times more wealth than the typical millennial.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even more ironic: while boomers as a group inherited trillions from their parents, most members of the postwar generation got nothing. That’s about to change, however, as about 20% of households have received inheritances, United Income’s analysis shows, a share that while flat over the past 30 years, is set to soar.

    These generational gifts are coming in handy, with the median recipient getting about $55,000, which is more than double their typical retirement savings. “Most inheritances are going to older adults who have little in the way of retirement savings,” said Fellowes, a former Brookings Institution scholar. “People receiving inheritances are pretty middle class.”

    Except, when they are not, of course.

    Meanwhile, the size of the average inheritance received in 2016 was about $295,000, sharply higher from $169,000 in 1989.

    Why is this notable? Because contrary to popular opinion, as elderly Americans receive an “unexpected” gift, they don’t rush to spend it, but instead since more Americans live longer without the safety net of a traditional pension, they’re spending frugally to make sure their wealth lasts. The result is more Americans dying before they can spend all of their savings. Amusingly, financial advisers told Bloomberg they often need to encourage affluent clients to enjoy their wealth rather than hoarding it.

    Some more details: only about 9% of estates consist entirely of a house or other property; the average estate is 46% stocks, bonds, cash and other liquid investments, giving an immediate boost to recipients’ own retirement planning at a key time.

    That said, the data is likely skewed even more in favor of the older rich: according to Bloomberg, United Income’s estimates don’t include gifts made during donors’ lifetimes – a typical move in estate planning for the ultra-high net worth cohort, often using trusts.

    Even so, it still found a widening gulf between the super rich and everyone else: the median inheritance has risen only about $15,000 in three decades, while they’ve more than doubled for the 0.3% of Americans receiving at least $1 million. In 1989, their inheritances averaged an inflation-adjusted $2.7 million. By 2016, they were each getting an average of $6.6 million.

    To summarize: America’s Millennials may be ridiculing the country’s boomers with the rather nonsensical “Ok, Boomer’ tagline that has gone viral, but not only are the Boomers getting the final laugh, they are getting richer as America’s youth gets progressively poorer.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 21:25

  • Carl Icahn Losing Tens Of Millions As "Big Short 2" Trade Turns Sour
    Carl Icahn Losing Tens Of Millions As “Big Short 2” Trade Turns Sour

    Back in July, we passed along a rumor that a certain “iconic” investor had aggressively entered the “Big Short 2” trade, which emerged in early 2017 and consisted of shorting America’s malls by going long default risk via CMBX, or otherwise shorting the CMBS.

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

    That investor, we can now reveal thanks to confirmation by the WSJ, was none other than billionaire Carl Icahn, who this summer became the most recent – and most prominent – member of the “Big Short 2” trade. There is just one problem: like most others who bet against the mall sector in the past two years, Icahn has suffered tens if not hundreds of millions in losses so far. 

    Most recently, we profiled the progression of the Big Short 2 trade one month ago when we reported that one of the firms that had put the “Big Short 2” trade on was hedge fund Alder Hill Management – an outfit started by protégés of hedge-fund billionaire David Tepper – which ramped up wagers against the mall bonds. Alder Hill joined other traders which in early 2017 bought a net $985 million contracts that targeted the two riskiest types of CMBS, in hopes of quick payouts and even quicker mass defaults.

    “These malls are dying, and we see very limited prospect of a turnaround in performance,” said a January 2017 report from Alder Hill, which began shorting the securities. “We expect 2017 to be a tipping point.”

    Alas, Alder Hill was wrong, because while the deluge of retail bankruptcies…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … and mall vacancies accelerated since then hitting an all time high in 2019…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …  not only was 2017 not a tipping point, but the trade failed to generate the kinds of desired mass defaults that the shorters were betting on, while the negative carry associated with the short hurt many of those who were hoping for quick riches.

    As a result, not only did Alder Hill Management close out the trade at around the time Carl Icahn was putting it on, but Eric Yip, the founder of the New York-based hedge fund, also wound down the entire $300 million hedge fund. And while some of Alder Hill’s other trades were profitable, its 2½ years of losses shorting mall debt convinced Yip to shut down, ostensibly long before many of the malls he was betting against.

    Ironically, it appears that the way Icahn made his way into the trade is by way of Yip, who worked for Icahn in the 2000s and marketed his trade through presentations with bankers and investors to try to get others to join his bearish stance to push the index lower; and as we reported in October, Yip was forced to exit his loss-making trade over the summer after the index jumped in price, according people familiar with the matter.

    And while iconic billionaire investor Carl Icahn is far from shutting down his family office because one particular trade has gone against him, this trade puts him on a collision course with two of the largest money managers, including Putnam Investments and AllianceBernstein, which have a bullish view on malls and have generally taken the other side of the Big Short/CMBX trade, the WSJ reports.

    This face-off, in the words of Dan McNamara a principal at the NY-based MP Securitized Credit Partners, is “the biggest battle in the mortgage bond market today” adding that the showdown is the talk of this corner of the bond market, where more than $10 billion of potential profits are at stake on an obscure index.

    For those who have not read our previous reports on the second Big Short, here is a brief rundown courtesy of the WSJ:

    each side of the trade is speculating on the direction of an index, called CMBX 6, which tracks the value of 25 commercial-mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. The index has grabbed investor attention because it has significant exposure to loans made in 2012 to malls that lately have been running into difficulties. Bulls profit when the index rises and shorts make money when it falls.

    The various CMBX series are shown in the chart below, with the notorious CMBX 6 notable for its substantial, 40% exposure to retail properties.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ironically, despite a year of record store closures and continued retail bankruptcies, the CMBX 6 series index has climbed about 10% year to date, suggesting either growing optimism about the malls, shopping centers and outlets connected to the index, or merely a flood of liquidity forcing yield-starved investors to bid up every corner of the market, no matter how risky or mispriced it is.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Eventually, other hedge funds followed in the footsteps of Alder Hill’s Yip, and backed off the trade after suffering their own losses, their short squeeze another reason the index is rising and forcing even more shorts to capitulate.

    Yet while Icahn has also lost millions on this trade, he hasn’t backed off and according to the WSJ may even be adding to his bearish trade which he now considers a long-term position. Icahn has about 2 more years before the CDS on CMBX Series 6 mature; the insurance contracts will pay off if landlords run into difficulty paying back their debt by 2022.

    Meanwhile, despite an acceleration in the “retail apocalypse” courtesy of Amazon.com, even as many malls and shopping centers have suffered deteriorating income, only three of the roughly 40 malls and shopping centers linked to the CMBX 6 have been delinquent on their loans since 2012, according to Trepp LLC, a real-estate data provider.

    As bears scrambled for cover, the bulls took the offensive, and in a report released late last month, AllianceBernstein disputed the prevailing view that malls are dying, claiming instead that while it expected some defaults when the mortgages come due in 2022, it believed many of the malls linked to the CMBX 6 index would receive enough rent to support their expenses and debt service. One such example is the Dayton Mall in Ohio which has lost tenants including Payless ShoeSource, but has found new ones, like Ross Dress for Less.

    The short sellers are peddling a “false narrative” said Brian Phillips, director of Commercial Real Estate Credit Research at AllianceBernstein. “They are focused on momentum rather than credit fundamentals.”

    Short sellers have said they don’t need a large drop in mall occupancies to profit, nor do they need widespread near-term defaults. They are wagering that the net operating income of the malls continues to drop and that owners have trouble paying off loans in three years.

    Ultimately, none of the fundamentals matter as long as the Fed is juicing the market with tens of billions in excess liquidity in the aftermath of September’s repocalypse: as long as Powell is merrily flooding the market with excess liquidity, the CMBX indexes will keep rising oblivious to the viability of the underlying collateral.

    To be sure, there is a certain symmetry to what Carl is doing now and what Burry and/or Paulson were doing in 2007 by betting against subprime. It was only by shorting some of the favorite longs of “Whale investors” who swore up and down that “subprime losses would be contained” (no doubt inspired by certain comments by a man who would soon become Fed Chairman) that these investors made billions. Then again, they had the trade not only at the right place but also the right time, just before the Fed took over capital markets. Alas for the “Big 2.0 Shorts”, the Fed is now in full-blown liquidity injection mode.

    The question then is whether the Fed will keep flooding the market until 2022. As such, the Big Short 2.0 trade has become not one just targeting America’s increasingly empty malls, but the generosity of the Fed itself. For those who persevere and refuse to be stopped out of their positions – like Icahn, at least for now – the rewards with sticking until the bitter end could be very enormous… although if Elizabeth Warren is president in 2022, Icahn may want to reconsider if adding another billion to his net worth at the expense of imploding brick and mortar retailers is really worth the brain damage that will surely follow.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 21:05

  • "…And You Thought Recession Risk Was A Thing Of The Past…"
    “…And You Thought Recession Risk Was A Thing Of The Past…”

    Authored by Danielle DiMartino Booth via QuillIntelligence.com,

    Rabbit Season! Duck Season! Rabbit Season! Duck Season!

    • As the third-quarter earnings season comes to a close with a -2.3% showing on EPS, analysts are more bearish going into the fourth quarter; the weakness looks to spread to six sectors vs. five in the third quarter indicating the industrial slowdown has spread to services

    • Third quarter revenue growth has slowed to levels not seen since 2016’s third quarter while expectations are that the year’s final three months slow further; as with earnings, the quarter-on-quarter weakness is expected to broaden to health care and consumer discretionary

    • In the short-run, companies will likely endeavor to cut costs, including labor, to draw a line under earnings as revenues deteriorate; given revenues are a demand proxy, a concurrent slowing in GDP is also foreseeable

    Rabbit Fire was a 1951 Looney Tunes cartoon starring Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. The Warner Bros. short was the first to feature the classic feud between Bugs and Daffy. In it, Daffy lures Elmer to Bugs’ burrow, calls down to him, then watches as Elmer shoots at the emerged Bugs, parting his ears. As Elmer aims again, Bugs informs him that it’s not rabbit season, but rather duck season. Daffy storms in irate and attempts to convince Elmer that Bugs is lying. Their conversation breaks down into Bugs engaging Daffy in the verbal play illustrated in today’s title. Of course, Daffy fumbles into saying “duck season” and Elmer fires away.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Whether you are a fan of Bugs or Daffy, there’s another season in the financial market world that’s about to come to a close – earnings season.

    Ninety-two percent of S&P 500 companies have reported third-quarter earnings results. Last Friday, FactSet reported that earnings per share (EPS) had declined 2.3% versus a year ago. Industry performance was mixed with five sectors – Energy, Materials, Information Technology, Financials and Consumer Discretionary – reporting year-over-year declines and the other six – Utilities, Health Care, Real Estate, Consumer Staples, Industrials and Communication Services – posting year-over-year gains.

    Analysts’ fourth-quarter guidance is more bearish for earnings compared to the third quarter. It’s anticipated that six sectors will decline including Energy, Materials, Industrials, Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples. This widened breadth carries a broader cyclical narrative beyond the sectors more closely affected by trade war; it bleeds into the entire consumer space. Implicit are hints of contagion from manufacturing to services that introduce broader labor market risks. And you thought recession risk was a thing of the past just because the yield curve un-inverted.

    Cue Bugs and Daffy for an encore with a twist: “Earnings season! Revenue season! Earnings season! Revenue season!” The bottom line (earnings) gets all the attention each quarter. But the top line (revenue) should never be overlooked. For cycle chasers and equity strategists alike, revenue growth is the heartbeat of U.S. economic activity. It proxies Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    FactSet reported that revenue growth slowed to 3.1% in the third quarter, the slowest pace since the 2016’s third quarter. Despite the slowing, the breadth of gains revealed eight sectors expanded with only the remaining soft spots of Energy, Materials and Industrials contracting. Analysts projected a further deceleration in revenues to 2.5% with the same three sectors posting another retrenchment in the fourth quarter. Does this mean that top-line headwinds are, and will be contained to the sectors most exposed to the global growth slowdown and will therefore not spread across the economy to more consumer and service-oriented sectors?

    Let’s reserve judgement on that. Instead, look at the trend in revenues from the third to fourth quarters. As the inset table above illustrates, the tamping down in demand will be relatively broad-based. The Consumer Discretionary sector is especially prominent.

    To see if the storyline holds beyond equity analysts’ models, we recruited three other macro sources in today’s chart to gauge preliminary top-line guidance for the fourth quarter. Composite indexes that weighted manufacturing and services by their respective industry shares in GDP were utilized for credit managers (NACM), purchasing managers (ISM) and C-suite executives (IHS Markit).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In all three cases, a downshift has been in place for multiple quarters and the fourth quarter looks either close to or weaker than the third quarter. What’s important to note about a broadening slowdown in revenue is that over the short run, more companies could face cost cutting decisions, as opposed to the luxury of cost expansion choices.

    Central banks are doing their darnedest to stave off the global slowdown with stimulus injections. Ascertaining clarity on the revenue outlook here at home will be a challenge as we head into an election year. Capex budgets are apt to be hamstrung by tight-fisted management so long as concerns about the top line refuse to fade. And that applies whether you’re in a red state or a blue state or you’re a rabbit or a duck.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 20:45

  • Swiss Watch Exports To Hong Kong Crash Amid Social Unrest
    Swiss Watch Exports To Hong Kong Crash Amid Social Unrest

    This morning we have some very telling data of the dire economic situation in Hong Kong: Swiss watch exports to Hong Kong crashed in October as social unrest continues to gain momentum in the city as demand for luxury goods evaporates. 

    The Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry published a new report Tuesday on Swiss watchmaking for October, detailing how shipments of steel and precious metal watches to Hong Kong plunged by as much as 30%. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hong Kong’s tourism industry has suffered the worst downturn in a decade, as violent protests shut down streets and major shopping districts. Protests have become more violent in the last several months, forcing many wealthy mainland Chinese to abandon their visit to the city as it plummets into economic and social collapse. 

    The city entered a technical recession in the last several weeks, with its retail industry, comprised of the world’s luxury brands, experienced some of the worst declines in sales ever.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Watchmakers, particularly ones from Switzerland, have been reeling from the plunge in sales, as at least 30 major shopping malls have had to shut down, on and off across the city for the last five months amid continuing social unrest. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Luxury goods, such as jewelry, are usually half the cost in Hong Kong than in mainland China, but with protests continuing to spiral out of control, and the tourism industry collapsed as shopping districts are shut down, it seems that the Hong Kong crisis is sparking a slowdown contagion across the world. 

    Though Swiss trade with Hong Kong fell, Swiss watchmakers saw global exports increase by 1.5% in October. Growth in the first ten months was around 2.7%, far from last year’s annual pace of 6.3%, indicating the global economy has yet to bottom. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 20:25

  • China, Like 1990s' Japan, Will Be Dominated By Huge Zombie Banks
    China, Like 1990s’ Japan, Will Be Dominated By Huge Zombie Banks

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Michael Pettis has some words of wisdom for those who believe China will soon overtake the US as the world leader.

    Having the smaller banks absorbed by the bigger ones, which seems to be Beijing’s new strategy, will mean that China, like Japan in the 1990s, will be dominated by huge zombie banks,” says Michael Pettis at China Financial Markets in a series of Tweets.

    The Tweets were in reference to the Wall Street Journal article Why China’s Smaller Banks Are Wobbling.

    China’s banks come in various flavors. There are a handful of giants, and a few more medium-size banks that can also operate nationally. Below that lies a bigger cohort of city commercial banks, and more than a thousand tiny rural commercial lenders. Both city and rural banks have their roots in local credit unions, and tend to have limited geographic reach. Cracks are emerging at some small and midsize banks after years of rapid growth.

    Smaller banks lent liberally to local governments and businesses, and bad debts are rising as China’s economy sputters. Poor governance probably created problems at some banks, too, such as Hengfeng Bank. In late 2017, the official Xinhua News Agency, citing a company statement, said Hengfeng Chairman Cai Guohua was being investigated for “alleged serious violation of discipline and law.”

    Possible state intervention depends on how large and important a bank is, and who is backing it. In May, national authorities seized Baoshang Bank, a lender in the northern province of Inner Mongolia that was linked to missing tycoon Xiao Jianhua, calling it a “severe credit risk.” This was the first such takeover in more than two decades. In contrast, a big bank and two bad-loan managers bought stakes in the struggling Bank of Jinzhou from existing shareholders. Industry-watchers expect capital injections to follow.

    Many banks aren’t profitable enough to boost capital through retained earnings. And existing stockholders may be reluctant to buy new shares, given questions over reporting and ownership.

    Zombification Four Point Synopsis

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Forget the Yuan: King Dollar is Here to Stay

    Many believe deficit spending will kill the US dollar as a reserve currency and the yuan will take over.

    They are wrong. Forget the Yuan: King Dollar is Here to Stay for quite some time. I don’t know what the replacement will be if any, but it won’t be the Yuan.

    The having the reserve currency is actually a curse that no one wants, especially China, but also Trump.

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

    My “correct” is in reference to the first two sentences not the third about impeachment. There should not be a Fed.

    Reserve Currency Curse

    For further discussion, please see Nixon Shock, the Reserve Currency Curse, and a Pending Dollar Crisis

    Meanwhile, negative interest rates are destroying the European banks as noted In Search of the Effective Lower Bound.

    The Fed and Central Banks brought this on by refusing to let zombie banks and corporations go under and insisting on cramming more debt into a global financial system choking on debt.

    The central banks want to stop “deflation”

    Economic Challenge to Keynesians

    Of all the widely believed but patently false economic beliefs is the absurd notion that falling consumer prices are bad for the economy and something must be done about them.

    My Challenge to Keynesians “Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefit” has gone unanswered.

    BIS Deflation Study

    The BIS did a historical study and found routine deflation was not any problem at all.

    “Deflation may actually boost output. Lower prices increase real incomes and wealth. And they may also make export goods more competitive,” stated the BIS study.

    It’s asset bubble deflation that is damaging. When asset bubbles burst, debt deflation results.

    Deflationary Outcome

    Central banks’ seriously misguided attempts to defeat routine consumer price deflation is what fuels the destructive asset bubbles that eventually collapse.

    For a discussion of the BIS study, please see Historical Perspective on CPI Deflations: How Damaging are They?


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 20:05

  • China Threatens Retaliation After US Senate Passes Hong Kong Bill; Stocks, Yuan Tumble
    China Threatens Retaliation After US Senate Passes Hong Kong Bill; Stocks, Yuan Tumble

    Update (2020ET): As expected, Chinese (and implicitly Hong Kong) officials are extremely unhappy at Washington’s interjection in their domestic policies by passing the bill supporting the protesters.

    Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Yan Shuang has issued a very strong statement:

    On November 19th, the US Senate passed the “Hong Kong Bill of Rights on Human Rights and Democracy.” The bill disregards the facts, confuses right and wrong, violates the axioms, plays with double standards, openly intervenes in Hong Kong affairs, interferes in China’s internal affairs, and seriously violates the basic norms of international law and international relations. The Chinese side strongly condemns and resolutely opposes this.

      In the past five months, the persistent violent criminal acts in Hong Kong have seriously jeopardized the safety of the public’s life and property, seriously trampled on the rule of law and social order, seriously undermined Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, and seriously challenged the bottom line of the “one country, two systems” principle. At present, what Hong Kong faces is not the so-called human rights and democracy issues, but the issue of ending the storms, maintaining the rule of law and restoring order as soon as possible. The Chinese central government will continue to firmly support the Hong Kong SAR Government in its administration of the law, firmly support the Hong Kong police in law enforcement, and firmly support the Hong Kong Judiciary in punishing violent criminals in accordance with the law, protecting the lives and property of Hong Kong residents and maintaining Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.

      Since the return of Hong Kong to the motherland, the practice of “one country, two systems” has achieved universally recognized success. Hong Kong residents enjoy unprecedented democratic rights and fully exercise various freedoms in accordance with the law. The relevant bills of the US Congress completely ignore the objective facts and completely ignore the well-being of Hong Kong residents. For the ulterior political purpose, the Hong Kong violent elements are smashed, bullying and attacking innocent citizens, forcibly occupying the campus and besieging young students. Organized attacks on the police and other criminal acts are striving for the pursuit of “human rights” and “democracy”. The purpose is to support the extremist forces and violent elements in the anti-China chaos and to undermine Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability so that they can borrow Hong Kong. The problem hinders the sinister plot of China’s development. This bad behavior of the United States not only harms China’s interests, but also undermines the important interests of the United States itself in Hong Kong. Any attempt by the US to intervene in China’s internal affairs and hinder China’s development will not succeed. In the end, it will only be a waste of effort.

      I want to stress once again that Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong and Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. We are telling the US to recognize the situation and take the plunge. We will immediately take measures to prevent the case from becoming a law. We will immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and interfering in China’s internal affairs so as not to ignite the fire and suffer from self-sufficiency.

    If the US side is willing to go its own way, China will surely take effective measures to resolutely counteract and firmly safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests.

    US futures immediately pushed lower on this statement…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And Yuan is extending losses…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    *  *  *

    In a widely anticipated move, just after 6pm ET on Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan bill, S.1838,  showing support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by requiring an annual review of whether the city is sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its special trading status. In doing so, the Senate has delivered a warning to China against a violent suppression of the demonstrations, a stark contrast to President Donald Trump’s near-silence on the issue, the result of a behind the scenes agreement whereby China would allow the S&P to rise indefinitely as long as Trump kept his mouth shut.

    As we reported last week, the vote marks the most aggressively diplomatic challenge to the government in Beijing just as the US and China seek to close the “Phase 1” of their agreement to end their trade war. The Senate measure would require annual reviews of Hong Kong’s special status under U.S. law to assess the extent to which China has chipped away the city’s autonomy; in light of recent events, Hong Kong would not pass. It’s unclear what would happen next.

    As Bloomberg notes, the House unanimously passed a similar bill last month, but slight differences mean both chambers still have to pass the same version before sending it to the president.

    ”The United States has treated commerce and trade with Hong Kong differently than it has commercial and trade activity with the mainland of China,” said Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the bill’s lead sponsor. “But what’s happened over the last few years is the steady effort on the part of Chinese authorities to erode that autonomy and those freedoms”, he added on the Senate floor.

    The Senate bill passed by unanimous consent, which means there was no roll call vote because no senators objected to it. Rubio said on Twitter before the vote Tuesday that the bill, S. 1838, will “head over to the U.S. House & then hopefully swiftly to the President.”

    That is one option: The House could simply take up the Senate bill. The other option would be to reconcile the differences between the two versions and have both chambers vote on the compromise bill. New Jersey Representative Chris Smith, the lead Republican sponsor of the House bill, said he expects the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees to go for the latter option to work out the slight differences. He said the resulting compromise could be included in a defense bill slated for a vote later this year.

    * * *

    The legislation comes at a difficult time for Trump as his administration is trying to complete the first phase of a long-awaited trade deal with China. Earlier on Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence said that it would be difficult for the U.S. to sign a trade agreement with China if the demonstrations in Hong Kong are met with violence.

    “The president’s made it clear it’ll be very hard for us to do a deal with China if there’s any violence or if that matter is not treated properly and humanely,” Pence said in an interview with Indianapolis-based radio host Tony Katz.

    Another prominent Republican, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Trump to personally voice support for the protesters on Monday, which Trump has refused to do.

    “We have to get it passed and we have to get it passed quickly,” Smith said. The legislation tells protesters that “Congress has their back, that we are fully supportive of democracy and rule of law in Hong Kong.”

    “It tells Xi Jinping that there’s a price,” Smith said of China’s president. “There’s one provision after another that says, ‘we’re not kidding.’” The bill would also sanction Chinese officials deemed responsible for undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy.

    The bit question now is how will China react: the Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly warned that there would be “strong countermeasures” for passing such legislation. That could complicate the delicate negotiations between the world’s two largest economies to get the trade deal over the finish line.

    “What was already complicated just got more complicated, and the bill’s passage adds to the growing list of political reasons why Xi and Trump are unlikely to find a compromise,” said Jude Blanchette, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “While Xi has more control over the domestic political environment in China, he’s not immune from the bad optics of negotiating with a government that he claims is tampering with his own political system.”

    * * *

    It remains unclear whether Trump will veto the bill, opening himself up to accusations he has been in bed with Beijing all along. So far Trump has not indicated whether he would sign the legislation if it gets to his desk.

    Another complication: the timeline for completing the trade agreement could collide with this legislation landing on Trump’s desk. A congressional aide told Bloomberg the Senate measure was drafted with help from Treasury and State Department officials, but a senior administration official on Monday cautioned that Trump’s seal of approval is the only one that matters.

    Because the Hong Kong bill passed both the House and the Senate without a single lawmaker objecting, there would probably be enough support to override a presidential veto.

    “Today’s vote sends a clear message that the United States will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong as they battle Beijing’s imperialism,” said Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri. “The Chinese Communist Party’s quest for power across the region is a direct threat to America’s security and prosperity.”

    S&P futures dipped modestly on the news of the bill’s unanimous passage…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … although that isn’t saying much for a market that is so hypnotized by the Fed’s “NOT QE” that it barely if ever responds to any actual news.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 19:46

    Tags

  • Why The "Atrophied" U.S. Economy Isn't As Free Or Competitive As You Think
    Why The “Atrophied” U.S. Economy Isn’t As Free Or Competitive As You Think

    Author Thomas Philippon, a French professor at New York University, recently set out on a journey to try and figure out just how the intricacies of business works in America.

    Upon the conclusion of his research, he determined that the U.S. economy simply isn’t as free – or as competitive – as many think, according to FT. What he found was that over the last 20 years, competition and competition policy have “atrophied” with ugly consequences. 

    “America is no longer the home of the free-market economy,” he concludes. The country isn’t as competitive as Europe, its regulators are not more proactive and its new companies aren’t much different from their predecessors. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Thomas Philippon

    His book, The Great Reversal, argues for the importance of competition and summarizes the results of his findings:

    “First, US markets have become less competitive: concentration is high in many industries, leaders are entrenched, and their profit rates are excessive. Second, this lack of competition has hurt US consumers and workers: it has led to higher prices, lower investment and lower productivity growth. Third, and contrary to common wisdom, the main explanation is political, not technological: I have traced the decrease in competition to increasing barriers to entry and weak antitrust enforcement, sustained by heavy lobbying and campaign contributions.”

    His argument is backed up by evidence. Broadband access in the U.S. costs about double what it costs in comparable countries. Profits per passenger on airlines are also far higher in the U.S. than they are overseas.

    His analysis shows that “market shares have become more concentrated and more persistent, and profits have increased.”

    And, more concentration then translates to higher profits. This has lead to post-tax profit share in the U.S. gross domestic product nearly doubling since the 1990s. 

    The increase in market concentration in places like manufacturing can be attributed to competition from China, which drove weaker competitors out of the market. Companies like Walmart, in the 1990s, drove the rate of investment and productivity growth higher in the 1990s while the opposite happened in the 2000’s: rising market concentration drove the profits of entrenched companies up and both the investment rate and productivity lower. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This ugly form of increased concentration means that entry of new businesses has diminished and that the U.S. economy has seen a significant reduction in competition and a corresponding rise in monopoly and oligopoly.

    The book often turns to comparisons with the EU. For instance, real GDP per head rose 21% in the U.S. between 1999 and 2017. In the EU, this number stood at 25%. Even in the Eurozone, this number was 19% despite the damage done by its “ineptly handled financial crisis”.

    Even inequality levels and trends and income distribution are less adverse in the EU. The comparisons seem justified, according to FT: 

    In short, comparisons between the EU and the US are justifiable. These show that neither profit margins nor market concentration have exploded upwards in the EU as they have done in the US. The share of wages and salaries in the aggregate incomes — so-called “value-added” — of business has fallen by close to 6 percentage points in the US since 2000, but not at all in the eurozone. This destroys the hypothesis that technology is the main driver of the downward shift in the share of labour incomes. After all, technology (and international trade, as well) affected both sides of the Atlantic roughly equally.

    Competition in product markets has become far more effective in the EU over the course of the last 20 or 30 years. It is reflective of purposeful deregulation and a more aggressive and independent competition policy than in the U.S.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the EU has established more independent regulators than the U.S. would: what is being called a “healthy result” of a mutual distrust within the EU. 

    Individual states fear the idea of being vulnerable to the practices of fellow members when it comes to regulation, which is beneficial to countries with weak national regulators. The independence of EU regulators also means that lobbying is far less of a problem overseas. 

    Evidence shows that “the higher an EU member country’s product market regulation in 1998, the bigger the sub­sequent decline in such regulation”. And the effect is more robust for those in the EU than non-EU members.

    Lobbying has much more of an effect in the U.S. Evidence supports that lobbying works, which is exactly why large corporations in the U.S. continue to rely on it. This all boils down to a larger problem of the role of money in U.S. politics. FT writes that “members of Congress spend about 30 hours a week raising money.”

    The Supreme Court even ruled in 2010 that “companies are persons” and “money is speech”. Former representative Mick Mulvaney summed it up in 2018: “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Corporate lobbying is two to three times bigger in the U.S. than in the EU. Campaign contributions are about 50 times larger. 

    The book also looks at finance, healthcare and technology. In finance, the book finds that the cost of taking in savings and transferring it to end users has stayed at about 2% for a century, regardless of technological developments. The book calls call the industry a “rent-extraction machine”.

    In healthcare, the book looks at why the U.S. spends far more on healthcare, but has far worse health outcomes than any other high-income country. The book says it is due to “rent-extracting monopolies” in the industry – all the way from doctors, to hospitals, to insurance companies to pharmaceutical businesses. 

    In the world of tech, the book touches on the size of major players like Google, Amazon and Apple. The book says that while the weight of these mega-huge companies is no bigger than that of giants in the past, their links to the economy as a whole are far smaller than they ever were.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 19:45

  • The Socialism Of The Federal Reserve
    The Socialism Of The Federal Reserve

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    The Federal Reserve is the federal entity charged with determining the quantity of money in the American economy. To boost the economy, it expands the money supply. If the economy gets too “overheated,” it slows the rate of increase.

    In other words, the Fed is the government’s monetary central planner. It plans the monetary affairs of hundreds of millions of people through monetary manipulation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Central planning is a core principle of socialism. Central planning rejects the concept of economic liberty and free markets, which rely on the absence of government interference. Instead, it relies on a board of government officials who make economic decisions for hundreds of thousands or millions of people in a top-down, command-and-control manner.

    As anyone from Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea can attest, socialist central planning always produces crises. That’s because the central planners can never attain the required knowledge to  plan a complex market, especially one involving hundreds of millions of participants engaged in countless economic transactions. This is especially true given that people’s subjective valuations are constantly changing. There is no way that the planners can keep up with those changes in valuations.

    That’s what produces the crises. Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel Prize winning libertarian economist, called it the “fatal conceit” of the planner, the mindset that convinces the planner that he has the requisite knowledge to plan a complex, ever-changing market.

    For more than 100 years, the official money of the United States was gold coins and silver coins, as established by the Constitution. During most of that entire time, there was no Federal Reserve or central bank.

    That gold-coin, silver-coin standard provided the soundest money in history. Along with a system based on no income taxation, no immigration controls, no welfare state, no warfare state, and very few economic regulations, America’s monetary system was a major factor in the tremendous increase in rise of the standard of living of the American people in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    In the early 1900s, Americans began giving serious consideration to socialist ideas. The enactment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was part of that trend. So was the adoption of the federal income tax that same year.

    in the 1920s, the Fed began experimenting with expanding the supply of U.S. debt instruments, which promised to pay gold coins and silver coins. When holders of such debt instruments began redeeming their debt instruments by demanding gold and silver, the Fed panicked because they didn’t have the money to honor all the debt instruments they had issued. They began contracting the money supply and ended up over-contracting. Their monetary central planning led to the 1929 stock market crash and then the Great Depression.

    Americans were told that the crisis was caused by the failure of America’s free-enterprise system. It was a lie. The crisis was caused by the Federal Reserve, which was a socialist institution. But it was a lie that Americans believed because in their minds, the Federal Reserve had become a part of America’s free-enterprise system.

    The Franklin Roosevelt administration used the crisis to destroy the monetary system on which America had been established — the gold-coin, silver-coin standard. Roosevelt replaced that system with a pure paper-money system, one in which federal debt instruments would no longer be redeemable. The money became promises to pay nothing.

    Over time, the Fed began expanding the paper money to fund the ever-increasing expenditures for welfare and warfare. All that “bad money” would ultimately drive out of circulation the “good money” that the Constitution had established.

    As the system became wash with paper money, the booms and busts that monetary manipulation caused would become a standard part of American life. The economic bubbles and deep recessions were said to be a part of America’s “free-enterprise system.”

    Over the decades the Fed became a principal way for federal officials to plunder and loot people through monetary debasement and devaluation. Public officials would spend and borrow to finance their ever-burgeoning welfare-warfare programs, knowing that the Fed would cover their debts by essentially printing the money to pay for them. The losers would be the American people, whose money would be constantly devalued over the decades.

    The best part of the Fed system, from the standpoint of public officials, was that many people would not realize that the Fed was behind the monetary debasement that was looting them. When prices would rise across society, people would blame it on rapacious businessmen, not realizing that the price rises were actually just the manifestation of Federal Reserve destruction of the value of money.

    A necessary prerequisite to establishing a free and prosperous society is a free-market monetary system, one in which there is a total separation of money and the state. That necessarily means bringing the Fed and its system of socialist central planning to an end.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 19:25

  • China's Annual Aluminum Consumption To Decline For First Time In 30 Years
    China’s Annual Aluminum Consumption To Decline For First Time In 30 Years

    China’s economy is quickly decelerating, and data last month shows GDP could slip under 6% in 2020.

    A structural decline, blended with a global synchronized slowdown, and accelerated by trade tensions with the US, have been blamed for China’s deteriorating industrial sector.

    New evidence from research firm Antaike, via Reuters, shows China’s aluminum consumption is likely to decline for the first time in 30 years as domestic demand plunges and exports slump.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Antaike’s senior analyst Shen Lingyan stated at a conference in China’s Qingdao city on Wednesday that consumption of aluminum in China would be around 36.55 million tons this year, down 1.2% YoY.

    “The first reason is domestic consumption, which will decline by 0.9%. Exports will fall 3%,” Shen said at the China Aluminium Week conference.

    October export data of China’s unwrought aluminum fell to 431,000 tons, the lowest levels since February.

    The output of aluminum in China this year has recorded the sharpest decline on record, down 1.6% to 36 million tons, Shen told the conference.

    Shen forecasts a 3% increase in aluminum output in 2020 to 37.2 million tons — though there are currently no signs the global economy is bottoming.

    Factory activity in China contracted for a sixth straight month in October. It’s likely that in the coming quarters, GDP will dive under 6% as cooling in the manufacturing sector continues.

    China Association of Automobile Manufacturer has said the decline of aluminum demand could be linked to the weak automobile sector.

    When the world’s top aluminum producer records the first consumption decline in nearly three decades — this should mean the global economy continues to worsen.

    As for the global rebound in the economy, one where equity markets around the world have already priced in, it seems that China is no longer able to reflate its all too critical credit impulse, which means the 2016-style rebound everyone was expecting might not exactly happen in early 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 19:05

  • Venezuela To Pay Retirees And Pensioners Christmas Bonus In Petro
    Venezuela To Pay Retirees And Pensioners Christmas Bonus In Petro

    Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro announced that the Christmas bonus of the country’s retirees and pensioners will be paid to them in the national cryptocurrency Petro.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    The Twitter profile of local news outlet Venepress reported on Maduro’s remarks on Nov. 17. This particular instance is not the first time that Venezuela pushes Petro into the wallets of pensioners so far.

    As Cointelegraph reported in December last year, Venezuela back then has automatically converted pensioners’ bonuses for the year into Petro.

    Petro, the future for Venezuelan economy?

    The crypto asset in question has been first launched for a pre-sale in February last year and raised concerns among foreign observers from the start. In late August last year, Petro was already scathingly denounced as an opaque “stunt” backed by a centralized and debt-saddled entity.

    Still, the national cryptocurrency and cryptocurrencies as a whole are being increasingly pushed by the local government.

    As Cointelegraph Spain reported on Nov. 13, the Deputy of the National Constituent Assembly of Venezuela, Francisco Torrealba, said that he believes all currencies will be replaced by cryptocurrencies.

    Speaking about Venezuela, Torrealba claimed that the country is facing a great change and Maduro is making a “great contribution” to the country by creating the Petro. He concluded his interview by saying that “everything will be from this currency [the Petro].”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 19th November 2019

  • Is The Middle East Beginning A Self-Correction?
    Is The Middle East Beginning A Self-Correction?

    Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    “Two years, three years, five years’ maximum from now, you will not recognize the same Middle East”, says the former Egyptian FM, Arab League Secretary General and Presidential Candidate, Amr Moussa, in an interview with Al-Monitor.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mousa made some unexpected points, beyond warning of major change ahead (“the thing now is that the simple Arab man follows everything” – all the events). And in reference to the protests in Iraq, Moussa says that Iraq is in “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis — emphasizing that “the discord between Sunni and Shia is about to fade away.”

    The present regional turbulence, he suggests, is [essentially] a reaction to the US playing the sectarian card – manipulating “the issues of sect and religion, et cetera, was not only a dangerous, but a sinister kind of policy”. He added however, “I don’t say that it will happen tomorrow, but [the discord between Sunnis and the Shi’a fading away], will certainly happen in the foreseeable future, which will reflect on Lebanon too.”

    What we are witnessing in Iraq and Lebanon, he adds, “are these things correcting themselves. It will take time, but they will correct themselves. Iraq is a big country in the region, no less than Iran, no less than Turkey. Iraq is a country to reckon with. I don’t know whether this was the reason why it had to be destroyed. Could be. But there are forces in Iraq that are being rebuilt … Iraq will come back. And this phase – what we see today, perhaps this is the — what can I say? A preparatory stage?”

    Of course, these comments – coming from a leading Establishment Sunni figure – will appear stunningly counter-intuitive to those living outside the region, where the MSM narrative – from Colombia to Gulf States – is that the current protests are sectarian, and directed predominantly at Hizbullah and Iran. Certainly there is a thread of iconoclasm to this global ‘Age of Anger’, targeting all leaderships, everywhere. In these tempestuous times, of course, the world reads into events what it hopes and expects to see. Moussa calls such sectarian ‘framing’ both dangerous and “sinister”.

    But look rather, at the core issue on which practically all Lebanese demonstrators concur: It is that the cast-iron sectarian ‘cage’ (decreed initially by France, and subsequently ‘corrected’ by Saudi Arabia at Taif, to shift economic power into the hands of the Sunnis), is the root cause to the institutionalised, semi-hereditary corruption and mal-governance that has infected Lebanon.

    Is this not precisely articulated in the demand for a ‘technocratic government’ – that is to say in the demand for the ousting of all these hereditary sectarian Zaim in a non-sectarian articulation of national interests. Of course, being Lebanon, one tribe will always be keener for one, rather than another, sectarian leader to be cast as villain to the piece. The reality is, however, that technocratic government exactly is a break from Taif – even if the next PM is nominally Sunni (but yet not partisan Sunni)?

    And just for clarity’s sake: An end to the compartmentalised sectarian constitution is in Hizbullah’s interest. The Shi’i – the largest minority in Lebanon – were always given the smallest slice of the national cake, under the sectarian divide.

    What is driving this sudden focus on ‘the flawed system’ in Lebanon – more plausibly – is simply, hard reality. Most Lebanese understand that they no longer possess a functional economy. Its erstwhile ‘business model’ is bust.

    Lebanon used to have real exports – agricultural produce exported to Syria and Iraq, but that avenue was closed by the war in Syria. Lebanon’s (legal) exports today effectively are ‘zilch’, but it imports hugely (thanks to having an artificially high Lebanese pound). All this – i.e. the resulting trade, and government budget deficit – used to be balanced out by the large inward flow of dollars.

    Inward remittances from the 8 – 9 million Lebanese living overseas was one key part – and dollar deposits arriving in Lebanon’s once ‘safe-haven’ banking system was the other. But that ‘business model’ effectively is bust. The remittances have been fading for years, and the Banking system has the US Treasury crawling all over it (looking for sanctionable Hizbullah accounts).

    Which brings us back to that other key point made by Moussa, namely, that the Iraqi disturbances are, in his view, “a preparatory stage for them to choose their way as Iraqis … and that will reflect on Lebanon too”.

    If the ‘model’ – either economically or politically – is systemically bust, then tinkering will not do. A new direction is required.

    Look at it this way: Sayyed Nasrallah has noted in recent days that other alternatives for Lebanon to a US alignment are possible, but have not yet consolidated into a definitive alternative. That option, in essence, is to ‘look East’: to Russia and China.

    It makes sense: At one level, an arrangement with Moscow might untie a number of ‘knots’: It could lead to a re-opening of trade, through Syria, into Iraq for Lebanon’s agricultural produce; it could lead to a return of Syrian refugees out from Lebanon, back to their homes; China could shoulder the Economic Development plan, at a fraction of its projected $20 billion cost – and, above all it could avoid the ‘poison pill’ of a wholesale privatisation of Lebanese state assets on which the French are insisting. In the longer term, Lebanon could participate in the trade and ‘energy corridor’ plans that Russia and China have in mind for the norther tier of the Middle East and Turkey. At least, this alternative seems to offer a real ‘vision’ for the future. Of course, America is threatening Lebanon with horrible consequences – for even thinking of ‘looking East’.

    On the other hand, at a donors’ conference at Paris in April, donors pledged to give Lebanon $11bn in loans and grants – but only if it implements certain ‘reforms’. The conditions include a commitment to direct $7 bn towards privatising government assets and state property – as well as austerity measures such as raising taxes, cutting public sector wages and reducing social services.

    Great! But how will this correct Lebanon’s broken ‘business model’? Answer: It would not. Devaluation of the Lebanese pound (almost inevitable, and implying big price rises) and further austerity will not either make Lebanon again a financial safe-haven, nor boost income from remittances. It is the classic misery recipe, and one which leaves Lebanon in the hands of external creditors.

    Paris has taken on the role of advancing this austerity agenda by emphasising that only a cabinet acceptable to the creditors will do, to release crucial funds. It seems that France believes that it is sufficient to introduce reforms, impose the rule of law and build the institutions – in order to Gulliverise Hizbullah. This premise of US or Israeli acquiescence to this Gulliverisation plan – seems questionable.

    The issue for Aoun must be the potential costs that the US might impose – extending even to the possible exclusion Lebanese banks from the dollar clearing system (i.e. the infamous US Treasury neutron bomb). Washington is intent more on pushing Lebanon to the financial brink, as hostage to its (i.e. Israel’s) demand that Hizbullah be disarmed, and its missiles destroyed. It might misjudge, however, and send Lebanon over the brink into the abyss.

    But President Aoun, or any new government, cannot disarm Hizbullah. But Israel’s newly ambiguous strategic situation (post – Abqaiq), will likely hike the pressures on Lebanon to act against Hizbullah, through one means or another. Were Aoun or his government to try to mitigate the US pressures through acquiescence to the ‘reform’ package, would that be the end to it? Where would it all end, for Lebanon?

    And it is a similar conundrum in Iraq: The economic situation though, is quite different. Iraq has one-fifth of the population of neighbouring Iran, but five times the daily oil sales. Yet the infrastructure of its cities, following the two wars, is still a picture of ruination and poverty. The wealth of Iraq is stolen, and sits in bank accounts abroad. In Iraq, it is primarily the political model that is bust, and needs to be re-cast.

    Is this Moussa’s point – that Iraq presently is in the preparatory stage of choosing a new path ahead? He describes it as a self-correcting process leading out from the fissures of sectarianism. Conventional Washington thinking however, is that Iran seeks only a Shi’i hegemony for Iraq. But that is a misreading: Iran’s policy is much more nuanced. It is not some sectarian hegemony that is its objective, but the more limited aim to have the strategic edge across the region – in an amorphous, ambiguous, and not easily defined way – so that a fully sovereign Iraq becomes able to push-back against Israel and the US – deniably, and well short of all-out war.

    This is the point: the end to sectarianism is an Iranian interest, and not sectarian hegemony.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 02:00

    Tags

  • Egypt Risks US Sanctions If It Finalizes $20BN Deal For Russian Warplanes
    Egypt Risks US Sanctions If It Finalizes $20BN Deal For Russian Warplanes

    As Russia’s defense tech sector continues attracting interest from countries across Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Washington increasingly finds itself in the awkward position of having to threaten and cajole its own regional allies. 

    Reuters reports of the latest instance: “The United States could impose sanctions on Egypt and block it from future military sales if it goes ahead with a purchase of Russian warplanes, a U.S. official said on Monday.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last Spring Cairo and Moscow first unveiled an agreement on the sale to Egypt of “more than twenty” Sukhoi Su-35 heavyweight multirole fighters. Image via AIN Online

    This after Egypt signed an agreement to purchase more than 20 Su-35 fighter jets from the Kremlin in a $2 billion deal.

    The US has previously threatened other countries with sanctions under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for purchases of Russian military equipment (Serbia being the latest, related to rumors that it’s mulling S-400 anti-air acquirement).

    Cairo eyeing the advanced Russian fighter might be viewed as an especially insulting affront by the Trump administration especially given that as the second largest recipient of foreign aid historically (after Israel), Washington has provided billions in economic and military aid to Egypt over the past years, including its F-16 fighters.

    As with other countries that deploy new Russian weapons systems, Turkey foremost on the list, there’s concern over the ability to engage in joint exercises with NATO militaries, specifically related to fears of exposure of American and NATO defense tech secrets. 

    Needless to say a major breach between Egypt and the United States hasn’t occurred for decades, as it’s not secret that Washington needs to prop up its military ‘deep state’ for sake of keeping the long term peace agreement with neighboring Israel.

    Currently, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also said to be expressing interest in Russian defense purchases, namely the S-400. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/19/2019 – 01:00

  • The Rise Of Tech Totalitarianism
    The Rise Of Tech Totalitarianism

    Authored by James Kirkpatrick,

    The Wall Street Journal just published a shocking expose, How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results, [by Kirsten Grind, Sam Schechner, Robert McMillan and John West November 15, 2019], revealing not only that Google is exploiting its market power in ways the clearly raise anti-trust questions, but also that it shadow-bans sites that promote “hate or violence” even if “expressed in polite or even academic-sounding language”—i.e. VDARE.com and all immigration patriots. This confirms the terrifying message of Michael Rectenwald’s new book Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom: the combination of Woke Capital and monopoly power is turning America into an open-air prison.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rectenwald is a liberal academic who was chased out of New York University for dissenting mildly from the “pronoun wars” and the Leftist demand for blanket approval of transgenderism [I was a liberal NY prof, but when I said the left was going too far, colleagues called be a NAZI & treated me like a RUSSIAN SPY, RT, November 12, 2019]. In his book, he shows the Left is consumed by collective hysteria, a theme with which VDARE.com readers are familiar, and also that the ideology of “Corporate Socialism” and the emerging “Internet of Things” is making it impossible to escape from a repressive system.

    Rectenwald lays out several terms that encapsulate his ideas—the eponymous Google Archipelago, Big Digital, Corporate Socialism, Google Marxism, etc.

    • The “Google Archipelago” is “the corporate leftist centralized system of Big Digital.”

    • “Big Digital” is the “mega-data services, media, cable, and internet services, social media platforms, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agents, apps, and the developing Internet of Things” [the increasing ability and dependence of ordinary applications of operating online].

    • “Corporate Socialism” is an economic and political system under which a private monopoly or private oligopolies rather than that state eliminates competition and controls all production.

    • “Google Marxism”—originally a concept developed by George Gilder, who argued that Google assumed like Marx that the contemporary mode of production is the ultimate mode, with the only remaining issues are questions of distribution.

    Rectenwald adds further that Google Marxism, “like “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” manifests as state-supported monopoly capitalism, and “actually existing socialism” [meaning the actual economic conditions that exist, rather than the “free markets” or “democracy” that are claimed to exist] for everyone else.

    It’s an unclear definition and he occasionally links it with corporate socialism. But basically what he’s getting at is that Google commands the flow of information and uses this control to further its ideological and commercial objectives, which are often the same thing

    In fact, Rectenwald’s concepts often overlap each other, and the recurring academic jargon may baffle the reader who hasn’t read his Foucault.

    Yet his three major themes are easy to identify.

    The first major theme: the promotion of far-Left social causes through major corporations.

    As New York Times token conservative columnist Ross Douthat has noted, Woke Capital offers consumers symbolic rather than economic values. [The Rise of Woke Capital, NYT, February 28, 2018] Rectenwald calls these “rhetorical placebos in lieu of costlier economic concessions”—placebos which incidentally support “the elite’s agendas of identity politics, gender pluralism, transgenderism, lax immigration standards, sanctuary cities, and so on.” Rectenwald suggests this may be an effort by corporations to avoid higher taxes and regulations.

    However, he also suggests a deeper ideological agenda, citing the recent notorious Gillette ad deconstructing masculinity. It turns out the co-founder of Gillette, King Camp Gillette (1855-1932, right) was also a “socialist utopian,” who railed against competition and dreamed of creating a “World Corporation.” Thus instead of the masses seizing the means of production, companies would continuously merge, eventually creating a “great Corporate Mind” that would have “life everlasting” and “all knowledge of all men.”

    Gillette’s wild ravings seem uncannily accurate when it comes to

    the second major theme: the emerging total control over human information possessed by Big Tech.

    Users voluntarily provide data to corporations like Google and Facebook, which they can sell to advertisers. (Mark Zuckerberg himself referred to his trusting subscribers who had done this as “dumb f***s”.) They know us better than we know ourselves.

    At the same time, these “private” corporations can also distort what information is provided to users and determine who can compete in the digital marketplace. And because of corporations’ “authoritarian Leftism,” this means that conservatives and patriots can be deplatformed, competitors to Establishment media removed, and Big Tech left in control the “public space” even while being technically “private.” In short, tech companies are taking on governmental roles.

    Instead of the Internet freeing discussion, Rectenwald notes accurately that we’re witnessing “the disappearance of public discursive space.” Speech outside the digital sphere is irrelevant, but who can speak inside is determined by companies that practice “blatant double standards, egregious bias, politically-motivated designations of ‘fake news,’ and tilted search engine algorithms.”

    In Rectenwald’s striking phrase, tech companies “have acted like referees of a game in which they are also players, taking sides in political contests and the culture wars.”

    Naturally, this also means being able to massively manipulate election results by controlling the flow of information and deplatforming independent voices. This could mean that any “democratic vote” is essentially fake and illegitimate, because the outcome is determined in advance. Real political power is found not in Congress or the voting booth, but within the search algorithms and among the moderators of Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram.

    This is obviously the area most relevant to readers, because VDARE.com and other sites have directly felt the cost of Big Tech censorship. Tulsi Gabbard is directly attacking Big Tech for its control over Americans’ freedom of speech.

    Yet President Trump has done little to address these problems. In fact, the president’s much touted NAFTA replacement actually provides Big Tech with additional protections by specifically allowing companies to censor based on political views. His “Social Media Summit” didn’t feature anyone who had actually been banned [Trump’s Pathetic ‘Social Media Summit,’ by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, July 16, 2019].

    The Trump Administration isn’t serious about this. But if it doesn’t get serious in the time that’s left, defeat in 2020 is practically guaranteed.

    The third major theme: Rectenwald argues that we are entering an age of practically unlimited tyranny, because we will be required to operate in a digital space endlessly patrolled by far-Left radicals.

    Instead of an “Internet specially designed for individual expression and liberation,” the Internet is reshaping us, mutilating individuals “fit to inhabit it.” “Google Marxism” is destroying individual expression and creating a hive mind.

    This will accelerate when the “Internet of Things” truly takes off and every application will be required to operate in an online space, with the “Internet ubiquitous, coextensive with the world at large.” We will never “go online” we will always be operating in cyberspace.

    “The Internet is not imprisoned,” Rectenwald writes, “but it may become a prison, and once liberated, the world at large might become a digital gulag.”

    This may sound dystopian science fiction. But in some ways it has already occurred. Under China’s social credit system, individuals can be tracked in the “real world” and the services they use and rights they possess are dependent on their standing within the digital system.

    Consider also the drive towards cashless societies and its potential for tyranny.

    Now imagine how such a system would work within the U.S.. Imagine if every time you tried to make a purchase, use an appliance, or engage with someone, the other person or company had instant access to the information Facebook, Google, and other “Big Data” wanted them to have.

    Certain individuals would essentially be cut off from social life. You would be technically “free” to speak or operate a business, but cut off from the digital marketplace, your legal rights and economic viability would be essentially non-existent. There would also be no way out of the system, because everyone and everything, everywhere, would always be connected to the network.

    Rectenwald examines the implications of Artificial Intelligence, particularly the way such systems are developing to predict human behavior. He expresses concern not just about the somewhat fantastic prospect of “’robot swarms’ gone awry, but the more fundamental question of whether humans will simply keep outsourcing decision-making to algorithms and AI.

    Entire industries and basic human functions could presumably be performed more efficiently and effectively by AI. Furthermore, when it comes to distribution of resources, a sufficiently developed AI would be capable of “identifying, tracking, surveilling, algorithmically steering, digitally jailing, and ultimately controlling populations to degrees that would have made Stalin or Mao green with envy.” One possible future: a “docile, algorithmically-directed or even algorithmically-dictated populace, one that is unemployed and probably living on a Universal Basic Incomebecause their labor is unnecessary.”

    This raises the deepest questions. What does democracy, citizenship, or identity mean under such a system?

    And while all this may sound bizarre, consider how you, the reader, already live in such a way to avoid negative mentions of your name online. Already, we live are in a system where a single media attack, magnified by social media companies that promote certain stories and suppress others, can shape a person’s entire life.

    The ancient bonds of family, church, nation and law are as nothing in the face of a systemic digital assault. An individual’s ability to hold a job is already heavily dependent on Google results. What happens when there are no more escapes? What happens when everyone, everywhere, receives the information the elite wants them to know, even if it’s “fake news?”

    This is unlimited tyranny. It also reduces each person into simply a part of a centrally directed System. One can already glimpse the bars of the emerging digital cage.

    The solution? Conservatives must rethink their opposition to “the state” and realize the real threat to our liberties comes from Big Tech, not “Big Government.”

    In the time that’s left, conservatives who value their faith and identity and progressives who don’t want to exist as mere corporate puppets must unite to guarantee free speech online. There should also be more systemic regulation, if not wholesale breaking up, of social media companies.

    If we don’t do these things, contemporary China will seem like a libertarian utopia compared to what’s coming.

    And thanks to Rectenwald, we can’t say we weren’t warned.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:45

  • World Trade Barometer Suggests Global Economy Continues To Plunge As Trade War Takes Toll
    World Trade Barometer Suggests Global Economy Continues To Plunge As Trade War Takes Toll

    The World Trade Organization (WTO) published a new report Monday that warns global merchandise trade in goods will plunge through this quarter amid no resolution to the trade war, along with the continuation of a worldwide synchronized slowdown that shows no signs of abating in the near term. 

    The Geneva-based intergovernmental organization’s leading-indicator called the Goods Trade Barometer printed at 96.6 for Sept., down from 95.7 in Jun. Readings under 100 recommend below-trend expansion is present. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In Sept., WTO economists downgraded global trade growth expectations for 2019 to 1.2 %, down from a 2.6% forecast in Apr. 

    The deceleration of slowing global growth was attributed to “increased tariffs, Brexit-related uncertainty, and the shifting monetary policy stance in developed economies,” WTO analysts said.

    Year-on-year growth in world merchandise trade volume has stalled in recent quarters, as new evidence shows a decline could be seen in early 2020. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Airfreight, electronic components, and raw materials “have all deteriorated further below trend,” the report showed.

    “Indices for export orders (97.5), automotive products (99.8), and container shipping (100.8) have firmed up into on-trend territory. However, the indices for international air freight (93.0), electronic components (88.2), and raw materials (91.4) have all deteriorated further below trend. Electronic components trade was weakest of all, possibly reflecting recent tariff hikes affecting the sector.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with world trade sinking quick into year-end, the Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index has just tagged a 4-1/2 month low on sluggish vessel demand. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While the global economy implodes, a rally in global risk assets continues to push US equities to new highs. This is due to central banks pumping a tsunami of liquidity into stocks, in the attempt to save the world from a global trade recession that could be around the corner, if not already here. The biggest threat today as central bankers pump stocks, is that the real economies across the world remain stagnant, which could suggest risk assets are in blowoff tops. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:25

  • Globalist-Endorsed War-On-Cash May Be China's Next Terrifying Weapon
    Globalist-Endorsed War-On-Cash May Be China’s Next Terrifying Weapon

    Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    Recent protests in Hong Kong, along with the resulting fall out from international corporations questioned for their relationships with mainland China, has placed a renewed focus on the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party. This has led to several articles identifying ways in which Western countries have learned from the CCP, including Europe’s growing embrace of web censorship and growing interest in the social credit system rolled out in 2018. Given that it wasn’t that long ago that it was common to see Western leaders and neoliberal commentators openly envy aspects of the Chinese political system, these concerns are certainly worth exploring. What should be of equal interest, however, is the ways China may be learning from the West.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The next weapon the CCP may plan to wield against its citizens is a War on Cash.

    As Joseph Salerno, among others, has noted for years now, a successful War on Cash would represent a new escalation in government’s long history of weaponizing currency against the population. Moving far beyond the clipping of coins as a means of stealth tax collection, the purpose of a War on Cash is not simply to strengthen a government’s grasp on the wealth of its citizens – but the move becomes a highly effective means of tracking any who find themselves in the crosshairs of the state.

    These features make a cashless society attractive for any government – which explains why it has become an increasingly popular goal for politicians, bureaucrats, and central bankers in the West. This is precisely why we’ve seen the cause promoted from such influential economists as Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the IMF, Marvin Goodfriend, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon who was once nominated to the Fed by Donald Trump, as well as various economic ministers. The governments of Australia and Sweden have made a cashless society an explicit policy goal within their countries, while some central banks — such as the ECB — have begun phasing out higher denomination bills as an opening move in their own cashless campaigns.

    Of course, the international perspective of the Swedish government is quite different than that of China’s — and understandably so. For all of Sweden’s issues, there are no comparisons to the CCP’s brutal child policies or its treatment of religious minorities. What should be understood, however, is that a successful move to a cashless society would give the Swedish government similar tools over its population as those the Communist Party seeks over its dominion. While the former may ground their policy aims in “combating drug trafficking” and “convenience,” the end result in both cases is a new terrifying weapon in the hands of the state.

    Luckily, it’s easier for the government to desire a cashless society than it is to create it, and we’ve seen countries like Sweden rethink their approach. There is reason to think that China may be less apprehensive. Not only is the government more powerful, but it is also more desperate.

    Given the surveillance power of a cashless society, the potential of joining a social credit system with a digital yuan makes sense. What’s just as important for China is to help further tighten the CCP’s grip on its struggling economy.

    As I’ve noted before, lost in the attention paid to Trump’s trade war with China, China’s financial system is showing signs of a growing strain. Not only have we seen escalating bank failures and the creation of new bailout devices for failing firms, but some companies have resorted to paying their workers with IOUs as they run short on cash. Meanwhile, Chinese local governments are now defaulting on debts to contractors. Given the importance of economic growth to the CCP’s control of the country, its understandable why we’ve seen President Xi forge new high-tech weapons to be used against the population.

    Interestingly, China’s desperation is being confused by some as a sign of strength. For example, some have misunderstood the underlying motives for the CCP’s renewed interest in cryptocurrency.

    While much has been made of Chinese media giving Bitcoin a front-page treatment, the tight control the CCP has over its financial system makes actual use of private crypto extremely difficult. Instead, the stage is being set for moving the yuan to the blockchain. While some have sold this as some novel challenge against the dollar — even suggesting that the Bank of China could try to peg it to gold — this is, as Daniel Lacalle explained, a delusion.

    This is not a trump card to be used against Uncle Sam, but a new tool of CCP oppression against is own people. As noted by Jason Burack, a market analyst that has been closely following Chinese economic news, “throughout history, governments have always hijacked technology and used it for nefarious purposes.”

    At this point, the CCP successfully waging a War on Cash is mere speculation — though a recent move to allow tourists access to digital payment systems such as AliPay might help pave the way for that transition. It would be a policy change very much in character with the authoritarian regime in Beijing — and one that has long been sold as “benign” by the more “liberal” globalist elite.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • Baltimore Taxpayers Fund Lyft-Rides For Inner-City Poor Facing "Food Deserts"
    Baltimore Taxpayers Fund Lyft-Rides For Inner-City Poor Facing “Food Deserts”

    With more than a quarter of all Baltimore City residents living in a food desert, meaning there’s no supermarket in a walkable distance, the taxpayers are now funding a new program that will pay for their Lyft ride to the grocery store. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Starting Monday, residents in South and West Baltimore City, some of the most impoverished areas in the country, can register online for Lyft and get government-subsidized trips to participating grocery stores, reported The Baltimore Sun

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The pilot program will sponsor up to 200 residents, will cover one-way rides up to $2.50. Each rider can take as many as eight trips per month. 

    “Whoa, that is lovely,” Evelyn Robinson told The Sun. “I wouldn’t have to wait for someone to be available to take me or pay as much money. I could go whenever I wanted.”

    For some more color on South and West Baltimore City, these areas are low-income neighborhoods, about 33% of households don’t even own vehicles, and most folks have negative net wealth. Many don’t have jobs because the local economy has been stuck in a depression for twenty years.

    Both areas are equivalent to a third-world country and have the highest per-capita homicide rates in the country.

    Instead of supermarkets on each corner of the street, there are liquor stores and methadone clinics.

    To be fair, decades of deindustrialization trends have turned many parts of Baltimore into a Venezuelan-like warzone — not entirely the fault of citizens but the failure of the political class and Washington who’ve neglected the implosion of the city over the decades.

    The subsidized Lyft program will also roll out in about a dozen other cities to shuttle low-income folks to grocery stores. 

    In the first six months of operation, Baltimore taxpayers are expected to shell out $73,000.  

    “This innovative ride-share pilot not only helps residents get to and from the grocery store but also reduces travel time and puts money back into the pockets of low-income residents so they are able to buy more healthy foods,” Democratic Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young said in a statement.

    More than 146,000 Baltimore City residents live in food deserts, and approximately 124,500 of those residents are African Americans. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:45

  • Landmark Bill Would Bar State From Enforcing Federal Red-Flag Gun Laws
    Landmark Bill Would Bar State From Enforcing Federal Red-Flag Gun Laws

    Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

    A bill prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate would prohibit state enforcement of any federal “red-flag” laws, setting the foundation to nullify any such laws in practice and effect.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.

    The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”

    These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any  Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.

    It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.

    EFFECTIVE

    The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

    Enforcing a red-flag law would be no different.

    Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

    Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with federal gun control would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

    “Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in the implementation and enforcement of a federal red flag law, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

    LEGAL BASIS

    The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

    Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

    “We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”

    WHAT’S NEXT

    SB1081 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 2.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:25

  • "Biggest Fire Loss In Fort Lauderdale History:" Two Mega Yachts Worth $24 Million Ignite In Fiery Blaze
    “Biggest Fire Loss In Fort Lauderdale History:” Two Mega Yachts Worth $24 Million Ignite In Fiery Blaze

    Two large superyachts in a Fort Lauderdale marina on Sunday burned to the ground as dozens of firefighters worked for hours to contain the blaze. 

    Fort Lauderdale Battalion Chief Stephen Gollan told Sun-Sentinel that the yachts were valued at $24 million and were the “biggest fire loss in Fort Lauderdale history.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gollan said the cause of the fire is unknown, but said the yachts were docked in the marina, pending renovation work.

    “We haven’t even begun the investigation yet,” Gollan told the Sun-Sentinel Sunday night. “[Monday] morning we plan to go in with ourselves and other resources from [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] and begin our investigation.” he added.

    Gollan said the fire broke out early Sunday morning on Trinity Yachts, a 161-foot superyacht, worth around $12 to $16 million. 

    Northwestern winds at the time of the incident spread the fire to an adjacent 107-foot Christensen yacht, valued around $6 to $7 million.

    Over 60 firefighters from several different fire departments fought the fire on both yachts for 5 hours on Sunday morning. 

    A dramatic video of the fire was posted on the Fort Lauderdale Fire Reserve’s Facebook page. 

    “At 04:30 on Saturday November 16th, FLFR crews responded to a report of two large yachts on fire in the 2500 block of State Road 84. Upon arrival the fire was located at Universal Marine on the docks closest to the New River.

    Due to the large volume of fire and the difficulty of access, a second alarm was immediately requested. Over the next five hours more than 60 fire fighters and 3 fire boats would battle this blaze, preventing it from spreading to other yachts in the marine.

    Thankfully no one was injured during this intense fire,” the fire department said. 

    Gollan said investigators would be reviewing video surveillance on Monday to see if the fire was intentionally set. He said if the fire turns out to be an accident — it would be tough to determine the cause considering the significant damage on both vessels. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 22:05

  • Sorry CNN, Here's 25 Times Trump Has Been 'Dangerously Hawkish' On Russia
    Sorry CNN, Here’s 25 Times Trump Has Been ‘Dangerously Hawkish’ On Russia

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled “25 times Trump was soft on Russia”, in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case that the US president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or failed to say other words; “Trump has repeatedly praised Putin”, “Trump refused to say Putin is a killer”, “Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016”, “Trump made light of Russian hacking”, etc. It also includes the completely false but oft-repeated narrative that “Trump’s team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine”, as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly invalidated claim that “Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.”

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

    CNN’s 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing, it’s clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being “soft” on Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he’s been doing so with zero resistance from either party.

    It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it’s a fact that neither of America’s two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump’s opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither. Observe:

    1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance toward Russia

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

    Last year Trump’s Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which CNN itself called “its toughest line yet against Russia’s resurgent nuclear forces.”

    “In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia,” CNN reported last year.

    This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons, which, because they are designed to be more “usable” than conventional nuclear ordinances, have been called “the most dangerous weapon ever” by critics of this insane policy. These weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.

    2. Arming Ukraine

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

    Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was introduced by the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time Uthat this policy was put in place.

    3. Bombing Syria

    Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn’t hawkish enough to also do was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there is no legitimate reason to trust at this point.

    4. Staging coup attempts in Venezuela

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

    Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day. Trump’s attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians.

    Trump has reportedly spoken frequently of a US military invasion to oust Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, provoking a forceful rebuke from Moscow.

    “Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military interference look particularly disquieting,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. “We warn against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences.”

    5. Withdrawing from the INF treaty

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

    For a president who’s “soft” on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to declare that “the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war.” It appears entirely possible that Trump will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START Treaty which expires in early 2021.

    Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South Korea can compete with the US in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but the military-industrial complex.

    6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty

    “The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to conduct reconnaissance flights over one another’s territories,” The Wall Street Journal reported last month, adding that the administration has alleged that “Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while using its missions to gather intelligence in the US.”

    Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:

    “US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said,” Sputnik reports.

    “All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for the whole humanity,” Patrushev said.

    “In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital development,” he added.

    7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland

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

    “Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with the United States to buy Raytheon Co’s Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia,” Reuters reported last year.

    8. Occupying Syrian oil fields

    The Trump administration has been open about the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the nation’s oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the nation’s government of that financial resource. Syria’s ally Russia strongly opposes this, accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of “international state banditry”.

    “In a statement, Russia’s defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not motivated by genuine security concerns in the region,” Reuters reported last month.

    “Therefore Washington’s current actions — capturing and maintaining military control over oil fields in eastern Syria — is, simply put, international state banditry,” Russia’s defense ministry said.

    9. Killing Russians in Syria

    Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and hundreds, but whatever the exact number the US military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.

    10. Tanks in Estonia

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

    Within weeks of taking office, Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other military hardware right up to Russia’s border as part of a NATO operation.

    “Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine,” the Defense Department said in a statement.

    11. War ships in the Black Sea

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

    12. Sanctions

    Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:

    US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures,” CNN reported at the time. “Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill’s passage drew ire from Moscow — which responded by stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country — all but crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had called for.”

    “A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia,” said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in response.

    13. More sanctions

    “The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia,” The New York Times reported in December 2017.

    14. Still more sanctions

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

    “Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet,” reads Vice headline from April of last year.

    “The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank,” Vice reports. “While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia’s role in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures seek to penalize Russia’s recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern Ukraine.”

    15. Even more sanctions

    The Trump administration hit Russia with more sanctions for the alleged Skripal poisoning in August of last year, then hit them with another round of sanctions for the same reason again in August of this year.

    16. Guess what? MORE sanctions

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

    “The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and entities in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” The Hill reported in November of last year. “The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S. says Russia seized illegally in 2014.”

    17. Oh hey, more sanctions

    “Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a vessel,” reads a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.

    18. Secondary sanctions

    Secondary sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The US has leveled sanctions against both China and Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is threatening to do so to India as well.

    19. Forcing Russian media to register as foreign agents

    Both RT and Sputnik have been forced to register as “foreign agents” by the Trump administration. This classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.

    20. Throwing out Russian diplomats

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

    The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the UK.

    21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters “to resist Russian aggression”

    “US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service officials,” Army Times reported this past July.

    “U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014,” Army Times writes. “A low-level conflict continues to simmer in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty, national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian aggression and even occupation.”

    22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation

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

    …even while acknowledging Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights as perfectly legal and legitimate.

    23. Sending 1,000 troops to Poland

    From the September article “1000 US Troops Are Headed to Poland” by National Interest:

    Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.

    What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.

    Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States’ commitment to protecting Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially, Belarus.

    24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal

    Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump’s destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said it was “deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”, adding that this administration’s actions were “trampling on the norms of international law”.

    25. Attacking Russian gas interests

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

    Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.

    “Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he’s looking at sanctions to block the project he’s warned would leave Berlin ‘captive’ to Moscow,” Bloomberg reports. “The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.”

    “We’re protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany” for its gas, Trump told the press.

    I could have kept going, but that’s my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn’t benefit anyone’s partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain as can be, but there’s a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that’s how different narrative is from fact; there’s almost no connection. Instead they use a light sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile the insane escalations continue.

    In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the greater the probability of that happening. We’re rolling the dice on armageddon every single day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.

    We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the US and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.

    *  *  *

    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

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:45

  • Is This Boeing Blowback Or Anger At Lack Of Support For Aramco?
    Is This Boeing Blowback Or Anger At Lack Of Support For Aramco?

    On the second day of the Dubai Airshow, also the same day Saudi Aramco canceled an IPO tour across the US, several Saudi airline carriers made a surprising move to order less Boeing planes, and in one case, even opted to buy Airbus planes instead. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Saudi Aramco canceled an IPO roadshow across the US over the lack of institutional support for the deal.

    Bankers wanted comprehensive reports on oil reserves, something that Aramco has hidden from institutional investors. This made it very hard for bankers to value the deal, which created too many uncertainties about valuation.

    As a result, numerous Wall Street banks moved to the sidelines, something that has undoubtedly upset Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MbS) and has likely resulted in a blowback as Saudi airline carriers have just said they will order fewer Boeing planes. 

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

    When it came time for Saudi airline flynas on Monday to order Boeing 787-8 jets at the airshow, the carrier instead chose to exercise its option to purchase 40 Airbus A320neo, reported Reuters. Coincidence, or is this a blowback for Wall Street banks’ lack of support for the Aramco IPO? 

    Another Saudi carrier, called Etihad Airways, said on Monday that they would purchase less 787 Dreamliners than initially thought. Another coincidence, or is another subliminal message from the kingdom to the US?

    Meanwhile, at the airshow, Boeing executives weren’t selling many planes but focused on calming fears amid two 737Max crashes that killed 346 people in the last year. 

    Airbus has so far been the big winner at the airshow, already raking in $30 billion worth of new orders as of Monday afternoon. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:25

  • Leftist Bill Maher: "Learn To Live With Each Other Or There Will Be Blood!"
    Leftist Bill Maher: “Learn To Live With Each Other Or There Will Be Blood!”

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Left-leaning HBO host Bill Maher said that he believes the divisiveness among Americans could potentially spark another civil war.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The comedian and staunch critic of President Trump made the declaration on his latest HBO show Friday.

    “Lately we’ve been hearing more and more about a second Civil War, which sounds impossible in this modern affluent country. It is not,” said the “Real Time with Bill Maher”.

    Maher is not the first person to predict a civil war due to the political discourse in American culture. President Donald Trump’s spiritual adviser Pastor Robert Jeffress earlier rebuked by liberal critics for an eerily similar prediction.

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

    The liberal outrage from this Tweet was massive. Maher seems to have faced no such backlash for his comments. However, the 63-year-old has been among the president’s most vocal critics on cable television since before Trump even entered the White House. He has regularly compared him to authoritarian dictators, and he has argued repeatedly that he does not believe  Trump will relinquish the office if voted out in 2020 – an assertion the president has referenced during recent re-election campaign rallies.

    “We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war,” Maher continued.

    We can’t disagree with Maher that both sides have taken it upon themselves to become more radical in their policies. And Maher added that he could be part of the problem toward the end of his program. He said he would “try to stop” insulting people critical of liberals.  He then used a backhanded insult saying:

    “I’ve learned that the anti-intellectualism on the right doesn’t primarily come from stupidity, it comes from hate.”

    “We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher also said during his monologue.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 21:05

  • "I Was Wrong. And I Am Sorry": Bloomberg Apologizes To Black Megachurch For 'Stop And Frisk'
    “I Was Wrong. And I Am Sorry”: Bloomberg Apologizes To Black Megachurch For ‘Stop And Frisk’

    As Michael Bloomberg weighs a bid for the White House next year, the former New York mayor told the congregation at a ‘black megachurch’ on Sunday that he’s sorry for his support of the city’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” program which targeted a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos.

    “I was wrong. And I am sorry,” Bloomberg said at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, pandering to the black vote.

    In 2013, a federal judge who declared the program unconstitutional found that nearly 90% of those stopped hadn’t done anything illegal, while a 2018 Equal Justice Initiative report revealed that the city’s abandonment of the tactic had no influence on crime rates, according to Rolling Stone.

    Bloomberg notably supported the practice after the ruling.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Over time [i.e. the last few years, or weeks], I’ve come to understand something that I long struggled to admit to myself: I got something important wrong. I got something important really wrong. I didn’t understand back then the full impact that stops were having on the black and Latino communities. I was totally focused on saving lives, but as we know, good intentions aren’t good enough,” he added.

    In 2011, the year with the most stop-and-frisks, 685,724 NYPD stops were recorded. Of those, 88% were innocent, while 87% were black or latino and 9% white. Over half were aged 14-24 years old according to the NY ACLU.

    The 77-year-old Bloomberg has not formally entered the 2020 race, however he has taken steps to get on the ballot in states with early filing deadlines according to Reuters. If he does run, Bloomberg will be the fifth most popular candidate, and the richest – eclipsing Donald Trump’s net worth by around $50 billion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:45

  • Mauldin: China's Grand Plan To Take Over The World
    Mauldin: China’s Grand Plan To Take Over The World

    Authored by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

    When the US and ultimately the rest of the Western world began to engage China, resulting in China finally being allowed into the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s, no one really expected the outcomes we see today.

    There is no simple disengagement path, given the scope of economic and legal entanglements. This isn’t a “trade” we can simply walk away from.

    But it is also one that, if allowed to continue in its current form, could lead to a loss of personal freedom for Western civilization. It really is that much of an existential question.

    Doing nothing isn’t an especially good option because, like it or not, the world is becoming something quite different than we expected just a few years ago – not just technologically, but geopolitically and socially.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China and the West

    Let’s begin with how we got here.

    My generation came of age during the Cold War. China was a huge, impoverished odd duck in those years. In the late 1970s, China began slowly opening to the West. Change unfolded gradually but by the 1990s, serious people wanted to bring China into the modern world, and China wanted to join it.

    Understand that China’s total GDP in 1980 was under $90 billion in current dollars. Today, it is over $12 trillion. The world has never seen such enormous economic growth in such a short time.

    Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed and the internet was born. The US, as sole superpower, saw opportunities everywhere. American businesses shifted production to lower-cost countries. Thus came the incredible extension of globalization.

    We in the Western world thought (somewhat arrogantly, in hindsight) everyone else wanted to be like us. It made sense. Our ideas, freedom, and technology had won both World War II and the Cold War that followed it. Obviously, our ways were best.

    But that wasn’t obvious to people elsewhere, most notably China. Leaders in Beijing may have admired our accomplishments, but not enough to abandon Communism.

    They merely adapted and rebranded it. We perceived a bigger change than there actually was. Today’s Chinese communists are nowhere near Mao’s kind of communism. Xi calls it “Socialism with a Chinese character.” It appears to be a dynamic capitalistic market, but is also a totalitarian, top-down structure with rigid rules and social restrictions.

    So here we are, our economy now hardwired with an autocratic regime that has no interest in becoming like us.

    China’s Hundred-Year Marathon

    In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power.

    They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.

    The strategy has been well documented in Chinese literature, published and sanctioned by organizations of the People’s Liberation Army, for well over 50 years.

    And just as we have hawks and moderates on China within the US, there are hawks and moderates within China about how to engage the West. Unfortunately, the hawks are ascendant, embodied most clearly in Xi Jinping.

    Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.

    Grand dreams of world domination are part and parcel of communist ideologies, going all the way back to Karl Marx. For the Chinese, this blends with the country’s own long history.

    It isn’t always clear to Western minds whether they actually believe the rhetoric or simply use it to keep the peasantry in line. Pillsbury says Xi Jinping really sees this as China’s destiny, and himself as the leader who will deliver it.

    To that end, according to Pillsbury, the Chinese manipulated Western politicians and business leaders into thinking China was evolving toward democracy and capitalism. In fact, the intent was to acquire our capital, technology, and other resources for use in China’s own modernization.

    It worked, too.

    Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.

    Sometimes this happened voluntarily, as companies gave away trade secrets in the (often futile) hope it would let them access China’s huge market. Other times it was outright theft. In either case, this was no accident but part of a long-term plan.

    Pillsbury (who, by the way, advises the White House including the president himself) thinks the clash is intensifying because President Trump’s China skepticism is disrupting the Chinese plan. They see his talk of restoring America’s greatness as an affront to their own dreams.

    In any case, we have reached a crossroads. What do we do about China now?

    Targeted Response

    In crafting a response, the first step is to define the problem correctly and specifically. We hear a lot about China cheating on trade deals and taking jobs from Americans. That’s not entirely wrong, but it’s also not the main challenge.

    I believe in free trade. I think David Ricardo was right about comparative advantage: Every nation is better off if all specialize in whatever they do best.

    However, free trade doesn’t mean nations need to arm their potential adversaries. Nowadays, military superiority is less about factories and shipyards than high-tech weapons and cyberwarfare. Much of our “peaceful” technology is easily weaponized.

    This means our response has to be narrowly targeted at specific companies and products. Broad-based tariffs are the opposite of what we should be doing. Ditto for capital controls.

    They are blunt instruments that may feel good to swing, but they hurt the wrong people and may not accomplish what we want.

    We should not be using the blunt tool of tariffs to fight a trade deficit that is actually necessary.  The Chinese are not paying our tariffs; US consumers are.

    Importing t-shirts and sneakers from China doesn’t threaten our national security. Let that kind of trade continue unmolested and work instead on protecting our advantages in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and so on.

    The Trump administration appears to (finally) be getting this. They are clearly seeking ways to pull back the various tariffs and ramping up other efforts.

    *  *  *

    New York Times best seller and renowned financial expert John Mauldin predicts an unprecedented financial crisis that could be triggered in the next five years. Most investors seem completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now. Learn more here.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:25

  • Netherlands Headed For Unprecedented Crisis: Millions Of Retirees Face Pensions Cuts Thanks To The ECB
    Netherlands Headed For Unprecedented Crisis: Millions Of Retirees Face Pensions Cuts Thanks To The ECB

    When one thinks of pensions crisis, the state of Illinois – with its woefully underfunded retirement system which issues bonds just to fund its existing pension benefits – usually comes to mind. Which is why it is surprising that the first state that may suffer substantial pension cuts is one that actually has one of the world’s best-funded, and most generous, pension systems.

    According to the FT, millions of Dutch pensioners are facing material cuts to their retirement income for the first time next year as the Dutch government scrambles to avert a crisis to the country’s €1.6 trillion pension system. And while a last minute intervention by the government may avoid significant cuts to pensions next year – and a revolt by trade unions –  if only temporarily, the world finds itself transfixed by the problems facing the Dutch retirement system as it provides an early indication of a wider global pensions funding shortfall, not to mention potential mass unrest once retirees across some of the world’s wealthiest nations suddenly finds themselves with facing haircuts to what they previously believed were unalterable retirement incomes.

    At the core of the Dutch cash crunch is the ECB’s negative interest rate policy, which has sent bond yields to record negative territory across the eurozone, and crippled returns analysis while pushing up the funding requirements of Dutch pension funds.

    Ahead of a parliamentary debate on Thursday on this hot topic issue, the Dutch minister for social affairs and employment, Wouter Koolmees, will write to lawmakers to outline his response to the pension industry’s problems, the FT reported.

    In order to offset the ECB’s NIRP policy, Shaktie Rambaran Mishre, chair of the Dutch pension federation which represents 197 pension funds and their members, said that contributions might have to rise by up to 30% over the next few years, an outcome which will lead to outrage among existing working-age employees who will suffer a surge in the pension costs. Absent a dramatic increase in benefits contributions, “as things stand, around 2 million people are facing cuts from next year,” she added.

    Predictably, trade unions have already held protests and strikes this year over the potential cuts to pensions and have threatened more action if the government does not step in. “We expect some relief next week and if not we will mobilise,” said Tuur Elzinga, lead pensions negotiator at FNV, the biggest Dutch union.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Protesters marching in The Hague in June hold a banner that reads ‘A good pension is matter of decency’

    The Netherlands – one of the Eurozone’s richest nations – is hardly alone in this predicament, as the ongoing debate reflects broad concerns about the impact of low interest rates among the Eurozone and Japan, as ageing populations and longer life expectancy have put pension systems across the world under great strain. A report last week from the Group of Thirty, a club for current and former policymakers, warned of a $15.8tn shortfall in funding to support the ageing populations of the world’s 20 biggest countries.

    And if there is one way to guarantee riots among the world’s richest nations, it is to inform pensioners that their benefits are suddenly being “haircut.”

    In some ways, the Netherlands has one of Europe’s most generous retirement systems: at its core, it represents a basic pay-as-you-go state pension as well as employer-run pension scheme which together provide workers with about 80% of their average lifetime wages when they retire. The US and UK have similar systems, but Dutch pension funds are more generous and must use a lower risk-free rate to value their liabilities, forcing them to hold more assets.

    Unfortunately, the lower Dutch risk-free rate is not low enough, and as a result about 70 employer-run pension funds with 12.1m members had funding ratios below the statutory minimum at the end of September, according to the Dutch central bank. And here lies the rub: if funds have ratios below the legal minimum for five consecutive years or have no prospect of recovering to a more healthy level, they must cut their payouts. Interest rates have rebounded slightly in recent weeks, but many funds are still facing cuts.

    In other words, in making a select handful of European stockholders rich courtesy of NIRP and QE, Mario Draghi is threatening the pensions of hundreds of millions of retired European workers.

    So what, if any, is the solution?

    Last week, Rabobank reported that the Minister of Social Affairs is supposedly willing to prevent a large part of the pension benefit cuts of 2020, as the government is reportedly willing to lower the minimum coverage ratio from 100% to 90% for one year. This temporary measure can be seen as a pause button, which buys time for:

    • Pension funds to hopefully recover over the next year. For pension funds, a rise in their risk-free rate term structure which is used to discount their liabilities (EUR 6m swap rates) would be most helpful
    • Continuing to work out the details of the Pension Reforms announced in June 2019. Unions, employer representatives and the opposition parties were against pension cuts because this would undermine the goals set out in the Pension Reforms.

    Cutting pensions is a very sensitive and unpopular measure especially for politicians because the government has the ability to change the rules by changing the law. This is especially hard in times where there is no economic downturn, because it makes it more difficult to explain and justify the cuts. One can only imagine what will happen to Dutch pensions during the next Eurozone recession, when the ECB will be forced to cut rates even more negative in the process threatening even more pension haircuts.

    While this pause would, in theory, prompt some pension funds to reduce their matching portfolio or hedge ratio in anticipation of pension cuts, not many pension funds already acted on the threat of these cuts according to Rabobank. Therefore, this temporary measure will have a limited effect on the investment behaviour of pension funds because:

    • Pension funds are typically big and are long term investors, meaning they take time to react to certain events
    • Most pension funds have a fixed risk budget. This risk budget is maximised by regulation and is fixed at the moment the coverage ratio drops below the required coverage ratio. This means if a pension fund would want to increase its risk toward for example equity, it often has to reduce risk somewhere else in the portfolio
    • Possible pension cuts are based on the policy coverage ratio which is the 12th month average of the coverage ratio. This further reduces the incentive for a temporary risk-on or risk-off strategy.

    What’s next? On 21 November 2019 the official plans will be discussed in parliament, although Rabobank does not expect any additional changes that would affect investment behavior of pension funds. However, as the Dutch bank admits, “there are some challenging times ahead in the pension reform discussions” and it expects possible big changes this time next year. Chief among them: the risk free rate term structure that is used to discount the liabilities will likely change in every possible reform scenario, although it is unclear how much lower it can drop.

    As the FT notes, a group of 10 academics wrote to parliament recently calling on the Dutch government not to raise the risk-free rate, arguing this would be at the expense of younger workers as “the assets pot will be a little bit more empty each year”. Others, however, think the government will intervene. “I expect that politically the cuts will not happen,” said Lex Hoogduin a professor at the University of Groningen and a former board member of the Dutch central bank, who did not sign the letter.

    “But this is just kicking the can down the road as eventually they won’t be able to afford the payouts that people expect,” said Mr Hoogduin. And the people have Mario Draghi – and now Christine Lagarde – to thank for it.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 20:05

  • Globalist Magazine "The Economist" Tells Plebs To Eat Bugs
    Globalist Magazine “The Economist” Tells Plebs To Eat Bugs

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Globalist magazine ‘The Economist’ published an article encouraging people to live on a diet of bugs like citizens in the conflict-torn Congo in order to save the planet.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Entitled ‘Why eating bugs is so popular in Congo’, the piece champions the consumption of caterpillars, crickets and grasshoppers as being “richer in protein than beef or fish.”

    “Others around the world should catch up,” writes the unnamed author.

    “Bug farming takes up less land, requires less food and does less damage to the environment than meat or fish farming.”

    Hunting insects is easy, too. Anyone can wander into the forest—or, indeed, to the airport—and gather caterpillars, ants and grasshoppers,” he adds before admitting that

    “The wrong variety of insect can poison consumers.”

    Eating bugs being popular in the Congo may have something to to with the fact that the DROC is a a conflict-torn, corrupt, politically unstable hellhole with a barely functioning economy from which hundreds of thousands have fled while millions more are at risk of malnutrition and starvation.

    Just a thought.

    The irony of the Economist telling people to eat bugs is pretty thick given that its own readership, which largely comprises of wealthy privileged elitists, would never even consider doing such a thing.

    Once again, it’s very much a case of do as we say not as we do.

    Eating bugs has been heavily promoted by cultural institutions and the media in recent months because people are being readied to accept drastically lower standards of living under disastrous global ‘Green New Deal’ programs.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/18/2019 – 19:45

  • North Korea Says "Will Not Offer Anything For Trump To Brag About" Without Receiving In Return 
    North Korea Says “Will Not Offer Anything For Trump To Brag About” Without Receiving In Return 

    Reuters has quoted Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday as saying North Korea has zero interest in giving President Trump future meetings to brag about unless it receives something in return. 

    • N.KOREA SAYS WILL NOT OFFER ANYTHING FOR US PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BRAG ABOUT – KCNA

    • N.KOREA SAYS URGES US TO DROP HOSTILE POLICY AGAINST IT IF IT WANTS TO CONTINUE DIALOGUE – KCNA

    North Korea is learning from the US-China trade war, where President Trump routinely pumps fantasy trade deals and boasts on Twitter about illusionary $50 to $60 billion agriculture purchases

    Statements from KCNA were made via Foreign Ministry adviser Kim Kye Gwan, who has recently called for US concessions ahead of a December deadline set by Kim Jong Un for President Trump to provide favorable terms to restore nuclear talks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gwan said North Korea wasn’t interested in a summit with the US and called any future talks with the Trump administration “useless.” 

    “If the US does not really want to let go of its dialogue with us, it should make a decision to withdraw its hostile policy of viewing us as an enemy,” the KCNA statement said.

    Gwan’s statements came after the Trump administration canceled joint military exercises with South Korea. President Trump tweeted that Kim Jong Un needs to “act quickly, get the deal done” and suggested a summit could be nearing, saying, “See you soon!”

    Gwan said, “Although (North Korea and the US) held three summits and other meetings since June last year, there hasn’t been much improvement in relations, and the US has been just trying to buy time to its favor.” 

    “We are no longer interested in such meetings that provide us no benefit,” he added.

    Negotiations have collapsed since a February summit between both countries in Vietnam after the US rejected North Korean demands for sanction relief for partial abandonment of its nuclear weapons.  

    It seems that Kim understands ahead of an election year, President Trump will want to showboat any progress made on the Korean Peninsula, even though it might not be beneficial for both countries in the long run.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 19:25

    Tags

  • JPMorgan Shames Jeff Gundlach As The King Of The Armageddonists
    JPMorgan Shames Jeff Gundlach As The King Of The Armageddonists

    As bearish-biased analysts, strategists, and investors throw in the towel amid the market’s incessant FOMO-driven melt-up in the face of record global policy uncertainty, declining earnings, and a global economy showing anything but ‘troughing’; it seems JPMorgan’s Asset Management group has decided now is the time to name names and call out the last decade’s so-called “Armageddonists”…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Authored by Michael Cembalest, CIO JPMorgan Private Bank,

    While recessions and bear markets are a fact of life, something peculiar happened after the Global Financial Crisis: the rise of the Armageddonists, which refers to the market-watchers, forecasters and money managers whose apocalyptic comments spread like wildfire in print and online financial news. I understand why: by 2010, investors had experienced two consecutive bear markets, each with equity declines of over 40%. It took several years for equity markets to recover each time, unlike the shallower, faster-recovering bear markets of the 1960’s and 1980’s. The dismal performance of consecutive 2001/2008 bear markets hadn’t been seen in decades, and is only comparable to parts of the Great Depression.

    I also understand that mega-bearish news appeals to human negativity bias, a topic examined by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman in his 2011 book on the brain and human survival instincts, by political scientist Stuart Soroka who has illustrated the inverse relationship between magazine sales and the positivity of a magazine’s cover, and in a 2014 experiment in which a city newspaper lost two thirds of its readers on a day when it deliberately only published positive news. That said, what are the consequences for investors that reacted to dire Armageddonist predictions which have flooded the airwaves and internet since 2010?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We pulled together comments made by well known Armageddonists since 2010, a few of whom are on record as having anticipated the prior bear market and recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We measured the impact on an investor deciding to shift a dollar from equities to diversified government, mortgage-backed and corporate bonds after reading the post-2010 comments. To be clear, this isn’t about whether the Armageddonist at some point became more optimistic. This chart is about the opportunity loss for investors that acted upon seeing their comments at the time. One example: $1 shifted from equities to bonds in 2014 in response to mega-bearish commentary would have underperformed equities by around 40% as the S&P 500, propelled more by earnings growth than by multiple expansion, rolled on.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    [ZH: It seems DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach shares the dubious award for ‘worst’ Armageddonist, with none other than Dr.Doom – Nouriel Roubini]

    One day, of course, Armageddonists will be rewarded with a recession.

    Partly as a consequence of the China-US Trade War, equity outperformance vs bonds reached a peak in early 2018 and has been treading water since; CEO Confidence has plunged to its lowest level since the financial crisis; the US is now in an earnings recession; and 67% of respondents to the Duke CFO Survey believe the US will be in recession by the end of 2020 (despite all of this, institutional investor positioning in equity futures is close to its highest/most bullish level since 2007). I believe that the health of the US consumer, strong labor and housing markets and a modest rebound in manufacturing will prevent a recession from happening in 2020, but I could be wrong. In any case, for investors that reacted to Armageddonist comments, the larger issue is this: the next recession and bear market will have to be quite severe to earn back what was sacrificed along the way. Using rough math, a sustained, multi-year bear market with 35%-45% declines from peak levels would be needed to reverse many of the opportunity losses shown in the chart above.

    How severe will the next bear market be?

    I believe it won’t be as bad as the prior two, due to the following:

    1. a reduction in global economic imbalances,

    2. higher levels of capital and decreased funding risks in US and European banks,

    3. stronger balance sheet fundamentals of US households,

    4. reduced risk in most Emerging Markets due to higher levels of foreign exchange reserves and less reliance on foreign capital,

    5. and the low level of new US equity supply since buybacks and M&A have exceeded new equity issuance for the last five years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What are the mega-bearish counterpoints?

    US equity valuations are well above median, underwriting standards in the leveraged loan market have declined to disturbing levels, and deficits are financing a large part of US growth this late in the cycle. And, as discussed in our October Eye on the Market, there could be a seismic shift in Washington in 2020 that imposes substantial taxes, bans on share repurchases and regulatory costs on tech, energy, healthcare, financials, biotech, wireless, chemicals and more. Too soon to assess in terms of probabilities, but chances of a fundamental re-ordering of the US economy are rising.

    All things considered, I think the next recession and bear market will not be as severe or long-lasting as the worst ones shown above. If that’s the case, it would ratify the approach of money managers that maintained normal exposures to risky assets in diversified portfolios since 2010, even as the business cycle aged and apocalyptic commentary swirled around them.

    *  *  *

    Having said all that, who could have seen this coming?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Of course, we suspect the fact that Michael Cembalest has decided to issue this report, “outing” the Armageddonists, will only fuel the calls for a top in complacency… just remember if greed is good, extreme greed must be awesome for everyone…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: CNN


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 19:05

  • 'The Horowitz Report Is Coming, The Horowitz Report Is Coming' – Lindsay Graham Signals Early Dec. Release
    ‘The Horowitz Report Is Coming, The Horowitz Report Is Coming’ – Lindsay Graham Signals Early Dec. Release

    For over a year, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been ‘investigating the investigators’ – as has become the common parlance – and the last few months have seen growing angst among those on the left about what (and who) his report on FISA abuse and the origins of the Russia investigation may include.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Townhall reports, investigations for the report have been concluded since September and have been reviewed by DOJ for classified information; and today, we get a step closer to finding out as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released a statement confirming the dates for Horowitz’s testimony.

    “I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign,” Graham said.

    Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better.”

    Graham concluded…

    “I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”

    As do many others.

    The timing of Horowitz’ testimony indicates a release for the highly anticipated report during the first week of December – which makes sense given this week’s impeachment circus will suck all the oxygen out of the room and next week is Thanksgiving.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indeed, as James Howard Kunstler pointed out so eloquently earlier today:

    Democrats are pouring it on this week ahead of a post-Thanksgiving cold water deluge of bad news that will detail charges against the progenitors of RussiaGate. The roll-call may be a long one, including many actors whose turpitudes have been publicly and richly documented for many months – Messers, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Halper, Ms. Page, et. al – and, if real justice is on order, not a few figures lurking in the Deep State deep background — John Carlin, Bill Priestap, Dana Boente, Michael Gaeta, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and perhaps even the archangel Barack Obama, just in time for Christmas, too. Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann deserve to be included for what amounted to a blatant, arrantly mendacious malicious prosecution, knowing that they had no case and proceeding anyway for two whole years.

    I hope the roundup will extend to the very latest ploys leading to RussiaGate’s successor subterfuge, UkraineGate, namely the exploits of “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella, his handlers and enablers in Mr. Schiff’s office, and the actions of his accomplice, Michael Atkinson, the current Intelligence Community Inspector General, with obvious conflicts of interests as a major player in the previous RuissiaGate dodge — he was legal counsel to Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who headed the Department of Justice’s National Security Division at the birth of the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” gambit, and before that he was Robert Mueller’s chief of staff at the FBI.

    But, hoping for all those names above to face some perp walks may well be wishful thinking, but for now, we are sure they will be sweating.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, given Graham’s suggested release schedule, that’s just enough time for Comey and Clapper to book their flights to Caracas.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 18:45

  • PG&E Probing "Suspicious" Monetary Claims From Fire Victims, Including A $280 Million Emerald
    PG&E Probing “Suspicious” Monetary Claims From Fire Victims, Including A $280 Million Emerald

    While lawyers tap dance in the background, thinking about the hundreds of thousands of billable hours they are racking up, things at PG&E, which is left dealing with billions worth of damaged goods claims one at a time, are not as optimistic. 

    Among the latest “suspicious” claims the company has come across while sifting through the dragnet of victims is one man who says the company’s Camp Fire wildfire destroyed his 500 pound emerald, worth $280 million. 

    In addition to seeking a claim for the emerald, the man and his wife have submitted four duplicate claims for $4.5 million each, according to PG&E. PG&E is probing this and other “exceptionally large monetary claims, which appear suspicious,” according to Bloomberg.

    The probe is part of a court process that is attempting to determine the company’s potential losses from wildfires caused by its infrastructure. U.S. District Judge James Donato is set to weigh in early this week at a regularly scheduled hearing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the case of the emerald, PG&E is seeking appraisal reports and receipts to back up the claims. The company said in a legal filing:

    “With respect to the claim for the $280 million emerald, the company wants proof the owner made an effort to secure and protect the emerald and documents showing that the emerald was damaged or destroyed.”

    Information from several large claims that total about $370 million will be used to try and figure out whether or not a discount should be applied to false or overvalued claims.

    PG& did not identify the owner of the emerald or name specifics about those submitting dubious claims. A committee representing fire victims argue that the company is spotlighting information about individuals who aren’t part of the proceeding in front of Judge Donato. The committee also says that PG&E’s probing of the claims, in general, is improper. Many victims have been displaced from their homes, have lost family members and are getting psychological treatment, the committee lawyers argued. 

    Committee lawyers representing the victims said in a filing: “Asking these fire victims to produce financial back-up for their claims and be deposed on the details of this backup is unduly burdensome and should not be permitted.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/18/2019 – 18:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 18th November 2019

  • Washington Makes Endless War And Calls It Peace
    Washington Makes Endless War And Calls It Peace

    Authored by Daniel Larison via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    Andrew Bacevich rightly rejects the idea that there was ever a Pax Americana in the Middle East:

    “It took many decades to build a Pax Americana in the Middle East,” X writes. Not true: it took only a handful of hours – the time he invested in writing his essay. The Pax Americana is a figment of X’s imagination.

    Defenders of U.S. hegemony like to make what they think is a flattering comparison between the U.S. and the Roman Empire, but where the Romans made a desert and called it peace the U.S. has gone to war in the desert again and again with no end in sight.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Not only has the U.S. not brought peace, but there is little reason to think that our government is capable of doing so. More to the point, the U.S. has no right to keep meddling in the affairs of these nations. It would also be accurate to say that the more American involvement there has been in the region, the less pax there has been there. There is nowhere else in the world where our foreign policy is as intensely militarized, and it is no accident that it is also where our foreign policy is most destructive. If the U.S. genuinely desired stability and the security of energy supplies, it would not be waging an economic war on Iran, and it wouldn’t be fueling a disgraceful war on Yemen. The author of that piece, William Wechsler, notably has nothing to say about either one of those policies.

    Opponents of U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East make two major claims: that withdrawal would harm U.S. interests and that it would make the region worse off than it already is.

    The second point is wrong but debatable, and the first one depends on an absurdly expansive definition of what U.S. interests are. The piece that Bacevich is answering asserts that “it would be a terrible mistake and deeply harmful to the United States” to withdraw from the region, but the author does not show that current troop levels of more than 50,000 people are necessary or even useful for securing U.S. interests. The U.S. didn’t have and didn’t need a large military presence in the Middle East for the entire Cold War, and it doesn’t need to have one now. Having a military presence in the region has directly contributed to increased threats to U.S. security through terrorism, and it made the Iraq war debacle possible. The greatest harm to U.S. security has come from our ongoing extensive military involvement in this part of the world.

    Neither does the author demonstrate that U.S. foreign policy up until now has actually been doing the job he thinks it has. For instance, he mentions “supporting a delicate balance of power that promotes regional stability and protects our allies,” but looking back over just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign policy in the region there is no evidence that the U.S. has been supporting a balance of power or promoted regional stability. On the contrary, to the extent that there was a balance of power at the start of this century, the U.S. set about destroying it by overthrowing the Iraqi government, and it has further contributed to the destabilization of at least three other countries through direct or indirect involvement in military interventions. The clients that the U.S. has in the Middle East aren’t allies and we aren’t obliged to protect them, but the U.S. hasn’t done a terribly good job of protecting them, either. The U.S. has managed to indulge its clients in reckless and atrocious behavior that has also made them less secure and undermined our own security interests. Support for the war on Yemen is a good example of that. Enabling the Saudi coalition’s war has bolstered Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), devastated and fractured Yemen, and exposed Saudi Arabia to reprisal attacks that it had never suffered before.

    The other major flaw with the Wechsler piece is that he is warning against something that isn’t happening:

    As campaign promises tend to become governing realities for American foreign policy, the prospect of a full U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East now stands before us.

    If only that were true. The U.S. has more troops in the region than it did at the start of this year. There is no sign that those numbers will be reduced anytime soon. Support for the war on Yemen continues, and the president has gone out of his way to keep arming the Saudi coalition. Even in Syria, there will still be an illegal U.S. military presence for the foreseeable future. Full withdrawal is nowhere in sight right now. The U.S. is heading in the opposite direction. The author pretends that withdrawal is in the offing and then urges the next president to “reverse this course,” but there is nothing for the next president to reverse. So why rail against something that hasn’t happened and isn’t likely to occur? This is an old tactic of making the option of withdrawing from the region seem so extreme and dangerous that it has to be rejected out of hand, but these scare tactics are less and less effective as we see the mounting costs of open-ended conflict and deep entanglement in the affairs of other countries.

    The author wants the next administration “to reestablish American leadership in the Middle East, restore deterrence with our adversaries, and begin renewing trust with our partners and allies,” but he has not made a persuasive case that “American leadership” in the region is worth “reestablishing” even if it were possible to get back to the way things were before the Iraq war. Many of the “partners and allies” in question are themselves unreliable and have become liabilities, and many of the adversaries do not really threaten the U.S. Bacevich concludes that there needs to be a radical overhaul of U.S. foreign policy in the region on account of its colossal failures:

    Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X’s illusory Pax is essentially zero.

    There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward, which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.

    Once we acknowledge those errors, the next step is not to fall into the same patterns out of a misguided desire for “leadership” and domination. Instead of chasing after a fantasy of imposing peace in some other part of the world, we need to stop our destabilizing and destructive policies that perpetuate conflict and make new wars more likely.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 23:30

    Tags

  • Meet The Man In Charge Of Building Elon Musk's "Boring" Las Vegas Tunnel
    Meet The Man In Charge Of Building Elon Musk’s “Boring” Las Vegas Tunnel

    So you’ve officially won the contract from Las Vegas to build a “subterranean transit system” by undercutting the bids of established players in the engineering space.

    Now what?

    Well, now comes the hard part: the Boring Company is going to actually have to prove that they have the technology and the talent to take on a large scale commercial project, instead of a test run using a go-kart on skates in 50 feet of tunnel near Tesla headquarters.

    And who better to be in charge of the project than former restaurant owner and Boring Company President Steve Davis, according to Bloomberg. Davis’ former bar, not unlike the Boring Company, was a bit odd. It sold “Ring Pops, kept a Bedazzler on the premises and gave 10% off to anyone who dressed up as Carlton from the TV show Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.”

    And now he’s going to be drilling a hole through Las Vegas. Perfect.

    Now, Davis will be on site on Friday to mark the beginning of tunnel drilling under the Las Vegas convention center. The $48.7 million project is the first, and only, major project so far for the Boring Company. Pit construction and other preliminary work on the project began two months ago.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The plan is for Las Vegas convention center attendees to be able to board Teslas running along a throughway underground and be moved half the distance of the complex in just 1 minute. 

    Mike Wongkaew, who was a Boring Co. engineer until late last year, said of Davis: “He has the ability to inspire people. He also rolls up his sleeves and helps out.”

    Wongkaew said Davis was among those helping the Boring Company finish its Hawthorne test tunnel. He has been called a “sharp engineer” by colleagues. 

    Juan Reyes, former acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration said: “He’s a technical guy. They really count on him to resolve issues.”

    But there are apparently “no shortage of issues” at the Boring Company today. Two major projects – one in Washington and one in Chicago – have both been put on hold. In Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel’s successor, Mayor Lori Lightfoot, called Musk’s promise to build the tunnel without city money “a total fantasy”.

    Additional critics have called into question the safety of the company’s tunnels and its lack of experience with large scale project. But the company believes that it is their new, disruptive thinking that is going to allow it to develop technology to build tunnels “faster and cheaper”.

    Yeah, just like the alien dreadnaught was going to revolutionize auto manufacturing. Now, we’re building cars in a tent. 

    Davis has been working for Musk since 2003, when he was hired at SpaceX. He has two master’s degrees – one in particle physics and the other in aerospace engineering. Being with Musk for almost two decades definitely makes him one of Musk’s longest standing employees. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One SpaceX engineer said of him:  “He’s been working 16 hours a day every day for years. He gets more done than 11 people working together.”

    He has also performed major feats of engineering for Musk. For instance, Musk once assigned him with the task of making a $120,000 part for just $5,000. Davis worked on it for months and figured out a way to make the part for just $3,900. 

    While working for SpaceX, he also decided to get into the frozen yogurt industry:

    At SpaceX, Davis spent a few years working in different locations, including Omelek Island in the Marshall Islands, where the company once had launch facilities, as well as its Southern California headquarters. Then, a little over a decade ago, he moved to Washington to open the company’s D.C. office. There, missing the type of frozen yogurt he’d grown accustomed to in California, he decided to learn to make it himself via trial and error, according to an interview with a local radio station.

    As a side project, he opened his own yogurt store, Mr. Yogato, in the city’s Dupont Circle neighborhood, three months before the first successful launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 1 vehicle in 2008. Mr. Yogato customers who answered trivia questions correctly got 10% off, as did anyone who could stump Davis on a Seinfeld question, according to the “Rules of Yogato” posted on the shop’s website. Those who came dressed as tennis star Bjorn Borg got 25% off.

    Davis also started working on a PhD while at SpaceX, pursuing a degree in economics at George Mason University. There, he wrote his 2010 dissertation at U.S. currency debasement. In the preface to his dissertation, as one does, he noted that he “one day hoped to open a restaurant called ‘Little Yohai,’ perhaps finding inspiration in Morrie Robert Yohai, inventor of the Cheez Doodle.”

    He has since sold his bar in 2015 and sold his yogurt shop for $1, after holding a contest to select the new owner. Davis has also “served as a member of the board of advisers of the Atlas Society,” a group dedicated to exploring the philosophy of Ayn Rand. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 2016, when Musk started Boring Company, he brought Davis on stage with him and joked with him about their plans for using the company’s waste products to sell “Boring Bricks”. Davis seemed to have a good rapport with Musk, which is probably why he has stayed on board with him for so long. 

    But not everyone is enthused about this friendship. Las Vegas’ mayor, Carolyn Goodman, has taken a stance against the project, citing “the company’s track record of completing zero commercial projects so far.”

    But when Davis spoke about the project this spring at a Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority meeting, the group outvoted Goodman and approved the project. An integral part of Davis’ job has been convincing local officials, something he was familiar with at SpaceX, too. 

    Reyes said: “He was always trying to adjust things so the government would ultimately approve it.”

    And now the future of the Boring Company may hinge on it. Other cities that are considering tunnel projects, like San Jose, will be watching closely to see if Davis can pull off the Vegas project without a hitch. 

    Davis said during his presentation with Musk: “Flying cars … they don’t really exist. Tunnels do exist. And are very buildable.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 23:00

  • Trump Trounces Krugman: "He's Been Wrong About Me From The Start"
    Trump Trounces Krugman: “He’s Been Wrong About Me From The Start”

    President Trump has been very active on Twitter recently but time away from impeachment attacks to blast another establishment puppet – The New York Times’ Paul Krugman – slamming the nobel prize winner:

    [Krugman] has been wrong about me from the very beginning. Anyone who has followed his “words of wisdom” has lost a great deal of money. Paul, just concede the game, say I was right, and lets start a brand new game!”

    President Trump’s comments follow David Harsani’s National Review op-ed, exposing Krugman as “a stopped clock who has yet to be right about Trump.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This Thursday, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell told the House Budget Committee that there was “no reason to think, that I can see, that the probability of a downturn is at all elevated.” Not every economic indicator is perfect, but wages are rising (especially on the lower end), unemployment is still at historic lows, and markets are booming.

    You might remember that only a couple of months ago, there was a torrent of stories cautioning us about the imminent downturn. Some of the scary coverage, as Robert Shiller warned, consisted of “self-fulfilling prophecies.” Some seemed almost giddy about the political prospects of a downturn. Others just said what they felt. “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point,” Bill Maher explained at the time. “And by the way, I’m hoping for it because I think one way you get rid of Trump is to crash the economy. So please, bring on the recession.”

    One of the nation’s leading doomsayers has been the New York Times’ perpetually mistaken Paul Krugman, who warned shortly after the 2016 election that Trump’s victory would trigger a global recession “with no end in sight.”

    We could file that under “post-election hysteria,” but as late as April of this year he was still telling crowds that the bond-market signals predicted “a pretty good chance of a recession sometime in the next year or so.” And he has kept this going all year:

    • February 11: Paul Krugman expects a global recession this year, warns “we don’t have an effective response.”

    • August 1: “Why Was Trumponomics a Flop?”

    • August 15: “From Trump Boom to Trump Gloom”

    • September 5: “Trumpism Is Bad for Business”

    • October 3: “Here Comes the Trump Slump”

    • October 24: “The Day the Trump Boom Died”

    A couple of weeks after the Trump Boom expired, CNBC reported that “October job creation comes in at 128,000, easily topping estimates even with GM auto strike.” This cycle has been going on for three years.

    (My favorite Trump-era Krugmanism, though, is when the esteemed economist explains away his bad predictions by claiming that the economy’s successes are really just driven by instances of his own political preferences playing out — “Impeaching Trump Is Good for the Economy,” “The Economics of Donald J. Keynes,” and so on.)

    At some point, of course, doomsayers such as Krugman are going to be right. In the past 60 years the United States has been hit with recessions in 1960–61, 1969–70, 1973–75, 1980, 1981–82, 1990–91, 2001, and 2007–09. History says we’re probably due for another one soon. When it hits, Krugman will blame tax cuts, unfettered capitalist greed, a dearth of regulations — and maybe climate change, or whatever hobbyhorse he’s riding at the time. MSNBC hosts will hail him as a seer.

    Much like most economists, I have no clue what the future holds. But I do know that Barack Obama, who oversaw the slowest recovery in American history, was constantly being given credit for averting disaster by adopting smart policies (read: spending). Years after the bailouts – which is to say years of D.C. gridlock in which the former president, by his own admission, couldn’t enact any of his preferred economic policies – Democrats were still claiming that short-term first-year spending fixes were the impetus for growth.

    There’s a more rational explanation: Washington stopped helping.

    Voters vastly overestimate the role that presidents play in economic growth, to be sure. But Trump-era job creation was a far tougher task, since he was operating with less room for job growth than his predecessor. And considering the (self-inflicted) trade wars, political turmoil, and foreign-policy concerns that have dominated much of his first term, conventional wisdom tells us we should be struggling. Yet it’s clear that we’ve had a pretty resilient economy.

    What has Trump done? The two things Paul Krugman hates most: Regulatory rollbacks and tax cuts. And yet here we are.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 22:30

  • China Quietly Bails Out Another Bank With 620 Billion Yuan In Assets
    China Quietly Bails Out Another Bank With 620 Billion Yuan In Assets

    Late last week, we argued that one could ignore China’s sinking retail sales, industrial production, capital expenditures, record low and declining sub-6% GDP and even its fading monthly credit injections and impotent credit impulse, and instead what matters most for the world’s second biggest economy with the world’s biggest financial system (at around $40 trillion, roughly double that of the US) is the following chart showing the market cap to total assets ratio for the four largest commercial banks in China, which as Saxo Bank found, hit a new all-time low of 5.8% in Q3 as total assets grew an annualized 8% in Q3 while market cap of the four banks declined.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This means that Chinese investors – who happen to know best what is truly going on behind the scenes – are not valuing these new assets as high quality, and the dynamic in China right now is that the current credit expansion is just offsetting the surge in bad loans, whose real amount Beijing has been keeping under wraps ever since the great bank debt for equity swap of 1999, but which we know is far higher the propaganda number of around 1.5% The net effect is zero credit transmission to the real economy in China constraining economic growth, which in turn makes banks especially vulnerable to failure as a result of even modest capital outflows.

    Confirming that there is something fundamentally broken with China’s debt transmission mechanism and that, by implication, Chinese bad loans are soaring, two weeks after we reported that there was a bank run at Henan Yichuan Rural Commercial Bank which brought the bank to the verge of collapse, the WSJ reported that Harbin Bank, a politically-linked midsize Chinese lender based in the capital of northeast Heilongjiang province, became the latest Chinese financial institution to get a state bailout after its key private shareholders were replaced by government investors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Harbin Bank, which is one of the biggest banks in China’s northeast with 622 billion yuan in assets as of June 30, 2019, and trades on Hong Kong’s stock exchange, becomes the fifth bank – after Baoshang Bank , Bank of Jinzhou, Heng Feng Bank, and  Henan Yichuan Rural Commercial Bank  – to be bailed out by the state, and will be 48%-controlled by two government entities after six private shareholders shed their stakes, according to a bank statement issued late on Friday.

    Total consideration for the shares involved came to almost 15 billion yuan, or around $2.1 billion, the bank said, though it described the transactions as transfers rather than stock sales, which is to be expected if the bank was being bailed out instead of actually selling a viable stake.

    As has been the customary case, the bank didn’t provide any reason for the transactions in the statement, and Chinese bank regulators made no comment on the action.

    And, as was the case with at least one previous bank “rescue”, Harbin Bank was connected to a former oligarch who disappeared not that long ago amid allegations of massive fraud. Indeed, as the WSJ reports, the bank is among a handful of financial businesses in China linked to once-powerful tycoon named Xiao Jianhua who in early 2017 disappeared amid a wave of prosecutions of big private investors. Businesses owned by some of those people, including Wu Xiaohui’s Anbang Insurance Group Co., have also since become government-owned.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Xiao Jianhua

    Incidentally, the first of the year’s bailouts of a troubled small lenders was that of Baoshang Bank, which as we reported at the time, was also linked to Xiao. Its government takeover in May sparked a funding crisis for many other small banks in China and helped send Harbin Bank’s shares sharply lower. The stock has fallen more than 16.5% in 2019. Incidentally, when discussing the failed lender, China’s PBOC said that Baoshang was being restructured and that the takeover was designed to “stop bleeding” at the bank and contain risks to the financial sector.

    So why did Harbin Bank fail?

    In its financial report for H1 2019, Harbin Bank cited deteriorating asset quality – read surging bad loans – as well as intensified competition for deposits and higher borrowing costs in money markets as China’s economy slows. Yet, paradoxically, the near-insolvent lender also said it recorded a profit of 2.18 billion yuan, or about $311.1 million, though that was off about 16% because of, drumroll, more-aggressive write-offs of bad debts. Which goes to show that corporate earnings reports in China are as “credible” as all other Chinese economic “data.”

    As for the oligarch behind not one but two bank failures in the country so far this year, Chinese authorities have publicly said nothing about Xiao since he abruptly left Hong Kong and entered mainland China in early 2017. He has made no public comment and can’t be reached.

    Another curious fact: a little over a year ago, Harbin Bank, which in March 2018 had abandoned plans to list its shares in China, announced it would raise over $2 billion in perpetual bonds to replenish its capital after regulators in early 2018 allowed lenders to sell such instruments to bolster their balance sheets. Incidentally, a perpetual bonds is effectively the same thing as equity, but for some bizarre reason sells much better in China where the investing population is apparently stupid enough to be fooled by the clever change in designation. As such, Harbin Bank was the first Chinese lender to announce its intention to sell perpetual bonds to increase its Additional Tier 1 (AT1) capital. We now know what prompted the bank’s rush.

    Harbin Bank’s exiting shareholders are business entities owned by a number of individuals, according to the company’s latest annual report. The biggest holder among them, Heilongjiang Keruan Software Technologies owned a 6.55% stake and is identified in the annual report as the subsidiary of another business primarily owned by two individuals.

    Who are the bank’s new owners?

    Under the transactions disclosed Friday, an entity controlled by Harbin city’s financial bureau, Harbin Economic Development & Investment, will control 29.63%, compared with 19.65% at the end of June. A second, new shareholder will have a 18.55% stake: Heilongjiang Financial Holdings Group Co., which was established in January by the province of Heilongjiang. Combined, these state-owned enterprises would own nearly 50% of the bailed out bank.

    Meanwhile, since the PBOC refuses to admit or acknowledge that it has an unprecedented bad loan problem, and thus nothing can be done to address the underlying cause at the heart of China’s failing bank problem, expect more and ever bigger Chinese bank bailouts until eventually a bank fails and its depositors are impacted, sparking a furious scramble by Chinese depositors across the country to redeem their roughly $27 trillion (190 trillion yuan) in bank deposits, which as a reminder, is more than double the total amount of US commercial bank deposits.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    They are in for an unpleasant surprise.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 22:05

  • Taibbi: Deval Patrick's Candidacy Exposes Democrats' 2020 'Clown Car' Disaster
    Taibbi: Deval Patrick’s Candidacy Exposes Democrats’ 2020 ‘Clown Car’ Disaster

    Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com,

    The entrance of the former Massachusetts governor into the presidential race is more proof the party has no clue where the votes are…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts and newly-resigned executive of Mitt Romney’s private equity firm Bain Capital, has entered the Democratic primary race, which is shaping up to be the biggest ensemble-disaster comedy since Cannonball Run.

    Patrick’s entry comes after news that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put himself on the ballot in Alabama and Arkansas. It also comes amid word from Hillary Clinton that “many, many, many” people are urging her to run in 2020, and whispers in the press that an “anxious Democratic establishment” has been praying for alternate candidacies in a year that had already seen an astonishing 26 different people jump in the race.

    A piece in the New York Times a few weeks ago suggested Democratic insiders, going through a “Maalox moment” as they contemplated possible failure in next year’s general election season, were fantasizing about “white knight” campaigns by Clinton, Patrick, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder (!), or Ohio’s Sherrod Brown.

    The story described “concern” that “party elites” have about the existing field:

    With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race…

    LOL at the non-mention of Bernie Sanders in that passage. If Bernie wins the nomination, “Buttigieg Finishes Encouraging Fourth” is going to be your A1 Times headline.

    Patrick in announcing voiced a similar set of “concerns,” basically saying he’s proud to enter this deep, richly experienced field that sucks just enough to force his emergency entrance:

    “I admire and respect the candidates in the Democratic field. They bring a richness of ideas and experience and a depth of character that makes me proud to be a Democrat. But if the character of the candidates is an issue in every election, this time is about the character of the country.”

    The Times said Patrick’s policy prescriptions place him “closer to the ideological center than to the left.” In another story about Patrick and Bloomberg, the Times explained that both men “believe there is room in the race for a more dynamic candidate who is closer to the political middle than Mr. Biden’s two most prominent challengers, Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders.”

    People like Bloomberg and Patrick seem to believe in the existence of a massive electoral “middle” that wants 15-point plans and meritocratic slogans instead of action. As befits brilliant political strategists, they also seem hyper-concerned about the feelings of the country’s least numerous demographic, the extremely rich. A consistent theme is fear (often described in papers like the Times as “concern”) that the rhetoric of Warren and Sanders might unduly upset wealthy folk.

    “I don’t think that wealth is the problem. I think greed is the problem,” Patrick told CBS This Morning.

    He added that “taxes should go up on the most prosperous and the most fortunate,” but “not as a penalty.”

    What does that mean? Should we impose higher taxes on the rich but include a note from the IRS saying, “It’s not because we don’t love you”?

    Along with an alarmingly high number of press figures, politicians like Patrick seem to be trapped in an “electability” concept that hasn’t made sense since the Reagan-Bush years. Outside of a few spots on the Upper East Side and in Georgetown and L.A., the “center” has been gone a long time.

    From Donald Trump to Sanders to Warren, the politicians attracting the biggest and most enthusiastic responses in recent years have run on furious, throw-the-bums-out themes, for the logical reason that bums by now clearly need throwing out.

    America’s political establishment has created vast inequities not only in the economy, but in criminal justice (where street crime is heavily punished, but white collar crime is not), war (it’s mostly not the sons and daughters of politicians and CEOs getting killed in overseas conflicts), health care (where much of the population lives in fear that getting sick will trigger bankruptcy), debt forgiveness (Wall Street bailout recipients got to write off losses, but people suffering foreclosures and student loan defaults are ruined), and other arenas.

    You can’t capture the widespread discontent over these issues if you’re running on a message that the donor class doesn’t deserve censure for helping create these messes. It’s worse if you actually worked — as Patrick did — for a company like Ameriquest, a poster child for the practices that caused the 2008 financial crisis: using aggressive and/or predatory tactics to push homeowners into new subprime mortgages or mortgage refis, fueling the disastrous financial bubble.

    If we count Bloomberg, Patrick marks the 28th person to run in the 2020 Democratic race. Pundits from the start have hyped a succession of politicians with similar/familiar political profiles, from Beto O’Rourke to Kamala Harris to Buttigieg to Amy Klobuchar to John Delaney, and all have failed to capture public sentiment, for the incredibly obvious reason that voters have tuned out this kind of politician.

    They’ve heard it all before. Every time a long-serving establishment Democrat gets up and offers paeans to “hope” and “unity” and “economic mobility,” all voters hear is blah, blah, blah. They’re not looking for what FiveThirtyEight.com calls a “Goldilocks solution,” i.e. “Buttigieg, but older,” or “Biden, but younger” (or, more to the point in the case of this Bain Capital executive, “Mitt Romney, but black”); they’re looking for something actually different from what they’ve seen before.

    The party’s insiders would have better luck finding a winning general election candidate if they randomly plucked an auto mechanic from Lansing, Michigan, or a nail salon owner from Vegas, or any of a thousand schoolteachers who could use the six months of better-paid work, than they would backing yet another in the seemingly endless parade of corporate-friendly “Goldilocks solutions.” That’s assuming they can’t see past themselves long enough to at least pretend they can support someone with wide support bases like Sanders or Warren.

    If what the Times calls the “Anxious Democratic Establishment” remains stuck in the same doomed, outmoded “centrist” strategy, next year’s general election season will almost certainly be a miserable repeat of 2016. It seems like everyone sees this but the people with the most money to fund challenges to Trump. Watching people like Patrick talk themselves into running into the populist wood-chipper is a cringe-worthy spectacle, like watching a relative who can’t sing at all talk himself into going on The Voice. Can someone tell these people the bad news?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 21:40

    Tags

  • Epstein's Prison Guards Could Face Criminal Charges
    Epstein’s Prison Guards Could Face Criminal Charges

    While the political and financial elites across the globe (and certainly in the UK) are doing everything in their power to bury the Epstein scandal – so to speak-  both literally and metaphorically, CBS reports that such efforts face a hurdle as Federal prosecutors in New York are considering bringing criminal charges against the two correctional officers responsible for guarding Jeffrey Epstein on the night of his death.

    As a reminder, Epstein, who was 66 at the time of his death, was found unresponsive in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The official explanation for Epstein’s death was suicide, although skeptics have suggested that Epstein’s sudden death was all too convenient as it also buried the toxic secrets of countless implicated “luminaries” and Wall Street and Beltway VIPs across all sectors of US life.

    As a reminder, Epstein, who had been charged with sexually abusing a number of underage girls, was placed on suicide watch the month before his death after he was found on his cell floor with bruising on his neck. But multiple sources said that Epstein had been taken off suicide watch after about a week, and placed into a high-security housing unit where he was supposed to be checked on every 30 minutes.

    At the end of October, prominent forensic expert Michael Baden refuted the official narrative, stating at the end of October that Epstein was “strangulated.”

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6099044550001&w=500&h=281

    More recently, a viral meme claiming that “Epstein did not kill himself” has taken America by storm…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … culminating with an interview involving Matt Taibbi and outspoken radio host Joe Rogan, in which the viral phrase “Epstein was died” was born.

    Prosecutors offered the officers the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges, but the officers declined the offer, the source added. And while the CBS source said it was not a plea deal, CNN’s reporting suggested otherwise, noting that “at least one federal prison worker on duty the night before Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his prison cell was offered a plea deal in connection with the multimillionaire’s death.” As CNN elaborated, plea deal negotiations between prosecutors and attorneys indicate forthcoming charges by the Department of Justice relating to Epstein’s death.

    The two prison staff members who are allegedly the target of a criminal probe were guarding the unit where Epstein died by apparent suicide failed to check on him that night for about three hours, even though they were supposed to check on detainees in the special housing unit every 30 minutes.

    Of the two officers who had the responsibility to monitor Epstein, one was not a detention guard but was temporarily reassigned to that post, according to CNN reporting. The guard, a man not identified by officials, had previously been trained as a corrections officer but had moved to another position. Rules at the Federal Bureau of Prisons allow people who work in other prison jobs, such as teachers and cooks, to be trained to fill in for posts usually manned by regular guards.

    The second staff member on Epstein duty was a woman fully trained as a guard, according to the person briefed on the matter.  Both guards were working overtime shifts, but it’s unclear whether that was mandatory.

    As questions about how such a high-profile prisoner could have died on the correctional center’s watch, both the FBI and the Justice Department’s inspector general investigating the death.

    Meanwhile, as reported earlier, in the latest scandal to emerge from Epstein’s death – and life – the attempt by the UK’s Prince Andrew – the second son of Queen Elizabeth II – to explain away his friendship with the pedophile financier in a high-profile TV interview “degenerated into a farce“, which as Bloomberg notes, threatens to be the British royal family’s biggest public relations disaster since its handling of the death of Princess Diana in 1997.

    It is so bad, in fact, that Prince Andrew’s PR Adviser Jason Stein resigned over his catastrophic interview:

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

    So yes, some embarrassment for the Queen and her immediate circle, but will there be any long-term consequences? Hardly: we are confident the royal family will spend enough PR money to put this scandal to bed in the coming days and weeks, meanwhile all those people whose secrets could have been exposed had Epstein “talked” will be delighted that their skeletons will remain forever in the closet with Epstein’s murder suicide, because whoever ordered the Epstein hit was hardly dumb enough to leave any “fingerprints.”

    As such, any criminal probe into Epstein’s guards will, sadly, end with them.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 21:15

    Tags

  • The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding. Here's Why No One's Talking About It
    The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding. Here’s Why No One’s Talking About It

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is now hemorrhaging evidence that the US and its allies deceived the world once again about yet another military intervention, which should be a front-page story all over the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet if you looked at American news media headlines you’d think the only thing that matters right now is indulging the childish fantasy that Donald Trump might somehow magically be removed from office via supermajority consensus in a majority-Republican Senate.

    CounterPunch has published an actual bombshell of a report by journalist Jonathan Steele containing many revelations about the OPCW scandal which were previously unknown to the public. Steele is an award-winning reporter who worked as a senior foreign correspondent for The Guardian back before that outlet was purged of all critical thinkers on western imperialism; he first waded into the OPCW controversy last month with a statement made on the BBC revealing the existence of a second whistleblower on the organisation’s investigation into an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria.

    If you haven’t been following this story you can click here for a timeline of events to fully appreciate the significance of these new revelations about the Douma incident, but just to quickly recap, in April of last year reports surfaced that dozens of civilians had been killed in that city by chemical weapons used by the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad. This immediately drew skepticism from people who’ve been paying attention to the narrative manipulation campaign against Syria, since Assad had already won the battle for Douma and had no strategic reason to employ banned weapons there knowing that there would be a military strike in retaliation from western powers. True to form, a few days later the US, France and the UK launched airstrikes on the Syrian government.

    The OPCW released its final report on Douma in March of this year, but that report has been contradicted by two separate whistleblowers from the Douma investigation. The first surfaced in May of this year with a leaked Engineering Assessment claiming the chlorine cylinders found at the crime scene were unlikely to have been dropped from the air, and that it was far more likely that they were manually placed there, i.e. staged, by the occupying opposition forces in Douma. The second whistleblower came forward last month with a day-long presentation in Brussels before a panel of experts assembled by the whistleblowing defense group Courage Foundation, the findings of which were published by WikiLeaks.

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

    This new report by Steele focuses on information provided to him by the second whistleblower, who is going by the pseudonym “Alex” out of fear for his safety. The information provided by Alex has turned out to be far more incendiary even than the leaked Engineering Assessment. Here are seven major highlights (hyperlinks go to the relevant article text they reference):

    1- US government officials attempted to pressure OPCW investigators into believing that the Assad government was responsible for the Douma incident. The officials were placed in the same room as the investigators by the OPCW’s then-cabinet chief Bob Fairweather, which the investigators of course felt was a grossly inappropriate breach of the OPCW’s commitment to impartiality. For the record the US government already has a known history of bullying the OPCW, an ostensibly independent and international body, to force it to allow the advancement of pre-existing regime change agendas.

    2- Alex reports that internal dissent on the OPCW’s official publications on the Douma incident was far more ubiquitous than previously knownsaying “Most of the Douma team felt the two reports on the incident, the Interim Report and the Final Report, were scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent.”

    3- All but one member of the team agreed with the Engineering Assessment that it was far more likely that the chlorine cylinders were manually placed on the scene by people on the ground.

    4- Ian Henderson, the South African ballistics expert whose name was signed on the leaked Engineering Assessment, seems to have been responsible for leaking it. The identity of the leaker was not previously known to the public.

    5- Investigators experienced pressures against saying anything about their mounting findings that no chemical attack occurred, with Alex calling it “the elephant in the room which no-one dared mention explicitly”.

    6- The OPCW’s Final Report on the Douma incident explicitly claimed the investigation found “reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place. This toxic chemical contained reactive chlorine. The toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.” Yet according to Alex the levels of chlorinated organic chemicals found on the scene “were no higher than you would expect in any household environment” and were in fact “much lower than what would be expected in environmental samples”, comparable to or even lower than the World Health Organisation’s recommended chlorine levels for drinking water. This extremely crucial fact was actively and repeatedly omitted from the OPCW’s public reporting in a way Alex describes as “deliberate and irregular”.

    7- Steele mentioned last month that he’d unsuccessfully reached out to the OPCW for comment on the second OPCW whistleblower’s revelations, and in his new article he confirms that the organisation is still dodging him, with both Fairweather and the OPCW’s media office refusing to respond. La Repubblica’s Stefania Maurizi has also been reporting that the OPCW is dodging the press on this important matter. The OPCW did respond to press inquiries after the first whistleblower surfaced in May, but it appears that someone has given the order to cease doing so with the claims of this second whistleblower.

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

    If there were any correlation between newsworthiness and actual news coverage, the OPCW scandal would be making front-page international headlines today. Instead, the mounting evidence that the US and its allies committed a war crime based on false information and that a supposedly independent watchdog organisation helped them cover it up barely registers. Why is that?

    If you ask Syria narrative managers like The Guardian’s George Monbiot or The Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan, this isn’t a big story because even if Assad wasn’t responsible for the Douma incident, it doesn’t matter because he’s still a very bad man. But this is an extremely intellectually dishonest obfuscation on their part, because this has nothing to do with whether or not Bashar al-Assad is a nice person. The OPCW covering up its findings exculpating the Syrian government on Douma wouldn’t be significant because it would mean that Assad is a good person, it would be significant because it would mean the US deceived the world about yet another military intervention. And it would make it much harder for the US to manufacture public support for other military interventions in the future.

    Which is of course the real reason the political/media class is ignoring the OPCW scandal. Military violence is the glue that holds the US-centralized empire together, which means it is of utmost strategic importance that that empire retain the ability to manufacture consent for military violence going forward. Because plutocrat-controlled news media outlets are set up in such a way that their employees know their careers depend on protecting the empire upon which the plutocratic class is built, the OPCW scandal is an obvious no-go for anyone who wishes to remain in the business.

    The only way this story will get mainstream coverage is if it goes viral without the assistance of the mainstream media, at which point the propagandists will be forced to report on it to save face and begin the near-impossible task of trying to regain control of the narrative. This will only happen if enough of us work together to shove the OPCW scandal into mainstream attention. I think this would end up being a very good thing for the world.

    *  *  *

    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

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 20:50

    Tags

  • Bannon Wanted Eric Ciaramella Kicked Off National Security Council Amid Concerns Over Leaks
    Bannon Wanted Eric Ciaramella Kicked Off National Security Council Amid Concerns Over Leaks

    Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in a Friday interview that in 2017, he was involved in an effort to remove alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella from the National Security Council over concerns about leaks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “When I was in the White House there was a number of people in the National Security Council — the named individual eventually got let go, I believe because people were suspicious, not me, but other people around him were suspicious about his leaking, and that’s why he was let go,” Bannon told VICE in an interview which published Friday. 

    Bannon served in the White House until August 2017, while Ciaramella – who became former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster’s personal aide in June 2017, was called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month. 

    The whistleblower, who is reported to be a CIA analyst, filed a complaint on Aug. 12 accusing President Donald Trump of abusing his office in his dealings with Ukraine.

    Bannon said he does not believe that the whistleblower needs to be identified publicly, but he did confirm his involvement in efforts to remove an individual now rumored to be the whistleblower from the NSC.

    “I don’t think the individual naming of the whistleblower is important, although there was a story in The Washington Times … that tied me to the efforts to get, at least, the gentleman who was named out of the National Security Council,” said Bannon, who left the White House on Aug. 18, 2017.

    Is that true?” a VICE reporter asked Bannon.

    The individual that was named, absolutely true,” he replied. –Daily Caller

    Watch:


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 20:25

  • Here's The Real Reason Why Hong Kong Authorities Are Desperate To Regain Control Of University
    Here’s The Real Reason Why Hong Kong Authorities Are Desperate To Regain Control Of University

    The last few days have seen scenes of utter carnage appearing on social media round the world as Hong Kong authorities (with the ‘generous support’ of the PLA) have fought with students at various universities.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) was apparently the main focus of the police, and became a literal battleground.

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

    Why?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As The Epoch Times’ Tang Jingyuan points out, the answer may be simpler (and more ominous) than many suspect. Many CUHK students suspect that the real goal of the police is to control the internet, as Hong Kong’s internet center which handles 99 percent of the city’s internet traffic is located inside the CUHK campus.

    The police fired multiple rounds of tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds and a water cannon on Nov. 12. Students retaliated by throwing bricks and petrol bombs at the police. At least 60 students were injured, several were hit in the head. A reporter at the scene was also hit by rubber bullets in the head and lost consciousness, according to local media.

    Even CUHK Vice Chancellor Rocky Tuan, who tried to negotiate with the police as a peacemaker, was among those affected by tear gas.

    Many are wondering why the Hong Kong police focused on CUHK when almost all universities in Hong Kong are involved in anti-government protests. What’s more, the police seemed to be very determined to take control of the campus.

    Is there anything unique and special about CUHK? The answer is yes. CUHK is the hosting university of Hong Kong Internet eXchange (HKIX)—the internet exchange center of Hong Kong.

    HKIX is a cooperative project initiated by the Information Technology Services Centre of CUHK, providing service free of charge. It is now operated by HKIX Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the CUHK Foundation.

    The function of HKIX is to connect internet service providers (ISPs) in Hong Kong so that intra-Hong Kong traffic can be exchanged locally without routing through the United States or any other country. About 99 percent of Hong Kong’s internet traffic goes through the center. According to Cloudflare, HKIX is the largest internet exchange point in Asia.

    Many CUHK students suspect that the police is actually going after HKIX, because taking control of HKIX means Beijing can either shut down the internet or monitor internet communications.

    Based on the current situation, Hong Kong authorities are more likely to control the internet than shutting it down. In theory, every single message going through the HKIX center can be intercepted and monitored if the police gain access to the center.

    Needless to say, the Chinese communist regime and their Hong Kong puppet rulers indeed have the motivation to control and monitor the internet. For China’s top leaders, quickly quelling the protest in Hong Kong is now a number one political task, with a higher priority than the U.S.-China trade negotiations.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 20:00

  • Fukushima Will Be Reincarnated As A $2.7 Billion Wind And Solar Energy Hub
    Fukushima Will Be Reincarnated As A $2.7 Billion Wind And Solar Energy Hub

    Almost nine years after the century’s worst nuclear crisis – which by some counts has eclipsed Chernobyl in total radioactive emissions – nearly a thousand storage tanks are scattered across the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, holding a staggering 1.1 million tons of treated water used to keep its melted reactor cores cool while they rust in the sun.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Storage tanks containing treated water surround the six reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Feb. 5. | Photo: Tokyo Press

    Plant manager Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., or Tepco, plans to build more of the gigantic tanks to hold another 0.27 million tons, which is roughly the equivalent of 108 Olympic-size swimming pools. The new tanks are expected reach full capacity in four or five years. Each tank takes seven to 10 days to fill and holds between 1,000 to 1,200 tons of liquid, Tepco officials told reporters during a tour in February organized by the Japan National Press Club.

    In March 2011, Fukushima No. 1 suffered three core meltdowns triggered by tsunami following the Great East Japan Earthquake, but the situation with the tanks indicates that Tepco has yet to get the facility under control.

    “Space isn’t a big issue at this point in time, but five or 10 years from now, after we’ve started removing the melted fuel debris, we’re going to need facilities to store and preserve it,” Akira Ono, president of Fukushima No. 1 Decontamination and Decommissioning Engineering Co., a Tepco unit overseeing the decommissioning process, said at a news conference in January.

    The water issue is eating up both space and resources, but a solution is unlikely to emerge anytime soon.

    In November 2018, the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report that said the physical constraints of the site “leave little room for additional tanks” beyond what Tepco has allocated. The IAEA report went on to say it believes storing tainted water in “above ground tanks . . . can only be a temporary measure while a more sustainable solution is needed” and a “decision on the disposition path should be taken urgently.”

    Worse, beyond 2020 Tepco has not allocated any additional space for holding treated water on the site and has no plans to do so at this time as a viable long-term sustainability plan remains elusive. The utility said the tanks will likely become a headache if they remain at the plant. “At that point, we may need to rethink how we’re using the space,” Ono said.

    Yet even though Japan has failed to propose any credible, long-term plan of how to dispose of the aftermath of the 2011 nuclear power plant catastrophe, it is already looking beyond that mere “triviality”, and as the Nikkei reports, Japan’s prefecture of Fukushima, which was devastated during the 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster, is looking to transform itself into a renewable energy hub.

    A plan is under way to develop 11 solar power plants and 10 wind power plants in the prefecture, on farmlands that cannot be cultivated anymore due to radioactive fallout from the 2011 disaster, as well as on mountainous areas from where population outflows continue.

    The total cost is expected to be in the ballpark of 300 billion yen, or $2.75 billion, until the fiscal year ending in March 2024.

    The government-owned Development Bank of Japan and private lender Mizuho Bank are among a group of financiers that have prepared a line of credit to support part of the construction cost. Ultimately, we are confident that the Bank of Japan will be called in to monetize the “green new debt.”

    In theory, the maximum power output from the new hub is estimated to be about 600 megawatts, or roughly two-thirds of a nuclear power plant. The produced electricity will be sent to the Tokyo metropolitan area which was impacted by the Fukushima 1 explosion.

    The plan also envisions the construction of an 80-km wide grid within Fukushima to connect the generated power with the power transmission network of Tokyo Electric Power Co. That part of the project is expected to cost 29 billion yen.

    And while we applaud Japan’s vision, we wonder if instead of spending billions on its own version of a “green new deal”, the money wouldn’t be better spent on at least coming up with some plan that at least ensures that Fukushima won’t be the source of an unprecedented leak of radioactivity into the ocean once the current plan for containing the fallout is no longer feasible, especially since the 2020 Tokyo summer Olympics are scheduled to take place a mere 240 kilometers from the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 19:30

  • Bolivia Proves That Latin America Cannot Exit The American Empire, PCR
    Bolivia Proves That Latin America Cannot Exit The American Empire, PCR

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Update: Racist statements come out of the mouth of Bolivia’s self-declared president:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Jeanine Anez, one of the Bolivian Spanish elite, has declared herself the President of Bolivia. She is one of the elite allied with Washington who accused Evo Morales of rigging his reelection. But the CIA’s Bolivian lackeys who forced Morales to resign his presidency don’t bother with elections. They just declare themselves president like Juan Guaido, the CIA creep in Venezuela, who hoped to unseat Maduro, the elected president, by declaring himself president. Neither Anez nor Guaido ran for the office. They just self-appointed themselves president. The organization of American States, a CIA front organization, accepted the unelected presidents as rightful rulers. President Trump declared the CIA coup to be an increase in freedom and democracy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Trump approves of the attempted coup against Venezuela’s Maduro and the successful coup against Bolivia’s Morales, how can he complain about the CIA/DNC ongoing coup against him?

    Live by the sword and die by the sword.

    The whores that constitute the Western “media” pretend that self-declared “presidents” are the real presidents, and those elected by the people are not. Every Latin American election that does not elect Washington’s candidate is reported by the Western presstitutes as a “disputed election.” It doesn’t matter if the winning candidate gets 85% of the votes. As he is the wrong candidate from Washington’s standpoint, his election is disputed and illegitimate.

    Washington paid the corrupt Bolivian military to unseat Morales, the elected president. This has always been the way Washington has ruled the entirety of Latin America. Buy the corrupt military. They will prostitute their wives for money.

    In Latin America everyone is accustomed to being bought. Only Cuba and Venezuela and perhaps Nicaguara have avoided this subservience to Washington. With the pressures on them mounting, how long these three progressive regimes can hold out against Washington remains to be seen. I wouldn’t bet my life on their survival as independent countries. Even Russia and China are threatened by regime change, and both governments seem to be in self-denial about it.

    It is a mystery why any Latin American country or any country that hopes to be independent would permit any US presence in the country. US presence in a Latin American country or any country precludes any independence on the part of the country’s government. I suppose it is the money.

    Latin Americans would rather have Washington’s money than their independence.

    In order to have an American presence in Russia, the Russian government accepts all sorts of humiliations. China is the same. Look at what Washington has done to China in Hong Kong. It is extraordinary that the Chinese government was so insouciant that China set itself up for this embarrassment.

    Russia’s sizeable investments in Bolivia will now be lost. With the Spanish elite put back in control by the CIA, Russia’s investments will be appropriated by US firms. One wonders why Russia didn’t do more to protect Morales, the legitimate President. If Putin had sent Morales a regiment of Russian troops, the Bolivian military would have stood down, and democracy, instead of American Imperialism, would still exist in Bolivia.

    What has happened everywhere in the world is that nothing is any longer important but money. Therefore, everything is sacrificed for money. There is no shame, no honor, no integrity, no truth, no justice.

    Maybe the biblical prophesies are true, and Armageddon is our future. Who can say we don’t deserve it.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 19:10

    Tags

  • National Home Bidding-War Rate Collapses To Decade Low
    National Home Bidding-War Rate Collapses To Decade Low

    A new Redfin report specifies that only 10% of all offers written by Redfin agents on behalf of their homebuying clients faced a bidding war in October, down from 39% the same time last year and now at a 10-year low. Not even a plunge in mortgage rates this year could attract new buyers.

    Three of the top metropolitan area for bidding wars in October were located in California — San Francisco (34.8%), San Jose (20.5%), and San Diego (15.6%). On the East Coast, most of the bidding wars across major cities were non-existent, except for Philadelphia (13.8%).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The rate of bidding wars across major metro areas in California have collapsed in the last 12 to 16 months.

    For example, 50% to 85% of all Redfin transactions in San Francisco from 2017 through 2Q18 faced fierce competition among buyers. But as soon as summer rolled around, demand plunged, and so did the bids, as the bidding war rate crashed to near zero by 1Q19 — but has since bounced back to 34.8% in October.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    During the same period, the national bidding war rate plummeted, now making a new 10-year low at 10.1% last month.

    Seattle’s bidding war among homebuyers was just 8.8% of all transactions in October, well below the 10.1% national average, and also at a 10-year low.

    Homebuyers in Seattle know that in the current market, they don’t necessarily have to go through the emotional heartburn that comes with bidding wars,” said Seattle Redfin agent Jessie Boucher.

    “Even though there aren’t a ton of homes for sale right now, buyers are able to preserve their contingencies and maybe even get a great deal,” Boucher said.

    Redfin’s report is a warning that homebuyers are beginning to recognize a possible housing market top.

    Many homebuyers don’t want to pay top dollar for homes that have seen rapid price inflation over the last eight or so years. Also, home prices have risen faster than wages over the same period, so it’s possible that a structural high as been put in — one where the average American can no longer afford a home, hence why fierce bidding has disappeared across the country.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 18:45

  • Hedge Fund: It Is Astonishing That MSCI And Bloomberg/Barclays Index Force Global Pensioners To Fund China's Communist Party
    Hedge Fund: It Is Astonishing That MSCI And Bloomberg/Barclays Index Force Global Pensioners To Fund China’s Communist Party

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “They can no longer get their money out,” said the investor, a builder of global institutional portfolios.

    “Allocators who made private equity investments in mainland China over the past 5-10yrs are now trapped,” he continued. “Not metaphorically trapped – they’re literally not permitted to move cash proceeds out of China as those investments are sold. The problem is widespread and the sums so large that we now have internal people focused on helping these allocators hedge the exchange rate risk.”

    A worse fate than having your capital simply imprisoned in a foreign country, is having it locked-up and then devalued while you plot an escape.

    “As investments mature and private equity managers distribute renminbi, they now ask clients who cannot get that money out of China to re-invest in their latest funds.” But even as the globe’s most sophisticated institutional investors find their capital quietly held hostage by Beijing, passive retail retirement savings is flowing into Chinese stocks and bonds at an accelerating pace.

    In March 2019, MSCI quadrupled the share of Chinese onshore equities in their indexes. The increase is estimated to force between $80bln-$125bln of overseas savings into Chinese onshore stocks. MSCI left room to go further – to get to their full weighting, another $160bln-$250bln of passive equity flows will move to Beijing. And the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index introduced a 6% weighting to China’s $13trln domestic bond market for the first time this March. An estimated $125bln-$150bln of inflows followed.

    If other bond index providers follow Bloomberg/Barclays, an additional $125bln-$150bln will race in.

    After decades of ever rising global capital flows, it is easy to forget that capital enters and exits nations only with the express permission of those in power.

    “In the midst of rising East/West conflict and knowing that institutional investors are struggling to get their money out, it is astonishing that MSCI and Bloomberg/Barclays index boards have forced global pensioners to fund the Party.”

    * * *

    As an aside, we at ZH are quite confident that Kyle Bass – and Trump too, once the trade war theater finally implodes – will agree with all of the above.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 18:20

  • Greatest Economy Ever: Small Businesses Forced To Use GoFundMe To Stay Solvent
    Greatest Economy Ever: Small Businesses Forced To Use GoFundMe To Stay Solvent

    While most people think of GoFundMe as a way to raise money for medical debt, funeral costs or small personal items, things have gone so well for our “greatest economy ever” that it is now being used as a tool by small businesses to raise cash. 

    Struggling businesses are now using the site, ranging from comic book stores to drive-in movie theaters, according to the Wall Street Journal. Small businesses have opened campaigns across 19 countries.

    GoFundMe’s Chief Executive Rob Solomon said: “These independent businesses become pillars in a community, and when they can’t stay open, the communities really rally.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Books of Wonder

    One company, Books of Wonder in Manhattan has raised $23,000 toward a $250,000 goal for moving expenses. Its owner, Peter Glassman, says he needs the money to move the store from 18th Street to a more affordable and high trafficked space in the Flatiron District. He has struggled to pay his $600,000 annual lease, he said. A previous location of his store served as the inspiration for the children’s bookshop in the movie “You’ve Got Mail”. 

    In 2012, Glassman raised $100,000 using Indiegogo to keep his doors open. 

    He said of his customers and donors: “They understand that the things that have gone wrong for us are things beyond our control. The attitude is, ‘It’s a miracle you’re still here.’”

    On GoFundMe, customers can cash out everything they raise, regardless of whether or not they hit their goal. The website charges a 2.9% free. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nicky Perry/WSJ

    Jessica Walker, president and chief executive of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, said:

    “Small and midlevel independent businesses are squeezed by rising rents, minimum-wage increases and mandatory sick leave. Crowdfunding can help fill the gap.”

    She continued: “If a business is struggling, it’s much harder to get a bank loan. It’s most helpful to people, such as women and people of color, who don’t necessarily have access to a ton of wealth within their networks or an abundance of angel investors waiting in the wings.”

    Nicky Perry, who owns a British grocery, the restaurant Tea & Sympathy and the fish-and-chip shop A Salt & Battery in Greenwich Village, has a similar story. She started a GoFundMe to raise $100,000 and has raised about $52,000 so far. 

    She commented: “We just couldn’t pay the rent. The rent is so astronomical.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tea and Sympathy/WSJ

    She has already cut costs by changing payroll companies, reducing headcount and redoing its menu. She says she would consider turning to GoFundMe again in the future, should she need it. Reaction to her fundraiser has been “overwhelmingly positive”, she said.

    Perry said: “We couldn’t believe it. I’ve had little old ladies on two different occasions waiting for me outside on my bench to give me $50 checks.”

    Bruce Bachenheimer, a professor at the Lubin School of Business at Pace University, said that the GoFundMe campaigns provide more than just money – they provide reassurance. 

    After a successful campaign, owners may say “‘I should hang on, I should keep going,’” Bachenheimer concluded.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 17:55

  • Social Media Censorship Reaches New Heights As Twitter Permanently Bans Dissent
    Social Media Censorship Reaches New Heights As Twitter Permanently Bans Dissent

    Mnar Muhawesh, founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, speaks with journalist Daniel McAdams about being permanently banned from Twitter, social media censorship and more.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s an open secret. The deep state is working hand in hand with Silicon Valley social media giants like Twitter, Facebook and Google to control the flow of information. That includes suppressing, censoring and sometimes outright purging dissenting voices – all under the guise of fighting fake news and Russian propaganda.

    Most recently, it was revealed that Twitter’s senior editorial executive for Europe, the Middle East and Africa is an active officer in the British Army’s 77th Brigade, a unit dedicated to online warfare and psychological operations.

    In other words: he specializes in disseminating propaganda.

    The news left many wondering how a member of the British Armed Forces secured such an influential job in the media.

    The bombshell that one of the world’s most influential social networks is controlled in part by an active psychological warfare officer was not covered at all in the New York TimesCNNCNBCMSNBC or Fox News, who appear to have found the news unremarkable.

    But for those paying attention and for those who have been following ’MintPress News’ extensive coverage of social media censorship, this revelation was merely another example of the increasing closeness between the deep state and the fourth estate.

    Amazon owner, and world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos was paid $600 million by the CIA to develop software and media for the agency, that’s more than twice as much as Bezos bought the Washington Post for, and a move media critics warn spells the end of journalistic independence for the Post.

    Meanwhile, Google has a very close relationship with the State Department, its former CEO Eric Schmidt’s book on technological imperialism was heartily endorsed by deep state warmongers like Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair.

    In their book titled, The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business, Eric Schmidt and fellow Google executive Jared Cohen wrote:

    What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century…technology and cyber-security companies [like Google] will be to the twenty-first.”

    Another social media giant partnering with the military-industrial complex is Facebook. The California-based company announced last year it was working closely with the neoconservative think tank, The Atlantic Council, which is largely funded by Saudi Arabia, Israel and weapons manufacturers to supposedly fight foreign “fake news.”

    The Atlantic Council is a NATO offshoot and its board of directors reads like a rogue’s gallery of warmongers, including the notorious Henry Kissinger, Bush-era hawks like Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, James Baker, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security and author of the PATRIOT Act, Michael Chertoff, a number of former Army Generals including David Petraeus and Wesley Clark and former heads of the CIA Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell.

    39 percent of Americans, and similar numbers of people in other countries, get their news from Facebook, so when an organization like the Atlantic Council is controlling what the world sees in their Facebook news feeds, it can only be described as state censorship on a global level.

    After working with the council, Facebook immediately began banning and removing accounts linked to media in official enemy states like Iran, Russia and Venezuela, ensuring the world would not be exposed to competing ideas and purging dissident voices under the guise of fighting “fake news” and “Russian bots.”

    Meanwhile, the social media platform has been partnering with the U.S. and Israeli governments to silence Palestinian voices that show the reality of life under Israeli apartheid and occupation. The Israeli Justice Minister proudly revealed that Facebook complied with 95 percent of Israeli government requests to delete Palestinian pages. At the same time, Google deleted dozens of YouTube and blog accounts supposedly connected to the government of Iran.

    In the last week alone, Twitter has purged several Palestinian news pages, including Quds News Network — without warning or explanation.

    Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote,

    This alarming act of censorship is another indication of the complicity of major social media firms in Israel’s efforts to suppress news and information about its abuses of Palestinian rights.”

    Alternative voices not welcome

    The vast online purge of alternative voices has also been directed at internal “enemies.”

    Publishers like Julian Assange and whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning are still being held in solitary confinement in conditions that international bodies and human rights groups call torture, for their crime of revealing the extent of the global surveillance network and the control over the media that Western governments have built.

    As attempts to re-tighten the state and corporate grip over our means of communication increases, high-quality alternative media are being hit the hardest, as algorithm changes from the media monoliths have deranked, demoted, deleted and disincentivized outlets that question official narratives, leading to huge falls in traffic and revenue.

    The message from social media giants is clear: independent and alternative voices are not welcome.

    One causality in this propaganda war is Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a public advocacy group that argues that a non-interventionist foreign policy is crucial to securing a prosperous society at home. McAdams served as Senator Paul’s foreign affairs advisor between 2001 and 2012. Before that, he was a journalist and editor for the Budapest Sun and a human rights monitor across Eastern Europe.

    McAdams, who spent much of his time on Twitter calling out the war machine supported by both parties, was recently permanently banned from the platform for so-called “hateful conduct.” His crime? Challenging Fox News anchor Sean Hannity over his hour-long segment claiming to be against the “deep state,” while simultaneously wearing a CIA lapel pin. In the exchange, McAdams called Hannity “retarded,” claiming he was becoming stupider every time he watched him.

    Yes, despite that word and its derivatives having been used on Twitter over ten times in the previous minute, and often much more aggressively than McAdams used it – only McAdams fell victim to Twitter’s ban hammer. Something didn’t make sense about this ban. One only needs to read the replies under any of President Trump’s tweets to see far more hateful speech than what McAdams displayed to suspect foul play.

    I spoke with McAdams about the ban and began by asking him if he accepts the premise of the ban, or if he believes something else was afoot.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 17:30

    Tags

  • Baltimore State's Attorney: "Over-Militarization Of Police Departments" Biggest Threat To Civil Rights
    Baltimore State’s Attorney: “Over-Militarization Of Police Departments” Biggest Threat To Civil Rights

    Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby was quoted at the University of Baltimore Law’s 400 Years: Slavery and the Criminal Justice System conference in saying one of the most significant civil rights issues facing African Americans in Baltimore City is the “flawed” criminal justice system that has kept many in a perpetual state of mass incarceration and economic oppression, reported The Baltimore Sun.

    “Black people are six times more likely to be arrested and become a part of the criminal justice system [than] whites,” Mosby said at the two-day conference on Saturday.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mosby blamed the “over-militarization of police departments” in inner cities and unfair laws as a significant contributor to the economic disparities affecting African American communities not just in Baltimore but in major cities across the country.

    “You have an over-militarization of police departments all across the country, racially unjust application of laws against poor black and brown people, [and] collateral consequences of these convictions that have kept black and brown people and communities [as] second-class citizens,” she said.

    Other speakers shared similar views at the conference, such as defense attorneys, law students, academics, community leaders, and city residents. 

    Mosby said the civil rights of African Americans in the poorest Baltimore City neighborhoods are being threatened by city police officers who are enforcing racist laws. Mass incarceration in the city has created limited economic mobility for black youth, she added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    She said her decision to stop prosecuting marijuana possessions is a new direction for the criminal justice system that would help to address racial inequities built into the system that has led to the mass oppression of low-income communities. 

    Mosby’s five years of laissez-faire attitude on crime in Baltimore City has coincided with five-years of homicides climbing over 300 or more per year. 

    David Fakunle, the acting chairman of the Maryland Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, was recently quoted by The Sun as saying there needs to be a significant overhaul of the city’s criminal justice system that is disproportionately affecting African Americans. 

    Fakunle was recently heard at a separate conference in saying, “Respect my existence, or expect my resistance.” 

    And referring to Fakunle’s comments, Law Enforcement Today said, “Hopefully citizens don’t take those words out of context or use them to the extreme while dealing with police encounters, as resistance to members of law enforcement is dangerous for both the officers and the subject.”

    There’s no question that Baltimore’s criminal justice system needs a drastic overhaul, and it certainly seems that the city is nowhere close in determining which reforms will be the best solutions to end mass incarcerations that could one day liberate hundreds of thousands out of poverty. 

    In the meantime, Baltimore City will continue its death spiral until meaningful reform is seen. It could be decades before the real change arrives.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 17:00

  • Rubino: "I Don't See How We Can Go On Much Longer"
    Rubino: “I Don’t See How We Can Go On Much Longer”

    Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

    Financial writer and book author John Rubino says he can see the end of the economic expansion fueled by massive debt creation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rubino explains, “Every sector of the U.S. economy is so over indebted I don’t see how we go on much longer…”

    “The Fed is desperately trying to prolong this thing. We are running trillion dollar deficits now, and what that is for is to keep the system from falling apart. We are 11 years into an expansion, a record. This is the longest bull market in history, and this is the longest economic expansion in history…

    These guys don’t know exactly what’s going to happen in the next recession, but they are afraid that the system is so highly leveraged that even a garden variety three quarters of a percent of negative growth and a garden variety of 20 % drop in stock prices might be fatal. 

    The system might not be able to handle that because it would cause so much damage and there are so many different places that can blow up that the system would spin out of control. We would get 2008-2009 again but on steroids because the numbers are so much bigger this time around. So, they want to avoid that at all costs.”

    Rubino points out, “Fear is the enemy in a fiat currency system…”

    “Everything is based on our assumption that the guys in charge know what they are doing and that the confidence in them is good. You take that away, and they let us see them sweat, and it’s over. There is no real bottom for the dollar, euro or the yen. Their intrinsic value is zero. When the economic players out there in the global financial system realize that the central banks of the world are out of ammo, and nothing these guys do is going to fix our problem, then all hell breaks loose…

    What worries me about today’s world is that everything falls apart all at once, and there is no way to fix what went wrong…

    We have a lot of examples of governments doing crazy things when everything falls apart.”

    In closing, Rubino points out riots and protests around the world, such as in South America and Europe. Rubino says,

    This is happening largely because of financial mismanagement… They see a corrupt elite siphoning off all the wealth in their society. Does that sound familiar? That’s what a lot of people think of the U.S. right now. That’s in an expansion when there are jobs. So, take away a lot of those jobs, but leave that elite in place, and you have a powder keg. You lit the fuse that could get very, very scary. I hate this. The Mad Max scenario is a tragedy beyond belief for some place like the U.S. where it did not have to happen.”

    Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with John Rubino, founder of the popular website DollarCollapse.com.

    To Donate to USAWatcdhdog.com Click Here


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 16:30

  • Are Democrats "Gerrymandering The Population" With Their Open-Borders Plans?
    Are Democrats “Gerrymandering The Population” With Their Open-Borders Plans?

    In an impassioned interview with Fox Business’ Trish Regan, ‘Die Hard’ actor Robert Davi accused Democrats of “gerrymandering the population” with policies that encourage and protect illegal immigrants.

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

    “Every single thing that they do,” Davi began.

    “The Democrats and the cabal of the GOP globalists, they’ve let down the American people for gerrymandering the population.”

    As The Daily Caller’s Virginia Kruta notes, Davi also referenced the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed by former President Lyndon B. Johnson and “argued by Teddy Kennedy,” saying that they had promised the law would not encourage further illegal immigration.

    “This is what’s happening, it’s pure and simple,” Davi continued.

    “What they want to do is change the shape and the ideology of this nation by letting people in that have not been educated in the system. Trish, I was just in New York, I spoke to immigrant cab drivers from Bangladesh to the Dominican Republic, guys that are working their butts off that have been here legally, and they’re angry.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which appears to be exactly what Democrats are doing as Pat Buchanan recently noted on Bernie Sanders’ Open-Borders plan:

    Democrats are moving toward an “open door” policy on the U.S. border, an open borders embrace of any and all who wish to come.

    America, apparently, does not belong to those who live here and love the country. America belongs to anyone who chooses to come. America belongs to the world.

    Consider Bernie Sanders’ immigration proposal, outlined the week of the massacre of Mormon women and children.

    • On Day One, President Sanders would declare a moratorium on deportations and offer a “swift pathway to citizenship” for all illegal migrants who have been here for five years.

    • Bernie would break up ICE.

    • Border-jumping would cease to be a crime and become a civil offense like jaywalking.

    • The “Muslim ban” would be abolished.

    • President Sanders would back sanctuary cities that refuse to work with U.S. law enforcement.

    • Asylum seekers would not have to wait in Mexico as their claims were processed but would be welcomed into the USA.

    • Family separations would end.

    • Trump’s wall, which Bernie calls “racist,” would be history.

    • The administration’s treatment of illegal immigration “as a criminal and national security matter is inhuman, impractical and must end.”

    • Migrants who enter illegally would qualify for federal health care and the same social welfare benefits as U.S. citizens.

    Immigrant officials say Sanders’ proposals would create an irresistible magnet for millions of migrants from all over the world to stampede into the USA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 16:00

  • This Is How The Chinese Are Evading Capital Controls And Secretly Getting Money Out Of The Country
    This Is How The Chinese Are Evading Capital Controls And Secretly Getting Money Out Of The Country

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “The only way I know to get money out is to set up a Japanese company,” he whispered.

    “That’s why so many Chinese nationals are in Japan. First of all, you can get a visa and permanent residency. Second of all, Japan and China don’t exchange tax information because they’re still bent out of shape about WWII. And thirdly, China’s police can’t come get you. Chinese billionaires don’t get ‘disappeared’ in Japan like they do in HK and NY,” he explained.

    “That’s why they’re buying homes in Tokyo and Osaka.”

    “Despite capital controls, you can settle renminbi transactions in Yen,” he continued.

    “So you set up a Japanese shell company, get a bank account,” he said. “Then you transfer renminbi to your company’s bank in Tokyo, settled in Yen. At that point, the money basically vanishes. The account name is in kanji. And I’m sure it doesn’t work for really big transactions, and you can’t do it as a US citizen, but the Chinese have probably set up 100k of these companies.”

    In H1 2019 Chinese inquiries about Japanese property jumped 13x.

    Avoiding RMB

    Goldman sold a 4% stake in Taikang Life. Allianz paid them 800mm euros, valuing Taikang at E20bln. Goldman bought its Taikang stake in 2010 from AXA at a E7bln valuation. AXA inherited Taikang in its 2006 acquisition of Swiss insurer Winterthur (Credit Suisse subsidiary). Winterthur bought its Taikang stake in 2000 alongside Softbank and GSIC.

    The buyers/sellers have flipped Taikang shares in dollars/euros ever since, avoiding RMB. Chen Dongsheng started Taikang in 1996 (married Mao’s granddaughter too). He’s worth $4.8bln.

    Anecdote

    “They can no longer get their money out,” said the investor, a builder of global institutional portfolios. “Allocators who made private equity investments in mainland China over the past 5-10yrs are now trapped,” he continued. “Not metaphorically trapped – they’re literally not permitted to move cash proceeds out of China as those investments are sold. The problem is widespread and the sums so large that we now have internal people focused on helping these allocators hedge the exchange rate risk.”

    A worse fate than having your capital simply imprisoned in a foreign country, is having it locked-up and then devalued while you plot an escape. “As investments mature and private equity managers distribute renminbi, they now ask clients who cannot get that money out of China to re-invest in their latest funds.” But even as the globe’s most sophisticated institutional investors find their capital quietly held hostage by Beijing, passive retail retirement savings is flowing into Chinese stocks and bonds at an accelerating pace.

    In March 2019, MSCI quadrupled the share of Chinese onshore equities in their indexes. The increase is estimated to force between $80bln-$125bln of overseas savings into Chinese onshore stocks. MSCI left room to go further – to get to their full weighting, another $160bln-$250bln of passive equity flows will move to Beijing. And the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index introduced a 6% weighting to China’s $13trln domestic bond market for the first time this March. An estimated $125bln-$150bln of inflows followed. If other bond index providers follow Bloomberg/Barclays, an additional $125bln-$150bln will race in.

    After decades of ever rising global capital flows, it is easy to forget that capital enters and exits nations only with the express permission of those in power. “In the midst of rising East/West conflict and knowing that institutional investors are struggling to get their money out, it is astonishing that MSCI and Bloomberg/Barclays index boards have forced global pensioners to fund the Party.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/17/2019 – 15:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 17th November 2019

  • Exposing The Brennan Dossier: All About A Prime Mover Of Russiagate
    Exposing The Brennan Dossier: All About A Prime Mover Of Russiagate

    Authored by Aaron Maté via RealClearInvestigations.com,

    In the waning days of the Obama administration, the U.S. intelligence community produced a report saying Russian President Vladimir Putin had tried to swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The January 2017 report, called an Intelligence Community Assessment, followed months of leaks to the media that had falsely suggested illicit ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin while also revealing that such contacts were the subject of a federal investigation. Its release cast a pall of suspicion over Trump just days before he took office, setting the tone for the unfounded allegations of conspiracy and treason that have engulfed his first term.

    What was Brennan’s motive? Among the possibilities is hostility within his camp toward Michael Flynn (foreground), Trump’s future reform-minded national security adviser.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

    The ICA’s blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the nation’s intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of hand-picked analysts.

    Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception. The record shows that:

    • Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.

    • Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S. intelligence community’s response.

    • While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.

    • To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin’s inner circle.

    • Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a pair of public letters late in the election campaign.

    • After Trump’s unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous Intelligence Community Assessment.

    • Departing from his predecessors’ usual practice of staying above the political fray after leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his authority as a former guardian of the nation’s top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, accusing Trump of “treasonous” conduct.

    Now Brennan is among the most vocal critics of the more comprehensive of the two Justice probes, the criminal investigation run by U.S. Attorney John Durham and Attorney General William Barr. “I don’t understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt, real or imagined, that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into Russian interference,” he recently said on MSNBC.

    The Trump-Russia collusion theory was not propagated by a few rogue figures. Key Obama administration and intelligence officials laundered it through national security reporters who gave their explosive claims anonymous cover. Nevertheless, Brennan stands apart for the outsized role he played in generating and spreading the false narrative.

    ‘Raised Concerns in My Mind’

    The government’s official story as detailed in special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s April 18 report casts the Trump-Russia probe as an FBI operation. It asserts that the bureau launched its investigation, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” on July 31, 2016, after receiving information that junior Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was informed that Russians had politically damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

    John Durham: His probe aims “to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016,” as the New York Times put it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    United States Attorney’s Office, District of Connecticut/Wikimedia

    But a great deal of evidence – including public testimony and news accounts – undermines that story. It indicates that the probe started earlier, with Brennan a driving force. Many of the clues are buried in public testimony and reports published by the New York Times and Washington Post, the primary vehicles for intelligence community leaks throughout the Russiagate saga.

    One signal came in June when the Times reported that the Barr-Durham investigation had “provoked anxiety in the ranks of the C.I.A.” Among Barr’s aims, the paper noted, was “to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.”

    That intelligence “flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I” underscores that the agency played a larger role in the early stages of the Trump-Russia probe than is publicly acknowledged. Late last month, the Times ran a more ominous piece suggesting that the CIA may have been a prime mover of the probe through deception. It reported that Durham has been asking interview subjects “whether C.I.A. officials might have somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation.” In anticipation of being asked such questions, the paper added, “[s]ome C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers.”

    If that reflects an accurate suspicion on Durham’s part, then Brennan, by his own account, has already outed himself as a key suspect. Brennan has publicly taken credit for the Russia probe’s origination and supplying critical information to the FBI after it began. “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about,” he told Congress in May 2017. That information, Brennan added, “raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians,” which then “served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred.”

    BBC report suggests that Brennan may be referring to April 2016 – a month before Papadopoulos allegedly mentioned Russian dirt and three months before the FBI launched its probe – when “an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States” provided Brennan with “a tape recording” that “worried him” – “a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the U.S. presidential campaign.”

    Stefan Halper: This CIA and FBI informant targeted Carter Page as early as May 2016, Page says.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Oxford Union/YouTube

    It is not clear whether the BBC account is accurate, but the April date coincides with other activity suggesting an earlier start date to the collusion probe than the official version. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before a congressional panel that in the “late spring” of 2016 then-FBI Director James Comey briefed National Security Council principals about concerns surrounding newly appointed Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. According to the Guardian newspaper, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele began briefing the FBI on his discredited dossier in London as early as June; after that, “his information started to reach the bureau in Washington.” In mid-July, veteran CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper made contact with Page at a British academic conference;  according to Page, the invitation had come at the end of May or early June.

    Halper has also been accused of taking part in a smear operation aimed at spreading false information about National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian nationals. In May, Halper was sued in the U.S.  by Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-born British academic, for defamation. Lokhova alleges that Halper, while working as a U.S. intelligence asset, spread rumors suggesting that she  and Flynn had an improper relationship.

    While Russiagate’s exact starting point is murky, it is clear that Brennan placed himself at the center of the action. After the investigation officially got underway in the summer of 2016, as Brennan later told MSNBC, “[w]e put together a fusion center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected.” (It is not clear whether this was a Freudian slip suggesting the center included Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign that produced the Steele dossier of fictitious Trump-Russia dirt – but regardless, it is likely that at least some of Brennan’s “dots” came from the firm.) According to the New Yorker, also that summer Brennan received a personal briefing from Robert Hannigan, then the head of Britain’s intelligence service the GCHQ, about an alleged “stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted.” A U.S. court would later confirm that Steele shared his reports with at least one “senior British security official.”

    As Brennan helped generate the collusion investigation, he also worked to insert it into domestic American politics – at the height of a presidential campaign. Starting in August, Brennan began giving personal briefings to the Gang of Eight, high-ranking U.S. senators and members of Congress regularly apprised of state secrets. Breaking with tradition, he met them individually, rather than as a group. His most consequential private meeting was with Harry Reid.

    Harry Reid: Brennan gave this top Senate Democrat an irregular individual briefing, putting the collusion narrative in motion. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz.,File

    Afterward, the Democrats’ Senate leader sent a pair of provocative public letters to FBI Director Comey. Reid’s messages – released to the public during the final months of the presidential race – made explosive insinuations of illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, putting the collusion narrative into motion. “The prospect of individuals tied to Trump, WikiLeaks and the Russian government coordinating to influence our election raises concerns of the utmost gravity and merits full examination,” Reid wrote on Aug. 27. Russia, he warned, may be trying to “influence the Trump campaign and manipulate it as a vehicle for advancing the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

    Two days after Comey’s “October surprise” announcement that newly discovered emails were forcing him to reopen the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while serving as secretary of state,  Reid followed up with even more incendiary language: “It has become clear,” he complained to Comey, “that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors and the Russian government.”

    Reid’s letters show the extent to which Brennan maneuvered behind the scenes to funnel collusion to a public audience. In their book “Russian Roulette,” Michael Isikoff and David Corn report that Reid “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.”

    Nunes: ‘Whatever Brennan Told Reid, He Didn’t Tell Me.’

    The separate briefings and the Reid letters gave rise to suspicion that Brennan was driven by what Reid, according to Isikoff and Corn, saw as an “ulterior motive.” Although Brennan has claimed publicly that he “provided the same briefing to each gang of eight member,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) says that is not true. Nunes, who was then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted in journalist Lee Smith’s new book, “The Plot Against the President,” saying, “Whatever Brennan told Reid, he didn’t tell me.”

    Reid’s letters also undermine a common, but false, talking point used to defend Brennan and other U.S. intelligence officials behind the Russia investigation: If they really sought to hurt the Trump campaign, they would have made their Trump-Russia collusion speculation public. As Comey put it: “If we were ‘deep state’ Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret?” Reid’s extraordinary letters – released at the height of the campaign – were one of the ways in which Brennan did exactly the opposite.

    FBI’s Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page suggesting the CIA was “leaking like mad.” And he wrote colleagues of his concern the agency was deceiving both the bureau and the public.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

    After Trump’s election victory in November, Brennan’s CIA was the source of yet more leaks. Reports in early December claimed that the agency had assessed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the explicit aim of helping Trump. The leaks sparked worry inside the FBI.

    “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad,” Peter Strzok, the lead FBI agent on the Russia probe, texted his colleague Lisa Page on Dec. 15. “Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive.” In an April 2017 email to colleagues, Strzok worried the CIA was deceiving both the bureau and the public. “I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us,” he wrote. “Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as a source of some of the leaks.”

    ‘We Needed More’

    At the same time that he was sharing his “concerns” about alleged Trump-Russia contacts with the FBI and Congress, Brennan was raising alarm bells at the White House about an alleged Russian interference campaign. In the process, he went to significant lengths to safeguard his claims from internal scrutiny.

    In early August, Brennan told the White House about supposed intelligence from a Kremlin mole that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered an interference operation to hurt Clinton and install Trump in the White House. Brennan, the New York Times reported, “sent separate intelligence reports, many based on the source’s information, in special sealed envelopes to the Oval Office.” Brennan made sure that those envelopes evaded scrutiny.

    On Brennan’s orders, Greg Miller of the Washington Post reported, “no information on Russia’s interference was ever included in the president’s daily brief.”  Brennan’s purported fear was that even a highly restrictive distribution list might prove too leaky for the CIA’s explosive claims about Putin’s supposed secret orders to elect Trump.

    Miller also reported that Brennan holed up in his office to pore over the CIA’s material, “staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night.” Brennan ordered up, not just vetted, “‘finished’ assessments – analytic reports that had gone through “layers of review and revision,” but also “what agency veterans call the ‘raw stuff,’ the unprocessed underlying material,” Miller adds.

    John Kiriakou, ex-CIA analyst: Brennan’s actions were “a very big red flag.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    AP Photo/Cliff Owen

    To former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou, all of this raises “a very big red flag” that suggests Brennan circumvented his colleagues and normal intelligence safeguards. “As a matter of practice, you never, ever give the raw data to the policymaker,” Kiriakou says. “That was something that was done during the George W. Bush administration where Vice President Cheney demanded the raw intelligence. But more often than not raw intelligence is just simply incorrect – it’s factually incorrect, or it’s the result of the source who’s a liar, or it’s the result of the source who has only part of the story. And so you can’t trust it. You have to vet it and compare it to the rest of your all-source information to see what’s true, what’s not true, and then only the true information you use in your analysis. For the director of the CIA to be using the raw data is highly unusual because that’s what you have a staff of thousands to do for you.”

    The timing of Brennan’s supposed delivery of the information sourced to the mole – later identified as Oleg Smolenkov – also raises questions. Although it is unclear when Smolenkov would have conveyed his intelligence to the CIA, the Washington Post reported Brennan delivered it to the White House in early August 2016 – just days after the FBI officially launched its Russia investigation. But if Smolenkov was able to capture Putin’s orders to conduct a sweeping election interference campaign – which allegedly began in March – it would be odd that this information arrived only after the U.S. election interference investigation began, and not – at minimum – months earlier, when Putin’s supposed operation would had to have been ordered.

    When Brennan’s material did reach eyes outside Obama’s inner circle, “other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump,” the Washington Post reported. “‘It was definitely compelling, but it was not definitive,’ said one senior administration official. ‘We needed more.'” Faced with that skepticism, Brennan “moved swiftly” to brief congressional leaders — including Reid.

    The Mole

    The internal doubts about Brennan’s claims now make more sense in light of the recent outing of the supposed Kremlin mole that he relied on to make them.

    Smolenkov has been revealed to be a mid-level Kremlin official who was outside of Putin’s inner circle. According to Russian media, Smolenkov disappeared during a visit to Montenegro in June 2017, in what other reports call a CIA extraction over fears that a loose-lipped Trump could put him in peril. After that, Smolenkov turned up in the U.S., remarkably living under his own name – easily discoverable in public records – in the Virginia suburbs.

    Even putting aside Putin’s reputation for having operatives abroad hunt down and assassinate those who cross him, Kiriakou said this open visibility is “astounding.” CIA informants, Kiriakou says, “were never, ever resettled in their own names and they were almost never resettled in the Washington area. That tells me a couple of things: one, this source wasn’t as sensitive as we may have been led to believe; or, two, even if he was sensitive, the information that he provided either has been overtaken by events, or isn’t really that important in the long run.”

    Nevertheless, Brennan’s Kremlin mole remains the only known direct source for a central claim that Putin worked to elect Trump.

    ‘Unusually Constrained’

    Brennan has countered questions about the intelligence process he directed by insisting that his conclusions were broadly shared and corroborated. That is misleading. 

    During private briefings to Congress in December 2016, it was the CIA that aggressively pushed the belief that Putin had ordered a secret campaign to elect Trump, while FBI officials said that the intelligence was not conclusive. An unnamed official told the Washington Post that “a secret, new CIA assessment” made “direct and bald and unqualified” statements that the Russian government sought to elect Trump. But days later, “a senior FBI counterintelligence official” appearing before the committee gave “fuzzy and “ambiguous” remarks on the same issue. “It was shocking to hold these [CIA] statements made about Russian intentions and activities, and to hear this guy basically saying nothing with certainty and allowing that all was possible,” an official who attended the briefing told the Post.

    James Clapper: He suggested the Steele dossier influenced the Intelligence Community Assessment. Brennan denied it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File

    March 2018 report from Republican members of House Intelligence Committee fleshed out these concerns. It determined that the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, which Brennan managed, was subjected to an “unusually constrained review and coordination process, which deviated from established CIA practice.” Contrary to the widespread portrayal of a vetted, consensus-based intelligence product, the ICA was in fact “drafted by CIA analysts” working under Brennan and merely “coordinated with the NSA and the FBI.” The report found that the ICA also suffered from “significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategic objectives for disrupting the U.S. election.”

    Another question is whether the Steele dossier influenced the ICA’s production. Brennan has insisted in congressional testimony that the dossier was “not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment,” and that he was unaware of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had funded it. But multiple accounts, including in RealClearInvestigations, report that the dossier was inserted as an appendix to the ICA, and that Brennan personally advocated its inclusion. In an October 2017 interview with CNN, where he works as analyst, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that “some of the substantive content of the dossier we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community Assessment” – suggesting that it was indeed relied on.

    President Obama’s role in U.S. intelligence is yet one more mystery. In both the final months of his presidency and in the period since, Obama has said very little publicly about the Russia investigation. But he attended various meetings with top officials about Trump-Russia theories. It’s not clear what he said, but their efforts ramped up in the months that followed.

    Most of Obama’s documented efforts occurred during his final days in office. On Jan. 5, 2017 he convened a meeting where he and top principals decided to withhold details about the ongoing FBI investigation of the incoming Trump administration. A week later his administration issued a new rule allowing the NSA to disseminate throughout the government “raw signals intelligence information.” Republicans viewed this as an effort to make it easy to leak damaging information against Trump and harder to identify the leakers. Also after the election, Obama made the curious decision to nix a proposal from inside his own administration to form a bipartisan commission that would have scrutinized Russian interference and the U.S. response.

    ‘I Think I Suspected More Than There Actually Was’

    Since stepping down from the CIA in January 2017, Brennan’s incendiary rhetoric has fanned the flames. From MSNBC to the New York Times to Twitter, Brennan has denounced Trump as “treasonous,” “in the pocket of Putin,” and dismissed the president’s now substantiated “claims of no collusion,” as “hogwash.” In the final weeks of the Mueller probe, Brennan boldly predicted a wave of indictments against Trump’s inner circle for a Russia conspiracy. When Mueller completed his probe with no such indictments, Brennan changed his tone: “I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” he told MSNBC.

    Brennan is now a bitter Trump critic on MSNBC.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    MSNBC/”The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell”

    The Mueller report accepted Brennan’s claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. But as a previous RCI investigation found, the report’s evidence failed to support its claim of a “sweeping and systematic” interference campaign. Nor did it show that such interference impacted the outcome.

    It is still not clear why the Obama administration, with major media playing along, not only embraced the false Trump-Russia narrative but also used it as a rationale to spy on a presidential campaign and then on a presidency. Brennan’s reasons also remain opaque.

    One early motivation may have been the intelligence community’s broad dislike of Flynn – Trump’s first national security adviser, who was one of the earliest targets of the collusion narrative.

    Flynn had served as Obama’s head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, but fell out of favor by 2014, in part because of his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal and the CIA’s arming of anti-Assad militants in Syria. Obama had specifically warned Trump against hiring Flynn.

    A longtime critic of the bureaucracy, Flynn earned particular enmity from Brennan’s CIA with an effort to create a new Pentagon spy organization, Foreign Policy reported in 2015.

    One of Trump’s first high-profile supporters, Flynn was also the subject of the first news articles – starting in February of 2016 – portraying members of the Trump campaign as overly sympathetic to Russia. In February 2017, “nine current and former officials” from multiple agencies leaked about him to the Washington Post over his contacts with the Russian ambassador — an article that helped the Post win a Pulitzer Prize with the New York Times. The episode also brought Flynn much grief, including a widely questioned “process crime” conviction for lying to the FBI, which he is now trying to reverse. Meanwhile, a CIA “whistleblower” hired and placed in the White House by Brennan has provided the impetus for the current Democrat-led impeachment effort against President Trump.

    The Barr-Durham probe is set to determine, among other things, whether Brennan’s actions and faulty information amounted to incompetence or something considerably worse. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 23:30

    Tags

  • Here Are The States Where Trump Trade War Is Hammering China Exports
    Here Are The States Where Trump Trade War Is Hammering China Exports

    New data from the US Commerce Department shows at least 30 states, many of them Trump states, have observed double-digit declines in merchandise exports to China through Sept. of this year.

    In Wyoming, which exports chemical products to China, recorded a -80% plunge in shipments in the first nine months. Alabama’s automobile industry reported a -49% fall in shipments, Idoha -46%, Washington -45%, Aaraknsa -44%, Florida -40%, and Texas -39%. Merchandise exports to China as a whole slumped 15% to $78.8 billion during the period. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Brad Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, spoke to Bloomberg about the trade war devastation impacting manufacturing hubs in US states. 

    Setser said as the trade war escalated this year, China’s demand for imports in many Trump states fell off a cliff. 

    He warned that some of these manufacturing hubs “will never recover,” even if there’s a trade deal. 

    It’s becoming increasingly apparent that China, has struck back at the Trump administration, though it was silent, and now what appears to be very targeted, it could turn out to be a disaster for the administration ahead of an election year. 

    With manufacturing hubs across the country crushed, it should be no surprise that the manufacturing recession continues to deepen into Q4.

    Already, preliminary estimates for Q4 GDP data has fallen to a dismal 0.4% on Friday, take out government spending, and it’s likely the recession has already started. 

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

    US economic data has been rather poor since Sept., including today’s disappointing retail sales and dismal industrial production as the US economic surprise index has slipped back into the negative after peaking in late September.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The manufacturing recession and services slowdown has already led to a downturn in employment. This will start to hit consumer spending trends and lead to a reverse in sentiment. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Put this all together, and a broader slowdown is already underway — contagion has spread from manufacturing to services. Trump states are getting hit the hardest. It’s only a matter of time before the next recession begins. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 23:00

  • Everything You Need To Know About Trump (But Were Afraid To Admit You Wondered)
    Everything You Need To Know About Trump (But Were Afraid To Admit You Wondered)

    Authored by Sylvain LaForest via Oriental Review,

    The timing is right for everyone to understand what Donald Trump is doing, and try to decrypt the ambiguity of how he is is doing it. The controversial President has a much clearer agenda than anyone can imagine on both foreign policy and internal affairs, but since he has to stay in power or even stay alive to achieve his objectives, his strategy is so refined and subtle that next to no one can see it. His overall objective is so ambitious that he has to follow random elliptic courses to get from point A to point B, using patterns that throw people off on their comprehension of the man. That includes most independent journalists and so-called alternative analysts, as much as Western mainstream fake-news publishers and a large majority of the population.

    About his strategy, I could make a quick and accurate analogy with medication: most pills are designed to cure a problem, but come with an array of secondary after-effects. Well, Trump is using medication solely for their after-effects, while the first intent of the pill is what’s keeping him in power and alive. By the end of this article, you’ll see that this metaphor applies for just about every decision, move or declaration he’s made. Once you understand what Trump is about, you’ll be able to appreciate the extraordinary presidency he’s conducting, like no predecessor ever came close to match.

    To start off, let’s clear the one aspect of his mission that is straightforward and terribly direct: he’s the first and only American President to ever address humanity’s worst collective flaw, its total ignorance of reality. Because medias and education are both controlled by the handful of billionaires that are running the planet, we don’t know anything about our history that’s been twisted dry by the winners, and we don’t have a clue about our present world. As he stepped in the political arena, Donald popularized the expression «fake news» to convince the American citizens, and the world population as well, that medias always lie to you. The expression has now become commonplace, but do you realize how deeply shocking is the fact that nearly everything you think you know is totally fake?

    Media lies don’t just cover history and politics, but they have shaped your false perception on topics like economy, food, climate, health, on everything. What if I told you that we know exactly who shot JFK from the grassy knoll, that the foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor was proven in court, that the CO2 greenhouse effect is scientifically absurd, that our money is created through loans by banks who don’t even have the funds, or that science proves with a 100% certainty that 911 was an inside job? Ever heard of a mainstream journalist, PBS documentary or university teacher telling you about any of this? 44 Presidents came and went without even raising one word about this huge problem, before the 45th came along. Trump knows that freeing the people out of this unfathomable ignorance is the first step to overall freedom, so he started calling mainstream journalists and their news outlets for what they are: pathological liars.

    «Thousands of mental health professionals agree with Woodward and the New York Times op-ed author: Trump is dangerous.»

    – Bandy X. Lee, The Conversation 2018

    «The question is not whether the President is crazy but whether he is crazy like a fox or crazy like crazy.»

    – Masha Gessen, The New Yorker 2017

    Let’s make one thing clear: to the establishment, Trump isn’t mentally challenged, but he’s definitely seen as a possible nemesis of their world. Ever since he moved in the White House, Trump has been depicted as a narcissist, a racist, a sexist and a climate-skeptic, loaded with shady past stories and mental issues. Even though an approximate 60% of the American people don’t trust medias anymore, many have bought the story that Trump might be slightly crazy or unfit to rule, and the statistic climbs even higher when you get out of the USA. Of course, Donald isn’t doing anything special to change the deeply negative perception that so many journalists and people alike have about him. He’s openly outrageous and provocative on Twitter, he sounds impulsive and dumb most of the time, acts irrationally, lies on a daily basis, and throws out sanctions and threats as if they were candy canes out of an elf’s side bag in a mall in December. Right away, we can destroy one persistent media myth: the image Trump is projecting is self-destructive and it’s the exact opposite of how pathological narcissists act, since they thrive to be loved and admired by everyone. Donald simply doesn’t care if you like him or not, which makes him the ultimate anti-narcissist, by its psychological definition. And that’s not even up for opinion, it’s a quite simple and undeniable fact.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    His general plan exhales from one of his favorite motto: «We will give power back to the people», because the United States and its imperialist web woven over the world have been in the hands of a few globalist bankers, military industrials and multinationals for more than a century. To achieve his plan, he has to end wars abroad, bring back the kids, dismantle the NATO and CIA, get control over the Federal Reserve, cut every link with foreign allies, abolish the Swift financial system, demolish the propaganda power of the medias, drain the swamp of the deep state that’s running the spying agencies and disable the shadow government that’s lurking in the Council on foreign relations and Trilateral Commission’s offices. In short, he has to destroy the New World Order and its globalist ideology. The task is huge and dangerous to say the least. Thankfully, he’s not alone.

    Before we get on his techniques and tactics, we have to know a little bit more about what’s really been going on in the world.

    Mighty Russia

    Since Peter the Great, the whole history of Russia is a permanent demonstration of its will to maintain its political and economical independence from international banks and imperialism, pushing this great nation to help many smaller countries fighting to keep their own independence. Twice Russia helped the United States against the British/Rothschild Empire; first by openly supporting them in the Independence War, and again in the Civil War, when Rothschild’s were funding the Confederates to politically break down the nation to bring it back in the British colonial Empire’s coop. Russia also destroyed Napoleon and the Nazis, whom were both funded by international banks as tools to crush economically independent nations. Independence is in their DNA. After almost a decade of Western oligarchy taking over Russia’s economy after the fall of USSR in 1991, Putin took power and drained the Russian swamp. Since then, each and every move that he has made aims to destroy the American Empire, or the entity that replaced the British Empire in 1944, which is the non-conspiracy theory name of the New World Order. The new empire is basically the same central banking scheme, with just a slightly different set of owners that switched the British army for NATO, as their world Gestapo.

    Until Trump came along, Putin was single handedly fighting the New World Order who’s century-old obsession is the control of the world oil market, since oil is the blood running through the veins of the world economy. Oil is a thousand times more valuable than gold. Cargo ships, airplanes and armies don’t run on batteries. Therefore, to counter the globalists, Putin developed the best offensive and defensive missile systems, with the result that Russia can now protect every independent oil producer such as Syria, Venezuela and Iran. Central bankers and the US shadow government are still hanging on to their dying plan, because without a victory in Syria, there’s no enlarging Israel, thus ending the century-old fantasy of uniting the Middle East oil production in the hands of the New World Order. Ask Lord Balfour if you have any doubt. That’s the real stake of the Syrian war, it’s nothing short of do or die.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A century of lies

    Now, because a shadow government is giving direct orders to the CIA and NATO in the name of banks and industries, Trump has no control over the military. The deep state is a rosary of permanent officials ruling Washington and the Pentagon, that only respond to their orders. If you still believe that the «Commander in chief» is in charge, explain why every time Trump ordered to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan, more troops came in? As I’m writing this text, US and NATO troops pulled out of the Kurdish zones, went to Iraq, and came back with heavier equipment around the oil reserves of Syria. Donald has a lot more of swamp draining to do before the Pentagon actually listens to anything he says. Trump should be outraged and denunciate out loud that the military command doesn’t bother about what he thinks, but this would ignite an unimaginable chaos, and perhaps even a civil war in the US, if the citizens who own roughly 393 million weapons in their homes were to learn that private interests are in charge of the military. It would also lead to a very simple but dramatic question: «What is exactly the purpose of democracy?» These weapons are the titanium fences guarding the population from a totalitarian Big Brother.

    One has to realize how much trouble the US army and spying agencies have been going through in creating false-flag operations for more than a century, so that their interventions always looked righteous, in the name of democracy promotion, human rights and justice around the planet. They blew up the Maine ship in 1898 to enter the Hispanic-American war, then the Lusitania in 1915 to enter WW1. They pushed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, knew about the attack 10 days in advance and said nothing to the Hawaiian base. They made up a North Vietnamese torpedo aggression on their ships in the Tonkin Bay to justify sending boots on the Vietnamese ground. They made up a story of Iraqi soldiers destroying nurseries to invade Kuwait in 1991. They invented mass destruction weapons to attack Iraq again in 2003, and organized 911 to shred the 1789 Constitution, attack Afghanistan and launch a War on terror. This totally fake mask of virtue has to be preserved for controlling the opinion of the American citizens and their domestic arsenal, who have to believe that they wear the white cowboy hats of democracy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So how did Trump react when he learned that American troops were re-entering Syria? He repeated again and again in every interview and declaration that «we have secured the oil fields of Syria», and even added «I’m thinking about sending Exxon in the region to take care of the Syrian oil». Neocons, Zionists and banks were thrilled, but everyone else is outraged, because the vast majority doesn’t understand that Trump is swallowing this pill solely for its after-effects. On this single bottle is written in fine print that «the use of this drug might force American-NATO troops out of Syria under the pressure of the united world community and flabbergasted American population.» Trump made the situation unsustainable for NATO to stay in Syria, and how he’s been repeating this deeply shocking, politically incorrect position clearly shows his real intention. He destroyed over a century of fake virtue in a single sentence.

    Trump is a historical anomaly

    Trump is only the fourth president in US history to actually fight for the people, unlike all 41 others, who mainly channeled the people’s money in a pipeline of dollars that ends up in private banks. First there was Andrew Jackson who was shot after he destroyed the Second National Bank that he openly accused of being controlled by the Rothschild and The City in London. Then there was Abraham Lincoln, who was murdered after printing his «greenbacks», national money that the state issued to pay the soldiers because Lincoln had refused to borrow money from Rothschild at 24% interest. Then there was JFK, who was killed for a dozen reasons that mostly went against the banks and military industries profits, and now is Donald Trump, who shouted that he would «Give America back to the people».

    Like most businessmen, Trump hates banks, for the formidable power that they have over the economy. Just take a peek at Henry Ford’s only book, «The International Jew» to find out how deep was his distrust and hatred of international banks. Trump’s businesses have suffered a lot because of these institutions that basically sell you an umbrella, only to take it back as soon as it rains. Private banking’s control over money creation and interest rates, through every Central Bank of almost every country is a permanent power over nations, far above the ephemeral cycle of politicians. By the year 2000, these nation looters were only a few steps away from their planetary totalitarian dream, but a couple of details stood still: Vladimir Putin and 393 million American weapons. Then came along orange-faced Donald, the last piece in the puzzle that we the people, needed to terminate 250 years of the banking empire.

    Techniques and tactics

    Early in his mandate, Trump naively tried the direct approach, by surrounding himself with establishment rebels like Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon, then by annoying each and everyone of his foreign allies, shredding their free-trade treaties, imposing taxes on imports and insulting them in their face in the G7 meetings of 2017 and 2018. The reaction was strong and everyone doubled-down on the Russiagate absurdity, as it looked like the only option to stop the man on his path of globalism destruction. Predictably, the direct approach went nowhere; Flynn and Bannon had to go, and Trump was entangled in a handful of inquiries that made him realize that he wouldn’t get anything accomplished with transparency. He had to find a way to annihilate the most dangerous people on the planet, but at the same time, stay in power and alive. He had to smarten up.

    That’s when his genius exploded on the world. He completely changed his strategy and approach, and started taking absurd decisions and tweeting outrageous declarations. As threatening and dangerous as some of these first looked, Trump didn’t use them for their first degree meaning, but was aiming at the genuine second degree effects that his moves would have. And he didn’t care about what people thought of him as he did, for only results count in the end. He would even play buffoon over Twitter, look naive, lunatic or downright idiotic, perhaps in the hope to impregnate the belief that he didn’t know what he’s doing, and that he couldn’t be that dangerous. He’s willfully being politically incorrect to show the ugly face that the United States are hiding behind their mask.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The first test on his new approach was to try to stop the growing danger of an attack and invasion of North Korea by NATO. Trump insulted Kim Jung-Un through Twitter, called him Rocket Man, and threatened to nuke North Korea to the ground. His raging political incorrectness went on for weeks until it sank in everyone’s minds that those were not good reasons to attack a country. He paralyzed NATO. Trump then met Rocket Man, and they walked in the park with the start of a beautiful friendship, laughing together, while accomplishing absolutely nothing in their negotiations, since they have nothing to negotiate about. Many were talking about the Nobel price for peace, because many don’t know that it’s usually handed to whitewash war criminals like Obama or Kissinger.

    Then came Venezuela. Trump pushed his tactic a step further, to make sure that no one could support an attack on the free country. He put the worst neo-cons available on the case: Elliott Abrams, formerly convicted of conspiracy in the Iran-Contras deal in the ’80s and John Bolton, famous first-degree warmonger. Trump then confirmed Juan Guaido as his choice for president of Venezuela; an empty puppet so dumb that he can’t even see how much he’s being used. Again, Trump threatened to burn the country to rubbles, while the world community watched in awe the total lack of subtlety and diplomacy in Trump’s behavior, with the result that Brazil and Colombia backed away and said they wanted nothing to do with an attack on Venezuela. Trump’s medicine left only 40 satellite countries worldwide, with Presidents and Prime Ministers brain dead enough to shyly support Guaido the Jester. Donald checked the box beside Venezuela on his list and kept scrolling down.

    Then came the two gifts to Israel: Jerusalem as a capital, and the Syrian Golan Heights as its confirmed possession. Netanyahu whom isn’t the sharpest pencil in the box jumped of joy, and everyone yelled that Trump was a Zionist. The real after-effect result was that the whole of the Middle East united against Israel, which no one can support anymore. Even their historical accomplice Saudi Arabia had to openly disapprove this huge slap in the face of Islam. The two Trump gifts were in fact back stabs in the Israel state, whose future doesn’t look too bright nowadays, since NATO will have to move out of the region. Check again.

    As reality sinks in

    But there’s more! With his lack of control over NATO and the army, Trump is very limited in his actions. At first glance, the outstanding multiplication of economical sanctions on countries like Russia, Turkey, China, Iran, Venezuela and other nations look tough and merciless, but the reality of these sanctions pushed those countries out of the Swift financial system designed to keep enslaving nations through the dollar hegemony, and they’re all slipping away from the international banks’ grip. It forced Russia, China and India to create an alternative system of trade payments based on national currencies, instead of the almighty dollar. The bipolar reality of the world is now official, and with his upcoming next sanctions, Trump will push more countries out of the Swift system to join the other side, while important banks are starting to fall in Europe.

    Even in the political hurricane Trump is in, he still finds time to display his almost childish arrogant humor. Look at his grandiose mockery of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, as he sat down with the most straight-faced generals he could find, to take a picture in a so-called «situation room» as they faked the monitoring of the death of Baghdadi somewhere he couldn’t be, exactly like his criminal predecessors did a long time ago with the fake Bin Laden killing. He even pushed the farce to adding the details of a dog recognizing Daesch’s fake caliph by sniffing his underwear. Now that you understand what Trump is really about, you will also be able to appreciate the show, in all of its splendor and true meaning.

    «We have secured the oil fields of Syria». Indeed, with this short sentence, Trump joined his voice to that of General Smedley Butler who rocked the world 80 years ago with a tiny book called «War is a racket». Looting and stealing oil is definitely not as virtuous as promoting democracy and justice. What amazes me is those numerous «alternative» journalists and analysts, who know on the tip of their fingers every technical problem about 911, or scientific reality on the absurd global warming story, but still don’t have a clue about what Trump is doing, 3 years in his mandate, because they bought the mainstream media that convinced everyone that Trump is mentally challenged.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For those who still entertain doubts about Trump’s agenda, do you really believe that the obvious implosion of American Imperialism over the planet is a coincidence? Do you still believe that its because of the Russian influence on the 2016 election that the CIA, the FBI, every media, the American Congress, the Federal Reserve, the Democratic party and the warmongering half of the Republicans are working against him and are even trying to impeach him? Like most stuff that comes out of medias, reality is the exact opposite of what you’re being told: Trump might be the most dedicated man to ever set foot in the Oval office. And certainly the most ambitious and politically incorrect.

    Conclusion

    The world will change drastically between 2020 and 2024. Trump’s second and last mandate coincides with Putin’s last mandate as President of Russia. There may never be another coincidence like this for a long time, and both know that it’s now or perhaps never. Together, they have to end NATO, Swift, and the European Union should crumble. Terrorism and anthropogenic global warming will jump in the vortex and disappear with their creators. Trump will have to drain the swamp in the CIA and Pentagon, and he has to nationalize the Federal Reserve. Along with Xi and Modi, they could put a final end to private banking in public affairs, by refusing to pay a single penny of their debts, and reset the world economy by shifting to national currencies produced by governments, as private banks will fall like dominos, with no more Obama-like servant to bail them out at your expense. Once this is done, unbearable peace and prosperity could roam the planet, as our taxes pay for the development of our countries instead of buying useless military gear and paying interests on loans by bankers who didn’t even have the money in the first place.

    If you still don’t understand Donald Trump after reading the above, you’re hopeless. Or you’re might be Trudeau, Macron, Guaido, or any other useful idiot, unaware that the carpet under your feet has already slipped away.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 22:30

    Tags

  • Even With Better Education, Millennials Earn 20% Less Than Baby Boomers, Study Finds
    Even With Better Education, Millennials Earn 20% Less Than Baby Boomers, Study Finds

    The generational wealth gap has widened to historic levels, according to a recent study comparing millennial earnings to older generations’, according to CNBC.

    When adjusted for inflation, millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did at the same stage in their careers, according to the study, entitled “the Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap”. Median incomes for workers aged 18 to 34 are way down from their levels in the 1980s. The disparity is nothing new: Other studies have arrived at a similar conclusion. Despite being the most well-educated generation of all time (aside from Gen Z, probably), millennials earn comparatively less than their older peers did during similar periods.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nearly 40% of millennials have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 25% of baby boomers, and 30% of Gen Xers during the same period.

    The lower wages will likely lead to long-term problems for millennials, the experts said. Already, many millennials are struggling with jobs that are either inconsistent, like contract or freelance work (which doesn’t offer benefits), or don’t pay enough. This is already having a serious impact on their ability to build wealth, since most millennials still can’t afford basics like their own home. For prior generations, homes were important tools for building wealth, in addition to providing a place to live.

    Among young families, households headed by someone under the age of 35 in 2016 had an average net worth of $10,900, roughly half the level from 1995.

    Much of this disparity stems from the Great Recession. Those who entered the workforce in its aftermath came in with low wages, leaving them at a career disadvantage. Many are also struggling with the $1.4 trillion-plus pile of student loan debt that has been accumulated by American students. For many, student debt payments make building wealth and buying homes unthinkable.

    “Even as the economy steadily added back jobs lost, the protracted recovery was experienced unevenly, with well-off households doing better at the expense of others,” said Reid Cramer, director of the office that oversaw the study.

    Using data from the St. Louis Fed, CNBC put together a generational “balance sheet” to illustrate how economic circumstances have changed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Unfortunately for millions of workers, the uneven he recovery left many behind, and wealthier households typically found it easier to get back on their feet. By 2016, the top 10% of the country’s highest income earners received half of the total income generated in the US, a dramatic increase from just 38% of the country’s total income in 1992.

    Anybody interested in reading the entire study can find it here.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 22:00

    Tags

  • 'War On Terror' Has Killed Over 801,000 People & Cost $6.4 Trillion: New Study
    ‘War On Terror’ Has Killed Over 801,000 People & Cost $6.4 Trillion: New Study

    Authored by Jessica Corbett via CommonDreams.org,

    The so-called War on Terror launched by the United States government in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks has cost at least 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion according to a pair of reports published Wednesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

    “The numbers continue to accelerate, not only because many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don’t end when soldiers come home,” said Costs of War co-director and Brown professor Catherine Lutz, who co-authored the project’s report on deaths.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A U.S. Army soldier fires an M4 carbine rifle during partnered live fire range training at Tactical Base Gamberi, Afghanistan on May 29, 2015. (Photo: Capt. Charlie Emmons/U.S. Army/Flickr/cc)

    “These reports provide a reminder that even if fewer soldiers are dying and the U.S. is spending a little less on the immediate costs of war today, the financial impact is still as bad as, or worse than, it was 10 years ago,” Lutz added. “We will still be paying the bill for these wars on terror into the 22nd century.”

    The new Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars report (pdf) tallies “direct deaths” in major war zones, grouping people by civilians; humanitarian and NGO workers; journalists and media workers; U.S. military members, Department of Defense civilians, and contractors; and members of national military and police forces as well as other allied troops and opposition fighters.

    The report sorts direct deaths by six categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria/ISIS, Yemen, and “Other.” The civilian death toll across all regions is up to 335,745 — or nearly 42% of the total figure. Notably, the report “does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, water, and/or infrastructure, war-related disease, etc.”

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

    Indirect deaths “are generally estimated to be four times higher,” Costs of War board member and American University professor David Vine wrote in an op-ed for The Hill Wednesday. “This means that total deaths during the post-2001 U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen is likely to reach 3.1 million or more —around 200 times the number of U.S. dead.”

    “Don’t we have a responsibility to wrestle with our individual and collective responsibility for the destruction our government has inflicted?” Vine asked in his op-ed. “Our tax dollars and implied consent have made these wars possible. While the United States is obviously not the only actor responsible for the damage done in the post-2001 wars, U.S. leaders bear the bulk of responsibility for launching catastrophic wars that were never inevitable, that were wars of choice.”

    Referencing the project’s second new report, United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2020: $6.4 Trillion (pdf), Vine wrote, “Consider how we could have otherwise spent that incomprehensible sum — to feed the hungry, improve schools, confront global warming, improve our transportation infrastructure, and provide healthcare.”

    “At a time when everyone from Donald Trump to Democratic Party candidates for president is calling for an end to these endless wars, we must push our government to use diplomacy — rather than rash withdrawals, as in northern Syria — to end these wars responsibly,” he concluded. “As the new Costs of War report and 3.1 million deaths should remind us, part of our responsibility must be to repair some of the immeasurable damage done and to ensure that wars like these never happen again.”

    The project’s $6.4 trillion figure accounts for overseas contingency operations appropriations, interest for borrowing for OCO spending, war-related spending in the Pentagon’s base budget, medical and disability care for post-9/11 veterans (including estimated future obligations through FY2059), and Department of Homeland Security spending for prevention of and response to terrorism.

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

    Costs of War co-director and Boston University professor Neta Crawford co-authored the project’s death toll report and authored the budget report. For the latter, she wrote that “the major trends in the budgetary costs of the post-9/11 wars include: less transparency in reporting costs among most major agencies; greater institutionalization of the costs of war in the DOD base budget, State Department, and DHS; and the growing budgetary burden of veterans’ medical care and disability care.”

    Both reports were released as part of the project’s new “20 Years of War” series. Crawford, Lutz, and fellow Costs of War co-director Stephanie Savell were in Washington, D.C. Wednesday to present the reports’ findings at a briefing hosted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services.

    “We have already seen that when we go to Washington and circulate our briefings, they get used in the policymaking process,” Lutz said in a news story published by Brown Wednesday. “People cite our data in speeches on the Senate floor, in proposals for legislation. The numbers have made their way into calls to put an end to the joint resolution to authorize the use of military force. They have real impact.”

    Lutz pointed out that “if you count all parts of the federal budget that are military-related— including the nuclear weapons budget, the budget for fuel for military vehicles and aircraft, funds for veteran care — it makes up two-thirds of the federal budget, and it’s inching toward three-quarters.”

    “I don’t think most people realize that, but it’s important to know,” she added. “Policymakers are concerned that the Pentagon’s increased spending is crowding out other national purposes that aren’t war.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 21:30

  • Apple Is Now Bigger Than The Entire US Energy Sector; Disney Is Bigger Than Europe's Top 5 Banks
    Apple Is Now Bigger Than The Entire US Energy Sector; Disney Is Bigger Than Europe’s Top 5 Banks

    Something fascinating took place on January 3: on that day AAPL slashed its revenue guidance, blamed China, and triggered a cascade of flash crashes across various carry currency pairs. More importantly, that day also saw the lowest stock print for AAPL since the summer of 2017, and triggered an unprecedented ramp in AAPL stock which since then is up a mindblowing 86%…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … largely as a by-product of its gargantuan stock buyback program, which started in Q3 2013, and which has seen a third of AAPL’s total stock repurchased in the past 6 years. If one extrapolates the current trend, AAPL will fully LBO itself, i.e., have no public shares outstanding some time in 2030.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And while a record buyback in an abysmally illiquid market can do miracles to give the impression that there is a natural buyer, there is only so much that Tim Cook can do to offset the inevitable selloff that will follow the collapse of the US-China trade talks which will also drag down any company that has exposure to the Chinese market, not to mention the next recession which will see consumer spending on AAPL service grind to a halt, until that moment comes, Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett has made a stunning observation: with a market cap of $1.17tn, AAPL now has a greater capitalization than the entire US energy sector.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And there is more to come: Apple this week issued a euro-denominated bond with a 0% coupon (whose proceeds AAPL will then promptly use to repurchase even more stock), which as Hartnett puts it is the “QE-induced bull market in “growth” & “yield” in a nutshell.

    There’s more. Now that Walt Disney has joined the deflation fray by trying to snatch market share from Netflix and Amazon by offering its streaming video service at roughly half the price (with remarkable success so far, adding 10 million users in just 24 hours) it too has enjoyed an amazing lift in its stock price now that it too is seen as a “growth” company, and at a market cap of $268 billion, Disney is now bigger than market cap of the 5 largest European banks – BNP, Santander, ING, Intesa and Credit Agricole.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hartnett’s take: this is the “QE-induced bull market of “growth” over “value” in a nutshell.”

    What happens next? Stock buybacks aside, as Hartnett puts it, 2019 was anything but data dependent… oh, and Bank of America once again has no qualms about calling “NOT QE” by its true name – “QE”:

    Powell ’19 rate cuts & QE a success…recovery in credit market (US BBB credit 14.1% YTD), housing market (purchase & refi mortgage activity strongest since 2013 – MBAVBASC), stock market (global market cap up $12.1tn YTD), labor market still strong (unemployment 3.6%);

    The punchline: “Fed now on hold but QE remains supportive for risk (Fed + ECB will buy $420bn assets next 6 months).” Here, regular readers will recall that at the start of August, this website was the first to correctly predicted that QE is coming, and just over two months later it was proven correct. And so the Fed has once again decided to reflate assets – of not the real economy – at any price, which means that until Powell stops, or more likely is forced to stop, the best trade may well be not to fight the Fed and the liquidity gusher it has again unleashed.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 21:02

  • Artificial Intelligence Will Enable The Future, Blockchain Will Secure It
    Artificial Intelligence Will Enable The Future, Blockchain Will Secure It

    Authored by Kristina Lucrezia Cornèr via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Speaking at BlockShow Asia 2019, Todalarity CEO Toufi Saliba posed a hypothetical question to the audience:

    “How many people would take a pill that made you smarter, knowing they can be controlled by a social entity?”

    No one raised their hand, and he was unsurprised.

    “That’s the response that I get, zero percent of you,” he continued.

    “Now imagine at the same time the pill has autonomous decentralized governance so that no one can control or repurpose that pill but the host – yourself.” 

    This time hands were raised in abundance.

    Decentralized governance represents a necessary step for the tech community to build up a trust in digital developments related to securely managing big data.

    “Economics and ethics can go together thanks to decentralization,” commented SingularityNET CEO Ben Goertzel.

    But does the decentralized governance represent a step forward from centralization, or it is just an illusion of evolution?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Cole Sirucek, co-founder of DocDoc, shared his vision: 

    “It is when we are at a point of centralizing data that you can begin to think about decentralization. For example, electronic medical records: in five years the data will be centralized. After that, you can decentralize it.”

    Goertzal didn’t fully agree: “I don’t think it is intrinsic. The reason centralized systems are simpler to come by is how institutions are built right now. There is nothing natural about centralization of data.” He elaborated on the mutual dependence of two important technologies:

    Blockchain is not as complex as AI, but it is a necessary component of the future. Without BTC, you don’t have means of decentralized governance. AI enables the future, blockchain secures it.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 20:30

  • For Sale: Gently-Used ICBM Silo In Arizona Desert
    For Sale: Gently-Used ICBM Silo In Arizona Desert

    Looking for a fixer-upper to kick back, relax and survive a nuclear apocalypse? Look no further!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Located 20 minutes outside of Tucson, Arizona underneath 12 acres of land, potential buyers are looking at a “BOLD opportunity to owned a decommissioned Titan II missile complex” of their own – for just $395,000!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the listing:

    This property was once one of the most top secret of government assets and is now ready to fulfill a new mission. That mission is for you to define amongst the limitless scenarios. Secure storage facility? Underground bunker? Remarkable residence – literally living down under? The property is situated on a 12 + acre parcel with boundless views. Private yet not too remote.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The new owner will enter their ‘quaint’ complex via a ladder which descends into the missile Launch Control Complex (LCC) – where “three Titan II crewmen, the Missile Combat Crew Commander, the Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander, Ballistic Missile Analyst Technician, and the Missile Facilities Technician lived in shifts,” according to Popular Mechanics.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some background on Titan II missile facilities:

    The Titan II missile entered service with the U.S. Air Force in 1963. Titan II was an intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of being launched from the U.S. and striking targets across the Northern Hemisphere, particularly the Soviet Union and China. The Titan II carried a single W-53 thermonuclear warhead with the explosive power of 9 megatons, or 9,000,000 tons of TNT. By comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was a relatively paltry 16,000 tons of TNT.

    Titan II was also the first U.S. missile that was based in missile silos. These silos were sprinkled across the U.S., and some were parked outside Tuscon, Arizona. – Popular Mechanics

    Sure, you’ll have to deal with the rust, and there’s no internal plumbing (septic system required) or electricity, or water – BUT the listing notes that the buyer is welcome to drill for a well. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 20:00

    Tags

  • New Legislation Will Throw People In Jail For Disrespecting Cops
    New Legislation Will Throw People In Jail For Disrespecting Cops

    Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

    In the land of the free, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. However, we’ve seen citizens pepper-sprayed, assaulted, and arrested for there acts of free speech, showing just how little law enforcement cares about upholding the oaths they swore to this very Constitution. Now, a new piece of legislation that is quickly passing through the legal process in New York goes one step further.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If you annoy a police officer in upstate New York, you could find yourself facing massive fines and even jail time. Seriously.

    In a vote this week, lawmakers in the Monroe County Legislature passed a proposal in a 17-10 vote to fine and/or jail a person who annoys, alarms or threatens the personal safety of an officer. The jail sentence is up to one year and the fine is up to $5,000.

    According to the legislation, the anti-disrespecting applies to all first responders, not just cops.

    Naturally, those who have respect for the constitution and freedom of speech in general, are up in arms over the passage of such a tyrannical piece of legislation.

    As PIX 11 reports, “Iman Abid with the New York Civil Liberties Union said it will have a chilling effect on complaints against police. Abid said she is also concerned over what the legislation could mean for communities of color.”

    “Members of the community have every right to challenge police officers, particularly those that engage in unnecessary behavior,” she said in a statement.

    “At a time when more accountability of police departments is needed, this law takes us incredibly backward.”

    But advocates for this tyranny claim that it “looks after those who look out for us” — because people need to be jailed if they talk back to a cop.

    “This local law aims to crack down on behaviors of disrespect and incivility toward law enforcement and first responders in the hopes that these smaller incidents do not escalate,” County Legislator Kara Halstead said in a statement.

    According to PIX 11:

    Delores Jones-Brown, professor emerita at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said courts have found that the use of the words annoying or alarming in statue is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.

    The legislation, she said, could create a situation where people are scared to exercise their First Amendment rights. An officer could be annoyed by a person who asks them their badge number or who records them with a cellphone while on the job, Jones-Brown said.

    “This statute definitely has the capacity to make people afraid to do that,” she said

    We agree. This legislation is nothing short of tyranny and is paving the way for abuse by snowflake cops who cannot handle citizens talking back or disrespecting their authority. Instead of making respect a two-way street and earning it, this legislation sets out to mandate it through the threat of violence and kidnapping.

    In the land of the free, a person can be kidnapped and thrown in a cage for arbitrary sounds made with their mouth or raising their middle finger that causes harm to no one.

    Aside from this being clearly asinine, it’s well established by the Supreme Court that arresting someone for swearing and raising the middle finger is unconstitutional.

    In Cohen v. California, the U.S. Supreme court upheld a citizen’s First Amendment right to wear a jacket to court that read “F**k the Draft,” the court held:

    “WHILE THE PARTICULAR FOUR-LETTER WORD BEING LITIGATED HERE IS PERHAPS MORE DISTASTEFUL THAN MOST OTHERS OF ITS GENRE, IT IS NEVERTHELESS OFTEN TRUE THAT ONE MAN’S VULGARITY IS ANOTHER’S LYRIC. INDEED, WE THINK IT IS LARGELY BECAUSE GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS CANNOT MAKE PRINCIPLED DISTINCTIONS IN THIS AREA THAT THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES MATTERS OF TASTE AND STYLE SO LARGELY TO THE INDIVIDUAL.”

    What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in City of Houston v. Hill, that police must tolerate even more abusive speech than an average citizen—which certainly includes looking at someone’s middle finger. The court concluded that “in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint,” and added that, “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”

    Here at the Free Thought Project, we feel there are no such things as ‘bad words’ but, rather, certain words some people don’t like to hear. The same goes with raising random fingers.

    The arbitrary nature of government enforcing laws that dictate what vocabulary a person can use and which finger they can display to a cop is as ridiculous as it is tyrannical. Sadly, it remains a part of society and as this legislation illustrates, it is getting worse.

    Have we learned nothing from history?

    Telling people what words they can and can’t say or which fingers they can raise, to ‘protect’ a cop’s feelings is chilling. Freedom of speech does not come with terms and conditions.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 19:30

    Tags

  • Trump's $50 Billion Farm Deal Is Fantasy After Trade War Market Shifts
    Trump’s $50 Billion Farm Deal Is Fantasy After Trade War Market Shifts

    Industry insiders have told South China Morning Post (SCMP) that President Trump’s alleged $50 billion agriculture deal with China is merely a fantasy, used to stimulate his Farm Belt supporters ahead of an election year, and even used as a communication tool to drive the stock market to new highs. Still, the likelihood of it actually happening is very low.

    SCMP notes that China has never confirmed the $50 to $60 billion agriculture deal that President Trump consistently tweets about and touts in headlines.

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

    Agricultural analysts said even if China agreed to purchase additional US agriculture products, the numbers that the Trump administration uses are incorrect.

    Darin Friedrichs, senior Asia commodity analyst at trading house INTL FCStone in Shanghai, told SCMP that since the African swine fever wiped out 50% of the pigs in China, demand for soybean and corn has disappeared.

    “With the African swine fever, there’s just not much demand for the stuff that the US has to offer in terms of corn or soybeans to feed pigs – because we just do not have any pigs. We’ve lost half of them!” said Friedrichs.

    With soybean prices falling from $13 per bushel two years ago to $9 today, “even if they [China] bought the same amount they did before the trade war, it’s just not going to make the same dollar value,” Friedrichs added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nick Marro, head of the Economist Intelligence Unit in Hong Kong, told SCMP that there is a tremendous “disconnect between the political and economic realities here.”

    “China has made real efforts to diversify its meat sourcing in recent months, signing export deals with France and Brazil. From the US too, diversification has been the order of the day.”

    Chinese buyers are rushing to diversify away from the US and have signed landmark deals with Argentina and Brazil for corn and soybean. They’ve also signed trade deals in Australia, Europe, South America, and New Zealand for beef, dairy, and pork to fill supply gaps.

    John Reeve, director at Agree Commodities Australia, said China sourced very little beef from Australia in 2012 — but at present day, China is purchasing an unbelievable amount, as it continues diversifying from the US.

    “We’ve gone from virtually no beef going to China in 2012 to it being our biggest market now. There are 30 to 40 years of hard graft in developing the premium name, so we are very vulnerable to any fluctuation in the trade policy related to tariffs,” Reeve said.

    An overwhelming number of analysts found that it would be challenging for the US to restore its market share in China considering the damage the Trump administration caused by escalating the trade war.

    Even though China is purchasing some agriculture products from the US in recent weeks, the numbers President Trump uses are propaganda to hype up his base for re-election and send the stock market to new highs.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 19:00

  • Facebook App Is Secretly Accessing iPhone Users' Camera
    Facebook App Is Secretly Accessing iPhone Users’ Camera

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    While unsuspecting iPhone users read their daily dose of mainstream media news, the Facebook app is secretly accessing the camera on their smartphones. But Facebook says not worry: it’s only a bug…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Users, however, are rightly concerned that Facebook is recording them as they use the app. Unlike on Apple’s computers, there is no indicator when an app is accessing the camera, so it is possible for an app to do so in secret, as reported by The Independent.

    Facebook says the strange behavior is caused by a bug that was added to the code by accident and that there is no indication that photos or videos are being sent to its servers. The company claims an update has already been submitted to Apple that should remove it. In the meantime, the potential security flaw can be avoided by a simple fix in the iPhone settings that keeps Facebook from seeing the camera at all.

    The bug first came to light after users noted that the app would occasionally shift the entire feed over to the right, as part of what appeared to be a bug. Underneath that main app a different screen could be seen – which showed video from the phone’s built-in camera. –The Independent

    “We recently discovered that version 244 of the Facebook iOS app would incorrectly launch in landscape mode,” a Facebook spokesperson said.

    “In fixing that issue last week in v246 (launched on 8 November) we inadvertently introduced a bug that caused the app to partially navigate to the camera screen adjacent to News Feed when users tapped on photos.

    “We have seen no evidence of photos or videos being uploaded due to this bug. We’re submitting the fix for this to Apple today.”

    “We’ve confirmed that we didn’t upload anything to FB due to this bug and that the camera didn’t capture anything since it was in preview mode. We’ve submitted a fixed version to the App Store which is already rolling out,” wrote Facebook’s vice president of integrity Guy Rosen in a series of Tweets.

    The problem can be fixed by revoking Facebook’s access to the camera. That is done by heading into the Settings app and navigating to the Facebook option – clicking that should bring up a number of permissions that have been granted to the app, including the ability to access the camera, which can be turned off by changing the toggle.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 18:30

  • Meet The Company Building A Lithium Ion Battery That's "Less Likely To Explode"
    Meet The Company Building A Lithium Ion Battery That’s “Less Likely To Explode”

    Paging Elon Musk…

    SimpliPhi is a company based in Oxnard, California that is trying to tackle the problem of making a clean battery to store power. The company makes what it calls “clean, safe lithium-ion batteries, free of cobalt, the toxic element that can lead batteries to overheat and catch fire.”

    The company’s power systems use lithium iron phosphate (LFP), which is a compound that doesn’t carry the risks of traditional lithium ion batteries, according to Bloomberg. Companies like Blue Planet Energy and Sonnen are also using the LFP technology to make safer batteries.

    ClintoSimpliPhi’s batteries have already been adopted by groups like the n Foundation, who has installed their batteries, management software and other tools in hospitals and clinics on Puerto Rico after it was ravaged by Hurricane Maria. The model is also working for California homeowners and businesses that are dealing with persistent blackouts as a result of the state’s ongoing wildfires. 

    Each of these companies is also competing with Tesla and other battery makers to play a larger role in shifting energy away from fossil fuels. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lithium ion batteries are a decades old technology and are considered crucial to widespread adoption of green energy, like wind and solar, because the electricity generated needs to be stored somewhere. Energy storage worldwide is expected to “multiply exponentially” over the next 20 years, necessitating $662 billion in investments. The market today relies on cobalt chemistries, but the LFP compound is increasing in its market share. 

    Even better yet is the fact that SimpliPhi hasn’t burned through hundreds of millions of dollars, like every other startup company. It has been profitable since 2013 and has been doubling or tripling revenue annually. It expects to do $20 million in revenue in 2019. Its systems – tens of thousands of them – have been deployed in more than 40 countries. All of its employees are part-owners. 

    Electrical engineer Josh Crosby, president of power-system consulting firm CatalystE in Huntsville, Ala., has been using SimpliPhi’s batteries in projects for the U.S. military since 2014. He said:

    “Their safety track record, efficiency, and price—two to three times less than what military battery makers charge—led [me] to SimpliPhi. Its batteries have been tested at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland and the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Cobalt is more energy-dense and lighter, but it’s not going to last as long, and you have an inherent risk of fire.”

    Catherine Von Burg, SimpliPhi’s co-founder said: 

    “How can we talk about clean energy if we’re using a chemistry that is fundamentally hazardous and toxic?”

    That’s a great question: maybe someone should ask Elon Musk. 

    Recall, it was only days ago we wrote about one Tesla owner not being able to dispose of his wrecked vehicle as a result of the toxins in its battery. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 18:00

  • Democrats Flipped From "Quid Pro Quo" To "Bribery" Because A 'Focus Group' Told Them To
    Democrats Flipped From “Quid Pro Quo” To “Bribery” Because A ‘Focus Group’ Told Them To

    Authored by ‘Allahpundit’ via HotAir.com,

    Something to bear in mind the next time Pelosi starts burbling about how “prayerful” this process has been for them.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Apparently Jesus told her to start focus-grouping battleground states to find the way forward.

    Chris Wallace passed along the info to Fox viewers this morning…

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

    …and WaPo reported on it last night:

    Several Democrats have stopped using the term “quid pro quo,” instead describing “bribery” as a more direct summation of Trump’s alleged conduct.

    The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether “quid pro quo,” “extortion” or “bribery” was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found “bribery” to be most damning. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results have not been made public.

    Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a House Intelligence Committee member, kicked off the effort to retire “quid pro quo” from the Democratic vocabulary during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he said “it’s probably best not to use Latin words” to explain Trump’s actions.

    It makes me laugh to think of Dems needing a focus group to explain to them that “bribery,” a concept even kindergarteners grasp as wrong, is a bit more effective than “quid pro quo” when trying to turn public opinion against the president. That’s so elementary that I assumed they switched to bribery in their messaging for legal reasons, because it’s an impeachable offense specified in the Constitution. No more hiding by the GOP behind the vagueness of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”! Pelosi was about to put them on the spot: This is bribery, son. It’s right there in black and white in Article II. If the facts are there, you must vote to remove.

    But no, turns out she and Schiff needed a group of average joes to officially confirm that bribe sounds worse than some Latin term known mainly to lawyers.

    I’m surprised Trump hasn’t highlighted the focus-grouping on Twitter yet.

    Not only does it underline that impeachment is a political process, being run by people who stand to gain electorally by investigating him, but it leaves Democrats open to the claim that they’re not just tweaking the terminology based on public opinion, they’re tweaking the actual charges. If the facts, which haven’t changed materially since this started, told a straightforward story of bribery all along then why was the less definitive “abuse of power” cited until recently as the core claim against POTUS?

    Ah well, doesn’t matter. Probably no one is watching these hearings who hasn’t already been persuaded one way or the other already:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lots of Democrats are watching, no doubt because they’re psyched to see Trump formally accused of wrongdoing by witnesses. Lots of Republicans are not watching, either because they don’t want to see it or because they’re not going to be convinced by some Democratic production. Maybe the numbers will move for Trump’s Senate trial, when the stakes are higher and the GOP is in charge.

    If I were Pelosi, I’d be worried about those independent numbers, though. It stands to reason that they’re the most persuadable voters out there. It’s one thing for partisan Republicans to skip the hearings but if indies are tuning out too then whose mind is to be changed by them? No one’s. As they’re increasingly coming to realize.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 17:30

    Tags

  • Baltimore City Hits 300 Homicides For 5th Consecutive Year Amid Murder Crisis
    Baltimore City Hits 300 Homicides For 5th Consecutive Year Amid Murder Crisis

    Baltimore has just hit 300 homicides for the fifth consecutive year, reported The Baltimore Sun.

    On a per-capita basis, Baltimore is one of the most dangerous cities in America. If you have plans on going to Baltimore for the holidays — cancel them immediately — that’s because the city is imploding on itself, likely to get worse in the early 2020s. 

    The murder crisis in Baltimore could hit a record this year. There are 47 days left, and as of Saturday morning, 301 homicides have been logged into The Baltimore Sun murder map — as shown below: 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Homicides trends for the year are above average — even in the “greatest economy ever,” where President Trump continues to pump headlines detailing how black youth are doing better than they ever have. As to why anyone would believe government jobs data ahead of an election year is beyond us — come to Baltimore, and you’ll see first hand many of the inner cities stuck in a decades-long depression of extreme wealth inequality that has led to the collapse of economic mobility for hundreds of thousands of African Americans. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The murder crisis isn’t slowing down but rather accelerating into year-end. One would think because of seasonal factors, such as cold weather, that homicide trends would weaken — but not this year — it’s likely total homicides for the year will range from 330 to 345. 

    Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison told reporters on Thursday that the murder crisis is “ruining families and it’s horrifying, and we’re all disgusted by it.” 

    Harrison is right, the disgust among working-class families is so high that a massive exodus has been seen in the last several years as the city’s total population has collapsed to 100-year lows. Many are fleeing for the suburbs, escaping death and destruction. 

    Harrison, who previously served as New Orleans’ police chief, told reporters last week that it could be several years before crime trends are reversed. 

    He said a new deployment strategy in Baltimore had been implemented to address the “culture of violence” in the city affecting the youth.

    So if you have holiday plans to visit Baltimore City — please cancel them if you value your life. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 17:00

    Tags

  • Stablecoins 'Threaten Global Financial Stability', Fed Warns
    Stablecoins ‘Threaten Global Financial Stability’, Fed Warns

    Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Stablecoins could “complement” other payment systems and improve conditions for consumers, but need constant checks, says the United States Federal Reserve.

    In its November 2019 Financial Stability Report released on Nov. 15, the Fed highlights stablecoins and their potential impact on the U.S. and beyond.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Fed: Unregulated stablecoins “pose risks”

    Rather than dismissing the phenomenon, officials eye potential use cases for the future but insist any stablecoin must adhere to regulatory demands. 

    “Innovations that foster faster, cheaper, and more inclusive payments could complement existing payment systems and improve consumer welfare if appropriately designed and regulated,” the report explains. 

    At the same time, the Fed warns:

    “However, the possibility for a stablecoin payment network to quickly achieve global scale introduces important challenges and risks related to financial stability, monetary policy, safeguards against money laundering and terrorist financing, and consumer and investor protection.”

    It added rare official praise of Facebook’s embattled Libra concept, describing it as an example of stablecoins, which “have the potential to rapidly achieve widespread adoption.”

    “A global stablecoin network, if poorly designed and unregulated, could pose risks to financial stability,” it states elsewhere.

    Better fractional reserve coin?

    The report comes as the Fed takes an increasing interest in digital currency. As Cointelegraph reported earlier this month, the central bank is currently looking for a dedicated research manager for the sphere, as China prepares to launch its state-backed digital currency.

    At the same time, a former advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump revealed last month he plans to issue his own stablecoin, which is not fully backed by reserves.

    U.S. lawmakers have sought to vet existing stablecoin offerings, notably market leader Tether (USDT), which currently faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that Bitcoin (BTC) figures have broadly dismissed.

    This week, Fed chair Jerome Powell meanwhile admitted that the $23 trillion U.S. national debt was no longer “sustainable,” but that the consequences of not paying it off were not critical.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 16:30

  • Leaked Chinese Government Documents Prove Muslims Are Being Detained In Massive Numbers
    Leaked Chinese Government Documents Prove Muslims Are Being Detained In Massive Numbers

    There’s now substantial evidence – in the Chinese government’s own words – that they are detaining Muslims in massive numbers.

    403 pages of internal documents have been leaked to the New York Times that describe a clampdown in Xinjiang – a resource-rich territory located on the border of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia – where authorities have “corralled as many as a million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs and others into internment camps and prisons over the past three years.”

    In Xinjiang, Muslim ethnic minority groups make up more than half the region’s population of 25 million. The largest group is the Uighurs. Beijing has fought with the Uighurs for decades, who have offered resistance to Chinese rule. 

    The current crackdown began after a surge of antigovernment and anti-Chinese violence, including ethnic riots in 2009 in Urumqi, the regional capital, and a May 2014 attack on an outdoor market that killed 39 people just days before Mr. Xi convened a leadership conference in Beijing to set a new policy course for Xinjiang.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Chinese government has called these camps “job training centers” to fight Islamic extremism, but the documents seem to confirm the coercive nature of the crackdown in the words of the Chinese government. 

    The campaign is being called “ruthless and extraordinary”. Senior party leaders are recorded ordering “drastic and urgent” action, including mass detentions. The leaked papers show how the country carried out its “most far-reaching internment campaign since the Mao era.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Xi Jinping laid the groundwork for the camps during speeches to officials in Xinjiang in April 2014, after Uighur militants stabbed more than 150 people at a train station, killing 31. In his speech, Xi called for “an all-out struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism using the organs of dictatorship and showing absolutely no mercy.”

    Xi also said: “The methods that our comrades have at hand are too primitive. None of these weapons is any answer for their big machete blades, ax heads and cold steel weapons. We must be as harsh as them and show absolutely no mercy.”

    Xi also urged his party to “emulate aspects of America’s war on terror after the Sept. 11 attacks.”

    “We say that development is the top priority and the basis for achieving lasting security, and that’s right. But it would be wrong to believe that with development every problem solves itself,” Xi said in one speech. 

    In another speech, he said: “After the United States pulls troops out of Afghanistan, terrorist organizations positioned on the frontiers of Afghanistan and Pakistan may quickly infiltrate into Central Asia. East Turkestan’s terrorists who have received real-war training in Syria and Afghanistan could at any time launch terrorist attacks in Xinjiang.”

    The camps expanded rapidly in 2016 when Chen Quanguo was appointed new party boss for the region. He handed out Xi’s speeches to stay on message and implored his officials to “round up everyone who should be rounded up.” Any local leaders that stood in Chen’s way were immediately purged, including one official who was jailed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    And the leak suggests that there could be discontent from within the party. The Chinese, who often undertake policymaking under the cloak of secrecy, are certainly not known for leaking internal government documents.

    Since 2017, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been detained in Xinjiang. One leaked document describes how to handle minority students returning home to Xinjiang in summer 2017 to find that their relatives have been detained. The document says that students should be informed that their relatives are receiving “treatment”.

    One document ordered: “Keep up the detentions. Stick to rounding up everyone who should be rounded upIf they’re there, round them up.

    Officials in Eastern Xinjiang drafted the Q and A script and distributed the guide across the region, urging officials to use it as a model. 

    The document says: “Returning students from other parts of China have widespread social ties across the entire country. The moment they issue incorrect opinions on WeChat, Weibo and other social media platforms, the impact is widespread and difficult to eradicate.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Authorities suspected that the answers wouldn’t work well with students and also supplied answers to follow up questions like: 

    • When will my relatives be released?
    • If this is for training, why can’t they come home?
    • Can they request a leave?
    • How will I afford school if my parents are studying and there is no one to work on the farm?

    The guide recommends answers that get firmer in nature, eventually culminating telling students that their relatives have been “infected” by the “virus” of radical Islam and must be quarantined and cured. Even grandparents could not be spared, officials were told to say. 

    One answer says: “If they don’t undergo study and training, they’ll never thoroughly and fully understand the dangers of religious extremism. No matter what age, anyone who has been infected by religious extremism must undergo study.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another says: “Treasure this chance for free education that the party and government has provided to thoroughly eradicate erroneous thinking, and also learn Chinese and job skills. This offers a great foundation for a happy life for your family.”

    The authorities are using a scoring system to see who can be released from camps. Students are told that the system takes into account their daily behavior, which has a direct effect on when their relatives may be released.

    “There must be effective educational remolding and transformation of criminals. And even after these people are released, their education and transformation must continue,” President Xi said during one trip to Xinjiang. 

    You can read the New York Times’ full longform piece, including all of the leaked documents, here


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 16:00

  • Goldman's Euphoria Indicator Just Hit An All-Time High: What Happens Next?
    Goldman’s Euphoria Indicator Just Hit An All-Time High: What Happens Next?

    With the S&P closing above 3,100 and the Dow sprinting higher in the last seconds of Friday trading to close above 28,000 for the first time ever, one can argue that the long awaited melt-up has finally arrived.

    After a year of relentless retail and institutional outflows from equity funds yet which has seen a record buyback tide prop up the entire stock market (just last week BofA recorded its 6th busiest week on record for client buybacks, up 26% from the already record buyback pace in 2018 and making a mockery of the so-called buyback blackout period), equity flows are finally picking up as bond flows slow down. According to EPFR, flows into bond funds (+$4.2bn) slowed sharply this week from the very strong pace seen for most of this year ($10bn a week on average), while flows into equity funds (+$9.6bn) on the other hand remained strong for a third straight week, in contrast to the trend for almost a year (-$5bn a week since December) according to Deutsche Bank. Indeed, over the last three weeks, flows into equity funds ($33bn) overtook those into bonds ($23bn), for the first time since early December 2018 over comparable rolling three week periods.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet with most pieces in place to explain the melt up, there was one minor glitch in the matrix: even as US stocks soared in the past few weeks with just 2 down days the entire month of November, equity flows are rotating away from the US. Within equities, US (-$0.4bn) funds saw outflows this week which were more than offset by strong inflows into EM (+$3.2bn), Europe ($1.5bn) and funds with a global mandate (+$5.2bn). Within global funds in particular, Deutsche Bank noted that those which invest only outside the US saw very strong inflows ($3.1bn), their strongest since March of last year. Meanwhile, for European funds, inflows over the last four weeks have been the strongest since March of last year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Actually, it’s not just outflows from US stocks that doen’t fit the narrative: recent US data has been unexpectedly disappointing, with the Citi US economic surprise index sliding back in the red after surging from deep negative in June, until it hit the most positive print in the past year at the end of September.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At the same time, various GDP Nowcasts and consensus estimates have tumbled, with the average Q4 GDP print now expected to come in at around 0.83%, down sharply from just last week’s 1.25%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Then there are US corporate earnings: according to Factset, with 92% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting, the blended earnings decline for the index for the third quarter is -2.3%. Meanwhile, consensus EPS forecasts have tumbled in recent weeks, and Q4 EPS growth is now also in the red, suggesting US corporations are knee-deep in an earnings recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What is amusing, is Goldman strategist Alessio Rizzi summarizes these recent transformations, writing on Friday that “since the end of the summer, the baton has been passed from monetary policy to global growth, supporting a sharp re-rating of risky assets led by the underperformers in the first part of the year.”

    This is, in a word, laughable: not only has the baton not been passed to global growth, as US growth is once again backsliding, and Germany just escaped a recession by literally the smallest of possible margins growing at just 0.1% in Q3, the same dismal growth as Japan, but the latest Chinese data have been downright miserable, with GDP now expected to print below 6% and China’s credit impulse just barely rebounding from cycle lows at a time when China’s total credit injection was the lowest in years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps what Rizzi meant to say is that the baton has been passed from monetary policy to NOT QE as investors has plowed into risk assets following the Fed’s recent decision to buy $60 billion in T-Bills per month (which as both Bank of America last week, and Citi’s Matt King on Friday now admit IS in fact, QE). Incidentally, anyone who wishes to understand what is really going on in the market is urged to read Matt King’s latest “Has the monetary tsunami restarted?” (spoiler alert: yes).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Carl Quintanilla

    Yet where the Goldman strategist is right is that as a result of the Fed’s latest intervention, the bank’s Risk Appetite Momentum indicator – also known as Goldman’s “euphoria meter” – is now at all-time highs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is a problem, because while Goldman may have totally butchered the cause and effect of the recent NOT QE (but really QE)-driven meltup, where it does provide some actionable information is that record high levels of its Risk Appetite Momentum, those above 1, have historically signaled negative asymmetry for equity returns.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And while the sharp increase in risk appetite has likely been exacerbated by bearish positioning, the high RAI Momentum  suggests that investors have started to price in a bottoming of the growth slowdown, which thanks to the market’s reflexivity, increases the risk of disappointments: after all, the catalyst for the Q4 2018 crash was the collapse in central bank liquidity and fears that the Fed would hike even more (obviously, all that ended in Q1 of 2019 after the market’s mini bear market on Christmas Eve 2018).

    There is another risk according to Rizzi – one where investors turn from overly bearish to overly bullish, or as he put it, as markets shift from TINA (there is no alternative) to FOMO (fear of missing out), “there is a risk of an overshoot vs. the data, especially as noise around growth is likely to remain high.”

    So far, early signs of FOMO are coming from the options market, where call options have been well bid. Indeed, after a record high at the end of September, implied volatility skew has declined sharply across assets, equity spot-vol correlation has become much less negative and call vs. put volume has risen materially.

    That said, for now it appears that euphoria is largely confined to the near future with longer-term option pricing still pointing to a less constructive stance. To wit, “while 1m equity call skew has become more expensive, long-dated call skew still looks considerably cheaper.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In addition, equity put skew has only marginally declined and the volatility term structure is now very steep, as long-term volatility has materially lagged the decline in short-term vol. This suggests investors’ concerns over 2020 remain high, likely owing to the US political agenda – i.e., will Warren beat Trump in the 2020 presidential elections – and uncertainty around the growth upside.

    Add to the above observed euphoria the fact pointed out at the very beginning of this article that investors are finally throwing in the towel on defensive positioning and rotating into risk assets, and one can correctly conclude that the latest melt up has arrived.

    Goldman’s Rizzi is not fully convinced just yet, noting that “overall positioning does not appear very bullish” but as he warns “with market prices moving sharply higher recently and our RAI Momentum indicator being at historical highs, the hurdle rate for further positive surprises that sustain the strong momentum seems to have increased.”

    As such, Goldman concludes that “a moderation in the pace of the ‘risk on’ move is now more likely, unless a more sizeable improvement in the macro and political outlook materializes”, or, more accurately, unless the Fed doubles down on its NOT QE. Alternatively, it is quite possible that the blow-off top accelerates into year end without any justification – besides the Fed’s latest massive liquidity injection which have boosted the Fed’s balance sheet by nearly $300 billion in the past 2 months, a faster rate than that observed during QE3.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Incidentally, the last time we had a similar market melt-up was in late January 2018, just before vol sellers overextended themselves, resulting in the overnight annihilation of the entire inverse VIX ETN complex, and the market collapsed. Back then, however, the Fed and other central banks were actually on hiatus from explicitly supporting risk assets; this time, however, with the Fed and ECB once again engaging in full-blown debt monetization, a sudden loss of confidence in risk assets – and by extension central banks – could prove catastrophic, especially with a record number of investors shorting the VIX…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … potentially setting up the biggest VIX short squeeze in history.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 15:30

  • "Voters Don't Want To See Crazy Stuff" – Obama Asks WTF Are 2020 Democrats Doing
    “Voters Don’t Want To See Crazy Stuff” – Obama Asks WTF Are 2020 Democrats Doing

    Former President Obama cautioned 2020 Democratic candidates not to move too far to the left, as messages of sweeping societal and government transformations risk turning off the party’s moderate base, according to the New York Times.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “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.”

    Obama joins House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Florida Senator Bill Nelson, and other moderate Democrats in his implicit warning over plans by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) who have called for a “political revolution” and “big structural change” with ideas that would eliminate private health insurance and place a moratorium on deportations according to The Hill.

    The comments marked an extraordinary entrance into the primary contest by the former president, who has been careful to avoid even the appearance of influencing the direction of the race.

    His remarks offered an implicit critique of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have urged voters to embrace “political revolution” and “big, structural change,” as well as proposals once widely considered to be left to the liberal fringes of the party, including court packing and decriminalizing illegal border crossings. –NYT

    I don’t think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven’t heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately that’s going to activate them,” added Obama. “There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

    In April, the former president said “One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States — maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,’ and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a ‘circular firing squad,’ where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues,” adding “And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.”

    In early November, Pelosi suggested that 2020 Democrats may strike out against Trump with ultra-liberal policies that may fire up coastal leftists, but may not go over well elsewhere.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,”Pelosi said in a wide-ranging interview with Bloomberg. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”

    Bill Nelson, meanwhile, also said earlier this month that if Warren or Sanders become the party’s nominee in 2020 that Democrats would effectively be ceding Florida to Trump.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The answer is yes,” said Nelson – a Biden supporter who narrowly lost his re-election in 2018. “I say this with the greatest respect and admiration and friendship for those other senators who embrace Medicare for All. But the hard reality is, it is going to be a stretch too far for the Democrat candidate.

    And while Obama is now cautioning 2020 progressives against straying too far left, he’s still not endorsing his former VP Joe Biden, the moderate Democratic frontrunner.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 15:00

    Tags

  • Chinese Soldiers Deployed Onto Street Of Hong Kong To "Help Clean Up"
    Chinese Soldiers Deployed Onto Street Of Hong Kong To “Help Clean Up”

    Dozens of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers were spotted on the streets of Hong Kong’s Kowloon Tong neighborhood on Saturday afternoon, cleaning up bricks and roadblocks left behind by pro-democracy protestors, according to broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK). 

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

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

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

    This was the first time PLA soldiers have entered the streets of the city since the violent protests began in June.

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

    The soldiers, unarmed, dressed in olive T-shirts with a Chinese flag on the sleeves, used buckets and brooms for about one hour to clean up streets around the barracks in Kowloon Tong, RTHK said.

    One PLA soldier told the South China Morning Post that their actions weren’t related to any direct orders from the Government of Hong Kong. 

    “We initiated this! ‘Stopping violence and ending chaos’ is our responsibility,” he said, quoting a phrase used by President Xi Jinping.

    So far, there hasn’t been any official statement from the Government of Hong Kong about PLA soldiers on the streets. 

    According to Article 14 of the Garrison Law, PLA soldiers are permitted to enter the streets of Hong Kong to assist with disaster relief or maintaining public order if requested by the local government. 

    On Thursday, President Xi broke his silence over the chaos in the city at the 11th BRICS Summit in Brazil. 

    President Xi said the violent protests in Hong Kong threatened the rule of law and social order, which has sent the city into crisis. 

    “We will continue to firmly support the chief executive in leading the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to govern in accordance with the law, firmly support the Hong Kong police in strictly enforcing the law, and firmly support the Hong Kong judicial bodies in severely punishing the violent criminals in accordance with the law,” he said. 

    If violent protests persist, it could be entirely possible that PLA soldiers are re-deployed with riot control gear and weapons. 

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

    Hong Kong has recently entered a technical recession. The city is on the verge of financial collapse. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/16/2019 – 15:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 16th November 2019

  • Globalists Openly Admit To Population Control Agenda – And That's A Bad Sign…
    Globalists Openly Admit To Population Control Agenda – And That’s A Bad Sign…

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Eugenics and population control are long time hobbies of the financial elites. In the early 1900’s, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute were deeply involved in promoting Eugenics laws in the US. These laws led to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 American citizens in states like California and thousands of rejected marriage licenses. The Eugenics programs in the US were only a beta test though, as the Rockefellers then transferred their programs over to Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich in the 1930’s, were a true widespread eugenics-based population control program was introduced.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The targets of population reduction were based on ethnic background, but also “mental intelligence” and economic status. The Carnegie Institute even established a “Eugenics Records Office” called Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory in 1904, which collected genetic data on millions of Americans and their families with the intent of controlling their numbers and erasing certain traits from the US population. The Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory still exists today and presents itself as a kind of philanthropic endeavor to help humanity.

    Public knowledge of the globalists and their population control agenda was carefully swept under the rug in the US after the exposure of Nazi programs post-WWII. The word “eugenics” became a very ugly one and all the effort the elites put into promoting it as a legitimate science was ruined. However, they were not going to give up on their precious ideology.

    In the late 1960’s into the 1970’s there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the UN and some related scientific groups, the Club Of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome’s agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of “scientists” under the UN’s direction published a paper called ‘The Limits Of Growth’, which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of “saving the environment”. This effort was directly linked to another agenda – the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.

    The elites had found a new scientific front for their eugenics obsession: Climate science. In the early 1990’s the Club Of Rome published a book called ‘The First Global Revolution’. In it they state:

    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.”

    The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. It also outlines the perfect rationale for population control – Mankind is the enemy, therefore, mankind as a species must be kept under strict supervision and his proliferation must be restricted.

    The Club of Rome and the UN agenda have always been intimately connected. In the 1990’s at the same time ‘The First Global Revolution’ was being published, UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller was publishing his manifesto which is now collected on a website called ‘Good Morning World’. Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself.

    In a paper titled ‘Proper Earth Government: A Framework And Ways To Create It’ Robert Muller outlines how climate change could be used to convince the masses of the need for global government. Integral to his plan were the introduction of a new “global religion”, and population controls.

    It should come as no surprise that the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) and that this panel and it’s offshoots are now at the forefront of the argument for population reduction. As we close in on the end date for the UN’s Agenda 2030, which calls for a radical shift of human production from oil and other large scale energy sources into small scale “renewable energies”, there is only 10 years left for the globalists to achieve their goals if they hope to meet their announced deadline. This would require a violent change in human society and most of all industrialized nations.

    The human population would have to be reduced dramatically in order to survive on the meager energy output of renewables alone. A disaster of epic proportions would have to take place soon so that the globalists could then spend the next decade using the resulting fear to convince the surviving population that global governance is needed. Without aggressive crisis and change most people would never go along with the UN’s agenda, out of simple desire for self preservation. Even many leftists, once exposed to the true nature of carbon controls and population reduction, might have second thoughts when they realize they could be affected.

    The key to understanding people who cheer for population control or population reduction is that these people always assume that THEY will be the survivors and inheritors of the Earth after the culling.  They never assume that they will be the one’s put on the chopping block.

    In 2019, the population agenda is being ramped into high gear and the public is being carefully conditioned over time to accept the idea that man-made climate change is real and population is the source of the problem.  Recently, a groups of scientists partially funded by something called the “Worthy Garden Club” claimed 11,000 signatures on a statement for the need for population reduction in the name of saving the Earth from global warming.

    The statement cites all the same long debunked IPCC and UN climate change propaganda as the reasons why the Earth is on the verge of annihilation. The fact of the matter is, climate scientists have been consistently caught red handed manipulating their own data to show the intended outcome of global warming. They have even been caught trying to adjust their own data from 20 years ago in order to match it more closely to the rigged data they publish today.

    The Worthy Garden Club is a strangely sterile group and there doesn’t seem to be any list of their patrons and who funds them. However, the mainstream media was quick to pick up on the statement from the “11,000 scientists” and tie it to statements made by the UN’s IPCC.

    Population control has also been brought up consistently as an issue in the 2020 Presidential Election race. Bernie Sanders argued for birth control measures in poor countries. Elizabeth Warren promoted abortion by saying it was as safe as “getting your tonsils removed”. She has consistently promoted the carbon control agenda of the UN and was, interestingly, a member of the University Of Texas Population research Center in the 1980s. And, Green New Deal politicians are throwing their support behind the statements from the Worthy Garden Club on population reduction.

    This is the first time I have seen the argument for population reduction used so blatantly and widespread in the mainstream media, and it suggests to me that a trend is forming. For years I have warned my readers that they will know when the globalists are about to pull the plug on the current system when they start talking about their criminality openly. When they admit to their agenda in a free way, this means they are close to a global reset and do not care anymore who knows about it. The openness of the plan to cut world population is becoming apparent.

    Strangely, there has been little mention of the fact that the world population, in the west most of all, is actually in decline. Far from exploding beyond the Earth’s capacity, people are barely having enough children to keep the current population stable. It would appear that the globalist agenda is already in motion. Through engineered economic disintegration, the population is being slowly reduced.  However, this slow decline may not be enough to satisfy the globalists.

    How many people would the globalists like to kill off to achieve their utopian aspirations?  Well, globalist Ted Turner in a moment of honesty said when confronted by We Are Change that the population should be reduced to 2 billion down from 7 billion.

    The primary issue here beyond the moral horror show of eugenics is, who gets cut? And furthermore, who gets to decide who gets cut? Who gets to decide if you can have children or not? Who gets to decide if you are allowed to access resources to produce and make a living or not? Who gets to decide if the global economy will sustain the population or not? Who pulls the trigger on the culling of the population?

    As history has shown us, it is always the elites that end up in the position of deciding the fates of millions or billions. From the Rockefeller Foundation sterilization programs in the US in the early 1900’s to the UN today, the globalists, a veritable death cult, are desperate to conjure a rationalization as to why they should be the ones to allow or deny human life based on lies like man-made climate change.  They don’t believe in the climate change threat, THEY were the people that fabricated it.  So, what is the core reason behind all of this?

    A reduced population completely dependent on limited energy sources might be easier to dominate.  But I have another theory – they are psychopaths looking for a socially justifiable way to kill as many people as possible. Why? because they enjoy it.

    *  *  *

    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

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 23:45

  • "It's Cozy" – LA Imports Are Paying $800/Month To 'Live In A Coffin'
    “It’s Cozy” – LA Imports Are Paying $800/Month To ‘Live In A Coffin’

    First it was the unaffordability of ‘real’ homes (combined with massive student loan debt) that spoiled the living-the-Dream narrative for America’s young people.

    Remember this 350-square foot studio in NYC that cost $645,000?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Then it was a shift to “tiny homes” – which became popular with millennials since their standard of living has collapsed.

    But while they could virtue signal with solar panels and wind power systems, an eco-friendly bathroom, and a kitchen with everything needed to make avocado and toast, living in with post-industrial feel using an old shipping container for $37,000 was too much for many

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So ‘podlife’ sprung up on the coasts – as the housing affordability crisis deepened on the West Coast, a new style of living, one that reminds millennials of their college dormitory days, sprang up in cities across California.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But, residents were upset by having to adhere to house rules, one being that lights go out at 10 pm each night, and no guests are allowed inside.

    And so, as AFP reports, young Americans flocking to LA and NYC are now resorting to “Capsule Living” as the only affordable option

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Inspired by the famous hotels in Japan, each room contains up to six capsules, described by residents as “cozy,” containing a single bed, a bar for hanging clothes, a few compartments for storing shoes and other items and an air vent.

    By most standards, the coffin-like accommodation is still not cheap – $750 per month plus taxes. That works out at around $800 and there are still rules… women and men sleep apart, and having sex is not an option.

    For Dana Cuff, an architect and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), this type of community presents only a short-term solution.

    “We basically need to be developing a huge range of options for the kinds of housing that are available,” she said.

    “To me, co-living pods… are symptoms of this deep need for a much greater range of housing alternatives.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alejandro Chupina, 27, left home as a teenager because his parents did not support his career as an actor and musician.

    “We have so many different amenities… for what we’re paying, I feel like we’re getting way more, in different ways,” said the young man with a handlebar moustache, who can recite the musical “Hamilton” by heart.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We give the final word to Kay Wilson, who packed up her life in a hurry and moved to Los Angeles… only to find that what she paid in Pennsylvania for a nice studio apartment would only get her a 2.9-square-meter box in California.

    “I sold all my belongings and I moved here to be in this pod… I’m finding comfort in being uncomfortable,”

    The American Dream indeed…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 23:25

  • The "Officer-Friendly" Police Fantasy
    The “Officer-Friendly” Police Fantasy

    Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    Police in Tempe, Arizona, announced plans in July for a “positive-ticketing” campaign to pull over drivers who had violated no traffic laws. A Phoenix TV station reported that the police would give the people they targeted free soft-drink coupons for Circle K as a reward for their “good driving behavior.” Police in other areas have run similar programs in recent years but the TV news report on Tempe’s plan spurred a torrent of testy Tweets:

    “Keep your hands on the wheel and don’t make any sudden moves while you are being rewarded, it could cost you your life.”

    “We gunned him down…. well, he refused to stop for his coupon. Self defense. Case dismissed.”

    “Um, WHAT?!? They better not stop me for driving legally cause that’s illegal! #harassment”

    “What if you don’t stop?”

    “Cops to profile for illegal immigrants under the guise of campaign to promote good driving.”

    “There goes probable cause right out the window. Police state 101.”

    “I would get a panic attack. My reward for driving well is not dying. That’s all I want.”

    “Unless it’s a ruse to illegally search your vehicles. And if they notice anything out of line during the mock pullover you’ll be arrested.”

    “What’s next? Are they going to start walking into people’s houses to congratulate them for not breaking the law?”

    One commenter suggested he could be fined for “resisting a coupon” for free drinks.

    A few months before its “positive ticketing campaign” announcement, Tempe police were harshly criticized after one of their officers shot a 14-year-old boy in the back, killing him as he was running away while holding a replica airsoft pistol. An Arizona ACLU employee summarized the situation on Twitter:

    “Tempe cops: the community doesn’t trust us after we shot and killed an unarmed teen (sic) what do we do

    Community: stop killing us

    Tempe cops: FREE THIRSTBUSTERS AND UNREASONABLE STOPS”

    The Tempe Police Department responded to the uproar by issuing a statement stating that they never intended to pull over motorists without good cause. Instead, the free-coupon program would be targeted to pedestrians, bicyclists, and skateboarders. But the furious reaction of people across the nation signaled the profound distrust of police.

    This is presidential campaign season, and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg claims that he will be able to end the pervasive distrust of the police. In one of the first candidate debates, he said he is “determined to bring about a day when” any driver, white or black, has “a feeling not of fear but of safety” when he sees a police officer approaching.

    And how would Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, achieve this profound change? He has not yet detailed his panacea. Perhaps he believes that sensitivity training or racial consciousness-raising classes could do the trick. But Buttigieg has ignored the real source of the problem: politicians have given police so much power that citizens naturally fear them.

    Arresting anyone

    In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that police can justifiably arrest anyone believed to have “committed even a very minor criminal offense.” That case involved Gail Atwater, a Texas mother who was driving slowly near her home but, because her children were not wearing seatbelts, she was taken away by an abusive cop whose shouting left her children “terrified and hysterical.” A majority of Supreme Court justices recognized that “Atwater’s claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it specific to her case” — but upheld the arrest anyhow.

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned that “such unbounded discretion carries with it grave potential for abuse.” Unfortunately, there are endless pretexts for people to be arrested nowadays because federal, state, and local politicians and officials have criminalized daily life with hundreds of thousands of edicts. Capt. Steve Powell of the Colorado State Patrol commented, “Ninety percent of the cars out there are doing something that you can pull them over for. There are a jillion reasons people can be stopped — taillights, windshields cracked, any number of things.” Gerard Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me in the 1990s, “We have so damn many laws, you can’t drive the streets without breaking the law. I could write you a hundred tickets depending on what you said to me when I stopped you.”

    Justice O’Connor noted in her dissent that the Fourth Amendment “guarantees the right to be free from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’” But when politicians have enacted endless laws that make almost everyone a criminal, then the Fourth Amendment is practically null and void.

    Asset-forfeiture laws give police sweeping arbitrary power over Americans’ wallets, cars, and homes. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher told the Supreme Court in 2018 that the government is entitled to confiscate cars that exceed speed limits by 5 miles per hour — a standard that would justify seizing most vehicles. Between 2001 and 2014, lawmen seized more than $2.5 billion in cash from 60,000 travelers on the nation’s highways — with no criminal charges in the vast majority of cases, the Washington Post reported.

    Police have been trained to confiscate private property of drivers by absurdly claiming that “trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks, or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors” are signs of criminal activity. Blacks and Hispanics have been victimized far more often by such laws. Tenaha, Texas, police ran an operation that stopped and plundered almost anyone passing through their East Texas locale. The names of the court filings capture Tenaha’s voraciousness, such as State of Texas v. One Gold Crucifix. “The police had confiscated a simple gold cross that a woman wore around her neck after pulling her over for a minor traffic violation. No contraband was reported, no criminal charges were filed, and no traffic ticket was issued,” the New Yorker noted. If drivers “refused to part with their money, officers threatened to arrest them on false money laundering charges and other serious felonies,” an ACLU lawsuit charged. Tenaha police stopped a 27-year-old black man who worked as a chicken slicer in a Tysons plant in Arkansas and fleeced him of $3,900 after detecting him “driving too close to the white line.”

    Subverting the Fourth Amendment

    Police have gutted the Fourth Amendment with dogs that will give them a positive alert almost any time they seek a pretext to forcibly search someone’s vehicle. The fact that canines are sometimes trained to give false alerts is irrelevant as long as the government always wins. Canine alerts to currency are routinely used to justify seizures even though most U.S. currency has trace amounts of drug contamination. For 30 years, the courts have condemned the abuses based on currency seizures due to dog alerts. But the official robberies continue.

    There is a long history of federal, state, and local officials partnering to fabricate pretexts to stop drivers. From 1992 through 2013, the Drug Enforcement Administration illegally commandeered the phone records of all Americans who called most of the foreign nations in the world, as USA Today revealed in 2015. To keep its phone-record seizures secret, the DEA partnered with local police to concoct phony reasons for traffic stops that sometimes included staging fake auto accidents and even car thefts. Why should citizens trust law-enforcement agencies that engaged in decades of systemic fraud? If bureaucrats and cops gave themselves an unlimited right to lie regarding the source of their evidence, what other lies have they permitted themselves in the war against any American who possesses substances of which politicians disapprove?

    Uncle Sam has brought the surveillance state to the nearest police car dashboard. Federal grants have enabled many states and localities to equip police cars with license-plate scanners that provide plenty of bogus pretexts to harass hapless drivers.

    License-plate readers often misread plates. Brian Hofer was pulled off Interstate 80 in California and handcuffed and held at gunpoint after his rental vehicle was misreported as stolen. Hofer commented in 2019, “I’m sitting ice-cold and saying nothing because I do not want any itchy trigger fingers.” With an error rate approaching 10 percent, license-plate readers effectively generate potentially thousands of false accusations each day.

    Subverting the Second Amendment

    Local officials exploit surveillance data to subvert the Second Amendment. John Filippidis was driving with his family through Maryland when he was pulled over by a Maryland transportation policeman outside a Baltimore tunnel. The policeman ordered Filippidis out of his car and angrily demanded to know where his gun was. Filippidis has a Right to Carry (RTC) permit from Florida — where he had left his firearm. Police spent hours questioning him and searching his minivan before permitting him to move on, leaving his wife and daughters utterly distraught. Maryland police have targeted and rigorously searched other out-of-state drivers with RTC permits (which Maryland does not recognize). Federal grants enabled Maryland to equip hundreds of police cars with license-plate scanners that create almost 100 million records per year detailing exactly where and when each vehicle travels.

    The war on drugs and its endless crackdowns and intrusions spurred far more distrust of police but politicians learned nothing from its debacles. Sixteen states have raised the smoking age to 21, and there is a push (supported by Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) to dictate a federal smoking age of 21. Why not simply issue a federal mandate for an annual additional 10 million unnecessary confrontations between police and youth? Criminalizing private vices is the surest way to make law enforcement a public menace.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Citizens are wary of police cars in their rear-view mirrors because politicians and judges made average Americans legally inferior to anyone with a badge and a gun. Police almost always receive legal immunity when they unjustifiably shoot people — it is practically a perk of their job. The existence of video footage from dashboard cams and police cameras is helping to ravage the final remnants of police credibility in many areas. The pervasive cover-ups and lies that follow dubious killings by police do more to spur wariness than a million “Officer Friendly” public-service announcements can counteract.

    The best way to encourage citizens to have “a feeling not of fear but of safety” when they see a cop is to repeal legions of laws empowering police to unjustifiably accost and wrongfully subjugate peaceful citizens. But that is unlikely to happen as long as most politicians are more interested in power than in domestic tranquility.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • "More And More Robots Are Coming" – South Korea Embraces Job-Killing 'Friends'
    “More And More Robots Are Coming” – South Korea Embraces Job-Killing ‘Friends’

    The collision of demographics and automation will potentially reshape South Korea’s economy by 2030.

    A new analysis via Bloomberg shows the collision of these forces could trigger economic disruptions that might lead to a decade of financial volatility.

    South Korea has one of the fastest aging populations in the world, and to counter these upcoming demographic challenges, corporations and the government are investing billions of dollars into building “smart factories” where automation and artificial intelligence will replace human workers.

    Already South Korea has embraced robots in its manufacturing sector. About 3 million people, or about two-thirds of the workers in manufacturing, are at serious risk of losing their jobs to robots in the next decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A new wave of investments in automation, artificial intelligence, and fifth-generation wireless networks could expedite the transition of robots replacing workers in smart factories.

    The collision of automation in the workplace isn’t just going to reshape factories in South Korea — it will also lead to massive job losses in the service sector.

    Services account for 70% of the South Korea economy, and this means job losses could be double or triple of what is expected in the manufacturing sector by 2030.

    The most impacted service jobs are likely to be retailing, food services, and transportation.

    The impact on the workforce is going to be so high that the government has already started creating “learning factories,” where about 50,000 people by 2022 will be reskilled to work on robots.

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

    Jeong Jong-pil, a professor teaching factory automation at South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University, told Bloomberg that the country’s demographic challenges are some of the drivers behind the rush to automate factories. “There’s no way to meet productivity targets without automation…That’s why more and more robots are coming.”

    The impact of automation in manufacturing and service sectors will increase income inequality from already high levels to crisis levels.

    Middle- and low-income families in the country will be wiped out, depressing consumer spending and economic growth.

    South Korea is about to usher in a period of radical change, which will be one of the most important trends across the world that will reshape developed and emerging market economies by 2030.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 22:45

  • DARPA Seeks "Militarized Microbes" So They Can Spread Genetically-Modified Bacteria
    DARPA Seeks “Militarized Microbes” So They Can Spread Genetically-Modified Bacteria

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The Pentagon’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wants to be able to spread genetically modified bacteria as “explosives sensors.” The United States government could very well be looking into ways to militarize microbes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pentagon has teamed up with Raytheon for this project, which seems like it should come straight out of a dystopian science fiction story. The government wants to develop a system capable of delivering genetically modified bacteria underground, according to a report by RT.

    Initiated by DARPA, the same agency that led programs to create telekinetic super soldiers and weaponized robotic insects, the project seeks to “program two bacterial strains to monitor ground surfaces for explosive materials,” defense contractor Raytheon said in a joint press release with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

    DARPA Can Exterminate Humanity: ‘You Could Feasibly WIPE OUT The Human Race’

    DARPA Wants “Thought Controlled Weapons” By Finding Ways To “Read Soldiers’ Minds”

    So the genetically modified bacteria are for your own good!

    The first of the two strains, known as a “bio-sensor,” will “detect the presence or absence of explosives buried underground,” while the second will produce a “glowing light” in the event such materials are found. Remotely operated cameras or drones would then be sent to survey the area to find the glowing germs, and ultimately the buried explosives. –RT

    We already know that some bacteria can be programmed to be very good at detecting explosives, but it’s harder underground,” said Raytheon researcher Allison Taggart. “We’re investigating how to transport the reporting bacteria to the required depth underground.”

    Though the Pentagon claims it only plans to use the system for defensive purposes only, some may find the idea of militarized microbes off-putting while conjuring apocalyptic scenarios of a runaway genetically engineered superbug.

    Insider Reveals How DARPA Will Control Our Minds: “If Even 20% Of This Is True…”

    DARPA has undertaken some projects that should raise the alarm in many.  However, it almost seems as though we’ve reached a point where the masses don’t care what’s being done to them, in their name, and with the money stolen from them. And these are just a few of the things we know DARPA is working on.

    No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.” ― William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 22:25

  • Denver Business Owner Fined For Not Cleaning Up Vagrant Poo And Used Needles
    Denver Business Owner Fined For Not Cleaning Up Vagrant Poo And Used Needles

    The city of Denver fined a local business owner after he and his staff refused to continue cleaning up after homeless people behind his building, according to CBS Denver.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Screenshot (YouTube)

    There’s food, trash, drug deals,” said Jawaid Bayzar, who added “In the alley we get, ya know, the defacation, drug needles, prostitution” behind his internet company, Forethought.net. One night an employee was sitting in his car when someone smashed the window and tried to stab him, according to Bayzar.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And when Bayzar and his crew stopped cleaning up the constant hazardous mess left by the vagrants, telling CBS he’s not equipped to deal with it, Denver fined him.

    “If the city’s not going to enforce laws against trespassing, or camping, or public defecation and just make me bare the cost of these problems that’s just not right,” he told CBS4.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Denver officials disagree, saying that if it’s happening on his property, it’s his problem – adding that he’s subject to daily citations until the debris is cleaned up.

    Bayzar is heading to court on Dec. 18 to fight the citation.

    “I’m going to go to court and do my best to argue that the City’s treatment of this unfair. This is a public crime issue and a public health issue and the city is the organization that’s responsible for that.”

     

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 22:05

  • "The Democrats Have The Country On A Slippery Slope", Paul Craig Roberts
    “The Democrats Have The Country On A Slippery Slope”, Paul Craig Roberts

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The fake “whistleblower’s name – Eric Ciamerella – has been known for a long time, but not officially. Now it is official. Senator Rand Paul has officially released his name. Funny, isn’t it, that only the Republicans want Ciamerella to testify. The Democrats won’t hear of it. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If the American people are paying attention, the Democrats are in trouble. When Russiagate fizzled out on them, Adam Schiff (D,CA) orchestrated a fake “whistleblower” who the Democrats cannot risk putting on the stand to testify. The Democrats’ focus shifted to sleazy State Department types who could offer nothing but second or third hand hearsay followed by a hearsay second telephone call that cannot be confirmed.

    Why are the Democrats out on a limb like this? They can rely on the presstitutes to cover up for them in every respect and to continue to repeat endlessly without any verification their charges against Trump, but after going through the hoax of Russiagate are the American people stupid enough to fall for the replacement hoax?

    Some analysts believe that the House Democrats are using the so-called impeachment not to produce any evidence, as they have none, but to gin up hatred of Trump especially among the youth who are known to want to be included in whatever is cool. The Democrats’ project is to make hating Trump cool and to convince young people to base their vote on being cool and hating Trump.

    I recently asked where are Attorney General Barr’s indictments of Obama regime officials for the attempted Russiagate coup against Trump. Some Republicans explained that Barr is waiting until closer to the election in order to get maximum impact on the voting public. If so, this is a mistake. The longer Barr waits, the longer the presstitutes and Democrats have to discredit the indictments in advance as Trump’s effort to produce a countervailing news story. The longer Barr waits, the more of Trump’s presidency is given up to the impeachment circus. The longer Barr waits, the longer Republicans have to become demoralized by the complete absence of integrity among the American media and House Democrats. It is really very disgusting for anyone not caught up in the emotion of hating Trump at all costs. Honest people with integrity don’t want to be associated with such dirty business.

    There actually are a lot of Americans who have been conditioned to hate Trump so completely that they would accept his removal by a coup. They are so emotional that they are unable to think about the consequences for democracy of a coup. This is the slippery slope the Romans went down. Once an emperor was removed by a coup, every emperor could be, and often was, removed by a coup. The subsequent internal disorder contributed greatly to the fall of Rome.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are many issues on which Democrats could legitimately challenge Trump in the forthcoming presidential election that would resonate with many honest Americans. Democrats could challenge Trump for the coup against Bolivian President Morales. They could challenge Trump for dismantling environmental protections and for permitting mining and energy companies to loot national monuments and wildlife refuges. They could challenge Trump for persecuting Julian Assange for practicing traditional journalism. They could challenge Trump for serving Israeli instead of American foreign policy interests. These and other issues would make a real campaign, one worthy of a democracy. Instead, we get hoax scandals.

    What this tells us is that there is not enough integrity in the Democratic Party and American media for democracy to survive. When the political process consists of nothing but lies and hatred, democracy is not possible.

    Why are the House Democrats and the American media destroying democracy?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 21:45

    Tags

  • Report Finds China Still Harvesting Organs From Political Dissidents, Minorities
    Report Finds China Still Harvesting Organs From Political Dissidents, Minorities

    Fewer than five years after China said it had finally ended the controversial practice of involuntary organ “donations”, research published this week found a disturbing pattern in the data on organ transplants that China submits to international regulators, according to the Guardian.

    The research found that the Chinese government may have been “systematically falsifying” its organ donation numbers, raising renewed concerns over whether Beijing is still using executed prisoners and other forced donors for transplants for wealthy Chinese.

    In 2015, China publicly promised it would no longer source organs from executed prisoners, who previously provided most of the transplanted organs in China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But a study led by Australian National University PhD student Matthew Robertson that was published in the BMC Medical Ethics journal on Friday claims Chinese-government supplied datasets on organ donations show “highly compelling evidence they are being falsified.”

    Using statistical forensics on the datasets, researchers found the numbers of organs reportedly transplanted almost perfectly matched the quadratic formula.

    “When you take a close look at the numbers of organs apparently collected they almost match this artificial equation point for point, year in, year out. They’re too neat to be true,” Robertson said.

    “These figures don’t appear to be real data from real donations. They’re numbers generated using an equation. It is difficult to imagine how this model could have been arrived at by mere chance, raising the distinct possibility that it was intended to deceive.”

    The paper continued by arguing that China’s organ transplant industry was too opaque, and that the sources of organs has always been difficult to trace, which doesn’t exactly instill confidence. Though the system has been reformed to a degree, it’s still masking the source of some organs.

    “Rather than the solely prisoner-based organ transplant system of years past, or the untarnished voluntary system promised by officials, the available evidence indicates in our view that China has a complex hybrid transplant program: voluntary donations, incentivized by large cash payments, are apparently used alongside nonvoluntary donors who are marked down as citizen donors.”

    The study examined voluntary hospital-based donated organs between 2010 and 2018 using data provided by two Chinese sources, the China Organ Transplant Response System (COTRS),  which forms the basis of China’s current voluntary organ donation system, and the Red Cross Society.

    Every organ transplant is supposed to be reported through this system, along with details about where the organs came from. The Red Cross Society of China is required to verify every organ donation. So, comparing the two databases and looking at inconsistencies could off some insight.

    None of this data is typically publicly available, but once in a while it leaks out. COTRS data were published in 2014 and in 2017. Data from the Red Cross Society of China was previously available on four websites, three of which have recently been taken offline.

    For decades, Beijing was accused of harvesting organs from minority groups, including religious minorities. A tribunal held back in June found Beijing found that Falun Gong practitioners were the main source of organs for decades. But it also said that Uighurs were undergoing medical testing on a scale that could allow them to become an “organ bank.”

    And as Beijing continues to build out its massive prison camps in Xinjiang, this type of research will be critical for holding Beijing accountable so it doesn’t continue to build networks of human organ banks with impunity.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 21:25

  • Watch Chile Protesters Kill A Police Drone Using Hundreds Of Laser Pointers
    Watch Chile Protesters Kill A Police Drone Using Hundreds Of Laser Pointers

    Authored by Elias Marat via The Mind Unleashed,

    As the people of Chile enter the second month of massive protests against the neoliberal government of President Sebastian Piñera, clashes have continued unabated between demonstrators and the militarized security forces of the South American state.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The protests, which began October 14 as a response to rising public transit costs, have quickly become radicalized as social movements, students, workers’ unions, and a vast cross-section of Chilean society have focused their anger on high levels of inequality in the country, rising living costs, and a constitution inherited from the 1973-1990 dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

    As the protests have raged, the repression unleashed on demonstrators has become increasingly brutal and high-tech. Chile’s protesters, however, have responded with a combination of ingenuity, persistence, and equally high-tech tricks to fend off police attacks.

    Such was the case earlier this week in footage that quickly went viral on social media Wednesday that appeared to show a police unmanned aerial system (UAS) being disabled as protesters aimed run-of-the-mill green laser pointers—the type available in any Office Depot or Staples—at the law enforcement-grade drone.

    The video, which NextGov reports first made its appearance Tuesday night on Reddit, shows the drone hovering above a sea of demonstrators as the lasers are trained on it. Soon, multiple other lasers are trained on it and when the drone attempts to escape, the lasers have an almost tractor beam-like effect, forcing the UAS to falter before it helplessly descends to the ground.

    Laser lights at demonstrations didn’t first appear in Chile. The pointers have had a ubiquitous presence at the raucous demonstrations in Hong Kong, where protesters have also used the lasers to disable surveillance cameras equipped with facial recognition technology.

    And as Defense Maven reports, U.S. Army Stryker vehicles are also being equipped with laser weapons that would be used to disable and knock out incoming flying drones.

    However, the consumer-grade lasers at Chile’s protests are hardly the type that can chew through armor or burn through flesh, like military laser cannons might. Instead, these lasers likely either blinded the camera feed of the human operator or disabled the drone’s altitude sensors, triggering the drone’s emergency autonomous landing capabilities

    While the lasers have proved effective in such a grassroots, mass-uprising context, some experts say the lasers are unlikely to pose a major danger to drones.

    Christopher Williams, who heads Citadel Defense Company, which hopes to deploy an anti-drone “bubble”-based system for U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the U.S. southern border, told NextGov:

    Use of these types of lasers is more hazardous and disruptive to humans than it will be for drones.

    There are many other technologies that are less disruptive that provide a superior, more scalable, more reliable and more cost-effective countermeasure.

    For now, however, the lasers designed for office presentations rather than for military tactical purposes appear to be working just fine for the combative Chilean people taking to the streets to demand greater social and political rights.

    *  *  *

    Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market.com, has some key thoughts…

    Whether or not you agree with the reasons behind the protests in Chile, this information is valuable to activists around the world.  Real world examples of low tech countermeasures to high tech weapons are rare and need to be observed.  My own design for a thermal evasion ghillie suit is another method for evading drones using FLIR-like cameras and heat imaging technology.  The laser pointer method for taking down drones or surveillance cameras, while not new, is often dismissed as a myth.  This is proof that it works.  I would note that this is probably one of the reasons why military grade lasers with extreme range like the PEQ-15 are not supposed to be sold to civilians.  Drones are the future of the biometric control grid; they must be countered and removed as a threat.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 21:05

  • Falling Rents In Manhattan And Boston Are Weighing On Core Inflation
    Falling Rents In Manhattan And Boston Are Weighing On Core Inflation

    Cooling rents in formerly hot real estate markets like New York City and Boston might give the Federal Reserve the excuse it needs to keep rates low and allow formerly frothy real-estate markets across the US to recover from a recent dip.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Greater New York area saw rents for primary residences fall 0.1% MoM in October, while rents paid in Boston fell 0.2%. This weighed on the national rent number, leaving growth almost flat for the first time in eight years – an obvious warning sign about the housing market. According to Bloomberg, national rents account for around 40% of core CPI, meaning rents have an important impact on inflation.

    We’ve discussed the unraveling of the housing market in the past. Prices and rents finally peaked in New York a few years ago, which we said was an omen that broader declines were in store.

    Squeezed renters and an influx of new high-end housing has caused Manhattan rents to continue to fall. In a real threat to markets, inventory is backing up and for the first time in a long time, Manhattan is almost starting to look like a buyer’s market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    Across the US, housing has become unaffordable for most people, particularly millennials, who are typically too overburdened by debt to  buy without a parent’s help to pay the down payment.

    Despite growing demand as more young people grow up and try to move out on their own, there is a dearth of affordable housing in the US. Not enough new homes have been built since the financial crisis, and this has contributed to the torrid pace of appreciation in the housing market since the collapse.

    Of course, with interest rates off the zero bound, and money ever so slightly more expensive, falling rents might help inspire the FOMC to keep rates low, or maybe even consider another cut. A cut would undeniably help trigger a revival of the market, and an undoing of the rent cuts, unless prices have truly moved into a range where the pool of possible buyers isn’t too small.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 20:45

  • It's Trump Vs The Deep State Vs The Rest Of Us
    It’s Trump Vs The Deep State Vs The Rest Of Us

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    One of the best side effects of the Trump presidency has been the hostility of the so-called “deep state” or  “intelligence community” directed at the president.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This, in turn, has led many Americans to realize that America’s powerful, un-elected secret police agencies serve an agenda all their own. Consequently, polls show one’s views of the CIA and the FBI depend largely on one’s ideological bent. Polls from Fox News and NBC news in recent years show that as various government bureaucracies have ratcheted up their hostility to Trump, more Democrats and Hillary Clinton voters have said they trust the CIA and the FBI.

    Why the president and this deep state should be at odds has never been obvious to casual observers. Last month, however, in an article titled “Trump’s War on the ‘Deep State’ Turns Against Him,” The New York Times last explained that there is indeed very real enmity between Trump and agencies such as the CIA and the FBI. The Times contends that Trump “went to war with the professional staff” of the intelligence agencies and the State Department.

    The Times notes Trump has condemned “deep state bureaucrats,” and claims Trump’s “hostility toward government was strong from the start. He blamed the leak of the so-called Steele dossier of unverified allegations against him on intelligence agencies and never trusted their conclusion that Russia intervened in the 2016 election on his behalf.”

    Trump was right to be defensive, of course. But that controversy over Russia was never really about what the Russians were up to. The focus was always largely about how much Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election.

    Ultimately, the evidence was so non-existent, that after a nearly-three-year investigation, Robert Mueller was unable to establish evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. As Glenn Greenwald has noted : “not a single American – whether with the Trump campaign or otherwise – was charged or indicted on the core question of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election.”

    But this lack of evidence did not stop John Brennan, for example, from claiming for months that he had special secret knowledge of the matter, and that Trump — or at least many around him — were going to be indicted for colluding with the Russians.

    Although Brennan is a “former” CIA director, he nonetheless clearly remains well ensconced within the world of his fellow spooks, and he is, as ABC News correspondent Terry Moran put it, “cloaked with CIA authority.” Brennan even insisted that he ought to retain his security clearance, presumably forever, and even though he is accountable to no one. Such is the mindset of the deep state bureaucrat. They live in a world where they deserve special privileges just for being government employees .

    Moreover, Brennan has been joined in his attacks on the president by other former high-ranking members of the deep state, including former FBI chief James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    Current deep state operatives have joined the anti-Trump campaign as well. Much of the current campaign against Trump is being orchestrated by CIA agents, and according to Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella is supplying much of the prosecution’s information. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer and bureaucrat with the National Security Council, has testified to Congress in order to fuel impeachment efforts against the president as well.

    Fêting Deep-State Bureaucrats as Heroes

    None of this is to say the Trump administration lacks any taint of corruption. Like all presidents, it is likely the Trump administration expects favors for favors. The only thing different about Trump is he is not skilled at keeping the everyday corruption of the White House a secret.

    But what is especially problematic for him is the fact that so many of his critics coming out of the bureaucratic woodwork are from intelligence agencies and from the military.

    Unfortunately, in the United States there is a well established bias in favor of employees from national security agencies. Even the very language used by the media speaks to this favoritism. In the Times piece, for example, the authors speak of one of Trump’s critics, one “William B. Taylor Jr., a military officer and diplomat who has served his country for 50 years.” Note the implied selflessness of Taylor’s work. An equally accurate description of Taylor wold be “he was employed by government agencies for fifty years” of “the taxpayers paid his bills for fifty years.” Instead, we’re told he “served his country.” The propaganda value of the media’s pro-military bias is not lost on the officers themselves, and it’s no surprise Vindman, a Lt. Colonel, testified to Congress in his military uniform.

    Other examples can be found every time Trump fires a lifelong bureaucrat from the upper echelons of the various “national security” agencies. For example, last summer, when Trump fired director of national intelligence Dan Coats, the Atlantic portrayed Coats as a principled idealist who “spoke truth to power. ” Coats, was fired, the author tells us, because of his devotion to the truth, even if it undermined Trump’s agenda. The best proof of Coats’ honest determination, we’re told, was the fact he “won praise from former intelligence officials.”

    In real life, of course, Coats is a lifelong politician and bureaucrat who prior to his dismissal had collected a government paycheck for four decades. As a politician he lobbied for gun control and supported the disastrous 2003 Iraq War. The idea that his post-Congressional career was marked by dogged devotion to the truth ought to strike one as rather fanciful.

    A Slipping Facade

    But even The New York Times is no longer pretending that the deep state doesn’t exist, and that it doesn’t have its own political agenda. In fact, as noted by Robert Merry at The American Conservative, the Times article even “portray[s] the current impeachment drama as the likely denouement of a struggle between the outsider Trump and the insider administrative forces of government.”  This is especially significant since it is also increasingly clear that, “American foreign policy has become the almost exclusive domain of unelected bureaucrats impervious to the views of elected officials — even presidents — who may harbor outlooks different from their own.” Merry concludes the past three years of investigations of the president, conducted by government bureaucrats, is “the story of entrenched government bureaucrats and a president who sought to curb their power. Or, put another way, the story of a president who sought to rein in the deep state and a deep state that sought to destroy his presidency.”

    Some of these deep state agents even admit their willingness to subvert the official chain of command to suit their own purposes. Vindman, for example, told the impeachment committee he actively sought to subvert Trump administration relations with the Ukrainian government not out of concerns about criminality, but to serve Vindman’s own vision for American policy. In the mind of this mid-level bureaucrat, American foreign policy is set not by elected officials in Washington DC, but by the bureaucrats themselves.

    Why Take the Administration’s Side?

    Back in 2017, the battle lines between Trump and the deep state were already being drawn, and at the time I wrote:

    This isn’t to say that Trump is the “good guy” here. As with the US military establishment overall, the deep state is by no means monolithic. Like any group of self-serving institutions, there are competing factions. Trump clearly has allies within some areas of the deep state, as can be reflected in Trump’s attempts to massively expand military spending at the expense of the taxpayer.

    But the fact he’s considered an outsider in Washington by so many should suggest there are reasons to support him over the entrenched bureaucracy.

    Indeed, as Greenwald pointed out in a 2017 interview, it’s not a coincidence that former and current members of the deep state clearly preferred Clinton to Trump during the campaign. The deep state bureaucrats preferred the insider Clinton to the outsider trump who might actually shine some light on the deep state’s lack of accountability and virtually untrammeled autonomy.

    It’s not difficult to understand why even a leftist like Greenwald prefers the relative transparency of the current White House.

    After all, deep-state agencies face virtually no scrutiny of — and even less real opposition to — their many misdeeds. These, of course, are so numerous as to be impossible to list. But just for starters we might refer to a 2017 article by Sharyl Attkisson in The Hill titled “10 times the intel community violated the trust of US citizens, lawmakers and allies.” It’s a laundry list of illegal, immoral, and blatantly unconstitutional acts which well illustrate the near total impunity with which these agencies operate. Abuse of spying powers is so rampant within the FBI, for example, that even the lopsidedly pro-spying FISA court was forced to conclude the FBI routinely overstepped the bounds of legal surveillance. And, of course, without the heroic whistleblowing of Edward Snowden, the NSA would still be falsely insisting that it doesn’t routinely spy on virtually all Americans, whenever and however it likes.

    One might insist “but presidents lie a lot and break laws too!” That’s true, but the difference between presidents and deep-state bureaucrats is well illustrated by the current impeachment controversy. It’s the president who’s facing indictments, public attacks, and the prospect of removal. On the other hand, the deep-state bureaucrats who oversee many counts of corruption, illegal spying, and leaking, remain safely hidden from public view. Those who routinely lie, deceive, and abuse their power often go on doing so for decades. As the years pass, they become ever more entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, invisible to the public, and — as we are now seeing — often answerable to no one.

    Presidents come and go, and they often face fierce opposition from the other party or from the media. The deep state, meanwhile, it said to be full of national heroes who “serve their country” and “speak truth to power.”

    It should be easy to see, in the battle between the president and the deep state, which side is the most dangerous. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 20:25

    Tags

  • Global Debt To End 2019 At A Record High Of $255 Trillion, 330% Of World GDP
    Global Debt To End 2019 At A Record High Of $255 Trillion, 330% Of World GDP

    There are three certainties in life: death, taxes and that global debt will keep rising in perpetuity.

    Addressing the third, yesterday the Institute of International Finance reported that global debt has now hit $250 trillion and is expected to hit a record $255 trillion at the end of 2019, up $12 trillion from $243 trillion at the end of 2018, and nearly $32,500 for each of the 7.7 billion people on planet.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “With few signs of slowdown in the pace of debt accumulation, we estimate that global debt will surpass $255 trillion this year,” the IIF said in the report.

    The surge was driven by a $7.5 trillion surge in the first half of the year which was used to reverse the global slowdown that sent stocks into a bear market in 2018, and which shows no signs of slowing. Around 60% of that jump came from the United States and China. Government debt alone is set to top $70 trillion this year, as will overall debt (government, corporate and financial sector) of emerging-market countries.

    The total debt breakdown as of Dec. 31 is as follows:

    • Household debt: $47.9 trillion
    • Non-financial corporate: $75.7 trillion
    • Government: $70 trillion
    • Financial corporate: $61.7 trillion

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This amounts to a grand total of just over $255 trillion, roughly equivalent to a record 330% of global GDP.

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

    Separately, Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett on Friday calculated that since the collapse of Lehman, government debt has increased by $30tn, corporates debt by $25tn, household by $9tn, and financial debt by $2tn; And with central banks expected to support government debt, BofA warns that “the biggest recession risk is disorderly rise in credit spreads & corporate deleveraging.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Overall, global bond markets have increased from $87 trillion in 2009 to over $115 trillion, with government bonds now making up 47% of the market compared with 40% in 2009 according to Reuters.

    Crushing Ray Dalio’s delightful, if impossible, dream of a “beautiful deleveraging”, borrowing by the four separate categories – governments, households, financial corporates, non-financial business – is growing faster than the global economy especially among emerging markets, where as noted above, Chinese companies were the biggest source of debt issuance the Washington-based IIF said in its Thursday report, although more than half of “corporate” debt in those countries is likely held by state-owned businesses, which means that effectively this is government-backstopped debt.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With state-owned companies now accounting for over half of non-financial corporate debt in emerging markets, sovereign-related borrowing has been the single most important driver of global debt over the past decade.

    Not surprisingly, in developed countries it was governments that account for the bulk of borrowings.

    As it does every quarter, the IIF report warned about the limits and risks of debt-fueled economic growth, a warning that has not only been widely ignored by virtually every politician (now that even the Tea Party has thrown in the towel), but a warning which is clearly being ignored by the US where the CBO projects debt to grow exponentially until something finally breaks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The IIF also said that emerging markets that have increasingly relied on foreign-currency borrowing – including Turkey, Mexico and Chile – could be exposed to risks if growth slows further.  Separately, the IIF warned that the three EM economies with the greatest percentage increase in debt year-over-year from Q2 2018 to Q2 2019, were Chile, South Korea, and Argentina. Of these, the first is currently being rocked by unprecedented social upheaval, while the latter effectively defaulted on its debt, sending its bond prices plummeting last quarter, crushing the IMF’s credibility in the process.

    Altogether, emerging market debt hit a new all time high of $71.4 trillion in Q2, up nearly $5 trillion in the past year.

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

    And, in yet another hint that MMT is only a matter of when, not if, the IIF suggested that “high-debt countries that also have high exposure to climate risk” – like Japan, Singapore, Korea and the U.S. – may struggle with the rapid increase in funding that the fight against climate change will require. Of course, there will be no such issue if the Treasury can openly monetize the debt it issues, something MMT claims would lead to global utopia and instead will lead to the end of the current monetary system as we know it.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 20:05

  • If You've Given Your Genetic Code To A DNA Database, US Police May Now Have Access To It
    If You’ve Given Your Genetic Code To A DNA Database, US Police May Now Have Access To It

    Authored by Beth Daley via TheConversation.com,

    In the past week, news has spread of a Florida judge’s decision to grant a warrant allowing police to search one of the world’s largest online DNA databases, for leads in a criminal case.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The warrant reportedly approved the search of open source genealogy database GEDMatch. An estimated 1.3 million users have uploaded their DNA data onto it, without knowing it would be accessible by law enforcement.

    A decision of this kind raises concern and sets a new precedent for law enforcement’s access to online DNA databases. Should Australian users of online genealogy services be concerned?

    Why is this a big deal?

    GEDmatch lets users upload their raw genetic data, obtained from companies such as Ancestry or 23andMe, to be matched with relatives who have also uploaded their data.

    Law enforcement’s capacity to use GEDmatch to solve crimes became prominent in April last year, when it was used to solve the Golden State Killer case. After this raised significant public concern around privacy issues, GEDmatch updated its terms and conditions in May.

    Under the new terms, law enforcement agencies can only access user data in cases where users have consented to use by law enforcement, with only 185,000 people opting in so far.

    The terms of the warrant granted in Florida, however, allowed access to the full database – including individuals who had not opted in. This directly overrides explicit user consent.

    GEDmatch reportedly complied with the search warrant within 24 hours of it being granted.

    Aussies are also at risk

    GEDMatch is small fry compared with ancestry database giants Ancestry (more than 15 million individuals) and 23andMe (more than 10 million individuals), both of which have DNA data belonging to Australians.

    Australians who wish to have ancestry DNA testing have to use US-based online companies. Thus, many Australians have data in databases such as Ancestry, 23andMe and GEDMatch. The granting of a warrant to search these databases by US courts means those searches could include Australian individuals’ data.

    Ancestry and 23andMe both have policies saying they don’t provide access to their databases without valid court-mandated processes.

    Each company produces a transparency report (see here and here) which includes all requests for customer data that have been received and complied with. Currently, that number is low. But it remains to be seen how each would respond to a court-ordered search warrant.

    Furthermore, while Australia currently doesn’t have it’s own genetic database (and no plans have been announced), the federal government’s commitment of A$500 million to the Genomics Health Futures Mission indicates a growing interest in the power of genomics for health.

    If Australia wants to remain internationally competitive, a national genetics project is a natural next step.

    We need DNA privacy legislation

    In Australia, courts can approve warrants that intrude into private information, and entities can only protect data to the extent that it’s protected by law.

    Thus, the privacy policies of companies and organisations that hold genetic data (and other types of private data) usually include a statement saying the data will not be shared without consent “except as required by law”.

    The Australian Information Commissioner can also allow breaches of privacy in the public interest.

    It has been more than two decades since Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja proposed the Genetic Privacy and Non-Discrimination Bill.

    Although Australia has a patchwork of laws that protect citizens’ genetic data to an extent, we still have no specific genetic data protection legislation. A broader legal framework dealing directly with the protection of genetic information is now required.

    Australian politicians have previously shown willingness to use genetic information for government purposes. As genetic advances strengthen the promise of personalised medicine, Australian academics continue to call for urgent genetic data protection legislation. This is important to ensure public trust in genetic privacy is maintained.

    Ongoing concerns around genetic discrimination, and other ethical concerns, warrant an urgent policy response regarding the protection of genetic data.

    What are other countries doing?

    Globally, several DNA databases have amassed genetic datasets of more than 1 million individuals, including for research purposes and healthcare improvement.

    Few databases outside the US have yet to reach the numbers needed to be useful for identification purposes.

    However, many countries, particularly in Europe, have started establishing government-funded national databases of gene donor data, including Sweden and Estonia.

    The Estonian Biobank is one of the most advanced national DNA databases. It has more than 200,000 donor samples.

    With a population of around 1.3 million people, the biobank represents around 15% of the entire country’s population. And Estonian legislation currently prohibits the use of donor samples for law enforcement.

    In contrast, the UK Biobank, doesn’t have specific legislation controlling its operation. It only allows law enforcement agencies access if forced to do so by the courts, leaving open the possibility of access under a court-ordered warrant.

    The biobank currently has samples from around 500,000 individuals, but plans to collect at least 1 million more in future.

    In Australia, accessing DNA testing is now easier than ever. But those accessing it through US-based companies, or uploading their data to US-based databases, should be aware of the potential uses of their genetic information.

    And as we moves into an era of genomic medicine, urgent policy attention is required from the Australian government to ensure public trust in genomics is maintained.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 19:45

  • Farmageddon: 12 Charts Show That Despite Trump's Aid, Finances For Farmers Are Getting Worse
    Farmageddon: 12 Charts Show That Despite Trump’s Aid, Finances For Farmers Are Getting Worse

    A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City shows that farm finances across agricultural states continued to weaken throughout the summer and into the early fall. 

    The survey touched on all of the key points in the industry: commodity prices, costs, leverage, production, real estate values and the effects of Trump’s ongoing trade war. The report found:

    Despite a slight increase in the price of some agricultural commodities and additional support from government payments, farm income and loan repayment rates declined at a modest pace. According to District bankers, agricultural economic conditions in the quarter were influenced by uncertainty about crop production, agricultural trade and other factors that contributed to commodity price fluctuations. Persistent weaknesses in the sector put further pressure on farm finances and signs of modest increases in credit stress remained. Farmland values, however, remained stable, and provided ongoing support for the sector.

    Farm income in the region remained relatively weak and continued to decline, the report found. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The report also showed that farm income decreased from a year ago across all states in the region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Debt laden farmers were forced to make additional cuts to spending in response to an ongoing environment of subdued revenue.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the report noted that ongoing reductions in farm income put further downward pressure on liquidity positions of crop producers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This resulted in deleveraging through selling farm assets…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While caused an uptick in demand for farm loans…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …and steady deterioration of agricultural credit conditions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, the outlook for repayment rates through year-end was mixed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The share of problem loans was steady and the increase in overall credit risk associated with farm loans remained modest, the report noted.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some temporarily relief came in the form of interest rates on farm loans declining slightly in the third quarter…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the entire industry continues to rest on farm real estate values, which have also held up…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …but the outlook for the future remains pessimistic. “Bankers in the Kansas City Fed region expected agricultural credit conditions and farm income to continue to decline in coming months,” the report read. 

    It continued: “Although numerous contacts indicated that government payments connected to ongoing trade disputes provided some support, most bankers pointed to an ongoing environment of low agricultural commodity prices and elevated costs as the primary factors contributing to the weakness.”

    The report says that the stability of farm real estate will continue to provide support to farm finances, and likely will be a key determinant of credit conditions in the year ahead.

    And hey, don’t worry – we all know real estate will never crash, right?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 19:25

  • How The Homeless Crisis Could Soon Become An Epidemic
    How The Homeless Crisis Could Soon Become An Epidemic

    Via Doug Casey’s International Man,

    International Man: There is a growing homeless crisis in liberal West Coast cities, including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and many others. People living on the street are overrunning these cities.

    Residents must deal with human feces, syringes, disease, and filth every day. In some areas, it’s worse than the dirtiest slums of Brazil, Kenya, and India.

    How did this happen?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Doug Casey: Well, taking a long-term view, I see it as part of the continuing decline of Western civilization.

    The West has always been distinguished relative to the rest of the world by its order, its cleanliness, its respect for property rights. These things are all going by the wayside. We were a middle class society with “bourgeois” values, essentially Boy Scout virtues. But these things are now held in contempt, even while the middle class is being squeezed. “Ground between the millstones of taxation and inflation,” as the phrase attributed to Lenin puts it.

    Some members of the lower and middle classes are still moving up, but it’s easier to fall than to rise. Most of the homeless are whites who are headed down. We haven’t seen this since the 1930s.

    This epidemic is concentrated in so-called sanctuary cities, which go out of their way to bring in people who are unwilling or unable to support themselves. But most of the newly minted “street people” aren’t migrants. They seem to mostly be failed ex-members of the middle class.

    It’s quite novel to see people in camping tents on city sidewalks. It’s different from the occasional bum sleeping under newspapers on a park bench. A tent implies a measure of permanency. It stakes out a property right.

    Let me pause over my use of the word “bum.”

    I learned a few things when I went on a couple of adventures “riding the rails.” There were three classes of people you’d meet in and around the railyard, on the “wrong side of the tracks”: hobos, tramps, and bums. They were all “homeless people,” but that term wasn’t used. Hobos were people there for the lifestyle; often well-read, dropouts with wanderlust. Tramps were people down on their luck; they rode the rails to get someplace there might be work or where they had a friend. Bums were those with terminally bad habits: lazy, dirty, usually dishonest.

    The distinction between hobos, tramps, and bums appears to have been lost. None of the new breed of street people are hobos, I promise you. They’re tramps at best, but mostly bums. But it’s now fashionable to call them “the homeless,” because the PC world likes euphemisms. Not so long ago, these people used to be called “derelicts” or “vagrants.”

    Part of the Orwellian PC trend in language is that you can no longer call something what it is. You have to make up a softer and less accurate description of who or what they are. You’re not allowed to offend bums, derelicts, or vagrants. Even though they are, by their very nature, offensive.

    Why is this happening? It’s no longer just the occasional lowlife just passing through, but whole communities of people who take over sections of cities and camp out on public sidewalks.

    What’s caused that? The media says it’s because of alcohol, drugs, and mental problems. But as usual, the brain-dead and blow-dried media is wrong.

    Where were these lowlifes before? And what’s drawn them out of the woodwork where they were apparently hiding? I question whether junkies and crazy people are the cause; I suspect they’re an effect.

    In other words, it’s quite possible that the hard times that started in 2008 drove a lot of people, who were already psychologically unstable, into full-fledged psychosis. And caused others to take up alcohol and drugs as a way of hiding from an unpleasant reality.

    On the largest scale, I blame it on government action. Which shocks most people, because they see the government as the solution, not the cause. They see a real or imagined problem, and they want the State, because it has a lot of power, to “do something.” In fact, the only way the State can solve a problem is by undoing things that it’s already done, not doing more.

    Even though it’s said that we have all-time low unemployment, these are mostly minimum-wage jobs. And the numbers are further disguised by the fact a lot of people who’d like to work as something other than a fast-food clerk or a Walmart greeter are what are called “discouraged workers.” They’re not counted as unemployed if they’ve stopped looking for work. I suspect that very few of the street people are counted as unemployed.

    International Man: Cities like San Francisco spend tens of millions of dollars each year trying to keep the streets clean to no avail. Within hours, freshly cleaned streets are again covered in filth. Many people seem to think the city needs to throw more money at the problem.

    What do you think? How should they address the problem?

    Doug Casey: Cleaning up after these people isn’t a solution. It’s cosmetic, at best.

    What we have are thousands on the streets who produce nothing, and only consume. They survive on food stamps, various welfare programs, handouts, petty theft, and the like. In other words, they’re not an asset either to themselves or to society. They’re an active liability, and they’re actually encouraged by being allowed to group together on other people’s property.

    Will cleaning up after them solve the problem? No, it aggravates it.

    It’s now an epidemic. It started in 2008 when lots of middle-class people lost their houses. And oddly, the trend toward people living on the street has been growing over the last 10 years of artificial boom.

    We’re going to have a very real bust very soon. The high levels of debt that we have today have allowed the whole country to live above its means. When the economy adjusts to lower levels of consumption, a new avalanche of people will lose their jobs, and they’ll have no savings to fall back on. However, their debts will remain and keep them from getting back up.

    Not so long ago, Americans saved up and bought their cars for cash. Your car was a small asset, but it was an asset. Then came two-year, then three-year, five-year, and now seven-year financing. In fact, most now lease their cars, because they can’t afford to buy them, even with seven-year financing. The things have gone from being a small asset into a major liability. With simple pickup trucks selling for upwards of $50,000, many are going to lose their transportation. Then they can’t get to their job, can’t pay their rent or mortgage, and they’re out on the street. It’s easy to see how an ex-member of the middle class could become mentally unbalanced and start doing drugs.

    People could lose houses they bought with mortgages they can’t afford but think they can because of today’s very low floating interest rates. Just like back in 2008 and 2009. Plus, real estate taxes keep going up—partly because local governments are in good measure responsible for supporting lowlifes forced to live on the street, ironically due to high real estate taxes.

    Utilities are going to go up because commodities are very, very low now. They’re going higher—good for commodity speculators; not good for Joe and Jane Consumer.

    So, you’re going to see more people moving onto the streets. And let me reemphasize this: They’re not—now—necessarily junkies or mentally disabled. But they may be, once they lose everything they thought they had. Their numbers are going to grow as the economy goes downhill.

    This is an explosive problem. These are people who will have nothing to lose. They’re going to be overcome by envy of and resentment against the rich. You can count on them to vote Democratic in 2020. There’s no question the state of the economy will be by far the biggest influence in the election.

    All the while, because of the financialization of the economy, the rich are getting richer. This isn’t just unfair—it’s dangerous. Incidentally, “unfair” is a word I hate to use, because it often implies a whole set of assumptions. But that’s another topic. Anyway, the situation is setting up the United States for class warfare, the haves against the have-nots. Middle class societies are stable; we’re becoming less middle class.

    International Man: The Fed has reflated the housing bubble with years of easy money. It has distorted the housing market and artificially increased real estate prices. How does the Fed relate to the homeless crisis?

    Doug Casey: One indirect and delayed consequence of their creating all this money out of nothing—in order to keep the big banks, brokers, and insurers from failing during the crisis that began in 2007—is the creation of bubbles. The biggest bubble is in tech stocks. But the real estate bubble that busted in ’08 and ’09 has been re-inflating, at least until the last year.

    International Man: California politicians have implemented rent controls and more regulations in the hope of solving the problem. The situation has only gotten worse, and the calls for the government to “do something!” only grow stronger.

    If the inclination is to ask for more government, what do you expect the outcome to be?

    Doug Casey: Rent control, like other forms of wage and price controls, seems logical to someone who doesn’t understand economics. It always sounds good to politicians—they like “bold action” to keep prices down, appear to help the little guy, and punish rich landlords all at once. What’s not to like?

    In addition to their crime of initiating force, stealing, and destroying the moral tenor of society, they’re looking only at the immediate and direct consequences, not the delayed and indirect ones. Namely that nobody will build new buildings or even maintain old ones if they can’t make money doing so.

    Rent controls result in housing shortages, run-down neighborhoods, and an atmosphere of class warfare. Rent controls are usually a consequence of money printing, which is actually the root cause of homelessness. But government is prone to disguise symptoms, not cure the disease itself—which they cause. Nobody learns anything. It’s why historians tend to be pessimistic.

    International Man: Elizabeth Warren and other notable Democrats have called affordable housing a “basic human right.” They suggest that the federal government should make housing affordable or even free. It seems this will be a new plank for the party. What do you make of this?

    Doug Casey: The only real human right is the right to be left alone.

    You don’t have a right to free housing or free medical or free education or free food or a guaranteed income. You don’t have a right to any of these things because the question is: At whose expense? You’ve got zero right to make anybody give you things or do things for you. Warren’s policies will turn the US into a dog-eat-dog nightmare.

    What’s going on today will overturn the foundations that made the progress we’ve had in the US possible. Once you start thinking like a Third World or Soviet country, you’re going to get their results.

    The fact that the US still has a lot of wealth means nothing. That wealth can be destroyed very quickly. Practically overnight, as happened in places like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. I’ve spent time in both, and they used to be quite nice. Now they’re full of people sleeping on the streets, under bridges, and in cardboard shacks. For exactly the same reasons we’re seeing this in the US.

    International Man: The homeless crisis is a trend in motion. It’s picking up momentum and spreading to new cities. What do you think happens next?

    Doug Casey: One of the best definitions of a depression is a period of time when most people’s standard of living drops significantly.

    As the Greater Depression deepens, for the reasons we mentioned earlier, you’re going to see more people living on the street.

    What’s going to be done about it?

    It can’t be solved by the government pushing them off the streets. Where are they going to go—outside the city limits to empty lots and fields? Actually, that’s just what Austin, Texas, did a few weeks ago. They set aside a five-acre plot near downtown where people can camp. Vagrants and their possessions were forcibly relocated to it.

    Of course that temporarily solves the esthetics problem of bums camping on the street. But this is exactly how what are called “favelas” in Brazil and “ranchos” in Venezuela got started. The indigent move to state property, start out by camping, then start building informal houses out of trash and stolen building materials.

    It’s an unsolvable problem, unless the country returns to prosperity. Will the government bulldoze the camps and then build high rise ghettos like they did for blacks in all the big US cities? That didn’t work really well… You only make the problem worse by putting these people in what amounts to zoos.

    The interesting twist here is that today’s street people are mostly whites who’ve lost their middle class status—not blacks, not Latino migrants. This is a huge straw in the wind. So much for White Privilege…

    International Man: What are the bigger implications of the homeless crisis for the future of the US economy and political system?

    Doug Casey: It’s going to be very hard for everybody, especially as the government inflates more, taxes more, and regulates more. They’ll do massive amounts of all three. The situation will necessarily get worse for most people. The people who are benefiting from this one way or another—the rich and politically well-connected—will increasingly be in barrio cerrados (gated communities) to protect themselves.

    It’s another sign that the state of civilization in the United States is changing radically. So far it’s been a slow slide down. But when the economy falls apart this time, it’s going to look like we’ve fallen off a cliff. We’re going to have to adjust to a whole new reality politically, socially, and economically. I’m not looking forward to it.

    *  *  *

    The economic trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 19:05

  • Watch: Epic Brawl At Popeye's Drive-Thru Ends In Arrests And No One Getting Their Chicken Sandwiches
    Watch: Epic Brawl At Popeye’s Drive-Thru Ends In Arrests And No One Getting Their Chicken Sandwiches

    The buzz about Popeye’s new chicken sandwich has officially gone viral – and its internet popularity is translating into a full on free-for-all at various Popeye’s locations across the U.S. as obese fast food customers have come to fisticuffs at various locations, arguing about who will have access to the coveted sandwiches and in what order, of which there has been a limited supply. 

    “Popeyes struck when the chicken sandwich iron was hot. But it also used the most visible player in the game to generate its own noise,” QSR Magazine said, referring to the chain’s ongoing Twitter feud with sandwich rivals Chik-Fil-A. 

    It’s a marketing strategy straight out of the movie Idiocracy – and it’s working. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Case in point: a Temecula, California resident has captured yet another brawl between two couples in the drive-thru lane of a local Popeye’s restaurant. In a video posted to YouTube called “The Best Popeyes Fight With Commentary” (indicating that yes, there are so many of them, that this one is the ‘best’ relative to others), a couple is seen arguing and cursing with another couple in the drive-thru lane.

    “I’ve been here for an hour!” an unruly customer screams at the drive-thru attendant, while outside of his car, in between cursing at the customer behind him and his wife. The customer, who is white, uses the N-word several times, causing tensions to rise.  

    “I’m psycho!” the customer screams, before pushing one woman, while her husband stands behind her watching. The women then start fighting each other before all four members of both couples fall to the ground in a brawl. The brawl is eventually broken up by police. 

    “…all this for a chicken sandwich…” the woman taping the brawl says. 

    If it wasn’t the chain’s intention to cause this much disruption, the response to a simple sandwich has undoubtedly been far more disturbing than they have ever could of imagined. But then again, the clever marketing strategy for the chicken sandwich may very well be working exactly as planned.

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

    While these actions may look like a depressing point in human history, look at the bright side: the brawls will at least be good practice for upcoming Black Friday sales.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 18:45

  • 'I Have Freedom Of Speech': Trump Hits Back After Critics Claim Witness Intimidation, 'Thugocracy'
    ‘I Have Freedom Of Speech’: Trump Hits Back After Critics Claim Witness Intimidation, ‘Thugocracy’

    After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today’s impeachment testimony to rebuke President Trump for “witness intimidation,” President Trump hit back.

    During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over Twitter, saying “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her…”

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

    Following Trump’s tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read Trump’s tweet aloud – asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump’s tweet might have on future witnesses, to which she replied that it would be “very intimidating.

    Trump’s tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the Washington Post that Trump “talks and acts like a Mafioso” in an article entitled “Yovanovitch hearing confirms that Trump is running a thugocracy.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Following Schiff’s dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to which he said “I don’t think so at all.”

    I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do,” Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he’s “allowed to speak up” and defend himself.

    Watch:

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 18:25

  • Series Of Blasts Target Mass Protest Gathering In Baghdad, Multiple Dead & Wounded
    Series Of Blasts Target Mass Protest Gathering In Baghdad, Multiple Dead & Wounded

    A series of explosions ripped through central Baghdad on Friday night, and appeared to target protests which have raged since early October, killing at least three people. Some unconfirmed reports have cited four dead and a dozen wounded in a developing situation where the casualty toll is expected to climb.

    The final in a string of blasts was identified according to early reports and video as a car bomb in Tahrir Square, which did the worst damage, killing and wounding multiple protesters

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

    “A large number of people injured by the booby-trapped car bomb were taken by the drivers of the Tek-Tik wheels to hospitals near Tahrir,” a source told Arabic media. Another blast was reported in nearby Tayaran Square as well, which may have also resulted in casualties. 

    Though anti-corruption and anti-government demonstrations have witnessed violent clashes with police, resulting at this point in over 300 dead and an estimated 15,000 wounded, the bombing escalates things to a new level of violence

    Some among the string of blasts as well as the aftermath caught on video:

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

    In the moments before the explosions Tahrir Square appeared packed with tens of thousands of demonstrators.

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

    Both protest leaders and international media have blamed security forces for the ratcheting violence due to occasions where they’ve used live fire to disperse crowds.

    Pro-Iran Iraqi militias have also been blamed for attempting to brutally put down protests. 

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

    Alternately, pro-Iranian politicians and military leaders in Baghdad have blamed the United States and Israel for fueling unrest in order to curtail Iranian influence. 

    The bombing will most likely escalate the intensity of protests as Iraq stands of the brink of possible renewed sectarian civil war. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 18:05

  • Do The World's Energy Policies Make Sense?
    Do The World’s Energy Policies Make Sense?

    Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    The world today has a myriad of energy policies. One of them seems to be to encourage renewables, especially wind and solar. Another seems to be to encourage electric cars. A third seems to be to try to move away from fossil fuels. Countries in Europe and elsewhere have been trying carbon taxes. There are alsoprograms to buy carbon offsets for energy uses such as air travel.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Maybe it is time to step back and take a look. Where are we now? Where are we really headed? Have the policies implemented since the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 had any positive impact?

    Let’s look at some of the issues involved.

    [1] We have had very little success in reducing CO2 emissions.

    CO2 emissions for all countries, in total, have been spiraling upward, year after year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions for the world, based on BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy.

    If we look at the situation by part of the world, we see an even more concerning pattern.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 2. Carbon dioxide emissions by part of the world through 2018, based on BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy. Soviet Empire is an approximation including Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, based on the BP report. It would not include Cuba and North Korea.

    The group US+EU+Japan has been able to reduce its CO2 emissions by 5% since 2005. Emissions were slowly rising between 1981 and 2005. There was a dip at the time of the Great Recession of 2008-2009, followed by a downward trend. A person might get the impression that CO2 emissions for the EU tend to rise during periods when the economy is doing well and tend to fall when it is doing poorly.

    The “star” in emissions reductions is the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. I refer to this group as the Soviet Empire. Emissions fell around the time of the collapse of the central government of the Soviet Union in 1991. This big decrease in emissions seems to be related to huge changes that took place at that time. Instead of one country with a single currency, the individual republics were suddenly on their own.

    The high point in CO2 emissions for the Soviet Empire came in 1990, the year before the collapse of the Soviet Union central government. By 1999, emissions had fallen to a level 37% below their 1990 level. In fact, even in recent years, emissions for this group of countries has stayed low. Much industry collapsed and has never been replaced.

    The group that has more than doubled its emissions is what I call the Remainder Group. The group includes many countries, including China and India, that ramped up their manufacturing and other heavy industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the World Trade Organization added members. The Remainder Group also includes many countries that suddenly found new export markets for their raw materials, such as oil, iron ore, and copper. The Remainder countries became richer; they became more able to pave roads and build more substantial homes for their citizens. With all of this GDP-related activity, CO2 emissions increased rapidly.

    [2] Population growth has followed a pattern that is in some ways similar to CO2 growth. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 3. Population from 1965 to 2018, based on UN 2019 population estimates.

    In Figure 3, we see that population has been virtually flat in the former Soviet Empire (2% growth between 1997 and 2018). With the economy not doing well, young people emigrate to countries that seem to provide better prospects.

    Population in the US+EU+Japan Group grew by 11% between 1997 and 2018.

    The group that is simply outstanding for population growth is the Remainder Group, with 35% growth between 1997 and 2018. A big part of this population growth comes from improved sanitation and basic medical care, such as antibiotics. With these changes, a larger percentage of the babies that are born have been able to live to maturity.

    It is hard to see any bend in the trend lines, showing that recent actions have really changed the course of activity from the way it was headed previously. Of course, the trend is only “linear,” implying that the percentage growth is gradually slowing over time.

    This rapidly growing population feeds into the CO2 problem as well. The many young people would all like food, homes and transportation. While it is possible to obtain some version of these desired products without fossil fuels, the version with fossil fuels tends to be vastly improved. Most people prefer homes with indoor plumbing and electricity, if given an opportunity, for example.

    [3] Deforestation keeps growing as a world problem.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 4. Chart showing World Bank estimates of share of world forested by economic grouping.

    High Income Countries keep pushing the deforestation problem to the poorer parts of the world. Heavily Indebted Poor Countries are especially affected. Worldwide, deforestation continues to grow.

    [4] With respect to fossil fuels, there is a great deal of confusion with respect to, “What do we need to be saved from?” 

    Do we have a problem with too much or too little fossil fuel? We hear two different stories.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 5. Author’s image of two trains speeding toward the world economy.

    Climate modelers keep telling us about what could happen, if indeed we use too much fossil fuel. In fact, the climate currently is changing, bolstering this point of view.

    It seems to me that there is an equally great danger of collapse, accompanied by low energy prices. For example, we know that energy production of the European Union has been declining for many years, without the countries being able to do anything about it.

    We also know historically that many civilizations have collapsed. The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991, illustrating one type of collapse. The Soviet Union was an oil exporter. Its collapse came after oil prices were too low to allow adequate investment in new oil fields for an extended period of time. The Great Recession of 2008-2009 offers a much smaller, temporary version of what collapse might look like.

    Another example of low prices accompanying collapse comes from Revelation 18: 11-13, warning of possible collapse like that of ancient Babylon. The problem was inadequate demand and low prices; even the energy product of the day (human beings sold as slaves) had little value.

    11 “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore— 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves.

    What we have been seeing recently is falling prices and prices that are too low for producers. Such a result can lead to collapse if too many energy producers go bankrupt and quit.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 6. Inflation adjusted weekly average Brent Oil price, based on EIA oil spot prices and US CPI-urban inflation.

    If we are in danger of collapse from low prices, renewables would not seem to be of much assistance unless they (a) are significantly less expensive than fossil fuels and (b) can be scaled up sufficiently rapidly to more than replace fossil fuels. Neither of these seems to be a possibility.

    [5] Early studies overestimated how much help renewables might provide, especially if our problem comes from too little energy supply rather than too much.

    Renewables look like they would be great from many points of view, but when it comes down to the real world situation, they don’t live up to the hype.

    One issue is that while wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and other devices for capturing energy are called “renewables,” they are really only available through the use of the fossil fuel system. They are made using fossil fuels. If a part breaks, or if insects eat away the insulation on wires, replacements need to be made using the fossil fuel system and transported by the fossil fuel system. At best, renewables use less fossil fuels than conventional electricity generation. They are dependent on other resources, which may eventually deplete, but which are not a problem at this time.

    A second issue is that it is extremely difficult to do a proper cost-benefit analysis on renewables because they can only be used as part of a larger system. They tend to look inexpensive, when viewed in isolation. But when total system costs are viewed, they often are quite expensive.

    One difficulty in a proper cost-benefit analysis is the fact that renewables are often at quite a distance from where electricity is to be used, leading to the need for a significant amount of long distance transmission lines. If renewables provide intermittent power, they need to be sized for the maximum output, not their average output. All of these long distance lines need to be properly maintained, or they tend to cause fires. In some instances, burying the lines underground at significant cost is the only solution. Somehow, these higher costs need to be recognized as part of the cost of the system, but this is rarely done.

    Another difficulty in a proper cost-benefit analysis is the fact that the intermittency must be overcome, if the electricity is to be of benefit to a modern economy that requires electricity 24/7/365. In theory, a person could greatly overbuild the renewables system and the transmission. This might work, but a person would end up with a large percentage of the system that is not used most of the time, greatly adding to costs.

    Batteries can be added, but the cost tends to be high. One commenter on my site recently observed:

    EIA reports the average cost for utility scale battery systems to be about $1500 per kWh. At that rate the batteries needed for backing up a solar or wind facility for three days cost around 30 times as much as the RE facility. But wind is often unpowered for more like seven days, during huge stagnant high pressure episodes. Thus the backup battery cost is more like 100 times the wind farm cost. Batteries are not feasible.

    The major intermittency problem is season-to-season, especially saving up enough for winter. We do not have a way, today, of storing energy from one season to another, short of making it into a liquid (such as ammonia), and storing the liquid from season to season. This would be another way of driving up costs of the overall system. It has not been included in anyone’s cost calculations.

    For the time being, we are forcing nuclear and fossil fuel to provide backup electrical services to intermittent renewables without adequately compensating them for their services. This tends to drive them out of business. This is not an adequate solution either.

    A third issue is that renewables really need to be “economic” to work. In other words, they need to generate a profit for their owners, when comparing the unsubsidized costs with the benefits of the system. In fact, their owners need to be able to pay fairly substantial taxes to governments, to cover their share of governmental costs as well. If renewables truly were providing substantial benefit to the system, their use would tend to “take off” on their own, because they would be providing “net energy” to the system. Instead, renewables tend to act like “energy sinks.” They need endless subsidies. They can never substitute for fossil fuels. In fact, they can’t even pay their own way.

    A related issue is that, because of the high total costs (as well as their lack of true net energy benefits), it is almost impossible to ramp up the quantity of renewable such as wind and solar very high. The EU has been a big supporter of renewables other than hydroelectric. Figure 7 shows a chart of the EU’s own energy production, together with its energy imports.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 7. EU energy by type and whether imported, based on data of BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy. Renewables are non-hydroelectric renewables such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

    After at least 20 years of subsidies, the EU has been able to increase renewables (other than hydroelectric) to about 10% of its total energy supply. The EU’s oil imports are roughly level, and its natural gas imports have been increasing. Even with rapid growth in non-hydro renewables, the EU has been experiencing a decrease in total energy consumption.

    [6] Looking at the actual outcomes, a person might ask, “What in the world were policymakers really thinking about?”

    We are told that the reason policymakers made the decisions they did was because they thought that they could reduce CO2 emissions in this way. Really? If a person really wants to reduce CO2 emissions, it is easy to see how to do it. A person simply has to take steps in the direction of reducing global co-operation. One step would be to reduce international trade. Another would be to get rid of umbrella organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations and the European Union. In fact, within individual countries, the top level of government could be removed, leaving (for example) the provinces of Canada and the states of the United States. In other words, policymakers could push economies in the direction of collapse.

    Another way collapse could be encouraged would be by rapidly raising interest rates or cutting off credit. With less purchasing power, the world would be pushed into recession.

    At the time of the Kyoto Protocol, policymakers moved in precisely the opposite direction of pushing the economy toward collapse. They moved in the direction of adding international trade and more debt to enable the growth. The countries with greater trade had huge coal resources that had not been used. With the help of this coal, the world economy was able to continue to grow. This approach only made sense if the real problem at the time of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was too little energy resources, not too much. The economy needed the stimulation that more low-cost energy and more debt could provide.

    It is now more than twenty years later. The coal resources of China are starting to deplete. Coal is also causing serious ground-level pollution problems, both in China and India. Without growing coal production, world GDP growth starts slowing. We are again facing low oil prices and other commodity prices–a problem similar to the one present when the government of the Soviet Union collapsed. The world economy seems again to be headed toward having some of its governmental organizations collapse from inadequate energy. Political parties are becoming more extreme; countries are enacting new tariffs. If we go back to Figure 5, the concern should again be collapse, on the left side of the figure.

    [7] The IPCC climate models need to be revisited.

    A climate model looks to the past and tries to forecast the future. When the IPCC models were put together, the scenarios about which concerns are raised are based on the assumption that fossil fuel use can grow practically indefinitely. Coal production in particular is seen as continuing at a high level for many, many years, even though world coal production has been fairly flat for several years, and prices tend to be lower than producers require if they are to stay in business.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 8. World Energy Consumption by Fuel, based on data of 2019 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

    In order for coal production to grow as much as modelers forecast, there needs to be a major turnaround in the situation. World coal prices need to rise substantially. In fact, coal in very difficult locations for extraction, such as under the North Sea, need to become profitable to extract. This situation seems very unlikely.

    It seems to me that climate modelers should be considering more reasonable scenarios regarding fossil fuel consumption. One scenario which should be considered is the possible near term collapse of several governmental organizations, such as the European Union, World Trade Organization, and the governments of several oil exporting countries. Such a model would be more realistic than one in which energy consumption continues to grow indefinitely.

    [8] The push toward renewables makes little sense without a firmer foundation than currently exists.

    Early studies looked only at the cost of renewables themselves, without the cost of extra long-distance grid transportation and battery storage. Such an estimate makes renewables look far more valuable than they really are.

    We now have enough experience that we can see what goes wrong. A hydroelectric plant that operates during the wet season in a tropical country may be of little practical use, for example, if there is no fossil fuel energy to provide electricity production during the dry season. The total cost of the overlapping systems is needs to be recognized, including the need to hire staff year around for fossil fuel and hydroelectric facilities. Electricity transmission will likely be needed for both types of generation.

    There are many other real-world examples that can be examined, before blanket “use renewables” recommendations should be issued. If renewables are not truly very inexpensive (around 2 cents per kWh or less), without subsidies, they are likely not to be long-lasting.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 17:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 15th November 2019

  • Europe: The New Political Weapon Of 'Islamophobia'
    Europe: The New Political Weapon Of ‘Islamophobia’

    Authored by Alain Destexhe via The Gatestone Institute,

    France is once again profoundly divided over Islam. Last Sunday, November 10, a “March against Islamophobia” was held in Paris in response to an appeal from 50 public figures. In an op-ed in the leftist newspaper Libération, the demonstrators pleaded to “stop Islamophobia and stop the growing stigmatization of Muslims, victims of discrimination and aggression”.

    Two recent incidents ignited the public debate and served as a pretext for the march. On October 26, an 84-year-old man shot and injured two men while trying to set fire to the mosque of Bayonne. Earlier in October, in the Regional Assembly of Burgundy, a member of the National Rally party (RN) complained about the presence in the gallery of a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf. The French political class and media condemned both incidents almost unanimously.

    Among the signatories of the op-ed are Jean-Luc Mélenchon, president of La France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”), the most prominent leftist political party in the French National Assembly; Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Party candidate in the last presidential election; Philippe Martinez, leader of the Communist trade-union General Confederation of Labor (CGT); Yannick Jadot, a prominent Member of European Parliament from the Green party and Edwy Plenel, editor of Mediapart, a successful online media news platform and former editor of the newspaper Le Monde.

    The op-ed sparked a national debate. How could these established public figures sign a text alongside known Islamist sympathizers, such as Nader Abou Anas, an imam who believes that “women can only go out with the permission of their husband”, or Marwan Muhammad, the former CEO of the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) — an organization suspected of links with the Muslim Brotherhood — who compared the situation of Muslims in France today with those of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, going so far as to add that “in France, mosques are machine-gunned” (“mitraillé“)?

    The debate was particularly tense within the Left. Historically, the Left in France was always a powerful advocate of secularism (“laïcité” in French; a strong separation between church and state). However, a portion of the Left now chooses to support multiculturalism and so-called “identity politics” and to ally itself with Islamists whose agenda opposes having a secular state. The alliance between the traditional Left and Islamists is often described as “Islamo-gauchisme” (“Islamo-leftism”). The controversy became so great that some of the signatories even decided to abstain from participating in the demonstration.

    The choice of the word “Islamophobia” as the central rallying call was, of course, not neutral. As noted by the journalist Stéphane Charbonnier, murdered in the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015, in his posthumous book, Islamophobia “is not only a poorly chosen word but also a dangerous one.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Historically, the word Islamophobia — coined in the 1910s by a French colonial administrator — was rarely used until the 1990s. After Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, particularly after Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses, the term became used as a political weapon. The objective appears to have been to make Islam untouchable by placing any criticism of it as equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism.

    The word “Islamophobia” deliberately intends to transform the critique of a religion — a fundamental right in Western societies — into a crime.

    Pascal Bruckner, a French philosopher, suggested the role played by the concept. According to him:

    “The term ‘Islamophobia’ serves several functions. It denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it. It attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, the term is intended to silence Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce their religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and dogmatic.”

    Unfortunately, many media outlets and human rights groups fell directly into the trap and often use the word “Islamophobia” despite its lack of any legal basis or precise definition. Every time the word is used, it is a small victory for the Islamists.

    A phobia is an extreme irrational fear or an aversion to something. Why, however, is it irrational to be afraid of Islam when terrorists murder, and call for murder, in the name of their God? — even if the perpetrators are but a small minority among Muslims. Forty years ago, who could have imagined that terrorist attacks could be perpetrated in the United States or Europe in the name of a religion? In this context, being “Islamophobic” (being afraid of a religion) is not a crime. And it is light years’ different from “hating” Muslims “for being Muslims”. It is not Muslims people “hate,” any more than they hate Hindus or Buddhists or Shintos. It is the violence and coercion that some adopt — what is known as jihad or holy war — that people reject.

    The signatories were also severely criticized for their bias regarding the facts. Muslims are not targeted in France. According to the official records of the French government, last year, with 100 incidents, anti-Muslim acts were actually at their lowest level since 2010.

    By comparison, after two years of decline, the number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2018 rose sharply: 541 compared to 311 in 2017 — an increase of 74%. Eighty-one of the incidents included violence, attempted homicide, or homicide. The number of recorded anti-Christian incidents reached 1063, ten times more than anti-Muslim ones.

    The demonstration “against Islamophobia,” which drew 13,500 persons, took place on November 10, three days before the commemoration of the massive jihadi attacks in Paris in 2015 at the Bataclan Theater and other sites, in which terrorists murdered 131 persons and wounded 413. Is it irrational to remember who was calling those shots?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/15/2019 – 02:00

  • Understanding The Deep State's Propaganda
    Understanding The Deep State’s Propaganda

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Propaganda is essential to the Deep State’s operation…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Deep State is the small number of people who control the organizations that donate the majority of the funds which finance the political careers of national officials, such as Presidents, Prime Ministers, and members of the national legislature. Almost always, the members of the Deep State are the controlling stockholders in the international corporations that are headquartered in the given nation; and, therefore, the Deep State is more intensely interested in international than in purely national matters. Since most of its members derive a large portion of their wealth from abroad, they need to control their nation’s foreign policies even more than they need to control its domestic policies. Indeed, if they don’t like their nation’s domestic policies, they can simply relocate abroad. But relocating the operations of their corporations would be far more difficult and costly to them. Furthermore, a nation’s public know and care far less about the nation’s foreign than about its domestic policies; and, so, the Deep State reign virtually alone on the nation’s international issues, such as: which nations will be treated as “allies” and which nations will instead be treated as “enemies.” Such designations are virtually never determined by a nation’s public. The public just trust what the Government says about such matters, like, for example, the US regime’s standard allegation, for decades, that “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism”, which is clearly a blatant lie.

    Iran, of course, is the world’s leading Shia nation, whereas Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading Sunni nation; and the US aristocracy are bonded to the aristocracies of both Saudi Arabia and Israel, against Iran. This allegation against Iran has always been promoted by the royal family who own Saudi Arabia, the Saud family, and also by the billionaires who control Israel, as well as by the billionaires who control the US So: this allegation is by the Deep State, which controls at least these three countries: US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

    But, as was just said, this allegation by the Deep State is false: On 9 June 2017, I headlined “All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel” and listed 54 terrorist attacks which had been prominent in US-and-allied media during 2001-2017, and all of them except for a few that were against Israel were attacks by Sunni groups — not affiliated with Iran. Subsequently, Kent R. Kroeger’s 16 May 2019 study “Is Iran the biggest state sponsor of terrorism?” concluded that overwhelmingly the majority of terrorist attacks ever since 1994 have been by Sunni groups, but he attributed the attacks by Yemen’s Shiite Houthis against Sunni Saudi Arabia as being “terrorist” attacks, even though these were instead actually responses to the Sauds’ war against, and to eliminate, Houthis in Yemen. Also, Kroeger attributed those Houthi actions to “Iran,” which is absurd. (The Houthis simply did not like being exterminated. And the US, of course, supplied the weapons and the military planning, for this attempted ethnic cleansing operation.) There were many other methodological flaws. And yet, still, even with its methodological flaws, Kroeger, concluded: “The distorted US propagandized image of Iran’s aggression looming over the Middle East is, frankly, ‘fake news.’” This is how untrustworthy the Deep State’s ‘news’ actually is. The term “fake news” is, in fact, misleading (or itself fake news) if it is not referring to the Deep State’s propaganda. In my 27 November 2017 “How the US Came to Label Iran the Top State Sponsor of Terrorism”, I described specifically the Deep State’s operation that had created the phrase “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism”. But this is the way the Deep State operates, routinely, on all international issues. It operates by deceit. This is how it achieves the consent of the public, whom it actually rules. This is entirely consistent with the scientific findings about the United States, that it is a dictatorship, not a democracy. All of the evidence is consistent.

    The Deep State here is the US-and allied Deep State, no merely national organization. It consists mainly of America’s billionaires, plus of the billionaires in US-allied countries such as UK, France, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel — but many more (including, for example, in Honduras, Brazil, etc.). These people number fewer than 2,000 in total, and they do deals together, and their contacts with one-another are both direct person-to-person, and indirect by means of representatives or agents. However, America’s billionaires lead the US-and-allied Deep State. That’s to say, the leaders are among the 607 US billionaires, the people who mainly fund American national political campaigns and candidates — and these 607 individuals determine who will get an opportunity to become a US President or member of Congress, and who won’t. For example: these individuals don’t necessarily select the politician who will become America’s President, but they do select who will get the opportunity to be among the serious contenders for that position. (Basically, what the mullahs do in Iran, these super-rich do in America. Whereas in Iran the clergy rule, in America the aristocracy rule.)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One, in particular, is George Soros, and this article will detail the views of one of his many beneficiaries. Another of these billionaires is Charles Koch, but he will not be discussed here, and inside the United States he is popularly considered to be an enemy of George Soros, only because the two men oppose each other on domestic issues. (Billionaires tend to be much more concerned with, and united about, foreign affairs than about domestic affairs, though they do oppose both their taxation and their regulation — they are for ‘free markets’, both domestically and abroad, and yet they also favor imposition of economic sanctions against countries which resist becoming controlled by them, and so they don’t really favor free markets except to the extent that free markets favor their own increase in power and thus tend toward oligopoly and away from competition.) Both men are much more alike than different, and both represent what’s called “neoliberalism,” which is the universal ideology of billionaires, or at least of all billionaires who donate to (i.e., invest in) politicians. Only few billionaires don’t invest in politicians; and, though politicians disagree with one-another, almost all of them are neoliberals, because politicians who aren’t that are not funded by the Deep State (the billionaires). The foreign policies of neoliberals are called “neoconservative” and this means supporting regime-change in any country that’s labeled by billionaires and their government an “enemy” nation. So, “neoconservative” is merely an extension of “neoliberal”: it favors extending neoliberalism to other nations — it is internationally aggressive neoliberalism; it is imperialistic neoliberalism. It is fascism, but so is neoliberalism itself fascist; the difference between the two is that neoconservatism is the imperialistic extension of fascism — it is the imperialistic fascism that, in World War II, was represented by the three Axis powers — Germany, Italy, and Japan — not by the purely domestic fascism that was represented by Spain. Whereas Spain was merely neoliberal, the Axis were also neoconservative (expansionist neoliberal), and the latter is what the Allies in WW II were warring against. But now the US has emerged as the world’s leading neoconservative regime, invading and occupying country after country, none of which had ever invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States. Propaganda is necessary in order to ‘justify’ doing that. This article will describe how that’s done.

    The Deep State doesn’t concern domestic issues, because virtually all of its members control international corporations, and the Deep State is almost entirely about international issues: foreign policies, diplomacy, military issues, and international spying agencies called “intelligence agencies” — extending the empire. The Deep State controls all of that, regardless of what Party is nominally in power. (The public care little about foreign policy, pay little attention to it, and believe the government when it alleges that “national security” is about protecting them, and not about expanding the power and wealth of the billionaires.)

    The dictatorship of the US Deep State really is more international than national; it provides the continuity in international relations, when it chooses and defines which nations (which foreign governments) are “allies” (meaning “we sell arms to them”) and which are instead “enemies” (meaning “we should sanction them and maybe even bomb them”). Both allies and enemies are essential in order for the military-industrial-press-government complex (here: “MIPGC”) to thrive, and the Deep State controls the entire MIPGC. In other words: the Deep State is an international empire, and, as such, its supreme aspiration is to conquer (via subversion, sanctions, coups, and/or invasions) all countries that it labels as “enemies.”

    The way that the Deep State views things, there is no need for an ‘enemy’ to threaten or invade the United States in order for it to be “an enemy,” but, instead, the United States and its allies possess a God-given right to impose sanctions against, or coups overthrowing, or invasions of, any country they choose, so long as they can criticize that other country for being a ‘dictatorship’, or for ‘violating human rights’, or for otherwise doing what the Deep State itself actually does more than any other government on this planet does (and particularly does it to its selected ‘enemies’ — such as were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and any other country that’s either friendly toward, or else an ally of, Russia, which is the other nuclear super-power, and the Deep State’s central target).

    However, though those few super-wealthy individuals (in addition to the general public’s taxes) fund its operations, their many operatives are true-believing followers (believers in neoliberalism-neoconservatism), and this is the reason why the masters fund those individuals’ careers. It’s why these masters provide the platforms and personal connections and employment which enable the true-believers to advance, while opponents of the Deep State (i.e., opponents of the billionaires’ collective dictatorship) cannot find any billionaires to patronize them. In a society that has extremely concentrated wealth, this means that there will be virtual penury for opponents of the billionaires’ collective dictatorship. Especially the major politicians need patrons amongst the aristocracy, the billionaires, in order to have successful careers.

    The beneficiary of the Deep State who will be exemplified, discussed, and finally quoted, here, will be Jacek Rostowski, who is also known as Jan Anthony, and as Jan Anthony Vincent-Rostowski. Wikipedia’s article on him opens:

    Jan Anthony Vincent-Rostowski, also known as Jacek Rostowski (Polish pronunciation: [ˈjan ˈvint͡sɛnt rɔsˈtɔfskʲi]; born 30 April 1951, London) is a British-Polish[1] economist and politician who served as Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland.

    He was a candidate for Change UK in London at the 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom.[2]

    It also says:

    From 1995 he has been Professor of Economics and was the head of the Department of Economics at the Central European University in Budapest during the periods: 1995–2000 and 2005–2006.[9] …

    Later career[edit]

    Rostowski was a member of Britain’s Conservative Party. In the beginning of 2010, it was announced that two months prior[15] he has become member of the Civic Platform party (PO). In the wake of the Parliamentary Elections of 2011, he became Member of Parliament, being elected from the list of Civic Platform Party (PO).[16]

    In late 2015, Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz appointed Rostowski as her top political adviser.[17]

    Vincent-Rostowski has published around 40 academic papers on European enlargement, monetary policy, currency policy and the transformation of post communist economies. He is the author of academic books including Macroeconomic Instability in Post-Communist Countries published by Oxford University Press.

    On November 3rd, the Ukrainian ‘news’-medium Apostrophe interviewed him, and published the interview in Ukrainian. (The interviewee isn’t fluent in Ukrainian, but the article’s translator into Ukrainian isn’t identified.) What will be posted here is an English translation of that Ukrainian original.

    The English “About” page on Apostrophe’s site says:

    Apostrophe started in August 2014.

    The site was aimed to prepare informational and analytical materials, presentations of important events in politics, economics, society and culture. Apostrophe’s editorial policy is based on principles of impartiality, precision and veracity, velocity, objectivity and balance in the presentation of information. Apostrophe sticks to journalism ethical standards. That is why published materials should not propagate violence, cruelty, cause racial, national or religious hatred. Apostrophe is a proponent of the common humanism values, peace, democracy, social progress and human rights.

    The project functions with the direct participation and use of the resources of the International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS). Apostrophe’s idea lies within the framework of synergy between journalists and analysts.

    The “About” page on the International Centre for Policy Studies (ICPS) says:

    ICPS was founded in 1994 upon the initiative of the Prague-based Open Society Institute (OSI). At that moment, ICPS was the first independent think-tank in Ukraine.

    The Open Society Institute was founded by George Soros. He also founded the Central European University in Budapest, where the interviewee was employed for five years.

    Those are just the obvious ways in which the interviewee had been funded and advanced by Mr. Soros.

    Soros also had helped to fund the overthrow of the democratically elected and internationally non-aligned President of Ukraine in 2014 and to replace him with a nazi anti-Russian regime which serves as a terrific asset for the US-and-allied Deep State, because of Ukraine’s having a 1,625-mile border with the country that the US-installed regime in Ukraine hates: Russia (hates it because the Deep State craves, above all, to control also the other nuclear super-power; so, this is hatred-on-command).

    A basic presumption of that interview, both by the interviewer and by the interviewee, is the Russian Government’s being wrong in everything, and the Ukrainian Government’s — the regime which Obama (another of Soros’s beneficiaries) had installed — being right in everything. Here is this interview, as an illustrative example of how propaganda is professionally done:

    https://apostrophe.ua

    ORIGINAL OF THIS ARTICLE (in Ukrainian) (now translated here into English):

    Apostrophe: How would you describe the current state of security in the European region?

    Jan Anthony: Since 2014, military security has become a more important topic of discussion in Europe. After all, the events in Crimea and Donbass caused shock. After a long period of time, when defence issues were put on the back burner, they are now again becoming an important factor in the European security environment. Now there are serious problems requiring high priority and serious solutions. And, of course, there are other problems that relate to the same issue — the fight against terrorism, for example.

    The EU and NATO work very closely together to prepare for different types of threats. Now there is a return to a potential military conflict with Russia. In addition, there is an unsustainable security situation in the south, in Africa, because of the conflict in Libya, and in the Sahara. They can also pose a terrorist threat. Therefore, the issue of European security has become more complex than it was 5-10 years ago.

    “You specialize in managing military conflicts. How do you think the conflict in Ukraine can be solved?

    “Conflict management and conflict resolution are different things. Now I see attempts to create a more positive context in the Donbass issue. We need to return to the Minsk agreements as a basic resolution on the conflict. As you know, discussions are under way on the so-called Steinmeier formula. Therefore, now there is an opportunity to return to the discussion of how the Minsk agreements should be implemented. There are serious questions about the sequence of points — what should be done in the first place. And there is also the question of how to confirm the parties’ compliance with their obligations, because now there is a very low level of trust among the participants. Therefore, everything that will be done, it is necessary to immediately demonstrate — behold, it is fulfilled.

    How about the implementation of Minsk? Especially given that it has not worked for almost 5 years.

    “As I see it, no one is discussing any alternatives now. Perhaps among the people discussing ways to implement the agreements, there are other options, but I have no idea what they can be. The Minsk agreements are still in the spotlight.

    “Let’s talk about Crimea. What are the threats on the peninsula?

    “With Crimea it’s a different story than with Donbass. In Crimea there are facilities that can be a base for Russian nuclear weapons, including the Russian navy, capable of carrying nuclear weapons in the Black Sea. [NOTE HERE: Obama’s takeover of Ukraine was originally aimed at taking over Russia’s naval base in Crimea and installing an even larger US naval base there, against Russia.]

    “So the main threat is nuclear weapons?

    “Of course, it is an extremely serious threat by its nature. Any use of it would be disastrous.

    “Will the Kremlin decide to use these weapons in the near future? Or is it just a way to intimidate the West?

    “The primary objective of nuclear weapons is deterrence. This is the main goal with which Russia placed it in Crimea.

    “Is it possible to compare the situation with the Cuban crisis?

    “I would not say that these two situations are similar. There the crisis came very, very close to escalating into an armed conflict. I don’t think we’re going to get to that level of confrontation. [NOTE HERE: Both the interviewer and the interviewee ignore that instead of the Soviet Union’s 1962 attempt to place nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba 95 miles from America’s border, the US ploy now is to place its nuclear missiles right on Russia’s 1625-mile border with Russia — the discussants’ assumption reverses the actual threat, and thus insults their readers’ — or else their own — basic intelligence.] But now it is a very dangerous situation. We need to find more stable mechanisms that cannot be developed by comparing the situation to the Cuban crisis.

    “How can the Western world force Russia to take its weapons from Crimea?

    “Of course, the sanctions have had an effect. I’m sure they’ll stay — I don’t see any reason to take them off. International pressure on Russia will continue. Normalization of relations with it is impossible as long as the current situation in Crimea remains. And since Russia has no intention of leaving the peninsula, we will live for a long time in difficult relations with it, including sanctions, as well as cooperation of Western countries, taking into account possible military confrontation.

    “Let’s recall the attack on Ukrainian military vessels in the Kerch Strait, which occurred almost a year ago. How can we avoid the threat of further Russian attacks on Ukrainian and foreign ships?

    “Ukraine has lost control of part of its navigation, as well as guaranteed access to the Sea of Azov — and this is a complex problem. This issue must therefore remain the focus of international attention. Ukraine should have access to the water area and carry out commercial operations in ports. Georgia faced the same problem — the loss of control over navigation in a certain area. A special mechanism is needed to address these issues. But I have no suggestions on what it should be.

    “Russia recently blocked international waters in the Black Sea and thus blocked trade routes. How should the international community respond to such behaviour?

    “We must respect the International Convention on Navigation. We must continue to conduct military exercises in the Black Sea and it is important that NATO countries participate in them. Of course, there remains a risk that Russia will also organize its exercises. I think the ships will enjoy the freedom of navigation established by the International Convention. Some issues may need to be discussed more broadly for the sake of a future long-term convention. We need to make it more relevant to modern security requirements. It is important to revise time limits on stay in the Black Sea for NATO ships. Nato’s defence and deterrence plans should also be changed. NATO must have greater access to the Black Sea and its naval forces spend more time there.

    “Does the need to renegotiate international agreements on the weakness of international institutions, as well as their unpreparedness for strikes by Russia, speak?

    “Many countries have entered into bilateral agreements with Russia to ensure their confidence in the use of the sea. I think such deals need to be modernized, as well as add another agreement, which spells out a mechanism for discussing maritime incidents on the basis of international organizations, for example, under the OSCE umbrella. This will avoid misunderstandings that may arise from disregard for the rules.

    In the case of deliberate violations, for example, when military exercises block part of the Black Sea, other measures of influence will have to be used. And in that case, there must be a clear international response. If you look at the 2014 NATO summit at Brussels, there have been decisions that have had a very tough response in the event of any crisis. The only question is what to do to Ukraine, which is not a member of the Alliance and does not obey its decisions.

    “Regarding Russian military power. During the “Grom-2019” exercises, which were held recently under the personal guidance of Vladimir Putin, the nuclear submarine cruiser K-44 “Ryazan” fired only one ballistic intercontinental missile R-29R. The other missile just didn’t come out of the mine. This is not the first time that the Russian army has failed. So the question arises, is Russia really a threat to peace, all this is just a demonstration?

    “Russia can solve the problems that you have named. But no one doubts that it has an extremely powerful nuclear arsenal. Despite some problems with weapons, Russia is still very strong.

    “The Kremlin has promised to develop short- and medium-range missiles and deploy them to confront the West (in fact, they already exist — Iskanders). Does this mean that now the situation in Europe is close to the state of the Cold War, when the USSR and the West deployed iCBM for mutual deterrence?

    “Yes, Russia has already developed and deployed the ICBM. We don’t know if they’re all equipped with nuclear weapons. But for the balance of power, NATO must have a significant force with nuclear weapons.

    There are differences with the Cold War. Then there was complete separation and no contact between East and West. And now we have significant economic cooperation. It is still possible to hold political discussions, including with the participation of intergovernmental organizations. So now the situation is not quite the same as during the Cold War. But, as I said, the security situation in Europe is very difficult and relations with Russia deteriorate. The absence of signs that this deterioration is coming to an end is worrying. There are no very effective ways to improve relations with Russia. Therefore, there are different reasons for concern.

    “The Kremlin sent the S-400 division and the Panzir-S battery to Serbia to the Russian Air Defense Forces. This is, in fact, Russian military exercises near the EU. [NOTE HERE: The problem isn’t that Russia is moving too close to the EU — such as the discussants imply — but that NATO has moved right up to Russia’s borders. Again, the presumption insults readers’ — and/or their own — basic intelligence.] Is this preparation for a strike against the West?

    “Serbia’s position is that they want to have good relations with both their neighbors and NATO countries, but also with Russia. Serbia is also training with NATO countries. Serbia wants a balance of power, but in the event of a conflict it will support EU membership. It is politically and economically related to Western countries. Therefore, I do not believe that such exercises are the Kremlin’s preparation for an attack on the EU.

    “How would you assess the military threats to Europe in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova?

    “It is difficult to answer because these are three different countries and the situation in each of them is completely different from the other.

    “Ukraine and Moldova have similar situations. Russian soldiers are still in Transnistria – the only difference is that the conflict there is frozen.

    “Yes, they are there, but they do not fight like in Ukraine.

    Do you believe that this frozen conflict can continue?

    “Today we think it’s not very likely.

    “Is Europe expecting a military strike from Russia?

    “No, we don’t expect it and we don’t expect it. But we do not rule it out, we allow it in our defense plans. Preparations are under way for these attacks, which means that their probability is reduced.

    “Russia invests heavily in European political parties like the French National Front or the League of the North in Italy. Is there any evidence that the Kremlin is investing in “militia” in EU countries and supplying weapons to Europe to shake up the situation. Perhaps it is funding crime to influence the situation in the EU?

    “There have been many investigations into ties with the Kremlin, in particular financial ties from politicians. The EU discusses a lot of cyber threats, the possibility of attacks on infrastructure, as well as information attacks. But I have never seen the Kremlin supply weapons to non-state organizations, especially criminal groups.

    “Russia has taken up the settlement of the issue in Syria. What’s going on out there now?

    “Officially, Russia is helping Bashar al-Assad’s forces gain control over Syrian territory. But what is happening now is, from the Kremlin’s point of view, the formation of a single strategic space, including the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean. Russia has free access to the Black Sea and now the Russian Navy has gained much greater access to the waters of the eastern Mediterranean. They plan to use this strategic space for a possible confrontation with NATO forces.

    “How can this affect Europe?

    “It’s a very difficult question. One issue of concern is the influx of refugees and temporarily displaced persons to Turkey and Europe. On the other hand, again, Russia’s creation of a single strategic space, interference in the Mediterranean.

    “Let’s go back to Ukraine. You are a nuclear safety expert. We have many nuclear power plants, can they pose a threat to the world in the event of full-scale aggression?

    “Yes, this is a very big threat, first of all for Ukraine itself, then for the rest of the world. One of the Ukrainian officials stated that this is why there was a significant revision of the concept of Ukraine’s security. It includes so-called “internal threats” to nuclear equipment and the creation of national protection, will protect and defend nuclear reactors. I think that the threat to the infrastructure of the nuclear power plant in Ukraine is real. But the Ukrainian government takes this seriously and takes the necessary measures.

    Conclusion

    As can be clearly seen there, the basic method of the Deep State’s propagandists is to ask questions which have assumptions that are the reverse of reality, and to answer these questions in ways that confirm those falsehoods.

    This is what many millions of people get paid to do.

    And it creates “Big Brother” or the Deep State here, just as, in 1948, George Orwell might have been thinking that it would do in 1984. And a good example of how the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in America, is shown here.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 23:45

  • The Cheapest Places To Rent An Apartment In The U.S.
    The Cheapest Places To Rent An Apartment In The U.S.

    Americans who are looking for a deal on an apartment might want to check out Ohio

    As Statista’s Maria Vultaggio notes, the state has two cities with with the least expensive zip codes in the U.S., according to ApartmentGuide.com. 

    Infographic: The Cheapest Places To Rent An Apartment In The U.S. | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    A one-bedroom apartment in Columbus, Ohio, costs $489 a month. It’s the only zip code on the list that’s under $500.

    Rogers, Arkansas and Greenville, Texas, were tied for second least expensive, with monthly rents costing $510. Cities like Oklahoma City, Champaign, Illinois and Shreveport, Louisiana, cost under $550 per month.

    Conway, Arkansas fell in the middle of the last with $555 per month for a one-bedroom apartment and Amarillo, Texas, Derby, Kansas, and Youngstown, Ohio finished off the least expensive zip codes by costing renters about $600 per month.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 23:25

  • Casualties Of War: Military Veterans Have Become America's Walking Wounded
    Casualties Of War: Military Veterans Have Become America’s Walking Wounded

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    Come you masters of war / You that build the big guns

    You that build the death planes / You that build all the bombs

    You that hide behind walls / You that hide behind desks

    I just want you to know / I can see through your masks….

    You fasten all the triggers / For the others to fire

    Then you sit back and watch / When the death count gets higher

    You hide in your mansion / While the young people’s blood

    Flows out of their bodies / And is buried in the mud.

    — Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

    War drives the American police state.

    The military-industrial complex is the world’s largest employer.

    War sustains our way of life while killing us at the same time. As Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent and author Chris Hedges observes:

    War is like a poison. And just as a cancer patient must at times ingest a poison to fight off a disease, so there are times in a society when we must ingest the poison of war to survive. But what we must understand is that just as the disease can kill us, so can the poison. If we don’t understand what war is, how it perverts us, how it corrupts us, how it dehumanizes us, how it ultimately invites us to our own self-annihilation, then we can become the victim of war itself.

    War also entertains us with its carnage, its killing fields, its thrills and chills and bloodied battles set to music and memorialized in books, on television, in video games, and in superhero films and blockbuster Hollywood movies financed in part by the military.

    Americans are fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nowhere is this double-edged irony more apparent than during military holidays, when we get treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military.

    Yet war is a grisly business, a horror of epic proportions.

    In terms of human carnage alone, war’s devastation is staggering. For example, it is estimated that approximately 231 million people died worldwide during the wars of the 20th century. This figure does not take into account the walking wounded—both physically and psychologically—who “survive” war.

    Many of those who have served in the military are among America’s walking wounded.

    Despite the fact that the U.S. boasts more than 20 million veterans who have served in World War II through the present day, the plight of veterans today has become America’s badge of shame, with large numbers of veterans impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, suicide, and marital stress, homeless, subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, and left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration offices.

    According to a recent report by the Department of Veterans Affairs, at least 60,000 veterans died by suicide between 2008 and 2017.

    On average, 6,000 veterans kill themselves every year, and the numbers are on the rise.

    As Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston, observed, For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat.”

    Unfortunately, it’s the U.S. government that poses the greater threat to America’s military veterans, especially if they are among that portion of the population that exercises their First Amendment right to speak out against government wrongdoing.

    Consider: we raise our young people on a steady diet of militarism and war, sell them on the idea that defending freedom abroad by serving in the military is their patriotic duty, then when they return home, bruised and battle-scarred and committed to defending their freedoms at home, we often treat them like criminals merely for exercising those rights they risked their lives to defend.

    The government even has a name for its war on America’s veterans: Operation Vigilant Eagle.

    As first reported by the Wall Street Journal, this Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program tracks military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and characterizes them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

    Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

    Yet the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is taking aim at individuals trained in military warfare.

    Don’t be fooled by the fact that the DHS has gone extremely quiet about Operation Vigilant Eagle.

    Where there’s smoke, there’s bound to be fire.

    And the government’s efforts to target military veterans whose views may be perceived as “anti-government” make clear that something is afoot.

    In recent years, military servicemen and women have found themselves increasingly targeted for surveillance, censorship, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, labeled as extremists and/or mentally ill, and stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

    An important point to consider, however, is that under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as threats to national security.

    In light of the government’s efforts to lay the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data and predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability coupled with a military background.

    Incredibly, as part of a proposal being considered by the Trump Administration, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

    These tactics are not really new.

    Many times throughout history in totalitarian regimes, such governments have declared dissidents mentally ill and unfit for society as a means of disempowering them.

    As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum observes in Gulag: A History: “The exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself. The rulers of ancient Rome and Greece sent their dissidents off to distant colonies. Socrates chose death over the torment of exile from Athens. The poet Ovid was exiled to a fetid port on the Black Sea.”

    For example, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union often used psychiatric hospitals as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally through the use of electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures.

    Insisting that “ideas about a struggle for truth and justice are formed by personalities with a paranoid structure,” the psychiatric community actually went so far as to provide the government with a diagnosis suitable for locking up such freedom-oriented activists.

    In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, Russian officials also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers.

    Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

    The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years. Administrative exile–which required no trial and no sentencing procedure–was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.

    Sound familiar?

    This age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by declaring them mentally ill and locking them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time is a common practice in present-day China.

    What is particularly unnerving, however, is how this practice of eliminating or undermining potential critics, including military veterans, is happening with increasing frequency in the United States.

    Remember, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) opened the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists—technically, anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government qualifies.

    It doesn’t take much anymore to be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the government’s dictates.

    In fact, as the Washington Post reports, communities are being mapped and residents assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about a person’s potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether they’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

    The case of Brandon Raub is a prime example of Operation Vigilant Eagle in action.

    Raub, a 26-year-old decorated Marine, actually found himself interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.

    On August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s Virginia home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a political thriller virtual card game.

    Among the posts cited as troublesome were lyrics to a song by a rap group and Raub’s views, shared increasingly by a number of Americans, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job.

    After a brief conversation and without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, Raub was then handcuffed and transported to police headquarters, then to a medical center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook posts were “terrorist in nature.”

    Outraged onlookers filmed the arrest and posted the footage to YouTube, where it quickly went viral. Meanwhile, in a kangaroo court hearing that turned a deaf ear to Raub’s explanations about the fact that his Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days’ further confinement in a psychiatric ward.

    Thankfully, The Rutherford Institute came to Raub’s assistance, which combined with heightened media attention, brought about his release and may have helped prevent Raub from being successfully “disappeared” by the government.

    Even so, within days of Raub being seized and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences.

    “Oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD) is another diagnosis being used against veterans who challenge the status quo. As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis

    “denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.”

    Frankly, based on how well my personality and my military service in the U.S. Armed Forces fit with this description of “oppositional defiance disorder,” I’m sure there’s a file somewhere with my name on it.

    That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) these veterans is diabolical. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these veterans are being declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

    If it were just being classified as “anti-government,” that would be one thing.

    Unfortunately, anyone with a military background and training is also now being viewed as a heightened security threat by police who are trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

    Feeding this perception of veterans as ticking time bombs in need of intervention, the Justice Department launched a pilot program in 2012 aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

    The result?

    Police encounters with military veterans often escalate very quickly into an explosive and deadly situation, especially when SWAT teams are involved.

    For example, Jose Guerena, a Marine who served in two tours in Iraq, was killed after an Arizona SWAT team kicked open the door of his home during a mistaken drug raid and opened fire. Thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, Guerena told his wife and child to hide in a closet, grabbed a gun and waited in the hallway to confront the intruders. He never fired his weapon. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. The SWAT officers, however, not as restrained, fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena—23 of those bullets made contact. Apart from his military background, Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

    John Edward Chesney, a 62-year-old Vietnam veteran, was killed by a SWAT team allegedly responding to a call that the Army veteran was standing in his San Diego apartment window waving what looked like a semi-automatic rifle. SWAT officers locked down Chesney’s street, took up positions around his home, and fired 12 rounds into Chesney’s apartment window. It turned out that the gun Chesney reportedly pointed at police from three stories up was a “realistic-looking mock assault rifle.”

    Ramon Hooks’ encounter with a Houston SWAT team did not end as tragically, but it very easily could have. Hooks, a 25-year-old Iraq war veteran, was using an air rifle gun for target practice outside when a Homeland Security Agent, allegedly house shopping in the area, reported him as an active shooter. It wasn’t long before the quiet neighborhood was transformed into a war zone, with dozens of cop cars, an armored vehicle and heavily armed police. Hooks was arrested, his air rifle pellets and toy gun confiscated, and charges filed against him for “criminal mischief.”

    Given the government’s increasing view of veterans as potential domestic terrorists, it makes one think twice about government programs encouraging veterans to include a veterans designation on their drivers’ licenses and ID cards.

    Hailed by politicians as a way to “make it easier for military veterans to access discounts from retailers, restaurants, hotels and vendors across the state,” it will also make it that much easier for the government to identify and target veterans who dare to challenge the status quo.

    After all, no one is spared in a police state.

    Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we all suffer the same fate.

    It stands to reason that if the government can’t be bothered to abide by its constitutional mandate to respect the citizenry’s rights—whether it’s the right to be free from government surveillance and censorship, the right to due process and fair hearings, the right to be free from roadside strip searches and militarized police, or the right to peacefully assemble and protest and exercise our right to free speech—then why should anyone expect the government to treat our nation’s veterans with respect and dignity?

    Here’s a suggestion: if you really want to do something to show your respect and appreciation for the nation’s veterans, why not skip the parades and the flag-waving and instead go exercise your rights—the freedoms that those veterans swore to protect—by pushing back against the government’s tyranny.

    It’s time the rest of the nation did its part to safeguard the freedoms we too often take for granted.

    Freedom is not free.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • China Is About To Get Angry: US Senate To Vote Show Of Support For Hong Kong Protesters
    China Is About To Get Angry: US Senate To Vote Show Of Support For Hong Kong Protesters

    As noted moments ago, futures ramped to new record highs rising above 3,100 following a quote from top Trump advisor Larry Kudlow, who has figured out that he gets most bang for the buck in juicing futures when liquidity is virtually nil, around 8pm or so, when he told reporters that Phase One of the China deal is “down to the short strokes”, adding that “we are in communication with them every single day right now”, and repeating that “a deal is close”, even if “it’s not done yet.”

    And yet, while such Deal On/Deal Off market manipulation is nothing new and has been going on for over a year and a half, there is the possibility that China is about to be royally pissed off, if not by Trump for whom a China (non) “deal” is critical to pushing the market to all time highs just before the 2020 presidential election and thus will not dare to anger Xi Jinping over the ongoing fiasco that is Hong Kong, then by the Senate, which is preparing for quick passage of legislation to show support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong by placing the city’s special trading status with the U.S. under annual review.

    According to Bloomberg, the Senate is set to bring the bill to the floor under an expedited process that would allow for quick passage unless there is an objection, according to the lead sponsor, Republican Senator Marco Rubio. And since it is unlikely anyone will object, the bill is expected to pass as early as next week.

    “The world witnesses the people of Hong Kong standing up every day to defend their long-cherished freedoms against an increasingly aggressive Beijing and Hong Kong government,” Rubio said. “Now more than ever, the United States must send a clear message to Beijing that the free world stands with Hong Kongers in their struggle.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rubio and Democratic co-sponsor, Senator Ben Cardin, have garnered broad bipartisan support for their bill, including from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, who has pressed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for a swift vote. Rubio and McConnell met late Wednesday to hash out a way forward for the legislation, which would also levy sanctions on people the president finds responsible for human rights violations.

    “The world needs to see that the United States will stand up and tell the Chinese Communist Party that what they are doing to the people of Hong Kong is wrong,” Risch said in a statement. “The U.S. stands with the people of Hong Kong, and I look forward to continuing to work with Senate leadership and my colleagues across the aisle to move this bill swiftly.”

    While it is unclear what the Senate’s vote will achieve, besides potentially removing any hope for even a “phase one” deal, Hong Kong has been paralyzed since Monday morning, when a demonstrator was shot during protests.

    Meanwhile, Bloomberg notes that the White House declined to comment Thursday when asked whether Trump would sign it into law; a veto by Trump would indicate that for all the belligerent posturing, Trump and Xi have long since reached an agreement behind the scenes, whereby China “folds” to Trump’s demands, while Trump refuses to intervene in Hong Kong.

    The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would require the State Department to certify at least once a year whether Hong Kong should keep its special status under U.S. law. This legislation is slightly different from the version passed by the House of Representatives, which means the two bills would have to be reconciled and passed by both chambers before going to President Donald Trump.

    Predictably, on a day when China’s president Xi said that “stopping the storm and restoring order” in Hong Kong is the most urgent task for Hong Kong, once again raising the possibility of military intervention by the PLA, the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Thursday warned of retaliation if the measure passes Congress, adding that China will take resolute measures to safeguard its interests, and repeating that the US should immediately stop interference in Hong Kong issues.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • PBS Frontline's "In The Age of AI" Exposes Big-Tech's Ongoing Abuse Of Public Trust
    PBS Frontline’s “In The Age of AI” Exposes Big-Tech’s Ongoing Abuse Of Public Trust

    Authored by B.N.Frank via AcivistPost.com,

    You won’t see cell phones or personal computers much in movies or TV shows until the late 1990s because most people didn’t own them.  Of course most people didn’t need them either.  If you couldn’t afford a “home phone” – pay phones usually weren’t hard to find.  Anyone who needed to be “on call” – like doctors – wore pagers.

    People who grew up without new technology know firsthand that it has made the world better in some ways. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We also know that it has made it worse in others.  People who never knew the world without new technology have been conditioned to believe that all of it is necessary as well as beneficial.  Unfortunately, that’s not the case.  5G is very dangerous (see 1234, 56, 7, 8).  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is associated with many risks as well.

    There will always be people who want more technology regardless of the human and environmental consequences.  Those kinds of people are not going to like Frontline’s “In the Age of AI”.

    FRONTLINE investigates the promise and perils of artificial intelligence, from fears about work and privacy to rivalry between the U.S. and China. The documentary traces a new industrial revolution that will reshape and disrupt our lives, our jobs and our world, and allow the emergence of the surveillance society.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 22:25

  • Forget GDP: Here Is The Scariest Data From China
    Forget GDP: Here Is The Scariest Data From China

    Yesterday, shortly before China’s data deluge, we reported that a Beijing-based think tank became the first Chinese economic research institute linked to the government to predict that China’s economic growth rate will slow below 6.0% next year. Specifically, The National Institution for Finance and Development (NIFD) on Wednesday said that China’s economic growth rate will slow to 5.8% in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% this year, a number which is already quite ambitious, not to say artificially goalseeked.

    “The economic slowdown is already a trend,” said former central bank adviser Li Yang, who heads the institute that is affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). “We must resort to deepened supply-side structural reform to change it or smooth the slowdown, rather than solely rely on monetary or fiscal stimulus.”

    The problem is that even a sub-6% number is wildly optimistic and misrepresents the true state of China’s economy considering that back in August, Fathom Consulting calculated that growth in the second largest economy had already shrunk to 4.6% and was declining.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Of course, shortly thereafter China released its latest retail sales, fixed investment and industrial production data, all of which missed badly and worse, the data showed the weakest retail sales growth since 2003 and weakest Fixed-Asset Investment growth since 1998.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    However, while the slowdown in China’s economy has been widely telegraphed for years, a more ominous development is taking place in China’s financial system, which at roughly $40 trillion is not only nearly double the size of that of the US, but is the world’s biggest. It is here, that one find not only an escalating loss of faith by the market, but confirmation that China’s all important credit channel is increasingly clogged up, if not outright broken.

    Following the Q3 earnings releases from Chinese banks, Saxo Bank’s Peter Garnry has updated his market cap to total assets ratio for the four largest commercial banks in China. What he found is that the ratio hit a new all-time low of 5.8% in Q3 as total assets grew an annualized 8% in Q3 while market cap of the four banks declined.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This means that Chinese investors – who happen to know best what is truly going on behind the scenes – are not valuing these new assets as high quality, and the most likely dynamic in China right now is that the current credit expansion is just offsetting the surge in bad loans, whose real amount Beijing is naturally keep under wraps. The net effect is zero credit transmission to the real economy in China constraining economic growth, which in a time of collapsing total social credit…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … and virtually non-existent credit impulse…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … simply means that the country that in 2008 pulled the world out of a global depression, will not be able to do so again.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 22:05

  • DHS Expects To Have The Biometrics Data Of 259 Million People By 2022
    DHS Expects To Have The Biometrics Data Of 259 Million People By 2022

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expects to have face, fingerprint, and iris scans of at least 259 million people in its biometrics database by 2022. Is there any way to escape the mass surveillance and tracking that George Orwell warned us all about in his iconic book, 1984?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Orwellian police state is upon us, but don’t expect it to improve at all.  In fact, as George Orwell said: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

    According to a recent presentation from the DHS’s Office of Procurement Operations which was reviewed by Quartz, the 259 million in the database is about 40 million more than the agency’s 2017 projections. In those estimates, the agency expected to have the data of 220 million unique identities by 2022, according to previous figures cited by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a San Francisco-based privacy rights nonprofit.

    The agency is transitioning from a legacy system called IDENT to a cloud-based system (hosted by Amazon Web Services) known as Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology, or HART. The biometrics collection maintained by DHS is the world’s second-largest, behind only India’s countrywide biometric ID network in size. The traveler data kept by DHS is shared with other US agencies, state and local law enforcement, as well as foreign governments. –Quartz

    Your data hasn’t been private for a long time and it won’t be ever again as long as governments believe they are allowed to hoard it – all in the name of keeping you safe, of course. The first two stages of the HART system are being developed by United States defense contractor Northrop Grumman, which won the $95 million contract in February 2018. DHS wasn’t immediately available to comment on its plans for its database.

    Biometrics “make it possible to confirm the identity of travelers at any point in their travel,” Kevin McAleenan, US President Donald Trump’s recently-departed acting DHS secretary, told Congress last year. The criteria used by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officersa division of DHS, to screen out specific travelers as suspicious is top secret, but was determined in conjunction with Palantir, the Silicon Valley data-mining firm co-founded by controversial billionaire and ardent Trump supporter Peter Thiel. The EFF said it believes CBP could be tracking travelers “from the moment they begin their internet travel research.” As the group has noted, DHS says “the only way for an individual to ensure he or she is not subject to collection of biometric information when traveling internationally is to refrain from traveling.” –Quartz

    Last month’s DHS presentation describes IDENT as an “operational biometric system for rapid identification and verification of subjects using fingerprints, iris, and face modalities.” According to further reporting by Quartz, the new HART database “builds upon the foundational functionality within IDENT,” to include voice data, DNA profiles, “scars, marks, and tattoos,” and the as-yet-undefined “other biometric modalities as required.” EFF researchers caution some of the data will be “highly subjective,” such as information gleaned during “officer encounters” and analysis of people’s “relationship patterns.”

    So basically, if you ever leave your house, expect the government to track and monitor your every move and make sure “highly subjective” information is used to ensure you remain enslaved. The “land of free?” I hardly think so.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 21:45

  • Russia Says BRICS Seeking Common, Non-Dollar Payment System
    Russia Says BRICS Seeking Common, Non-Dollar Payment System

    The fracturing of the global economy and de-dollarization appear to be full-steam ahead. 

    Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, simplified as BRICS, are five emerging national economies that are developing a new universal payment system to challenge the US’ SWIFT international payment network, a Russian official was quoted by Reuters on Thursday.  

    Russia’s de-dollarization effort has gained momentum in the last several years, in line with President Putin’s commitment to reduce the country’s vulnerability to the continuing threat of US sanctions. But it’s not just Russia who wants to lessen their dependence on dollars for trade, it’s the entire economic bloc. 

    Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), said, “increasing non-market risks of the global payment infrastructure” is behind the push to develop a new international payment system for BRICS peers. 

    “An efficient BRICS payment system can encourage payments in national currencies and ensure sustainable payments and investments among our countries, which make up over 20% of the global inflow of foreign direct investment,” Dmitriev said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dmitriev said BRICS peers have also been discussing a new common cryptocurrency for mutual payments as another workaround to the dollar. 

    He said Russia had made a considerable effort over the last several years to reduce dollars in foreign trade. In the last several years, Russian foreign trade payments in dollars have dropped to 50% from 92%, while rouble transactions have jumped from14% to 3%, he added. 

    On Wednesday, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Vladimir Kolychev was quoted by Reuters as saying the Russian sovereign wealth fund will reduce US Dollars and is studying whether it should add Chinese yuan.  

    Last month, Russian Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin told the Financial Times that the country would continue down the path of de-dollarization and begin trading some oil transactions in Euros and roubles.

    Russia’s desire to abandon the dollar is a trend that continues to flourish — now it appears BRICS peers could be following down the same path. This will certainly irritate Washington. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 21:25

  • Soros Demands Fox News Ban "Ludicrous" Trump Ally Joe DiGenova
    Soros Demands Fox News Ban “Ludicrous” Trump Ally Joe DiGenova

    The president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations demanded that Fox News ban former federal prosecutor and Trump ally Joe diGenova for claiming that the Hungarian-American billionaire “controls a very large part of the career foreign service of the United States State Department.”


    In response to diGenova’s comments, Open Society president Eric Wemple said in a Friday letter to Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott that diGenova’s comments are “beyond fiction” and “beyond ludicrous.”

    Others, such as ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt, suggested diGenova was using an ‘anti-Semitic trope’ against Soros, who is Jewish.

    As The Hill’s John Solomon reported in March, in 2016 Obama administration officials sought to suppress a Ukrainian corruption probe into an NGO bankrolled by both the US government and Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros. 

    When Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office tried to investigate an alleged misallocation of $4.4 million in US funds, which was supposed to go toward anti-corruption initiatives, US embassy officials came down hard to shut down the investigation altogether. “We ran right into a buzzsaw and we got bloodied,” a senior Ukrainian official told The Hill.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    George Kent

    Notably, former State Department official George Kent (One of the Democrats’ star witnesses in Wednesday’s public impeachment hearings), recommended in April 2016 that Ukraine stop investigating a Soros-funded entity in Ukraine, AntAC.

    The investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center (sic), based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced,” wrote Kent. 

    While the 2016 presidential race was raging in America, Ukrainian prosecutors ran into some unexpectedly strong headwinds as they pursued an investigation into the activities of a nonprofit in their homeland known as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC).

    The focus on AntAC — whose youthful street activists famously wore “Ukraine F*&k Corruption” T-shirts — was part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption inside the former Soviet republic had been improperly diverted.

    The prosecutors soon would learn the resistance they faced was blowing directly from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, where the Obama administration took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and the group. –The Hill

    DiGenova, an attorney for Solomon, may be included in a batch of communications that a federal judge ordered the State Department to hand over regarding Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s communications with top department officials.

    The judge ruled that the department had 30 days to turn over the documents, but that both parties needed to meet to narrow the scope of American Oversight’s request. 

    The State Department is agreeing to search for records related to external communications between Giuliani, his associates Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to the status report released Wednesday.

    The report says that “to the extent responsive records exist” the State Department will “process and produce” the documents “with appropriate redactions” by Nov. 22. 

    The department has also agreed to process communications between Giuliani and some of Pompeo’s advisers, including including State Department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl and former senior adviser Michael McKinley. –The Hill

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

    The State Department search for records will include a review of emails, text messages, calendar entries and messaging platforms – as well as any correspondence regarding Giuliani, Toensing or diGenova’s plans to travel to Ukraine or encourage the country’s government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who have been accused of corruption.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 21:25

    Tags

  • Red Ponzi Panic: Chinese Hospitals Begging Nurses For Loans To Stay Afloat
    Red Ponzi Panic: Chinese Hospitals Begging Nurses For Loans To Stay Afloat

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Speculative loans in China are souring rapidly. Ruzhou, a city of one million people provides examples.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Struggling to keep its economy growing, the city of Ruzhou spent big, but is now asking its health care workers for cash to stay afloat.

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

    Begging Nurses for Money

    The New York Times asks How Bad Is China’s Debt?

    Ruzhou, a city of one million people in central China, urgently needed a new hospital, their bosses said. To pay for it, the administrators were asking health care workers for loans. If employees didn’t have the money, they were pointed to banks where they could borrow it and then turn it over to the hospital.

    Ruzhou is a city with a borrowing problem — and an emblem of the trillions of dollars in debt threatening the Chinese economy.

    Local governments borrowed for years to create jobs and keep factories humming. Now China’s economy is slowing to its weakest pace in nearly three decades, but Beijing has kept the lending spigots tight to quell its debt problems. Increasingly these deals are going sour, as they did in Ruzhou, and the loans are going unpaid. Lenders have accused three of Ruzhou’s hospitals and three investment funds tied to the city of not paying back their debts.

    Local officials have long used big spending to keep the economy growing. Ruzhou is home to a number of white-elephant projects, including a stadium and sports complex turned e-commerce center, now largely unused. A shantytown redevelopment project, begun four years ago to give rural residents new homes, has been slowed for lack of money, locals said.

    Doctors and nurses at the traditional Chinese medicine hospital complained to one local state-owned newspaper that they were being ordered to give between $14,000 and $28,000. At Ruzhou Maternal and Child Health Hospital, nurses and doctors were told they had to invest between $8,500 and $14,000, according to government online forums and state media.

    Ruzhou officials did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Two employees of The New York Times who traveled to the city were briefly held by the police and forced to leave.

    Tip of the Iceberg

    Ruzhou has several hospitals in trouble, an unused sports stadium, a cultural complex in shambles, and a failed shantytown project.

    Play this same scene throughout China.

    It’s everywhere.

    Nobody is quite sure how big the problem might be. Beijing says the total is about $2.5 trillion. Vincent Zhu, an analyst at Rhodium Group, a research firm, puts the figure at more than $8 trillion.

    Factor in the world’s worst air pollution and water supplies you would have to be crazy to drink from.

    Yet, US hyperinflationists think the dollar will collapse to nothing, Chinese debt somehow doesn’t matter, China will soon rule the world, and the yuan will displace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    I suggest Forget the Yuan: King Dollar is Here to Stay for quite some time.

    The yuan is not even close to competing with the dollar for at least six reasons.

    Meanwhile, Chinese growth is hugely overstated and its massive debt problem little understood.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 21:05

  • Dems Aren't Going To Condemn This Trump-Putin Cooperation
    Dems Aren’t Going To Condemn This Trump-Putin Cooperation

    Independent journalist David Mizner notes “Dems aren’t going to criticize this Trump-Putin cooperation” as Moscow has now recognized Jeanine Añez as Bolivia’s self-declared interim president until the protest-wracked South American nation’s next elections.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This came two days after Washington did the same, with Acting Assistant Secretary for US Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Michael Kozak being the first to announce Tuesday, “Acting Senate Presidetn Anez has assumed responsibilities of Interim Constitutional President of Bolivia.” 

    Kozak added, “We look forward to working with her and Bolivia’s other civilian authorities as they arrange free and fair elections as soon as possible, in accordance with Bolivia’s constitution.” And on Wednesday Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also congratulated Añez as Evo supporters clashed in the streets with riot police. 

    Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted in RIA Novosti news agency as saying, “Russia will perceive Mrs. Añez as Bolivia’s leader, but only until the elections.”

    This despite Ryabkov expressing that Russia views the series of events which led to President Evo Morales’ ouster as tantamount to a state coup. He said Moscow “took into account that there was no quorum in the parliament at the time of her confirmation in this position.” 

    Interestingly, it appears Russia is taking a route of pragmatic acquiescence, perhaps given Evo is already in Mexico where he was provided political asylum, and Bolivia’s army is now firmly in support of Anez. In the case of socialist Venezuela, it must be remembered, where the US recognizes opposition leader Juan Guaido as ‘interim president’ and has led failed coup efforts, Russia has firmly stuck by President Nicolás Maduro.

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

    Former president Morales was quick to respond from his place of asylum in Mexico that Añez is a “coup-mongering right-wing senator” and said his supporters’ attempts to access the Senate had been denied. Morales also called the series of events which led to his rapid ouster at the start of the week “the sneakiest, most nefarious coup in history.”

    Meanwhile security forces have vowed to take back the streets, deploying heavily in the administrative capital of La Paz, where throngs of angry Morales supporters squared off against police. The US embassy has evacuated all non-essential personnel according to reports, as pro-Evo socialist demonstrators have vowed to reject the “right-wing coup”.

    The White House had been quick to issue a statement on Morales’ ouster, describing it as a “significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere”.

    On Thursday Añez took the further provocative move of declaring that Evo Morales would not be welcome in any new elections, which she would like to see held soon. Morales’ Movement for Socialism (MAS) party would be allowed to participate, but “They should start searching for a candidate,” she said, according to Reuters.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 20:45

  • Trump Impeachment Is Blueprint To Overthrow Government From Within
    Trump Impeachment Is Blueprint To Overthrow Government From Within

    Authored by Jenna Ellis Rives, op-ed via The Hill,

    The House began public hearings this week, furthering the partisan move by the Democrats to impeach President Trump in a blatant abuse of constitutional authority. Representative Adam Schiff said in a press conference, “These open hearings will be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves and also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president’s misconduct.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are several problems with this statement.

    First, Schiff is already characterizing the outcome of the investigation. As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he serves as a key arbiter of the inquiry under the resolution. As such, he is in a position that demands an unbiased irreproachable ethic in evaluating requests for subpoenas and testimony. Any judge in a similar position would be required to recuse himself with even a hint of the pure bias Schiff has displayed, including coordination with the Ukraine whistleblower and other actions.

    The Democrats do not even pretend that their impeachment game is fair or actually about fact finding. This is simply about using a grant of power in the Constitution arbitrarily and politically, outside the bounds of due process and the purpose of that authority. Although the House does have the “sole power” of impeachment, that is a grant of jurisdiction, not a license to proceed on purely partisan motivation. Article One must work coordinately and not inconsistently with Article Two, which provides the legal basis upon which a sitting president may be impeached.

    Second, Schiff demonstrates this is all about media play in the court of public opinion. Voters have no power or responsibility in an impeachment proceeding. The drafters of the Constitution intended the impeachment and removal process to be exercised only when there was sufficient evidence that the subject of the impeachment had committed a legally qualifying offense. This is not about whether impeachment is popular in the polls or whether a majority of Americans prefer it. Transparency in the context of this quasi judicial process is to provide fundamental fairness and due process for the president. Why are the Democrats so hellbent on blatantly refusing to allow Republican subpoenas and witnesses?

    It is because it is a sham. Yet the Democrats are openly admitting that their goal is to try this in the media and attempt to dishonestly convince us that somehow we too should hate Donald Trump. They are hoping to convince us not to vote for him. That is not a legitimate or constitutional purpose of an impeachment. It is rather ironic that they claim his “crime” is an alleged quid pro quo to gain political advantage, while they are manipulating the power of impeachment for their political advantage. It is Schiff and other Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who should be impeached. There is an actual constitutional basis for that.

    Third, Schiff is proving beyond doubt that this entire impeachment is merely a coordinated partisan attack against President Trump and, even more importantly, against the government of the United States. There was a bipartisan effort was against impeachment, with two Democrats and all Republicans in the House voting against the inquiry. The Democrats are abusing the power of impeachment and, if they are allowed to move forward, they are not only setting a terrible precedent that impeachment can be wielded as a political weapon that it was never intended to be, but also attacking the Constitution and undermining the rule of law.

    In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained the problem of political motivation with the power of impeachment. He wrote,

    “A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He was right. Schiff and Pelosi are not interested in real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. Their only interest is staging a political coup against their adversaries. But this is even bigger than the president. This is an attempt to overthrow the federal government from the inside.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 20:25

    Tags

  • Stocks, Yuan Surge After Yet Another Kudlow Trade Headline Claiming "Deal Is Close"
    Stocks, Yuan Surge After Yet Another Kudlow Trade Headline Claiming “Deal Is Close”

    Algos have gone full retard…again.

    In an exact mirror of yesterday’s idiocy – by which a series of headlines raise doubts about the US-China trade deal, spark a rapid plunge in stocks which is instantly bid into the US cash market close and then ramped even higher as Japan opens on the back of “trade deal is close” comments from someone in the US administration – US equity futures and offshore yuan are spiking tonight…

    White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow tells reporters:

    “We are in communication with them every single day right now,” referring to U.S. talks with China trade negotiators over a phase one trade pact.

    “We are coming down to the short strokes,” Kudlow adds noting that a deal is “close…it’s not done yet.”

    And for the 51289932nd time, algos panic buy futures!!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dow futures are now over 200 points off the intraday lows – on nothing at all!

    Offshore Yuan is also following a similar pattern…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    For some context, The Dow is now over 1800 points higher since Trump said “phase one” of the deal was complete and Offshore Yuan is 15 handles stronger… oh yes and The Fed’s balance sheet is $280 billion bigger, which is of course all that matters…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    As one veteran trader exclaimed, “this is becoming f**king ridiculous.”

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

    Well, to be honest, it does!


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 20:01

  • Ukraine For Dummies (And Congressmen)
    Ukraine For Dummies (And Congressmen)

    Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

    At Wednesday’s debut of the impeachment hearings there was one issue upon which both sides of the aisle seemed to agree, and it was a comic-book caricature of reality.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff led off the proceedings with this:

    “In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire…”

    Five years ago, when Ukraine first came into the news, those Americans who thought Ukraine was an island in the Pacific can perhaps be forgiven. That members of the House Intelligence Committee don’t know — or pretend not to know — more accurate information about Ukraine is a scandal, and a consequential one.

    As Professor Stephen Cohen has warned, if the impeachment process does not deal in objective fact, already high tensions with Russia are likely to become even more dangerous.

    So here is a kind of primer for those who might be interested in some Ukraine history:

    • Late 1700s: Catherine the Great consolidated her rule; established Russia’s first and only warm-water naval base in Crimea.

    • In 1919, after the Bolshevik Revolution, Moscow defeated resistance in Ukraine and the country becomes one of 15 Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

    • In 1954, after Stalin’s death the year before, Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, assumed power. Pandering to Ukrainian supporters, he unilaterally decreed that henceforth Crimea would be part of the Ukrainian SSR, not the Russian SSR. Since all 15 Republics of the USSR were under tight rule from Moscow, the switch was a distinction without much of a difference — until later, when the USSR fell apart..

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Khrushchev: Gave Ukraine away. (Wikipedia)

    • Nov. 1989: Berlin wall down.

    • Dec. 2-3, 1989: President George H. W. Bush invites Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to summit talks in Malta; reassures him “the U.S. will not take advantage” of Soviet troubles in Eastern Europe. Bush had already been pushing the idea of a Europe whole and free, from Portugal to Vladivostok.

    A Consequential Quid Pro Quo

    • Feb. 7-10, 1990: Secretary of State James Baker negotiates a quid pro quo; Soviet acceptance of the bitter pill of a reunited Germany (inside NATO), in return for an oral U.S. promise not to enlarge NATO “one inch more” to the East.

    • Dec. 1991: the USSR falls apart. Suddenly it does matter that Khrushchev gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR; Moscow and Kyiv work out long-term arrangements for the Soviet navy to use the naval base at Sevastopol.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • The quid pro quo began to unravel in October 1996 during the last weeks of President Bill Clinton’s campaign when he said he would welcome Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO — the earlier promise to Moscow notwithstanding. Former U.S. Ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Baker-Gorbachev discussions in early February 1990, has said, “The language used was absolute, including no ‘taking advantage’ by the U.S. … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage,’ particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat.” (From 16 members in 1990, NATO has grown to 29 member states — the additional 13 all lie east of Germany.)

    • Feb. 1, 2008: Amid rumors of NATO planning to offer membership to Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warns U.S. Ambassador William Burns that “Nyet Means Nyet.” Russia will react strongly to any move to bring Ukraine or Georgia into NATO. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have Burns’s original cable from embassy in Moscow.

    • April 3, 2008: Included in Final Declaration from NATO summit in Bucharest: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

    • Early September 2013: Putin helps Obama resist neocon demands to do “shock and awe” on Syria; Russians persuade President Bashar al-Assad to give up Syrian army chemical weapons for destruction on a U.S. ship outfitted for chemical weapons destruction. Neocons are outraged over failing to mousetrap Obama into attacking Syria.

    Meanwhile in Ukraine

    • Dec. 2013: In a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland says: “The United States has supported Ukraine’s European aspirations. … We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.”

    • Feb. 4, 2014: Amid rioting on the Maidan in Kiev, YouTube carries Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s last minute instructions to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt regarding the U.S. pick for new Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (aka “Yats”) and other plans for the imminent coup d’etat in Kiev.  (See: ) When Pyatt expresses concern about EU misgivings about mounting a coup, Nuland says “Fuck the EU.” She then apologizes to the EU a day or two later — for the profanity, not for the coup. She also says that Vice President Joe Biden will help “glue this thing together”, meaning the coup.

    • Feb. 22, 2014: Coup d’etat in Kyiv; appropriately labeled “the most blatant coup in history” by George Friedman, then President of the widely respected think-tank STRATFOR.

    • Feb. 23, 2014: The date that NATO, Western diplomats, and the corporate media have chosen – disingenuously – as the beginning of recent European history, with silence about the coup orchestrated in Kyiv the day before. President Vladimir Putin returns to Moscow from the winter olympics in Sochi; confers with advisers about Crimea, deciding — unlike Khrushchev in 1954 — to arrange a plebiscite to let the people of Crimea, most of whom strongly opposed the coup regime, decide their own future.

    • March 16, 2014: The official result from the voters in Crimea voted overwhelmingly for independence from Ukraine and to join Russia. Following the referendum, Crimea declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian Federation. On March 18, the Russian Federal Assembly ratified the incorporation of Crimea into Russia.

    • In the following days, Putin made it immediately (and publicly) clear that Yatsenyuk’s early statement about Ukraine joining NATO and – even more important – the U.S./NATO plans to deploy ABM systems around Russia’s western periphery and in the Black Sea, were the prime motivating forces behind the post-referendum re-incorporation of Crimea into Russia.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Putin: Reacted to coup. (Russian government)

    • No one with rudimentary knowledge of Russian history should have been surprised that Moscow would take no chances of letting NATO grab Crimea and Russia’s only warm-water naval base. The Nuland neocons seized on the opportunity to accuse Russia of aggression and told obedient European governments to follow suit. Washington could not persuade its European allies to impose stringent sanctions on Russia, though, until the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 over Ukraine.

    Airplane Downed; 298 Killed

    • July 17, 2014: MH 17 shot down

    • July 20, 2014: Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC’s David Gregory, “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.” The U.S., however, has not shared any evidence of this.

    • Given the way U.S. intelligence collectors had been focused, laser-like, on that part of the Ukrainian-Russian border at that time, it is a near certainty that the U.S. has highly relevant intelligence regarding what actually happened and who was most likely responsible. If that intelligence supported the accusations made by Kerry, it would almost certainly have been publicized.

    • Less than two weeks after the shoot-down, the Europeans were persuaded to impose sanctions that hurt their own businesses and economies about as much as they hurt Russia’s – and far more than they hurt the U.S. There is no sign that, in succumbing to U.S. pressure, the Europeans mustered the courage to ask for a peek at the “intelligence” Kerry bragged about on NBC TV.

    • Oct. 27, 2016: Putin speaks at the Valdai International Discussion Club.

    How did the “growing trust” that Russian President Putin wrote about in his September 11, 2013 New York Times op-ed evaporate?

    How did what Putin called his close “working and personal relationship with President Obama” change into today’s deep distrust and saber-rattling? A short three years later after the close collaboration to resolve the Syrian problem peacefully, Putin spoke of the “feverish” state of international relations and lamented: “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.” And things have gone downhill from there.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 19:45

  • South Korea Slaughters 380,000 Pigs After China's Pig Ebola Crosses Border 
    South Korea Slaughters 380,000 Pigs After China’s Pig Ebola Crosses Border 

    Cross-border transmissions of African swine fever is becoming a significant issue across Asia.

    Just last week, we warned about China exporting the hog-killing disease to Russia. Now it appears North Korea, a country that borders China, has already exported the virus to South Korea. 

    South Korean authorities have been scrambling to contain the outbreak since mid-September.  

    A new report from Reuters, indicates 380,000 pigs have been slaughtered since the end of September, in the northern region bordering North Korea.

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

    Already, the government has led a significant effort to slaughter nearly 3% of the country’s pig herd to prevent further spread. The first swine-fever case emerged in mid-September. 

    Woo Hee-jong, a veterinary professor at Seoul National University, said government authorities aggressively killed pigs in the northern region to prevent the spread to large pig farms in the southern part of the country.

    As of October 10, swine fever cases were zero, and the attempt to prevent a further outbreak might have worked but has come at the cost of 380,000 pigs. 

    So far, there are no reports of wild boar infected with the disease, but if that were the case, then the spread across the country would become unstoppable. 

    The epicenter of the hog-killing disease started in China, where authorities have killed at least 50% of its pig herd this year. 

    The cross-border spread of African swine fever from China to Russia; China to North Korea; and now North Korea to South Korea suggests the virus is becoming uncontrollable for governments. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The spread of the virus across China has already led to skyrocketing food prices for pork, and rapid food inflation is likely to be seen in neighboring countries. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, the US is sitting on record cold storage of pork bellies, something that China, Russia, North/South Korea might be interested in… 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 19:25

  • Billionaires Savage Elizabeth Warren Over Virtue Smoke-Signaling Campaign Ad
    Billionaires Savage Elizabeth Warren Over Virtue Smoke-Signaling Campaign Ad

    Elizabeth Warren was sorely mistaken if she thought she could get away with attacking prominent billionaires without repercussions, she was sorely mistaken.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After flipping out on Warren Wednesday night for not knowing “who the f**k she’s tweeting,” billionaire investor Leon Cooperman told CNBC’s ‘Halftime Report’ on Thursday that Warren’s proposed wealth tax “makes no sense,” adding “It would lead to unnatural acts, be near impossible to police, and is probably unconstitutionalit will make the wealthy flock to gold in order to hide their wealth, like you wouldn’t believe.”

    “In my opinion, she represents the worst in politicians as she’s trying to demonize wealthy people because there are more poor people (than) wealthy people,” said Cooperman, adding “if this lady wins, we’re in big trouble.

    Of course, Warren is playing to her (young) base, and when asked why do so many Millennials seem to prefer socialism to capitalism? Cooperman exclaimed that “they’re exposed to all this crap by left-leaning university professors.”

    Then Cooperman dared to ask: “How can a college professor and politician gain an $18mm net worth?” he also asked.

    Cooperman was joined in his criticism by Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who was also featured in the Massachusetts Senator’s ad.

    “Surprised to be featured in Sen Warren’s campaign ad, given the many severe critics she has out there,” Blankfein tweeted on Thursday. “Not my candidate, but we align on many issues. Vilification of people as a member of a group may be good for her campaign, not the country. Maybe tribalism is just in her DNA.”

    Warren’s proposal would levy a 2% tax on household net worth over $50 million and a 6% tax on those with over $1 billion.

    Cooperman says he will support fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg if he formally enters the 2020 race and maintains moderate policy positions, according to CNBC.

    The son of a Bronx plumber who became one of Wall Street’s most successful investors, Copperman started the Omega Advisors hedge fund in 1991. Last year, he returned outside investor money and converted Omega into a family office. His net-worth is estimated at more than $3 billion. Prior to starting Omega, he spent 25 years at Goldman Sachs.

    Cooperman has also been a major philanthropist. He has signed The Giving Pledge, created by Bill Gates and his wife Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. The Giving Pledge invites the ultra-wealthy to give away more than half of their fortunes to help society. –CNBC

    Watch Warren’s ad below:


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 19:11

  • Hearsay, Your Honor!
    Hearsay, Your Honor!

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    Watching Day 1 yesterday of the impeachment inquiry that isn’t one, I was thinking about an old children’s game, which is just as useful for adults, in which, in a wide circle of persons, no. 1 tells no. 2 a story, no. 2 tells no. 3, and so forth. If the total numbers of persons in the circle is large enough, it’s certain that the story, if it has enough details, will have changed unrecognizably by, say, no. 20.

    That little game is a nice illustration of why you’ve all heard the words “Hearsay, Your Honor” spoken by some lawyer or another in 1000+ movies and TV series. And hearsay was all there was yesterday from “witnesses” Bill Taylor and George Kent. They are both “witnesses” who didn’t witness anything related to the hearing in course and neither ever met or spoke to President Trump, but both claim to know exactly what he was thinking, why he did what he did, and said what he said, based on things they heard from third parties, quite a few of whom remain anonymous.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Little of what they said would therefore be ruled admissible in a court of law. But the House inquiry is not a court of law. It can probably best be compared to a grand jury, a very one-sided format designed to let a prosecutor find and present enough evidence to let a case go to court. If Taylor and Kent had been in a court room, you would have heard “Hearsay, Your Honor” about once in every ten seconds. That gets old fast.

    So why do we have this circus going on when it is obvious that round 2 (or 3, if you think the basement hearings were round 1), the Senate trial which must follow if the Dems decide to impeach Trump, has to acquit him because the House based its entire case on hearsay? I don’t know, but perhaps we see some of it in Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley (IL)’s statement: “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct … and it’s certainly valid in this instance”

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

    Note that Quigley in that little video got shut down very rapidly in his enthusiasm for using hearsay by someone (I can’t see who) saying none of the exceptions he seemed to refer to applied to “this testimony”. And that’s the crux here: courts may have in the past, after much deliberation, allowed hearsay in specific cases, but Quigley tries to make it look as if that is now some general rule, and that is certainly not true.

    Before I forget, something that struck me at the start yesterday was how both Adam Schiff and Bill Taylor in their openings emphasized their focus on Russia, while this case is not about that, but about Ukraine. And Russia Russia Russia has been shot down along with Robert Muller in his memorably awful “defense” of his failed report a few months ago.

    Schiff’s opening words:

    In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian forces.

    There is so much wrong and debatable and leading and what not in just those few words, I don’t even know where to start. I guess perhaps I should be shouting out “Hearsay, Your Honor” at the top of my lungs. Then there’s Taylor:

    After his opening statement, Taylor answers questions. He tells committee members: “If we withdraw or suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance” to Ukraine, it sends a “message to Ukrainians, but its just as important to the Russians who are looking for any sign of weakness”. “That affects us” he adds. It affects the world that we live in; that our children and grandchildren will grow up in,” he adds, appearing to become emotional. “Ukraine is on the front line of that conflict,” he concludes.

    These statements are important because they tell us that Schiff and Taylor both see the world through the same glasses. The Russians are looking for signs of US weakness that they can use to advance their grand plan to (re) build a grand empire. That comes with the idea that the US didn’t cause the mayhem in Ukraine in 2014 with their coup, no, it was Russia which reacted so it wouldn’t lose its only warm water port.

    Back to the hearing.

    Taylor said it was his “clear understanding” that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until the Bidens and other matters were investigated. At the very least there is no proof of that. It’s much more likely from what we know today that Ukraine didn’t know Trump withheld the aid until after the July 25 phone call this whole thing rests on. It was suggested yesterday that they didn’t know until the end of August, but I’ve seen people claim that they knew a few weeks earlier. But Zelensky didn’t know on July 25, that we can agree on.

    And anyway, this is merely Taylor’s opinion. Based on hearsay. Based on what some guy told him some other guy told him etc etc. And though Taylor never met Trump, the very idea of withholding aid to one of the most corrupt nations on the planet scares the heebees out of him because Russia Russia Russia.

    Taylor is a career diplomat who has bought hook line and sinker into established US policy in the region, and who will defend it until his dying breath. And if that means going against the president of the country he allegedly serves, who has every right to rebalance that policy, Taylor will do it. That is what he was saying.

    Taylor came close to matching Mueller’s uber-bumbling performance the other day, though he didn’t quite get there. Kent was not quite that bad, but he’s in the same camp, the same career field, and the same deep state, FBI-CIA controlled policy-making no matter who gets elected president. And looking at Bill Taylor, how can one not question the wisdom of people like him making decisions on matters such as that?

    Republican counsel Steve Castor started off strong, at least from what I saw, but seemed to fizzle out a little because he became lost in his own one question every five seconds model.

    Perhaps it was the format, maximum time limits etc., which you don’t have in a courtroom. Jim Jordan did well, he just got named to the committee, but he could have been more effective as well. Still, this part was strong:

    Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump & Zelensky’s call?

    Taylor: I did not.

    Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

    Taylor: I never did.

    Jordan: You’ve never met the President?

    Taylor: That’s correct.

    Jordan: And you’re their star witness.

    All in all, if you thought yesterday was a good day for the Democrats, for the inquiry, or for Adam Schiff, you really need to check a few fundamental issues. All Schiff managed to bring to the table was hearsay. And it’s only because of the grand jury-like format that he even gets to start day 2. No judge would have let him. But there is no judge, and there is no jury. There’s only an executioner.

    PS I found this thing from the BBC intriguing and illustrative:

    Bill Taylor, the acting US ambassador to Ukraine, said a member of his staff was told Mr Trump was preoccupied with pushing for a probe into Mr Biden. He was speaking at the first public hearings in the impeachment inquiry.

    [..] During a detailed opening statement, Mr Taylor said a member of his staff had overheard a telephone call in which the president inquired about “the investigations” into Mr Biden. The call was with Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, who reportedly told the president over the phone from a restaurant in Kyiv that “the Ukrainians were ready to move forward”. After the call, the staff member “asked ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine”, Mr Taylor said. Mr Taylor said: “Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden.”

    First, it argues that a member of Taylor’s staff was told something by a third party, but later it changes to him/her hearing the president “live”. Albeit through an allegedly private phone call in which Trump may have sounded a bit loud. You want to impeach your president on the basis of a maybe overheard phone call that someone told you someone told someone else about?

    By the way, that phone call allegedly was between Trump and Gordon Sondland, hotelier cum US ambassador to the EU, the same person who testified in the famous Schiff basement and whose laywer at some point contested Taylor’s statements about what Sondland told him, after which the latter went back to the basement to change his testimony. He said she said but then he said and then she said and so on.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What’s on the schedule for the circus tomorrow, is it the clowns or the elephants? I may take a day off. We have weeks more of this. And already I have no idea left of who told whom what.

    *  *  *

    Please support the Automatic Earth on Paypal and Patreon so we can continue to publish.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 19:05

  • SolarCity Lawsuit Reveals Almost All Of Elon Musk's Merger Promises Were "Misleading Or False"
    SolarCity Lawsuit Reveals Almost All Of Elon Musk’s Merger Promises Were “Misleading Or False”

    As we dive further into the depositions and discovery documents from the ongoing SolarCity lawsuit, it becomes clearer and clearer that the transaction was simply a bailout of Elon Musk’s cousin and SolarCity shareholders, and that much of the hype surrounding the idea in the first place was drummed up solely to create enthusiasm for the deal.  

    And now, even the media is starting to notice, with Bloomberg’s Dana Hull saying that the thousands of pages of documents released via the lawsuit “show that the CEO’s promises about SolarCity were misleading or false.”

    “The move was called a catastrophe for Tesla, a $2 billion-plus bailout of a debt-saddled company of which Musk himself was chairman and the largest shareholder,” Hull reminds us. 

    The merger was pitched a different way to Tesla shareholders. Elon Musk called it “blindingly obvious” and a “no brainer” at the time.

    But it seems even Musk has come to terms with what he has done, though. In a deposition, Musk reversed his course on the acquisition, stating: “At the time I thought it made strategic sense for Tesla and SolarCity to combine. Hindsight is 20-20. If I could wind back the clock, you know, I would say [I] probably would have let SolarCity execute by itself.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And the shareholders that approved the deal to begin with really only had Musk’s word to go on. Musk told shareholders that the idea of combining the two companies was always part of his master plan and that it would create the world’s first vertically integrated clean energy company. The idea was that Tesla driving consumers would go home to their solar paneled homes to charge their vehicles.

    And if you don’t support that utopian image, you must hate the environment. 

    The SolarCity deal was consummated about 3 years ago this month and now, looking back, it’s easy to see that “almost every significant promise Musk pitched publicly [was] either misleading or false.”

    The situation behind the scenes for SolarCity was called “dire” and Hull says that “the documents in the lawsuit offer an unprecedented look at what happens when Musk’s reality-distortion field comes up against the reality of testifying under oath.”

    Musk said publicly that SolarCity was on solid financial footing, but then behind the scenes was saying that it needed to solve its “liquidity crisis”. SolarCity was, of course, burning cash and in danger of defaulting on its debt.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tesla’s board – and Evercore, who the company hired to evaluate the deal – both thought it wasn’t a good idea. But Evercore, like everyone else involved in the public markets, gave way to Elon Musk’s decision making. “It’s Elon’s world. We just live in it,” an Evercore banker wrote in one email. 

    Even Tesla’s CFO spoke out against the idea: “We have Model 3 happening. We have a lot of things going on. We ourselves have a large debt load. Why do we need to do this now, Elon?”

    On top of that was the obvious conflicts of interest:

    Besides his cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive running SolarCity, its board and Tesla’s had complicated overlaps. Six of Tesla’s seven directors were Musk associates (including his brother, Kimbal) with SolarCity ties. Antonio Gracias was on the board of both companies. What’s more, Musk had used his other entities to raise capital for SolarCity: SpaceX, for example, had purchased $255 million of SolarCity bonds. Musk bought $65 million worth. Tesla’s directors had to grapple with this apparent self-dealing as Musk pushed them to reconsider the acquisition in May 2016. Musk said he recused himself from these deliberations, but court filings indicate he remained actively involved, even advocating for the move directly with bankers and investors.

    But this didn’t stop Musk from coming up with the idea of the Solar Roof (debunked by one solar expert in a podcast here and here) to try and win over shareholders. Musk showed off the product in 2016 to an impressed audience but it was later revealed the demos weren’t functional. Regardless, the acquisition received approval several weeks later. 

    The roof was supposed to be central to the merger, but Tesla has still failed to develop a mass market version of the product and high volume manufacturing has been delayed several times over the last few years. Tesla and SolarCity Director Antonio Gracias said there were only “50 to 100 of these things operating today in tests on people’s roofs.”

    Meanwhile, last year, the company’s head of energy, Sanjay Shah, said he had “high confidence” they were on track to ramp up solar roof production in 2019. He said if more delays came up, “we will be more transparent than ever before to make sure you guys hear from us why.”

    We can’t wait for that explanation. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Musk claimed in his deposition that Shah was actually focused on Model 3 development during his time at Tesla. 

    Tesla executives also knew that the SolarCity acquisition would be risky. In a 2017 memo, Tesla’s top brass exchanged talking points in a memo, saying the acquisition “wasn’t a bailout” and that “family-run businesses can lead to long-term success”.

    “The collaboration has been great,” the memo says, stating that development was “going extremely well”. 

    But SolarCity was falling apart behind the scenes. In Q4 2017, solar deployments fell by 56% YOY and Tesla had gutted the company’s sales team. The Rive brothers left the company after the merger and Musk admitted that despite “synergies”, he had redeployed much of the SolarCity staff to work on the Model 3 launch. 

    “We’re turning our attention to solar, and we’re going to fix it,” Musk said in a deposition, when asked.

    When the plaintiff’s lawyer asked for more details, Musk called him “shameful” and a “very, very bad person”. 

    Musk seems ready to go to trial. “I can’t wait. It will be great. You’re going to lose,” he told the plaintiff’s counsel.

    We can only hope this trial is nationally televised. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th November 2019

  • The Blob: Still Chasing After Pax Americana
    The Blob: Still Chasing After Pax Americana

    Authored by Andrew Bacevich via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    After all the failure, they still look at our wars in the Middle East as some kind of golden age…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I wish to call attention to an instructive essay about U.S. policy in the Middle East—instructive in the sense that it reveals the utterly impoverished nature of establishment thinking on this subject.

    The title of the essay is “The US Has One Last Chance to Halt Its Withdrawal from the Middle East.” The author is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, who shall remain nameless since I bear him no ill will. Let us refer to him simply as X, in honor of George Kennan, author of a famous 1947 essay offering counsel on how to deal with the Soviet Union. Kennan published that essay under the pseudonym X. And so shall I refer to the author of “One Last Chance.”

    Kennan’s purpose was to sound the alarm regarding the Soviet threat and to propose what came to be called the strategy of Containment. The purpose of our present-day Mr. X is to sound the alarm about the United States lowering its profile in the Middle East.

    To avert that prospect, he proposes what can only be termed a strategy of staying-the-course-while-ignoring-the-facts.

    X concedes that throughout the region, things have not gone especially well for the United States over the last couple of decades. He rightly notes that Americans are “still reeling from costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing chaos in Syria, Yemen, and Libya.” He ever so briefly acknowledges that this is “a region where even pro-American governments are often undemocratic and can be disdainful of fundamental human rights” and “where billions of dollars are spent that would be better used at home.”

    Of course, to say that the U.S. has expended billions in the Middle East is the equivalent of saying that my wife and I paid thousands for the home we purchased last year. While nominally correct, the statement is wildly misleading. X has an aversion to actual numbers. He prefers tidy generalizations to specifics.

    Yet the essence of X’s argument boils down to this: setting aside these recent errors of judgment by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, U.S. policy in the region has actually been a smashing success. From the end of World War II until ever-so-recently, Washington pursued a course in the Middle East that was reasoned, careful, and eminently wise. “This bipartisan tradition of American leadership worked,” X asserts. While it might have been “imperfect, time-consuming and often unsatisfying,” the nation’s “vital interests in the region remained protected. The U.S. presence was sized to align with those interests, and we were not overextended.” X approvingly calls this a Pax Americana in the Middle East.

    When one encounters a claim of an American-constructed Pax, the first rule is to look for what the writer leaves out. In this case, among the incidents and developments that our X totally ignores are these: treating Saudi Arabia as a de facto protectorate; CIA involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the Mossadegh regime; the pro-Israel tilt in U.S. policy dating from the 1960s, to include turning a blind eye to Israel acquiring a nuclear arsenal; the Iranian Revolution; various Arab-Israeli wars; oil “shocks” during the 1970s; the Beirut debacle of 1983; the U.S. role in destabilizing (and then abandoning) Afghanistan; Washington’s support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War; the rise of al-Qaeda; and the events of 9/11.

    Admit these into the conversation and the question you confront is this one: what Pax? In truth, Pax Americana no more describes the postwar Middle East than the phrase “Long Peace” describes the Cold War. The purpose of such formulations is to preclude actual thinking, attaching labels to preempt analysis.

    “It took many decades to build a Pax Americana in the Middle East,” X writes.

    Not true: it took only a handful of hours—the time he invested in writing his essay. The Pax Americana is a figment of X’s imagination.

    Yet once having conjured up his fictive Pax, X easily convinces himself that it can exist again, if only the next president—he writes off Trump as a total loss—will act to “reestablish American leadership in the Middle East, restore deterrence with our adversaries, and begin renewing trust with our partners and allies.” But what does “leadership” actually mean in this context? What will it entail? What will it cost? Once again, when it comes to specifics, X is essentially silent, offering only this: 

    “The next commander in chief will require political fortitude to lead the United States back to its traditional role in the region, demonstrating what in previous generations was deemed a profile in courage.”

    That and four bucks will get you a latte.

    All of that said, I submit that X has written something worthy of reflection. Here on full display is a model of establishment thinking—heavy on clichés, light on substance, and short of memory.

    Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament.

    Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a “war on terrorism” meant to settle matters once and for all.

    To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X’s illusory Pax is essentially zero.

    There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward, which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/14/2019 – 00:10

    Tags

  • These Are The States Best (And Worst) Prepared For Another Recession
    These Are The States Best (And Worst) Prepared For Another Recession

    When the US economy finally starts to cool, and the inevitable recession arrives, the slowdown will affect different states differently. Some states, like Texas, are well-positioned to ride out the downturn thanks to the diversity of industry and low per-capita debt. Others, like Hawaii, will likely bear the brunt of the downturn, a “disaster” that we have discussed in the past.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Inspired by surveys claiming that a majority of executives at Fortune 500 companies expect a recession in 2020, Fit Small Business recently conducted a study to determine which states are best-equipped to survive the next recession, and which states are particularly vulnerable to a downturn. To arrive at their conclusions, the researchers factored in a wealth of data about states’ economies, including their product exports, housing costs, economic strength and diversity, individual debt-to-income ratios and median home values.

    Using these data, they concluded that nearly all of the best states for surviving the recession are spread across the south and midwest. Why? Because these states benefit from diverse economies, and their low cost of living and low property prices make them more liveable.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    Meanwhile, all the way down at the end of the list, we find Hawaii, the 48th most well-equipped state to survive the next recession.

    Why is Hawaii so vulnerable? Well, for one, the state must import nearly all of its fuel, food and consumer staples, which drives up prices.

    But that’s not the only reason. Another recent study warned that the slowdown in Hawaii’s economy started around the time when JPM’s Global Manufacturing PMI topped out in late 2017.

    And that slowdown is getting more serious, as Hawaii’s tourism-dependent economy struggles with a slump in bookings, and by extension, a slump in tourist spending. The culprit is clear: the strong dollar has hurt tourism from abroad, while anxieties about a slowing economy have caused domestic spending to contract slightly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And researchers with the state have forecast an increase in Hawaii’s unemployment rate over the coming years, expecting it to climb from its current level (2.8%) to 3.9% in 2022.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    For Hawaii, the downturn has already begun.

    Read Fit Small Business’s full report here.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 23:50

  • The Manchurian Candidate Theory Will Never Die
    The Manchurian Candidate Theory Will Never Die

    Authored by David Harsanyi via NationalReview.com,

    …but now it’s much more than a kooky conspiracy shouted from the margins. It’s headline news.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One of the most durable conspiracy theories of our times finds Vladimir Putin recruiting a billionaire media personality named Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency. In some iterations of the tale, Trump is willingly serving his Kremlin comrades; in others, he is merely the victim of kompromat. In every version he is an asset.

    The basic account holds that Putin, who is apparently blessed with seer-like abilities, knew in the late 1970s that Trump, whose political positions would wildly fluctuate over 40 years, was presidential material, and that now, after decades of patiently waiting, the duo’s nefarious plan to cut taxes and place originalists onto the federal bench has finally come to fruition.

    In a sprawling July 2018 New York piece headlined, “Will Trump Be Meeting with His Counterpart — Or His Handler? A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion,” Jonathan Chait offered a fully realized rendering of Trump’s potential sedition. Cobbling together every interaction the real-estate developer ever had with Russians — helpfully laid out in a handy Pepe Silvia–like flow chart — Chait posits that Trump might have become a Kremlin asset in 1987 when visited Moscow.

    Chait was just asking questions. And I have no doubt the story seems highly “plausible” to partisans who suddenly treat every Russian-bought social-media ad as the next Pearl Harbor.

    Which brings me to John Harwood, the DNC’s man in Washington. Piggybacking on a recent tweet by the New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg, Harwood brings up Chait’s piece, arguing that that while “conservative media dismissed as ridiculous the idea that Russia might have cultivated Trump for decades, Fiona Hill, a leading US govt Russia expert, now makes clear it’s not ridiculous in the slightest.”

    Here’s Harwood on Twitter:

    Typing this out for those who’ve called it implausible

    Q: why do you believe Putin was targeting Trump from his days as a businessman?

    HILL: Because that’s exactly what Putin and others were doing. Again, he was part of a directorate in the KGB in Leningrad. That’s what they did exclusively, was targeting businessmen.

    The quote Harwood highlights from Hill’s October 14 testimony specifically points to Putin’s role in exclusively “targeting” American businessmen in the late 1970s, not “for decades.” In an adjacent quote, in fact, Hill argues that everyone was targeted by Russians for decades — not that Trump was “cultivated,” as Harwood asserts — and that it was a mistake to focus only on meddling in relation to the president rather than on meddling in a broader perspective.

    Here is Hill:

    I firmly believe he was also targeting President Trump, and he was targeting all of the other campaigns as well. And I think that that was the mistake when the 2015 investigations were launched, not to take it from the point of view [of] what Russia was doing to target Americans, no matter who they were in the system.”

    And again:

    I think that there’s a good chance that was the case and that, you know — and, again, compromising material was being collected on a whole range of individuals. And it was most definitely being collected on Secretary, former First Lady and Senator Clinton as well.

    And still again:

    So, if Secretary Clinton had won, there would have been a cloud over her at this time if she was President Clinton. There’s been a cloud over President Trump since the beginning of his presidency, and I think that’s exactly what the Russians intended.

    The context of her statements are a far cry from “Russia might have cultivated Trump for decades.” Of course, no one can dispute that Russians have been digging up dirt on prominent Americans citizens forever, but the word “cultivate” or “handler” — or any other term that intimates that the president is working for Russians — does not appear, even hypothetically, in any form in the transcript of Hill’s testimony.

    Also, does anyone really believe that Harwood types in the media would be grappling with the “cloud” that Fiona Hill, “a leading US govt Russia expert,” now makes clear would be hovering over Hillary Clinton’s head as well, if she had won?

    Even if Harwood had accurately conveyed Hill’s claims, we’ve now had three years of intense journalistic effort, wide-ranging congressional investigations, and an independent inquiry that have been unable to turn up a single instance in which Trump was compromised or colluded with Russians.

    Anyone paying attention during the 2016 campaign was already well acquainted with the president’s views on Russia: Trump isn’t going to bash Putin because Trump respects Putin, and he strives to build friendly relations with Russia.

    I’m sorry to say, Trump’s policies towards Putin differ very little from those of his predecessors. Perhaps no better, they are certainly no worse.

    As many others have noted, it was Obama who mocked Romney’s claim that Russia was our most dangerous geopolitical foe.

    It was also Obama who told Putin’s stooge Dmitry Medvedev that his administration would have more “flexibility” on missile defense after the 2012 election.

    It was Obama who refused to offer lethal military assistance to Ukraine.

    It was Obama who canceled the sale of American missile-defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Russia.

    It was the Obama administration, according to Bill Browder, one of the driving forces behind the Magnitsky Act, who spent two years trying to kill the Act before acquiescing to bipartisan pressure.

    It was Obama, not Trump, who capitulated to Russia and gave in on accession to the World Trade Organization.

    It was Joe Biden, not Mike Pence, who in 2009 told Medvedev that “the most important item on our agenda” was to restore Russia–U.S. relations after eight years of the Bush administration’s antagonism.

    It was also Obama who abandoned the Syrian “red line,” leaving Russia’s allies to massacre thousands of civilians in a broader effort to appease the Iranians. Just because the 44th president habitually aligned the United States with the Islamic regime in Iran doesn’t mean he was a foreign Muslim interloper.

    The Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theory is much like birtherism. Too many conservatives rationalized their anger over politics by convincing themselves that Obama wasn’t only a dangerous ideological adversary but a seditious and illegitimate one as well. (One of the people rightly pilloried for doing this was Donald Trump.) The only difference is that Democrats have mainstreamed this kind of destructive paranoia.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 23:30

    Tags

  • Substance Abuse Touches Around Half Of All American Families
    Substance Abuse Touches Around Half Of All American Families

    According to Gallup, the effects of substance abuse are felt by around half of all American families, with, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, only slight differences were recorded by the survey regarding race or sex.

    46 percent of U.S. adults reported having dealt with substance abuse in their families. 18 percent said those were related just to alcohol, while 10 percent said their problems were related just to drugs. Another 18 percent said they had dealt with both.

    Infographic: Substance Abuse Touches Around Half of All U.S. Families | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Women were slightly more likely to report substance abuse being a problem in their families. The difference between non-Hispanic whites and nonwhites reporting problems with substance abuse were two percentage points for alcohol and just one percentage point for drugs.

    That widened to 6 and 9 percent, respectively, between people reporting weekly church attendance and people seldom or never attending church service. Whether respondents held a college degree or not actually had a similar impact – people who did not go to or finish college were 7 percent more likely to report alcohol abuse and 4 percent more likely to report drug abuse in their families.

    The highest discrepancies were actually recorded in terms of region. Easterners were 9 percent less likely to report alcohol abuse than Westerners, while Midwesterners were 10 percent less likely to report drug abuse than people in the West.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 23:10

  • Lacalle: Why A "Crypto-Yuan" Won't Threaten The Dollar
    Lacalle: Why A “Crypto-Yuan” Won’t Threaten The Dollar

    Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

    A state-owned cryptocurrency is, in itself, a contradiction in terms. The main reason why citizens want to use cryptocurrencies or gold is precisely to avoid the government or central bank monopoly of money.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For a currency to be a world reserve of value, widespread means of exchange and unit of measure, there are many things that need to happen, but the first pillar of a world reserve currency is stability and transparency.

    China cannot disrupt the global monetary system and dethrone the US dollar when it has one of the world’s tightest capital control systems, a lack of separation of powers and weak transparency in its own financial system.

    The U.S. dollar is the most traded currency in the world, and growing according to the Bank of International Settlement. The Yuan is 4% of the currency trade. This is because the financial balance of the US is the strongest, legal and investor security is one of the strongest in the world, and the currency and capital markets are open and transparent.

    Unfortunately for China, the idea of a gold-backed cryptocurrency starts from the wrong premise. China’s own currency, the Yuan, is not backed by either global use nor gold. At all. China’s total gold reserves are less than 0.25% of its money supply. Many say that we do not know the real extent of China’s gold reserves. However, this goes back to my previous point. What confidence is the world going to have on a currency where the real level of gold reserves is simply a guess? Furthermore, why would any serious government under-report its gold reserves if it wants to be a safe haven, reserve status currency? It makes no sense.

    The Yuan is as unsupported as any fiat currency, like the U.S. dollar, but much less traded and used as a store of value. As such, a cryptocurrency would not be backed by gold either. Even if the government said it was, and deployed all its reserves to the cryptocurrency, what confidence does the investor have that such backing will be guaranteed when the evidence is that even Chinese citizens have enormous limits to access their own savings in gold?

    China’s gold reserves are an insignificant fraction of its money supply. Its biggest weakness comes from capital controls, lack of open and independent institutions safeguarding investors and constant intervention in its financial market.

    China’s Yuan may become a world reserve currency one day. It will never happen while capital controls remain and legal-investor security is limited.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 22:50

  • Hong Kong's "Gravity Defying" Property Market Can't Stay Afloat Forever
    Hong Kong’s “Gravity Defying” Property Market Can’t Stay Afloat Forever

    Despite its initial resilience to an increasingly aggressive protest movement, Hong Kong’s housing market – previously one of the most unaffordable residential markets in the world – has started to weaken.

    But in a story published on Tuesday, WSJ compared the HK housing market to the cartoon villian Wile E. Coyote. While pursuing the Road Runner, sometimes the coyote finds himself running on air, a realization that typically precipitates a steep fall.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If the protests don’t end soon, Hong Kong’s “gravity defying” real-estate market could experience something similar; both residential and commercial markets could be on the cusp of a seriously brutal contraction.

    According to recent data, Hong Kong’s economy is in serious trouble. For the first time in a decade, the Special Administrative Region is in a recession. Business activity declined at the fastest pace in at least two decades in October.

    But while the Hong Kong economy recorded its worst performance to date last month, in the real-estate market, transactions – i.e. home sales – actually rose in October (though we’d wager that most of this is simply speculators and investors hoping to take advantage of a slight dip in prices).

    Still, HK remains one of – if not the most – unaffordable housing markets.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Commercial real-estate has taken a bigger hit. In October, local property agency Midland IC&I recorded only 242 registrations of commercial and industrial businesses, the second-lowest figure since 1996.

    Savills, another real-estate agency, found that rents for stores in prime shopping centers around Hong Kong have fallen by more than 15% in the year to September.

    HK home prices have more than doubled over the past ten years, and after all of this growth, a dip in property prices might help alleviate some of the economic inequality plaguing Hong Kong.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The only problem is that the banks who are on the hook for these mortgages might risk getting saddled with heavy losses. Since few buildings in the commercial real-estate market are owner occupied, falling commercial rents risk the most immediate harm to banks balance sheets. And there’s one bank that is the most exposed to Hong Kong, it’s UK-based HSBC.

    Though residential could do some harm as well.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 22:30

  • All It Takes Is A Slipup Or A Nudge
    All It Takes Is A Slipup Or A Nudge

    Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Just prior to a war, the majority of people in the nations that are about to become involved tend to assume that another nation is threatening theirs, whist their own leaders are doing all they can to avoid conflict. This is almost never the case.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The “etiquette” of starting wars is for leaders to claim to their people that the last thing they want is war, but the enemy is goading them into armed conflict and, at some point, retaliation becomes “unavoidable.”

    The reason for this etiquette is that, almost invariably, the people of a nation have no desire to go to war.

    But if that’s the case, why is world history filled with warfare taking place on a regular basis?

    Well, truth be told, there are two groups of people who tend to relish war – the military and the political leaders.

    I’ve often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, “War is the health of the state.” He was quite correct. The larger the nation, the greater the need political leaders have for warfare. After all, there’s no situation in which a people feel more greatly that they need their leaders to take charge, than in a time of war.

    Political leaders, after all, thrive on taxation and the oppression of basic rights. And they can get away with taxing a people more heavily during a war. They can also remove basic freedoms “temporarily” in order to keep the people “safe.”

    Then, when the war is over, taxes never seem to return to their previous low and freedoms never fully return. With each conflict, the state ratchets up its power over the people.

    And in modern times, there’s an additional incentive. Since the end of World War II, the US military-industrial complex has been displeased with the fact that peacetime means diminished revenue for them. Increasingly, they’ve contributed heavily to election campaigns for both major parties in every election.

    The repayment for those contributions has always been the same – the political class must find excuses to create a new conflict as soon as another one ends, ensuring the continued revenue of the complex.

    This has resulted in the US becoming the first and only country that’s in a consciously created state of perpetual warfare. The cost of this, in 2018, was roughly $600 billion – 54% of all federal discretionary spending.

    Much of that cost goes to the maintenance of some 800 military bases across the globe, but the military-industrial complex is forever seeking opportunities for expansion, and having been paid for it with campaign funds, political leaders need to find excuses for new conflicts with regularity.

    Presently, world leaders are doing their best to deflect taunts by the US. The self-appointed “world’s policeman” is wagging its finger at North Korea with regard to nuclear weapons development, at Venezuela, seeking to replace their leader with an American puppet, at China with regard to islands in the South China Sea and at a host of countries in the Middle East. To each of these, US leaders have said that armed aggression by the US “cannot be ruled out.” And, “All options are on the table.”

    As stated above, the peoples of these countries tend to have no desire to go to war. But political leaders have a vested interest in warfare. In addition, military leaders have a stake in the game.

    Imagine having graduated from West Point and having spent your military career as an undistinguished desk jockey. By the time you’ve risen to the rank of general, all you’ve done is push pencils. And yet, the reason you joined up in the first place was to become a military leader, with a chest full of battle ribbons.

    This is the conundrum that taunts the more sociopathic military leaders – the George Pattons and the Douglas MacArthurs – who, once they’ve been given a command, tend to become carried away in their zeal to create their own legacy through armed combat. The greater the bloodletting, the greater the victory.

    In a leadup to active conflict, such generals tend to be like pit bulls on tight leashes – straining to be released so that they can fulfil their destiny.

    In almost every case, there are players on both sides who fit this description. As a result, all that’s needed is a small spark to set off armed conflict.

    And generally, the provocation that begins a war is a small one. For World War I, all that was necessary was for an archduke of Austria to be assassinated, by a Bosnian teenager, while riding in an open car.

    Within a month, Austria-Hungary and Serbia entered into war. All over Europe, people were astonished at how quickly other countries took up sides. France, Russia, Great Britain and, later, Japan, Greece and the US all teamed up against Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy and even the Ottoman Empire.

    Before the war ended, some four years later, some seventy million military personnel had been involved, plus countless civilians – and all due to a shot fired by a young malcontent.

    In most all such cases, when a military retaliates against a minor act of aggression, the people of the respective countries hope that the scuffle will be brief, and life can return to normal. But that’s almost never the way it plays out. Invariably, there are those political and military leaders on both sides who revel in the conflict and are determined to demonstrate that they themselves will emerge as the unquestioned victors.

    The technical starting point of any major war is, in fact, incidental. Most any excuse will suffice. What’s necessary is two opponents, each of whom accuses the other of attempting to foment aggression. At that point, all that’s needed to light the spark is a young soldier or agitator with an itchy trigger finger, or a politician with a show of bravado, or a military leader who chooses to break from his orders to stand down.

    In many cases, if the war does not start spontaneously, a false-flag incident suffices. One country creates an event which it purports is an act of aggression by its opponent. (The recent events in the Strait of Hormuz have a distinct false-flag odour about them.)

    Again, the actual catalyst matters little. Once the rattling of sabres begins, as it has, presently, in the Middle East, all that’s required to create a major war is a slipup or a nudge.

    *  *  *

    The US government is overextending itself by interfering in every corner of the globe. It’s all financed by massive amounts of money printing. However, the next financial crisis could end the whole charade soon. The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new report with all the details. Click here to download the PDF now.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 22:10

  • "She Doesn't Know Who The F**k She's Tweeting": Leon Cooperman Explodes At Elizabeth Warren 'Eat The Rich' Ad
    “She Doesn’t Know Who The F**k She’s Tweeting”: Leon Cooperman Explodes At Elizabeth Warren ‘Eat The Rich’ Ad

    Billionaire hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “represents the worst in politicians,” and that “she doesn’t know who the fuck she’s tweeting” after the Massachusetts Democrat’s latest salvo against the rich.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A new ad by Warren, titled “Elizabeth Warren Stands Up to Billionaires,” targets Cooperman, along with former CEO of TD Ameritrade Joe Ricketts, former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel according to CNBC.

    In it, Cooperman – who joked in September that “they won’t open the stock market if Elizabeth Warren is the next president – has the words “CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING” superimposed over his face.

    “As far as the accusations of insider trading, I won the case. She’s disgraceful. She doesn’t know who the f— she’s tweeting. I gave away more in the year than she has in her whole f—-ing lifetime,” Cooperman told CNBC on Wednesday.

    Days before breaking out in tears on CNBC over the American political divide, sent Warren a Halloween letter in which he said she’s treating him like “a parent chiding an ungrateful child.”

    Warren hit back, tweeting “Leon is wrong. I’m fighting for big changes like universal child care, investing in public schools, and free public college.”

    Other business titans, including J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, have taken on Warren for her attacks on the wealthy.

    Her war with business leaders has led to her crafting a strong group of supporters that have propelled her in the polls.

    After being behind the Democratic front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, by at least 30 points in May, she has surged to being only six points from catching up to his lead, according to a Real Clear Politics polling average. -CNBC

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Interestingly, Warren’s poll numbers started tanking after Warren unveiled her wealth tax plan and cooperman said “Her policies are counter-productive, they’re negative for capitalism…you don’t make the poor people rich by making the rich people poor.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2020 Democratic candidate odds via PredictIt

    Now, for fun, the inverse of Warren’s odds against the Dow:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 21:50

  • Disney Did In 1 Day What Took HBO 4 Years: 10 Million Streaming Subscribers
    Disney Did In 1 Day What Took HBO 4 Years: 10 Million Streaming Subscribers

    Somewhere Netflix and Amazon video are sweating.

    Disney announced today that Disney+ has reached a stunning 10 million plus subscribers just 24 hours after its launch yesterday in the U.S., Canada, and Netherlands; the figure surprised analysts who had expected a much slower rollout for Disney to reach that level, although let’s just ignore that most of the new “subs” are only there thanks to one of the various free streaming offers (perhaps someone should launch WeStream).

    Separately, Apptopia reported 3.2 million mobile app downloads in the first 24 hours, with an estimated 89% of mobile downloads in the U.S., 9% in Canada, and 2% in the Netherlands. In just one day, users spent 1.3 million hours watching it, Apptopia said, more than Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime Video, but far less than the 6 million hours watched on Netflix.

    “Disney should silence naysayers who expressed reservations about a pivot to streaming,” said Geetha Ranganathan, a media analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. “It took HBO Now about four years to reach about 10 million streaming subscribers.”

    That’s just the beginning: on Nov. 19, Disney+ will launch in Australia, New Zealand, and Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico’s launch was delayed one week) and will launch in Western Europe on March 31, 2020. While the service experienced first day technical glitches, this was likely due to high consumer demand which was ahead of management’s expectations and not structural issues with the app.

    At this fervent adoption rate, Disney could hit its target of 60 million to 90 million worldwide subscribers in just months, if not weeks, and certainly well before the company’s original 2024 goal, according to Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. This, of course is bad news for legacy streamers such as Netflix, which could see as many as 10% of its customers lured away to rival services such as Disney+ and one from Apple that launched earlier this month.

    Commenting on Disney’s stunning disclosure, JPM said that the steep ramp reflects a philosophy of “initial subscribers now; pricing later.” Disney’s willingness to debut its content-rich service at an attractive price point is leading to massive subscriber growth which will likely lead to pricing power later. To be sure, JPM noted questions arise regarding the ARPU despite the strong ramp in subs, including:

    1. subscribers opting-in to the Verizon deal for a free year of Disney+ from a potential opportunity of ~17-19m eligible Verizon customers;
    2. subscribers to the bundle with ESPN+ and ad-supported Hulu; and
    3. subscriber churn following the free seven-day trial. Overall, we are positive on the read-through for subscriber growth at ESPN+ and adsupported Hulu as the combination at $12.99/month is a compelling deal.

    Even so, the bank pointed out that “the announcement surpasses our expectations for 5m subs in the first quarter; we now expect 15m subscribers in FQ120 and bump up our full year expectations from 15m to 25m.”

    Separately, Disney clinched important last minute deals for its content. Ahead of the Disney+ launch, Disney started to remove on-demand content for cable customers, in our view to create heightened demand for the content and the product.
    As a result, nearly all Marvel movies are available to stream in the U.S., including Avengers: Endgame (initially expected to stream on Dec. 11) as Disney struck some last-minute rights deals. Four Marvel films will remain on Netflix through the end of 2019 (Black Panther, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Avengers: Infinity War, and Thor: Ragnarok) and will stream on Disney+ in 2020.

    As an aside, JPM analyst Alexia Quadrani noted that she was impressed by the content and user experience of Disney+ upon launch: “The recommendations, originals tab, as well as different collections under the search tab make it very easy to navigate through content and find what one is looking for. We did experience some technical issues on launch day, which we think is due to strong demand and not any underlying issues given the service has been in beta for months in the Netherlands.”

    Not surprisingly, DIS stock exploded higher on the announcement, climbing as much as 6.8% on Wednesday, its biggest intraday rally in seventh months, and hitting a new all time high.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Netflix shares tumbled 3.7% as its company’s investors assess how big a threat Disney+ will be.

    Finally, for those curious, yesterday we showed a full breakdown of which video streaming service is showing what exclusive content; we recreate it below.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 21:33

  • Trade Wars Slam Chinese Retail Sales, Investment Growth Weakest In 21 Years
    Trade Wars Slam Chinese Retail Sales, Investment Growth Weakest In 21 Years

    While it will hardly come as a surprise to anyone following China’s dismal attempts at reflating the economy, which on Monday we learned translated into the lowest Aggregate Financing print since the series was established…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    … reaffirming Beijing’s impotence at stimulating the all-important credit impulse which is barely above cycle lows…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    tonight’s macro data dump from China is expected to show continued slowing from Q3’s disappointing GDP print.

    Bloomberg Economics’ Chang Shu notes that the October activity data are likely to show weakness continuing to spread across China’s economy, as companies adjusted to an additional 15% U.S. tariffs on $110 billion of Chinese goods in September.

    • China Industrial Production MEET +5.6% YoY vs +5.6% YoY Exp

    • China Retail Sales MISS +7.2% YoY vs +7.8% Exp

    • China Fixed Asset Investment MISS +5.2% YoY vs +5.4% Exp.

    • China Property Investment FELL to +10.3% YoY from +10.5% YoY

    • China Surveyed Jobless Rate FELL to 5.1% from 5.2%

    This is the equal weakest retail sales growth since 2003 and weakest Fixed-Asset Investment growth since 1998..

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    This data confirms that China’s economy slowed further in October, signaling, as Bloomberg’s Miao Han notes, that policy makers’ piecemeal stimulus is failing to boost output and investment amid ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. and subdued domestic demand.

    As a reminder, there was the surprising divergence in the two manufacturing PMI readings, with the “official” version weakening, and the Caixin-labeled version strengthening.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Dow futures are exuberantly surging overnight as yuan continues to slide – disagreeing vehemently over the chances of a US-China trade deal after their joint celebrations last week…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Finally, as we just noted, The National Institution for Finance and Development (NIFD) on Wednesday said that China’s economic growth rate will slow to 5.8% in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% this year, a number which is already quite ambitious, not to say artificially goalseeked.

    This, as the SCMP notes, is at the bottom end of China’s target range of 6 to 6.5% growth for 2019, and further indicates the continued downward pressure on the economy from the trade war with the United States as well as domestic headwinds.

    “The economic slowdown is already a trend,” said former central bank adviser Li Yang, who heads the institute that is affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

    We must resort to deepened supply-side structural reform to change it or smooth the slowdown, rather than solely rely on monetary or fiscal stimulus.”

    The institute’s forecast is in line with the International Monetary Fund, and indicates the challenge that policymakers face to achieve the above 6% growth rate needed in 2019 and 2020 to reach the government’s goal of doubling GDP in 2020 compared to its 2010 level.

    As a reminder, a GDP growth rate below 6% would be the first time since the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

    Finally, we note that Navarro and his trade hawks in the White House will be pleased at these weak numbers. President Trump has repeatedly said that China needs a deal more than the U.S. does, and these numbers as leverage in their negotiations.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 21:08

  • Trump To Ask SCOTUS To Decide Tax Case After Appeals Court Loss
    Trump To Ask SCOTUS To Decide Tax Case After Appeals Court Loss

    President Trump’s accounting firm is just one step away from having to turn over eight years of tax records, after the US Court of Appeals for DC shut down Trump’s last attempt to reconsider the case.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A majority of the court’s 11-judge panel voted to uphold an October 11 decision by a three-judge panel that accounting firm Mazars USA must hand over the records to Congress without a successful appeal. Of those who would have granted a rehearing, two are Trump appointees – Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, who served in the Trump administration.

    “This case presents exceptionally important questions regarding the separation of powers,” wrote Katsas.

    He warned of the “threat to presidential autonomy and independence” and said it would be “open season on the President’s personal records” if Congress is allowed to compel the president to disclose personal records based on the possibility that it might inform legislation. –Washington Post

    As a result, Trump will ask the Supreme Court to consider the case, according to Trump attorkey Jay Sekulow, who said in response to Wednesday’s decision that the legal team “will be seeking review at the Supreme Court,” according to the Washington Post.

    Sekulow in a statement cited the “well reasoned dissent” in Trump’s decision to go to the Supreme Court.

    Trump’s attorneys also are planning to ask the high court as soon as Thursday to block a similar subpoena for the president’s tax records from the Manhattan district attorney, who is investigating hush-money payments in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The New York-based appeals court ruled against Trump this month and refused to block the subpoena to his accounting firm, Mazars USA.

    The D.C. Circuit case centers on a House Oversight Committee subpoena from March for the president’s accounting firm records — issued months before the beginning of its impeachment inquiry, related to Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. –Washington Post

    “Contrary to the President’s arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply,” wrote Democrat-nominated Judges David S. Tatel and Patricia A. Millett.

    Rao, the dissenting judge on the October 11 panel, reiterated that she felt the Congressional committee had exceeded its authority with a legislative subpoena “investigating whether the President broke the law.”

    “By upholding this subpoena, the panel opinion has shifted the balance of power between Congress and the President and allowed a congressional committee to circumvent the careful process of impeachment,” she wrote.

    Rao also wrote Wednesday that the committee “is wrong to suggest” that questions over whether the subpoena is valid “are no longer of ‘practical consequence,'” and that it’s an open question as to “whether a defective subpoena can be revived by after-the-fact approval.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 20:50

  • Chinese Think Tank Becomes First Official Body To Predict 2020 GDP Will Drop Below 6%
    Chinese Think Tank Becomes First Official Body To Predict 2020 GDP Will Drop Below 6%

    While it will hardly come as a surprise to anyone following China’s dismal attempts at reflating the economy, which on Monday we learned translated into the lowest Aggregate Financing print since the series was established…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … reaffirming Beijing’s impotence at stimulating the all-important credit impulse which is barely above cycle lows…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … today a Beijing-based think tank has become the first Chinese economic research institute linked to the government to predict that China’s economic growth rate will slow below 6.0% next year.

    The National Institution for Finance and Development (NIFD) on Wednesday said that China’s economic growth rate will slow to 5.8% in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% this year, a number which is already quite ambitious, not to say artificially goalseeked.

    This, as the SCMP notes, is at the bottom end of China’s target range of 6 to 6.5% growth for 2019, and further indicates the continued downward pressure on the economy from the trade war with the United States as well as domestic headwinds.

    “The economic slowdown is already a trend,” said former central bank adviser Li Yang, who heads the institute that is affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). “We must resort to deepened supply-side structural reform to change it or smooth the slowdown, rather than solely rely on monetary or fiscal stimulus.”

    The institute’s forecast is in line with the International Monetary Fund, and indicates the challenge that policymakers face to achieve the above 6% growth rate needed in 2019 and 2020 to reach the government’s goal of doubling GDP in 2020 compared to its 2010 level.

    According to the NIFD, China’s exports will be “negatively affected for a long period amid the slowing global economy, private investment may be dampened by trade war uncertainties, while the effects of countercyclical policies will only begin to be evident in the first quarter of next year.”

    Li said the government’s fiscal deficit problem will stand out in the future, adding that the government may have to issue more bonds to fulfil its expenditure responsibilities. This could demand more bond holdings by the central bank – i.e., a more aggressive monetization of the deficit – and better coordination and institutional arrangement between fiscal and monetary authorities, suggesting that China may well be the first nation to launch some version of MMT.

    “The macro control regime needs to be revamped,” he added.

    China’s economy started to slow from 2011, with its growth rate already dropping to 6.0% in the third quarter of 2019, the slowest rate since quarterly growth data was first published in 1992. The continued slowdown has stirred market discussion over whether – and how far – Beijing should loosen its policy stance to support growth, as has occurred in many developed countries, including the United States.

    However, with China’s debt already surpassing 300% according to the IIF…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … a continued rise in the nation’s debt level is keeping a lid on policymakers’ leeway. New NIFD data showed that the government’s macro leverage ratio – the total debt to gross domestic product – has recorded an “unsatisfactory” rise so far this year. Government leverage rose 0.7 percentage point to 39.2 per cent in the third quarter and climbed by a total of 2.0 percentage points in the first nine months of the year.

    According to China’s own calculations, the country’s overall debt to GDP ratio rose to 251.1% at the end of the third quarter, up 1.6% from the previous quarter. The increase was led by the household sector, with debt rising 1.0 percentage point to 56.3% in the third quarter.

    However, with few other levers to pull and despite the surge in debt, the NIFD called for a bigger central government budget deficit to allow for more expenditure to support the economy. At the same time, additional efforts should be made to reduce the leverage of state-owned enterprises, in particular zombie enterprises and local government financing vehicles.

    Zhang Xiaojing, deputy director of the CASS’ Institute of Economics, said the extent of the increase in leverage would depend on the growth rate that the government is trying to achieve: “The pressure for economic stabilization next year won’t be as big [as people think],” he predicted, although that may well depend on the status of the trade war with the US.

    The NIFD warned of huge uncertainties over the trade tension between China and the US, while also predicting that the yuan exchange rate would fluctuate between 7.0 and 7.2 against the US dollar next year.

    “The tariff war may be basically over in 2020, but the bilateral conflicts won’t end easily,” said Zhang Ping, its deputy director, suggesting that as China joins the US in pursuit of foreign capital to funds it soon to be negative capital account, relations between the US and China are only set to deteriorate.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 20:34

  • Alibaba To Sell Up To $15 Billion In Stock In Massive Hong Kong Secondary
    Alibaba To Sell Up To $15 Billion In Stock In Massive Hong Kong Secondary

    Alibaba Group, the title holder for world’s largest IPO, has announced plans for a massive secondary stock offering in Hong Kong to take place in late November, in a vote of confidence for the local financial market as the worst political crisis in the city’s history threatens its status as a global financial hub.

    According to public filing, China’s e-commerce giant will issue 500 million new shares, with 487.5 million set aside for international offering and the rest for Hong Kong public. The offering, which was approved by the Hong Kong stock exchange, includes a 75 million share greenshoe option and aims to raise between $10 billion and $15 billion from the sale which would make it the biggest equity fundraising of the year.

    Despite the Hong Kong sale, Alibaba, which raised a record $25 billion in 2014 in New York, will retain its US listing, because of its deep capital markets while the group taps into the growing pool of funds in Asia with its latest plan.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the SCMP, the massive stock sale will give a much needed boost for the city gripped by more than five months of anti-government protests and a simmering US-China trade war, pushing the local stock exchange on a home run for global IPO crown this year in competition with the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq.

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

    The move represents a major boost for the city gripped by more than five months of anti-government protests and a simmering US-China trade war, and puts the local stock exchange on a home run for global IPO crown this year in competition with the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq.

    Alibaba has been working on a plan to list its shares in Hong Kong – what the company calls its “natural first choice” – since it abandoned the local market for New York in 2014, according to people familiar with the matter. Part of the motivation is to give its army of online shopping customers in mainland China and elsewhere in Asia the opportunity to own its shares.

    Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po said Alibaba’s secondary listing is “a testimony of Hong Kong’s status as a premier listing platform.”

    Quoted by SCMP, “The tension between the US and China in the areas of trade and technology has added to the attractiveness of Hong Kong as an international listing platform for mainland tech companies,” Chan said in response to queries by the Post before the filing. “We strive to become the preferred listing platform for companies in the innovative and technology sector.”

    The green light clears the path for Hangzhou-based Alibaba to start a weeklong roadshow this week to drum up interest from institutional and retail investors. The shares in international offering are expected to be price on November 20 or no later than November 25, according to the SEC filing. They will begin trading in Hong Kong on November 26. Cornerstone investors, a unique feature of Hong Kong’s financial market where large investors are invited to anchor important public offerings, will be absent because the shares are so much in demand, according to people familiar with the plan.

    With so much attention falling on major shareholder Softbank in recent weeks, key SoftBank executives have agreed to a 90-day lock up on their stakes under the listing plan. Every eight newly issued shares in Hong Kong will be equal to one American Depositary Share traded in New York, the SEC filing shows. Based on the ADS closing price of US$186.97 on November 12, it could raise between US$11.63 billion and US$13.37 billion in Hong Kong, Alibaba said. The secondary listing in Hong Kong would swell the market value of Asia’s biggest company, and rank it the biggest offerings in Hong Kong in almost a decade. At the top end of US$15 billion, the deal would be the largest after insurance group AIA’s HK$159 billion IPO in 2010 and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s HK$124.95 billion deal in 2006.

    After Hong Kong stocks rebounded their worst quarter in four years, fundraising returned to Hong Kong as dozens of companies including Budweiser Brewing Company APAC and ESR Cayman have raised a combined US$11.53 billion. Alibaba’s plan, even at the lower end of the range of US$10 billion, will catapult Hong Kong to the summit of global IPO league this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A Hong Kong listing may also finally give mainland China’s investors the chance to participate in the growth of one of the country’s most profitable technology giants, should China add Alibaba to its Stock Connect programme in the coming months, sources said.

    “It is going to be a hot deal,” said Jojo Choy Sze-chung, vice-chairman of the Institute of Securities Dealers. “Alibaba already has several good e-commerce platforms and other profitable businesses. It should not be a problem for the company to raise up to US$15 billion.”

    Alibaba’s impending offering follows the recent conclusion of its 2019 Singles’ Day online shopping gala, when a record US$43 billion of merchandise were sold in the 24-hour shopping spree. American pop diva Taylor Swift headlined this year’s shopping festival with a curtain-raiser showpiece in Shanghai.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 20:30

  • Exposing John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
    Exposing John Brennan’s CIA Trump Task Force

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Unz Review,

    Could it become Obamagate?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own. Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.

    It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S. believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable, particularly if she moved to follow her husband’s example and push to have both Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.

    Trump’s surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only won with Putin’s assistance.

    No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow illegitimate.

    The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented America’s Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists, that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more plausible.

    The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity will be exposed.

    Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation’s intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people’s honorable servants they pretend to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the interests of the Deep State.

    Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question about Donald Trump’s concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process, said unambiguously “Well, you know, thank God for the ‘deep state’…With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution within the U.S. government…is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth. It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth — it’s engraved in marble in the lobby.”

    Well, John’s dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in support of the lies being promoted by his boss George “slam dunk” Tenet that led to the war against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or Tenet’s sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell’s description of Trump as a Russian agent, a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given credibility only by Morell’s boast that “I ran the CIA.”

    Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine a serving president is a rather more serious matter.

    It is now known that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated the narrative that “Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.” Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the “evidence” produced to support that claim was and still is weak to nonexistent.

    The Russian “election interference” narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly before Trump was inaugurated, when an “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) orchestrated by Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow: “Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says.”

    With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the ICA had been approved by “all 17 intelligence agencies” (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton). After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were “handpicked analysts” from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that “the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,” adding later that “It’s in their DNA.”

    Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers (i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other rewards.

    And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele’s FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force. Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.

    So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.

    Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese citizen Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed him on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It is highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the CIA Trump Task Force.

    The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency’s friends in the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation of this Task Force.

    In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum, reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions regarding Moscow’s malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably leads to the question “What did Obama know?”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 20:10

    Tags

  • Russia To Reduce US Dollars In National Wealth Fund As Putin's De-Dollarization Continues 
    Russia To Reduce US Dollars In National Wealth Fund As Putin’s De-Dollarization Continues 

    Russia’s de-dollarization effort is full steam ahead, in line with President Putin’s commitment to reduce the country’s vulnerability to the continuing threat of US sanctions.

    Crossing the wires early Wednesday morning, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Vladimir Kolychev, was quoted by Reuters as saying the Russian sovereign wealth fund will reduce US Dollars and is considering adding Chinese yuan. 

    • RUSSIAN DEPUTY FINANCE MINISTER KOLYCHEV SAYS SHARE OF US DOLLARS IN NATIONAL WEALTH FUND WILL BE REDUCED 

    • RUSSIAN DEPUTY FINANCE MINISTER KOLYCHEV SAYS INCLUSION OF OTHER FOREIGN CURRENCIES INCLUDING YUAN IS BEING CONSIDERED

    • RUSSIAN DEPUTY FINANCE MINISTER KOLYCHEV SAYS FINANCE MINISTRY PLANS TO CHANGE NATIONAL WEALTH FUND’S FX STRUCTURE IN 2020 

    Kolychev said the change to the foreign exchange structure of the wealth fund would occur in 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last month, Russian Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin told the Financial Times that the country would continue down the path of de-dollarization and begin trading some oil transactions in Euros and roubles.

    “We have very good currency, and it’s stable. Why not use it for global transactions?” Oreshkin said in a recent interview with the FT.

     “We want (oil and gas sales) in roubles at some point,” he said.

    Despite less than 5% of Russia’s $687.5 billion in annual trade being with the US, it remains that over half of that trade still relies on the dollar, according to Bloomberg figures.

    US sanctions have been very selective as of recent, specifically targeting Gazprom, the country’s gas giant. Sanctions have banned any US company from supplying Gazprom with equipment.

    Russia’s desire to abandon the dollar is a trend that continues to gain momentum and could be fully realized by the mid/late 2020s.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 19:50

  • US Naval Institute Proceedings: "A Zombie Fighter's Guide To Strategy"
    US Naval Institute Proceedings: “A Zombie Fighter’s Guide To Strategy”

    Authored by James Holmes via US Naval Institute,

    The chief takeaway from David Epstein’s book Range, which investigates Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, is this: think broadly, not narrowly. Risk being called a dilettante. Learn from many disciplines and experiences rather than burrow so deeply into one field that you can no longer see above ground to survey the wider world. And then apply insights from one field when some baffling question arises in another.

    That is sage counsel for students and practitioners of strategy, who tap insights from history, political science, economics, and an array of related fields.

    Maintains Epstein, specialists encounter trouble when tackling the problems characteristic of a “wicked” world. Wicked problems are intricate. They involve variables that combine and recombine in offbeat ways. They defy the boundaries of a single field and often vex specialists. By contrast, generalists hunt for “distant” analogies to challenges. Analogies seldom reveal answers, but they help inquisitors discover the right questions to ask. Asking penetrating questions constitutes the first step toward a solution, toward wisdom.

    One imagines Epstein would approve of harnessing fiction and literature as a source of wisdom. Fiction supplies abundant analogies for students of politics and strategy. Some of them are remote indeed, bounded only by the author’s whimsy.

    Exhibit A: stories about zombies!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Max Brooks’s World War Z is an imaginary oral history compiled a decade after a global war against the undead. Brooks has a researcher interview protagonists in the zombie war, not just to unearth facts about it but to record their feelings and impressions.

    The interviews make up the book’s narrative. The relative lack of commentary gives the book a stark, spare quality—amplifying its impact. Warning: major spoilers ahead.

    World War Z relates unfamiliar phenomena that illuminate something familiar, namely the profession of arms. The approach works not because warmaking against living, breathing foes is exactly like fighting ghouls, but because counter-zombie combat resembles war in the real world in some respects while differing from it strikingly in others. Juxtaposing the ordinary against the extraordinary compels military readers to examine their profession afresh.

    Brooks’s fictional chronicle raises questions – and questions make us think. Four pointers from the living dead and those who battle them:

    1. Know yourself.

    Brooks has either read Thucydides or takes the same jaundiced view of human nature he did. The father of history showed how a plague peeled away the veneer of civilization from the most cultured society in classical Greece, the city-state of Athens. Athenians reverted to base instincts and passions almost overnight, and why not? If you may die tomorrow, you may as well live it up tonight. Debauchery ensues. Similarly, citizen took up arms against citizen on the island of Corcyra (modern-day Corfu). Civil strife shattered all bonds of family and fellowship as democrats and oligarchs fought to determine who would rule.

    Pockets of Brooks’s brave new world witness similar breakdowns. Industrial civilization is not exempt from the afflictions of the ancients. Far from it.

    For example, during the “Great Panic” that accompanies the rise of the living dead, the Hollywood glitterati hire private security firms to guard them from zombies within luxury residences, all while preening on camera for reality shows that showcase their supposed fortitude. Ship crews screen evacuees by race, permitting only those with the correct skin hue to board their vessels to flee the onslaught. You can only imagine what transpires in refugee camps in the far north when populations swell, food and fuel supplies dwindle, and frigid temperatures and weather descend.

    And on and on. World War Z holds up a mirror, forcing us to look ourselves in the face while contemplating the impact of mass disaster and warfare on human society. This forms part of the strategic context, and the sight isn’t always pretty.

    2. Know the enemy. 

    Strategic grandmaster Carl von Clausewitz—not among the undead legions at last report—warns commanders and their political overseers to assess the nature of the war on which they are about to embark, “neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.” But the living do not get the chance to undertake Clausewitzian analysis in Brooks’s account. War is thrust upon them. World War Z haunts precisely because the tale unfolds in everyday surroundings, against a deathless enemy that should not even exist.

    Clausewitz counsels leaders to exercise foresight before going to war; zombie war is unthinkable, and who wastes time planning for the unthinkable? Horrors ensue when you neglect the nature of the war. Think about unthinkable situations before they become thinkable.

    And about the nature of the foe. The walking dead are an enemy unlike any human antagonist. In fact, counter-zombie warfare resembles epidemiology more than warfare in the usual sense. Think about it. Public health seeks to eradicate disease, not contain it or strike a compromise peace with it. Victory means utterly wiping out a pestilence.

    Like an infectious disease, zombies neither hate nor fear nor scheme. These are enemies incapable of malice or strategic thought. They infect. The undead reproduce themselves by biting human victims—much as a contagion spreads from host to host. In effect they are “vectors” spreading a virus that reanimates the slain. Thus even a lone zombie shambling around the earth represents a major threat to humanity. Victory over the living dead means slaughtering them to the last ghoul. Containment is a poor second best. So long as one remains at large, a devastating new outbreak is possible.

    In other words, a zombie war is what strategists call an “unlimited” war, taken to its utmost extreme. Against an ordinary human adversary, unlimited war means crushing hostile forces or unseating the government they serve and imposing whatever terms you choose. Taken to extremes, unlimited war tends toward what Clausewitz terms “absolute” war—an unbounded spasm of violence with no political purpose. It is slaughter for its own sake.

    Thankfully, Clausewitz concludes that absolute war does not exist outside the pages of books. War pits human foes against one another—and politics exerts a moderating influence on human struggles.

    There is no such moderator in a fight against a mindless foe. The masters of strategy prescribe ways to get your way short of genocide. Yet the undead have no willpower to break and cannot be frightened into submission. They have no forces to smash, strategies to outwit, or alliances to break. They have no capital to conquer. They cannot conceive of compromise, let alone bargain. All they have is mass. Millions upon millions of bodies lurch along, uncoordinated yet driven toward the same goal by herd instinct.

    Fictional strife in which strategic success equates to inflicting 100 percent casualties invites strategic thinkers to ponder the nature and ethics of unlimited war in our (purportedly) zombie-free world. 

    3. Fit strategy, tactics, and hardware to the fight—not the other way around. 

    Misfit armaments and maladroit tactics plague armed forces during the early phases of the zombie war. Armies and air forces built to fight high-tech antagonists have to reinvent themselves for infantry combat aimed at indiscriminate slaughter of the enemy. Easier said than done. Brooks’s historian interviews “Todd,” a jaded former infantryman. The ex-soldier recounts how heavy armaments and static defensive measures designed to halt “Ivan” in the Fulda Gap during the Cold War proved futile against mobs of reanimated corpses.

    Determined to show the populace the domestic order remains intact, a panicky U.S. administration decides to stage a “decisive” stand in Yonkers, stemming the tide of zombies flowing out of Manhattan. (Bostonians insert favorite Yankees joke here.) Todd takes officialdom to task for folly. Precision munitions do some good against undead hordes, dispatching thousands; but there’s too little ammunition in the magazines to prevail. Defenders, that is, have too few uber-pricey gun projectiles, missiles, and bombs to mow down the millions of ghouls that come behind those brought down in the initial waves.

    Guns, missile launchers, and tactical aircraft bereft of ordnance accomplish little. Todd also sees cultural travails at work. American troops, he recalls, are schooled to aim at the midsections of enemy soldiers, whereas it takes a shot to the head to fell a zombie. It is hard to remake the habits of a lifetime, on the fly, against enemies that should not exist, and that feel no pain or fear when struck in the torso. Of necessity, advanced armed forces cast aside gee-whiz implements of war in favor of weapons that strike down multitudes in bulk. The latest thingamabob may not be the best tool for the job.

    More primal tactics are a must. Humanity starts to recover when military folk commence improvising warmaking methods for the strategic environment that actually confronts them. Governments temporarily abandon ground to the walking dead and turn terrain to advantage. U.S. citizens withdraw west of the Rocky Mountains to regroup and rearm, using the peaks as a sentinel line and garrisoning the narrow passages between. South Asians retreat into the Himalayas. Having established defensive lines, the living tend to the sinews of national power. Resuscitating moribund economies provides the resources needed to defend against the hordes and, ultimately, go on the strategic offensive and win.

    It is a mistake to assume the enemy will conform to our preferred way of fighting. A savvy opponent tries to throw us out of our comfort zone—disorienting us for tactical and strategic gain. Living enemies mimic the living dead in that sense.

    4. Adapt and overcome.

    Inventive contenders command an advantage when going up against an adversary that—however remorseless or terrifying—is unable to learn or grow. The competitive impulse that pervades human struggle, prodding contestants to innovate and counter-innovate in an effort to outdo one another, is entirely absent from the zombie host. An enemy without ingenuity or passion to innovate is an inert enemy in strategic terms. And indeed, the zombie war is one-sided once humanity rides out the apocalypse, gains a respite to adapt, and comes out fighting.

    Resourceful folk fashion new weapons and tactics while unimaginative foes plod along, doing the same thing time after time—which makes a hopeful note to close on. When facing new circumstances, get to know the circumstances and stay loose. Recognize that the nimbler contender is apt to be the victor—and broad-mindedness is the key to staying nimble. I daresay Epstein and Clausewitz would agree.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 19:30

  • Fears Of Pneumonic Plague Outbreak After 2 Diagnosed In China – Hospital On Lockdown
    Fears Of Pneumonic Plague Outbreak After 2 Diagnosed In China – Hospital On Lockdown

    Chinese authorities announced Tuesday that two people have been diagnosed with pneumonic plague at a hospital in Beijing yes, as in the ‘Black Death’ which wiped out some 50 million of the world’s population during the Middle Ages

    Alarmingly, it’s the second instance of the plague hitting the region in a matter of months, after last May a Mongolian couple died from bubonic plague after consuming the raw kidney of a marmot, based on a local folk practice.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bubonic plague bacteria from a January 2003 case, via the CDC/FOX News.

    Officials say the two in this latest case also came from a remote area of Inner Mongolia in Northern China. To mitigate panic, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention has reportedly issued a public advisory to Beijing residents telling them the potential for contacting the disease is “extremely low,” according to The New York Times. Though considering this is literally the plague we doubt anyone will feel reassured by such official advisories.

    The patients were quickly isolated by health officials after initial confusion over what they might be dealing with, and are reportedly being given treatment. Left untreated it will cause certain death, but some strains of the plague can be cured through careful administration of antibiotics, unavailable when it struck on a mass scale in medieval times. 

    The infected were initially treated at Beijing’s Chaoyang Hospital, which caused a special alert to go out to city health personnel and placed the emergency room under complete lockdown. China’s English news portal Caixin Global provided the following eyewitness details:

    Chaoyang Hospital, where the two patients were treated, has replaced all the chairs at its emergency room, Caixin reporters witnessed.

    The emergency room was in police blockade Monday night, people living nearby the hospital told Caixin. A resident medical school student at Chaoyang Hospital told Caixin that he received emergency notice from the school, asking them not to go to the emergency room in the following weeks.

    Chaoyang Hospital told local media that the two patients have been transferred to another hospital, without disclosing the name of the hospital.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chaoyang Hospital in Beijing’s Chaoyang district went under lockdown after two people came in with the plague. Image source: Caixin

    And FOX has further details as follows:

    Dr. Li Jifeng at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, in the district where the patients sought treatment, said they came to the hospital on Nov. 3 but officials have not confirmed the claim, The Times reported.

    Dr. Li wrote on WeChat that she treated a middle-aged man who had a persistent fever and cough, which his wife had also contracted.

    “I couldn’t guess what pathogen caused this pneumonia. I only knew it was rare,” she wrote.

    The pneumonic form of the plague is considered the most virulent and deadly, causing severe lung infection via bacterium, transmitted from small mammals and their fleas. The other forms are bubonic and septicemic the former cause swollen lymph nodes and the latter infects the blood.

    From 2010 to 2015, the World Health Organization reported a total of 3248 cases worldwide, including 584 deaths; however, there are concerns that not all cases have been reported, with China recently coming under fire over allegations of possibly withholding its true number of cases.

    The WHO has now categorized the plague as a ‘re-emerging disease’ given that some 50,000 human cases have been recorded in the past two decades. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 19:10

  • The Growing Threat Of Water Wars
    The Growing Threat Of Water Wars

    Authored by Jayati Ghosh via Project Syndicate,

    In 2015, United Nations member states adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include an imperative to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” Yet, in the last four years, matters have deteriorated significantly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The dangers of environmental pollution receive a lot of attention nowadays, particularly in the developing world, and with good reason. Air quality indices are dismal and worsening in many places, with India, in particular, facing an acute public-health emergency. But as serious as the pollution problem is, it must not be allowed to obscure another incipient environmental catastrophe, and potential source of future conflict: lack of access to clean water.

    We may live on a “blue planet,” but less than 3% of all of our water is fresh, and much of it is inaccessible (for example, because it is locked in glaciers). Since 1960, the amount of available fresh water per capita has declined by more than half, leaving over 40% of the world’s population facing water stress. By 2030, demand for fresh water will exceed supply by an estimated 40%.

    With nearly two-thirds of fresh water coming from rivers and lakes that cross national borders, intensifying water stress fuels a vicious circle, in which countries compete for supplies, leading to greater stress and more competition. Today, hundreds of international water agreements are coming under pressure.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China, India, and Bangladesh are locked in a dispute over the Brahmaputra, one of Asia’s largest rivers, with China and India actively constructing dams that have raised fears of water diversion. India’s government has used water-flow diversion to punish Pakistan for terrorist attacks. Dam-building on the Nile by Ethiopia has raised the ire of downstream Egypt.

    And cross-border conflicts are just the beginning. Water-related tensions are on the rise within countries as well, between rural and urban communities, and among agricultural, industrial, and household consumers. Last year, water scarcity fueled conflicts in parts of eastern Africa, such as Kenya, which has a history of tribal clashes over access to water.

    In fact, there are long histories of conflict over the waters of many major rivers, including the Nile, the Amazon, the Mekong, and the Danube. But the severity and frequency of such conflicts are set to increase, as climate change alters rainfall patterns, leading to more frequent, intense, and prolonged droughts and floods.

    Making matters worse, dwindling water reserves are increasingly contaminated by industrial pollutants, plastics and other refuse, and human waste. In middle-income countries, less than one-third of wastewater is treated; in low-income countries, the share is much smaller. Roughly 1.8 billion people get their drinking water from feces-contaminated sources. The depletion of aquifers and inadequate investment in water infrastructure are exacerbating these problems.

    Water stress affects everyone, but the agricultural sector – which accounts for 70% of all water consumption globally, and as much as 90% in the least-developed countries – is particularly vulnerable to constrained supplies. Lack of water makes it difficult to keep livestock, since every drop has to be preserved for crops or human consumption.

    Urban areas are also headed for disaster. Last year, Cape Town, South Africa, faced such severe water shortages that it began preparations for a “day zero,” when the municipal water supply would be shut off. (Thanks to supply restrictions and other government measures, that day never came.) Similarly, Mexico City has struggled with a water crisis for years.

    Indian metropolises are lurching toward even bigger catastrophes. A 2018 government report warned that 21 cities (including the capital, Delhi, and the information-technology hub Bengaluru) would reach zero groundwater levels by next year, affecting at least 100 million people.

    As with climate change, the most severe consequences of water stress disproportionately affect those in the world’s poorest regions – especially Africa and South and Central Asia – who contributed least to the problem. In one part of rural Maharashtra, India, women and girls walk up to 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) per day to collect drinking water. In other villages, as local wells run dry, households have had to designate a member to be on full-time water-collection duty. Wealthier families might pay someone else to do the job, but most households do not have that luxury.

    Meanwhile, the advanced economies not only avoid many of the consequences of water stress (at least for now); they also maintain the lifestyle excesses that have propelled climate change and environmental degradation, including water depletion. Rice cultivation is often cited as a major water guzzler, but a kilo (2.2 pounds) of beef requires five times more water to produce than a kilo of rice, and 130 times more than a kilo of potatoes. And since agricultural crops account for a significant share of many developing countries’ exports, these countries are, in a sense, exporting the limited supply of water they have.

    Moreover, current land grabs in Africa are actually about water, with foreign investors targeting areas with big rivers, large lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, and thus with high agricultural potential and biogenetic value. (As it stands, less than 10% of Africa’s irrigation potential is being used.)

    In 2015, United Nations member states adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include an imperative to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” Yet, in the last four years, matters have deteriorated significantly. The international community might be able to fool itself for a while – as it has proved so adept at doing, not least with regard to environmental destruction – but the threat of water wars is only drawing nearer. For many in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere, it has already arrived.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 18:50

  • "Apocalyptic Flooding": Stunning Images As Venice Endures 2nd Highest Tide In History
    “Apocalyptic Flooding”: Stunning Images As Venice Endures 2nd Highest Tide In History

    Stunning images have come out of the historic city of Venice, which has been hit with catastrophic floods due to the second-highest tide recorded in the city’s history bringing water levels high over city squares and foot paths, also amid extreme winds and rain.

    Mayor Brugnaro has declared a state of emergency after the Tuesday tide peaked at just over 6-feet during the evening. The only time in recorded history the waters reached that high was in 1966, when the tide reached nearly six-and-a-half feet. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    St. Mark’s Square, Getty Image.

    Early Wednesday about 50% of the city had been reported flooded by the unusual tide, and some reports into overnight Wednesday say 85% is now under water, given it sits at sea level as it was famously built on a network of over 100 small islands in a lagoon on the Adriatic Sea, and is connected by canals. This impacts a total of 53,000 residents, at a low point in the tourism cycle.

    At least two people have died, one described as an elderly man who was electrocuted when he attempted to operate electric pumps at his home, according to Italian authorities, following a mass power outage across much of the city.

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

    Extreme winds have also knocked out some communications and have made accessible transport difficult for storm-battered residents.

    Venetian authorities say high tides of 140cm (55 inches) or more, referred to in Italian as “acqua alta”, usually take place in winter months. 

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

    Head clergyman over St Mark’s Basilica, Francesco Moraglia, told reporters: “I have never seen something like what I saw yesterday afternoon [Tuesday] at St. Mark’s square. There were waves as if we were at the beach.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Water has entered churches and historic sites. Getty Image.

    Mayor Brugnaro has warned the flooding “is going to leave an indelible wound” on Venice, as efforts are underway to protect homes, property, and world heritage sites. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: Beanotown Photography

    “We are not just talking about calculating the damages, but of the very future of the city,” Brugnaro said. “Because the population drain also is a result of this.”

    The governor of the region, Luca Zaia, also described: “We faced a total and apocalyptic flood, I will not exaggerate in words, but 80% of the city is under water. Unimaginable damage has been done.”

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

    In some parts of the city residents were seen “swimming for their lives” according to eyewitness accounts. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Getty Image

    Plans have long been in place for a massive emergency protection project that would see a series of 78 ‘floating gates’ set up around the city to control the impact of high tides, but it’s been beset by cost-related delays.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 18:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th November 2019

  • Europe On A Geopolitical Fault Line
    Europe On A Geopolitical Fault Line

    Authored by Ana Palacio via Project Syndicate,

    China has begun to build a parallel international order, centered on itself. If the European Union aids in its construction – even just by positioning itself on the fault line between China and the United States – it risks toppling key pillars of its own edifice and, eventually, collapsing altogether.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Two months ago, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed his fear that a “Great Fracture” could split the international order into two “separate and competing worlds,” one dominated by the United States and the other by China. His fear is not only justified; the fissure he dreads has already formed, and it is getting wider.

    After Deng Xiaoping launched his “reform and opening up” policy in 1978, the conventional wisdom in the West was that China’s integration into the global economy would naturally bring about domestic social and political change. The end of the Cold War – an apparent victory for the US-led liberal international order – reinforced this belief, and the West largely pursued a policy of engagement with China. After China became a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001, this process accelerated, with Western companies and investment pouring into the country, and cheap manufactured products flowing out of it.

    As China’s role in global value chains grew, its problematic trade practices – from dumping excessively low-cost goods in Western markets to failing to protect intellectual-property rights – were increasingly distortionary. Yet few so much as batted an eye. No one, it seemed, wanted to jeopardize the profits brought by cheap Chinese manufacturing, or the promise of access to the massive Chinese market. In any case, the thinking went, the problems would resolve themselves, because economic engagement and growth would soon produce a flourishing Chinese middle class that would propel domestic liberalization.

    This was, it is now clear, magical thinking. In fact, China has changed the international system much more than the system has changed China.

    Today, the Communist Party of China is more powerful than ever, bolstered by a far-reaching artificial intelligence-driven surveillance apparatus and the enduring dominance of state-owned enterprises. President Xi Jinping is set for a protracted – even lifelong – tenure. And, as US President Donald Trump has learned during his ill-fated trade war, wringing concessions out of China is more difficult than ever.

    Meanwhile, the rules-based international order limps along, without vitality or purpose. Emerging and developing economies are frustrated by the lack of effort to bring institutional arrangements in line with new economic realities. The advanced economies, for their part, are grappling with a backlash against globalization that has not only weakened their support for trade liberalization and international cooperation, but also shaken their democracies. The US has gradually withdrawn from global leadership.

    As a result, international relations have become largely transactional, with ad hoc deals replacing holistic cooperative solutions. Institutions and agreements are becoming shallower and more informal. Values, rules, and norms are increasingly regarded as quaint and impractical.

    This has produced a golden opportunity for China to begin constructing a parallel system, centered on itself. To that end, it has created institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New Development Bank, both of which mimic existing international structures. And it has pursued the sprawling Belt and Road Initiative – an obvious attempt to position itself as a new Middle Kingdom.

    Yet many, including in Europe, are not particularly concerned about the emergence of this parallel system. So long as it brings ready access to project finance, it’s fine with them. As Europe becomes increasingly alienated from the US, many Europeans also believe that they can improve their strategic position by situating themselves on the frontier between the two emerging worlds.

    That strategy may offer some advantages, including opportunities for arbitrage. But as anyone who lives on a fault line knows, there are also formidable risks: friction between the two sides is bound to shake the foundations of whatever is positioned atop the boundary.

    This is especially true for the European Union, which is built on a commitment to cooperation, shared values, and the rule of law. If the EU aids in building a parallel structure that contradicts its core values, particularly the centrality of individual rights, it risks severing its meta-political moorings – the beliefs to which its worldview is tethered. A Europe adrift will eventually sink.

    The solution is not for Europe simply to take America’s “side,” and turn its back on China. (That, too, would run counter to European values.) Rather, the EU must heed Guterres’s call to “do everything possible to maintain a universal system” in which all actors, including China and the US, follow the same rules.

    In this sense, the recent joint statement by Xi and French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirming their strong support for the Paris climate agreement is promising, as is Europe’s growing recognition that China is not only a partner or economic competitor, but also a “systemic rival.” But this is only a start. Europe needs a robust China strategy that recognizes the profound, often subtle challenges that the country’s rise poses, mitigates the associated risks, and seizes relevant opportunities.

    Achieving this will require perspective and discipline, neither of which comes naturally to the EU. But there is no other choice. As soon as Europe stops defending the rule of law and democratic values, its identity – and its future – will begin to crumble.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/13/2019 – 02:00

  • Brandon Smith: Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario
    Brandon Smith: Trump Impeachment And The Civil War Scenario

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    There has been a lot of talk the past year about a civil war in the US, so much so that even the mainstream media is pushing the concept lately. A poll from Rasmussen in 2018 claimed that 31% of US voters believed that America would see a second civil war within the next five years. A more recent poll from The Institute Of Politics And Public Service shows that 7 out of 10 voters believe the US is two-thirds of the way towards civil war.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New talk of “impeachment” over the Ukraine issue has stirred the soup even further as some conservatives argue that if Trump is removed from office a war will erupt.

    I want to be absolutely clear and state that I remain highly skeptical that the impeachment circus is anything more than another distraction for the public, and I believe that it will go nowhere (just like Russiagate).  That said I do think there is a marginal chance of a 4th Gen play here by the globalists. A civil war, if directed and manipulated in the right way, could benefit the elites greatly as long as it’s combined with a few other ingredients.

    First, we have to understand what the real situation here is, though. As my readers are well aware, I predicted well before the 2016 election that Trump as president would be the perfect scapegoat for the implosion of the ‘Everything Bubble’. That implosion is happening in nearly all fundamental economic indicators right now, as I outlined in my last article. There are two questions to consider at this point: Will stock markets follow fundamentals down before the 2020 election?  And, if stocks remain high, will it even matter with the rest of the system tumbling into recession?

    In January of 2016 at during his election campaign, Donald Trump said that the US economy was ‘In a bubble he feared would burst and he did not want to deal with a financial collapse if he was elected to the White House.’  He called on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and stop propping up the fake markets.

    In 2019, Trump has attached his administration completely to the performance of markets with endless Twitter comments, taking full credit for the financial bubble that he once criticized.  He has also now called for the Fed to bring interest rates down to zero to artificially support the economy once again (Obviously we have to ask the big question – If this is the “greatest US economy ever”, then why would Trump want the Fed to introduce more stimulus to prop it up?). I believe this bizarre behavior is entirely deliberate on Trump’s part and that he intends to take the blame for the ongoing crash. If stocks fall along with the rest of the economy by the end of 2020, it is unlikely that the globalists plan to keep him around for a second term. His job acting as a scapegoat for the crisis the central banks created will be accomplished.

    Second, my readers are also aware that I have outlined the connections between Trump and the globalists, including how a large part of his fortune and his image was saved by a bailout from the Rothschild family during the 1990’s. Wilber Ross, the Rothchild agent who arranged the deal, is now Trump’s Commerce Secretary. Ross’ presence in Trump’s cabinet along with numerous other elites, such as Pompeo, Mnuchin, Lightheizer, Kudlow and a host of other Council on Foreign Relations members indicates that Trump is and probably always has been controlled opposition. When one elite cycles out of Trump’s cabinet, another one just takes his place.

    I hear the argument often that the supposed impeachment proceedings are “proof” that the globalists are trying to destroy Trump. This is clearly nonsense, as Trump continues to work closely with such elites on a daily basis. The more likely explanation is that, like Russiagate, the impeachment itself is a farce designed to keep the American public sharply divided and ready to go to war at a moment’s notice. In fact, the chances of the Ukraine debacle blowing back on Joe Biden and his campaign in the Democratic Primaries are high.

    Biden is obviously NOT the candidate that the elites intend to run on the Democrat side, and the Ukraine theater creates a rationale for him to bow out while also conjuring ever more anger on both sides of the political canyon. But does this mean that Trump will not be impeached? Not necessarily…

    Trump is in the position he is in for a reason.  Trump is a useful pawn in a number of ways as long as his influence over conservatives remains strong and his position can be exploited to maximum effect. For example, in my most likely scenario, a market crash swiftly follows the current plunge in fundamentals before the 2020 election. This essentially ensures Trump’s defeat in November, while his conservative supporters and conservative principles in general take the blame for the disaster. However, what if the elites are seeking to add even more chaos to the cauldron?

    An impeachment leading into the election, whether successful or not, could be used to enrage conservatives and trigger a violent reaction against the Democrats specifically. If Trump loses the election or never makes it to the election due to impeachment, a host of outcomes will occur that are beneficial to the globalists even though Trump is one of their puppets:

    1) The impeachment scenario will make rabid leftists feel vindicated in their insane behavior the past few years. It will reward them and inspire them to act even crazier.

    2) Conservatives could be pushed over the edge into direct action, but unfortunately, if this direct action is aimed haphazardly at the political left and democrats, conservatives will have been conned. The globalists WANT us fighting over a meaningless puppet like Trump. They WANT us to direct our anger at the Democrats instead of at them.

    3) If we are stupid enough to fight a war over Trump, this will lead to some detrimental results. Conservatives, though feeling justified in their actions, will look like villains, fighting to protect a leader that destroyed the US economy causing untold public suffering, as well as a leader that most of the world will see as personally corrupt. Trump is not a resilient long term inspiration for a rebellion, he’s not even a good short term inspiration.

    4) Rebellions need focus and a set of strong principles and virtues in order to stay alive. If they are freedom fighters, then the establishment will seek to make them look like they are not freedom fighters, but self serving terrorists or agents of a foreign power. This process has already been started by the elites. Trump is the tool for co-option of the liberty movement. Impeachment could be a trigger for luring the movement to rebel under false pretenses and attack the wrong people (the leftists are only a symptom of the disease, the globalists ARE the disease).

    5) A civil war that does not seek to target the globalists as the root problem could be easily molded by the globalists into a scapegoat for whatever calamity they desire. An economic crash under Trump would attach a lot of peripheral blame to conservatives. But, an economic crash and a civil war over Trump’s impeachment would attach ALL the blame to conservatives. Conservatives become the bad guys of the age, the people that almost ended the world, the people that future generations will be taught to despise as examples of the “evils of nationalism and populism”.

    6) A war fought in the name of faulty principles and a failed leader would provide a reason for the globalists to pursue an international response to the crisis. And again, this would not look like an invasion of American sovereignty, but a global attempt to “keep the peace”.

    So what is the solution? Is this a Catch-22 that conservatives cannot escape from? I’ve long held that a war between liberty activists and the globalists is inevitable, if not long overdue. The globalists know that this war is coming, as well. 4th Generation Warfare tactics dictate that the globalists will try to trick liberty activists into fighting this war on their terms. That is to say, the globalists will seek to turn us (their opponents) into unwitting allies. The Trump impeachment strategy could very well provide them with that kind of psychological leverage.

    It would be seen by many conservatives as a Democratic party coup and a violation of the constitution. With leftist activists so viciously cult-like and so far beyond all logic or reason, the political left and political right might end up shooting at each other anyway. The issue is the narrative under which this occurs.

    If liberty activists stay focused on the primary objective (removing the globalists from power), instead of being lured into focusing all their energy on the Democrats, then the scenario changes. If conservatives remain skeptical and critical of Trump’s associations and activities, this makes it difficult for the elites to paint us as “Trump’s brownshirts”. Certain people within the liberty movement have not been helpful in this regard; blindly defending Trump at every turn no matter how many elites he brings into his cabinet or how many times he takes credit for the economic bubble. Some of these people have indeed called for a civil war in the name of stopping a Trump impeachment. They have become useful idiots for the globalist agenda.

    If a war is fought, it must be over a concrete set of contentions. If a Democrat enters the White House after the 2020 election and attempts to institute major gun control and gun confiscation measures, then this is a perfectly solid reason to fight. If they try to enforce carbon restrictions that would destroy what’s left of our economy and cause suffering among the public, then this is another good reason to fight. If they try to legislate even more socialist programs, usurping constitutional parameters and taxing the populace into perpetual poverty, then yes, we should fight. But Trump? No, Trump is a pied piper, not a leader or a rationale for civil war.

    Now, I realize that the above scenario I describe is extreme, but I do see it as a possibility, so it’s important to recognize that it is there waiting to be used by the establishment against us. That said, there are other more likely outcomes.

    The impeachment could rally conservatives to vote in larger numbers in 2020, and if the markets hold out through the year, then Trump is probably slated for a second term. A second term would indicate that the elites need Trump for another event (perhaps a regional war) on top of the market crash, which would take place directly after Trump’s reelection.

    The Ukraine issue might merely be designed to undermine Joe Biden’s candidacy, paving the way for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (I don’t see another serious run by Hillary Clinton in the cards, Bloomberg is a joke even among many Democrats and I still predict Elizabeth Warren will be the Dem candidate in 2020). If the markets crash, or if the currently crashing fundamentals hit main street hard enough, then Trump will be ousted and the Dems will take over, blaming him and conservatives for every financial mess for the next four years (or more).

    At this point in the game, it’s hard to say which option the globalists will use. It is vital, though, that we remember that the impeachment is a farce in more ways than one. The target is not Trump, the target is us.

    *  *  *

    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

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 23:45

  • Beijing Slams US 'Hypocrisy' Over Soaring HK Violence As Students Launch Arrows At Police
    Beijing Slams US ‘Hypocrisy’ Over Soaring HK Violence As Students Launch Arrows At Police

    In Beijing’s own condemnation of ‘moderate rebels’ moment, the Chinese foreign ministry on Tuesday slammed the United States and Britain for rank hypocrisy for their failure to condemn the serious escalation in protest violence this week, after a pro-mainland man was set on fire and after a police officer shot a protester in separate incidents. And overnight Tuesday students at the city’s main public university were filmed attacking police with bows and arrows.

    Describing prior events on Monday as deeply disturbing – foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said “their lip service to justice has shown their double standards and ill intentions”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Still frame of Sky News footage showing protesters using bows and arrows against police. 

    This after the State Department merely expressed “grave concern” and condemned the violence on “all sides” on a day in which a gruesome viral video showed a pro-mainland man being doused in combustible liquid, then set on fire as he argued with demonstrators over their attempting to shut down a nearby train station.

    After one of the most horrifying scenes of violence by a mob of Hong Kong pro-independence protesters to have played out after months of unrest, Beijing is outraged that the US and Britain again managed to turn the spotlight back on China.

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

    State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said, “We urge Beijing to honor the commitments it made in the Sino-British Joint Declaration,” which includes protecting “the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly – core values that we share with Hong Kong,” according to the official statement. 

    This week has witnessed large sectors of the city gridlocked and essentially shut down due demonstrators attacking public transportation and blocking roads. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A regular feature of the HK anti-China protests has been attacks on public transport. Image via CNN.

    Many observers have noticed violence and clashes with police have gotten so fierce, that Hong Kong riots appear to have entered an “end game” of sorts, given Monday marked one of the most violent episodes to take place in weeks, amid continued disruptions of the morning commute as HK’s MTR public transit shut down several stations.

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

    And through Tuesday evening severe clashes with police raged in and around the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) campus, which involved students raiding sports facilities to obtain weapons such as javelins and bows & arrows, reportedly being used against police

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via The Times: “Protesters raided a sport equipment warehouse to find new weapons for their battles with police.”

    According to London’s The Times:

    Students armed with javelins and bows and arrows fought police at the Chinese University of Hong Kong today amid official warnings that the territory was “on the brink of total breakdown”.

    The scenes, mirrored at other campuses in the city, marked a drastic escalation in the protests, which began in June. Yesterday police shot a protester at close range and a man was doused with petrol and set on fire by demonstrators.

    Upset that police had encroached on their campuses yesterday, university students set up barricades early today.

    And elsewhere anti-Beijing social media accounts also circulated images of students raiding a campus warehouse and staging bows, arrows, and javelins to use against invading security forces. 

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

    Earlier on Tuesday HK police warned a total collapse looks imminent as pitched battles between rioters and police continue across the city.

    Sky News ran footage Tuesday night of student protesters firing arrows at police front lines:

    “Over the past two days, our society has been pushed to the brink of a total breakdown as rioters went on a rampage,” Kong Wing-cheung, a senior police superintendent, said in a press conference.

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

    The same day Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam condemned the anti-Beijing protesters as the “enemy of the people”.

    Indeed as newly published aerial footage showing the chaotic situation at CUHK campus confirms, parts of the city are becoming a war zone, as protesters and police increasingly lack restraint and are now deploying deadly weapons. 

    Things are about to get even uglier at the Chinese University HK campus, and we don’t have to wonder for a moment what police in America would do if bows and arrows were launched at them. It appears the gloves are fast coming off.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 23:25

  • How To Crush A Bankers' Dictatorship: A Lesson From 1933
    How To Crush A Bankers’ Dictatorship: A Lesson From 1933

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The western media has been hit with warnings of “financial Armageddon” and the need for a “global hegemonic synthetic currency” to replace the collapsing US dollar under a new system of green finance. These statements have been made by former and current Bank of England Governors Mark Carney and Mervyn King respectively and should not be ignored as the world sits atop the largest financial bubble in human history reminiscent of the 1929 bubble that was triggered on black Friday in the USA which unleashed a great depression across Europe and America.

    While I’m not arguing that a systemic change is not vital to protect people from the effects of a general meltdown of the $1.2 trillion derivatives bubble sometimes called “the western banking system”, what such central bankers are proposing is a poison more deadly than the disease they promise to cure.

    In principle, the world crisis, is no different from the artificially manufactured crises which the world faced in 1923 when unpayable Versailles debts were heaved onto a beaten Germany, which I elaborated upon in my previous report. It is also no different from the nature of the folly that unleashed unbounded speculation during the “roaring 1920s” which led to the bank-run and general meltdown. Similarly, the solutions being proposed to put out the fire by those same arsonists who lit the matches today are identical to what the world faced in 1933 as a “central bankers” solution for the world depression.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured

    While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.

    The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!

    When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.

    The Living Hell that was the Great Depression

    Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.

    This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.

    In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.

    It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.

    1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted

    In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.

    Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate

    In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.

    A resolution passed by the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated:

    “The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”

    Echoing Carney’s current fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.

    FDR Torpedoes the London Conference

    Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak (1).

    Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.

    By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”

    The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”

    FDR’s War on Wall Street

    The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th saying: 

    “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.

    FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”

    Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.

    One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.

    FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: 

    “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”

    The Real New Deal

    Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.

    From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower.

    Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal

    Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.

    Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.

    When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!

    Coup Attempt in America Thwarted

    The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.

    The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.

    FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed

    While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.

    Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.

    The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.

    The New Silk Road as the 21st Century New Deal

    This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.

    The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal and Synthetic Hegemonic Currency which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1933 conference failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 23:05

  • "Oh Cool, More Bullshit": Anonymous White House Officials Trash Book By Anonymous Ex-White House Official
    “Oh Cool, More Bullshit”: Anonymous White House Officials Trash Book By Anonymous Ex-White House Official

    We’ve reached the part in the news cycle where one can just make up anything, anywhere about anyone, and cite imaginary people as evidence. Case in point, today’s Politico report on how the blockbuster bestselling book by, well, an allegedly former White House official who to this day remains anonymous, and which allegedly provides an “unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of the Trump presidency from the anonymous senior official whose first words of warning about the president rocked the nation’s capital” is being received by the White House. Or at least by more anonymous people at the White House.

    While delightfully humorous in isolation, the following actual line from the Politico book report perfectly summarizes the state of modern reporting:

    Most of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to trash the anonymous author, whose book they acknowledged they have only read about.

    The Politico report’s argument, apparently sourced to more anonymous White House officials who may or may not go on to write anonymous books of their own, which will then be reviewed by more anonymous officials, is that the “White House is breathing a big sigh of relief after the new book by an anonymous author claiming to be a senior Trump official doesn’t seem to have many new damaging details of the president’s conduct in office, according to interviews with five current White House officials.”

    All of them, of course, anonymous, because we now live in a world where one can write any narrative at all for an article – or a book – and just quote “anonymous sources” or be an “anonymous author” and still make tons of money. 

    Or maybe Americans are finally tiring of that news cycle. After all, even that liberal bastion of anti-Trumpism, the New York Times, went so far as to pan the newly released book (maybe the NYT is a Russian asset for mocking the book? Anonymous sources have yet to opine).

    These officials’ main complaint: The author is “cowardly” since the person doesn’t cite many specific examples in the book out of fear of making it easier for journalists and colleagues to discover the writer’s identity.

    And they say the book is likely to contain errors, based on the unusually secretive process by which it was written.

    “Normally, the publishers would do a pretty good fact-check on this but it’s impossible to do a fact-check if you don’t know who the person is and if you’re not citing specific stories so it’s literally the least fact-checked book ever,” said a White House official.

    There is another problem with these “shocking” tell all stories that are fabricated cover to cover (because absent fact-checking, a lack of reference to facts and actual sources, one can only assume the entire story is made up): the all too real Trump has made any “shock” value decline to zero: in this case the anonymous White House staffers “are dismissing the author’s description of President Donald Trump as cruel, incompetent, ill-tempered and a threat to the country as nothing new. Those epithets and more, they say, are present on “liberal Twitter every day,” as the official put it.”

    Indeed: if there is one thing the world has had even more than Trump’s non stop twitter barrage, it is shock stories written about Trump citing anonymous sources. .

    The Politico article then goes on in some length to speculate on the identity of the author, the same author whose Sept 5, 2018 op-ed – published ironically in the same NYT that is now deriding the book – announcing Anonymous’ “resistance” against Trump “would seem to rule out anyone who left the administration before that date.”

    Perhaps, but the way the book is written, the author could literally be anyone: after all, most of the stories are broad generalizations one can quite literally come up with while feeding the cats at 9am on a Saturday and drinking their morning coffee. And since nothing can be fact-checked, that is probably a safe assumption.

    That probably explains why one of the anonymous officials quoted by Politico, had said the book’s content was “ridiculous. I certainly heard nothing about it and I certainly would have.”

    Then again, the source is anonymous, and could have been merely fabricated by the newspaper, which brings us to the delightful irony of political “reporting” – one writes stories quoting unknown officials, opinion about shocking claims made by another unknown official.

    And whereas the public had largely learned to ignore such fake news especially in the aftermath of the Trump Russian collusion fiasco, they have now reemerged in the form of “whistleblowers” hoping to get a second life in the public arena by attempting to take down the president, with even more hearsay, innuendo and unsourced reports.

    That… or simply try to make money by taking advantage of people’s gullibility:

    Hogan Gidley, the deputy White House press secretary, also said the author was trying to profit off his or her time in the administration.

    “There are so many people trying to make a buck off of Donald Trump’s name at this point, I’ve lost count,” he said. “I find it comical that so many in the media try to claim that this person is brave and courageous when the author won’t even put their name to it. It’s completely gutless, not to mention false.”

    “It’s another PC establishment elitist who thinks they know better than the millions and millions of people who voted for Donald Trump because they were sick and tired of the swamp’s stranglehold on this country,” Gidley added, while Eli Nachmany, a former Trump White House staffer who is now a student at Harvard Law School, said the book’s revelations haven’t surprised anyone in Trump world, calling it “another low-quality book by a disgruntled individual.”

    That, incidentally, may be the most relevant take in the entire article, and for once, it is actually sourced to real, named people.

    Although our favorite line from the entire piece about a book which will be forgotten in a few weeks was the following:

    “You see the headlines and you say, ‘Oh cool, more bullshit, let’s get back to work,’” said one official.

    Which just happens to be a perfect encapsulation of what all modern political “reporting” has become.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 22:45

  • Escobar: Lula's "Back, With A Bang!" To Fight US Deep State's "Cocaine Evangelistan"
    Escobar: Lula’s “Back, With A Bang!” To Fight US Deep State’s “Cocaine Evangelistan”

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Better not mess with the former Brazilian president; Putin and Xi are his real top allies in the Global Left…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva greets his followers after his release from prison. Photo: Roberto Stuckert

    He’s back. With a bang.

    Only two days after his release from a federal prison in Curitiba, southern Brazil, following a narrow 6×5 decision by the Supreme Court, former President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva delivered a fiery, 45-minute long speech in front of the Metal Workers Union in Sao Bernardo, outside of Sao Paulo, and drawing on his unparalleled political capital, called all Brazilians to stage nothing short of a social revolution.

    When my colleagues Mauro Lopes, Paulo Leite and myself interviewed Lula at the federal prison, it was his Day 502 in a cell. By August, it was impossible to predict that release would happen on Day 580, in early November.

    His first speech to the nation after the prison saga – which is far from over – could never be solemn; in fact he promised a detailed address for the near future. What he did, in his trademark conversationalist style, was to immediately go on the offensive taking down a long list of every possible enemy in the book: those who have mired Brazil into an “anti-people agenda.” In terms of a fully improvised, passionate political address, this is already anthology material.

    Lula detailed the current “terrible conditions” for Brazilian workers. He ripped to pieces the economic program – basically a monster sell-out – of Finance Minister Paulo Guedes, a Chicago boy and Pinochetist who’s applying the same failed hardcore neoliberal prescriptions now being denounced and scorned every day in the streets of Chile.

    He detailed how the Brazilian right wing openly bet on neo-fascism, which is the form that neoliberalism recently took in Brazil. He blasted mainstream media, in the form of the so far all-powerful, ultra-reactionary Globo empire. In a stance of semiotic genius, Lula pointed to Globo’s helicopter hovering over the masses gathered for the speech, implying the organization is too cowardly to get close to him on ground level.

    And, significantly, he got right into the heart of the Bolsonaro question: the militias. It’s no secret to informed Brazilians that the Bolsonaro clan, with its origins in the Veneto, is behaving as a sort of cheap, crude, eschatological carbon copy of the Sopranos, running a system heavy on militias and supported by the Brazilian military. Lula described the president of one of the top nations in the Global South as no less than a militia leader. That will stick – all around the world.

    So much for “Lula peace and love,” which used to be one of his cherished mottos. No more conciliation. Bolsonaro now has to face real, fierce, solid opposition, and cannot run away from public debate any more.

    Lula’s prison journey has been an extraordinary liberating experience – turning a previously wounded statesman into a fearless warrior mixing the Tao with Steppenwolf (as sketched in Herman Hesse’s book). He’s free like he’s never been before – and he said so, explicitly. The question is how he will be able to muster the organizational work, the method – and have enough time to change the dire conditions for democratic opposition in Brazil. The whole Global South is watching.

    At least now the die is cast – and crystal clear: It’s social democracy against neo-fascism. Socially inclusive programs, civil society involved in setting public policy, the fight for  equality versus autocracy, state institutions linked to militias, racism and hate against all minorities. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, to their credit, have offered Lula their unconditional support. In contrast, Steve Bannon is losing sleep, qualifying Lula as “the poster boy of the globalist Left” across the world.

    This all goes way beyond Left Populism – as Slavoj Zizek and Chantal Mouffe, among others, have been trying to conceptualize it. Lula, assuming he remains free, is now ready to be the supreme catalyst of an integrated, progressive, “pro-people” New Global Left.

    ‘Cocaine Evangelistan’

    Now for the really nasty bits.

    I saw Lula’s speech deep into the night in snow stormed Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan’s capital, in the heart of the steppes, a land trespassed against by the greatest nomad empires in history. The temptation was to picture Lula as a fearless snow leopard roaming the devastated steppes of urban wastelands.

    Yet snow leopards, crucially, are a species threatened with extinction.

    After the speech I had serious conversations with two top interlocutors, Bern-based analyst Romulus Maya and anthropologist Piero Leirner, a crack authority on the Brazilian military. The picture they painted was realistically gloomy. Here it is, in a nutshell.

    When I visited Brasilia last August, several informed sources confirmed that the majority of the Brazilian Supreme Court is bought and paid for. After all, they de facto legitimized all the absurdities that have been taking place in Brazil since 2014. The absurdities were part of a hyper-complex, slow-motion, rolling hybrid war coup that, under the cloak of a corruption investigation, led to the dismantling of industrial national champions such as Petrobras; the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff on spurious charges; and the jailing of Lula, the work of judge, jury and executioner Sergio Moro, now Bolsonaro’s justice minister, who was completely unmasked by The Intercept’s revelations.

    The Brazilian military are all over the Supreme Court. Remember, Lula’s liberation happened after a narrow 6 to 5 score. Legally, it was impossible to keep him in prison: the Supreme Court actually bothered to read the Brazilian Constitution.

    But there are no structural changes whatsoever on the horizon. The project remains a Brazil sell-out – coupled with a thinly veiled military dictatorship. Brazil remains a lowly US colony. So Lula is out of jail essentially because this system allowed it.

    The military abide by Bolsonaro’s abysmal incompetence because he cannot even go to the toilet without permission from General Heleno, the head of the GSI, the Brazilian version of the National Security Council. On Saturday, a scared Bolsonaro asked the top military brass for help after Lula’s release. And crucially, in a tweet, he defined Lula as a “scoundrel” who was “momentarily” free.

    It’s this “momentarily” that gives away the game. Lula’s murky juridical situation is far from decided. In a harrowing but perfectly plausible short-term scenario, Lula could in fact be sent back to jail – but this time in isolation, in a maximum security federal prison, or even inside a military barracks; after all, he’s a former chief of the armed forces.

    The full focus of Lula’s defense is now to have Moro disqualified. Anyone with a brain who’s been through The Intercept’s revelations can clearly identify Moro’s corruption. If that happens, and that’s a major “if,” Lula’s already existing convictions will be declared null and void. But there are others lawsuits, eight in total. This is total lawfare territory.

    The military’s trump card is all about “terrorism” – associated with Lula and the Workers Party. If Lula, according to the harrowing scenario, is sent back to a federal prison, that could be in Brasilia, which not by accident holds the entire leadership of the PCC, or “First Command of the Capital”– the largest Brazilian criminal organization.

    Maya and Leirner have shown how the PCC is allied with the military and the US Deep State, via their asset Moro, to establish not a Pax Brasilica but what they have described as a “Cocaine Evangelistan” – complete with terrorist false flags blamed on Lula’s command.

    Leirner has exhaustively studied how the generals, for over a decade on their website, have been trying to associate the PCC with the Workers’ Party. And the association extends to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Hezbollah and the Bolivians. Yes, this all comes straight from His Masters’ Voice’s playbook.

    Lula, Putin and Xi

    With the military betting on a strategy of chaos, augmented by Lula’s immense social base all over Brazil fuming about his return to prison and the financial bubble finally burst, rendering the middle classes even poorer, the stage would be set for the ultimate toxic cocktail: social “commotion” allied with “terrorism” associated with “organized crime.”

    That’s all the military needs to launch an extensive operation to restore “order” and finally force Congress to approve the Brazilian version of the Patriot Act (five separate bills are already making their way in Congress).

    This is no conspiracy theory. This is a measure of how incendiary Brazil is at the moment, and Western mainstream media will make no effort whatsoever to explain the nasty, convoluted plot for a global audience.

    Leirner goes to the heart of the matter when he says the current system has no reason to retreat because its side is winning. They are not afraid of Brazil turning into Chile. And even if that ends up happening, they already have a culprit: Lula. Brazilian mainstream media are already releasing trial balloons – blaming Lula for the spike of the US dollar and the rise of inflation.

    Lula and the Brazilian Left should invest in a full spectrum offensive.

    The 9th BRICS summit takes place in Brazil this week. A master counter-coup would be to organize an off-the-record, extremely discreet, heavily securitized meeting among Lula, Putin and Xi Jinping, for instance in an embassy in Brasilia. Putin and Xi are Lula’s real top allies on the global stage. They have been literally waiting for Lula, as diplomats have confirmed to me over and over again.

    If Lula follows a restricted script of merely reorganizing the Left, in Brazil, Latin America and even the Global South, the military system currently in place will swallow him whole all over again. The Left is infiltrated – everywhere. Now it’s total war. Assuming Lula remains free, he most certainly won’t be allowed to run again for the presidency in 2022. But that’s no problem. He’s got to be extra-bold – and he will be. Better not mess with the Steppenwolf.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • Code Brown: California Poo Situation Upgraded To 'Hot Diarrhea' Attacks; Urinating In Public OK
    Code Brown: California Poo Situation Upgraded To ‘Hot Diarrhea’ Attacks; Urinating In Public OK

    While San Francisco pays six-figure poop patrollers to keep up with the city’s fecal fiasco, Los Angeles may have to start handing out plastic ponchos.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Poo attack victim Heidi Van Tassel

    According to NBC Los Angeles‘ ‘Streets of Shame’ series, a homeless man randomly pulled a woman out of her car and hit her with a hot diarrhea attack.

    A night near the Hollywood Walk of Fame would change a woman’s life, as she was getting into her car and a homeless man sprinted across Hollywood Boulevard toward her.

    Heidi Van Tassel was parked in Hollywood after having a pleasant evening out with friends at an authentic Thai restaurant. Suddenly a man randomly pulled her out of the car, dragged her out to the middle of the street, and dumped a bucket of feces on her head, Van Tassel said and public records confirm.

    It was diarrhea. Hot liquid. I was soaked, and it was coming off my eyelashes and into my eyes,” she told NBC. “Paramedics who came to treat me said there was so much of it on me, that it looked like the man was saving it up for a month.

    “It was all inside my car because it was so much. He just kept pouring it and splattering it all over me.”

    While Heidi is now getting tested for diseases every three months and has PTSD, her attacker was arrested, charged with battery, and found mentally incompetent to stand trial. He is now back on the street.

    Meanwhile to the North, San Francisco’s incoming district attorney Chesa Boudin said upon his Saturday night election victory: “We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes. Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted.”

    “Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted, we have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness,” he added, according to the Daily Caller.

    About Boudin – per the Caller:

    Boudin’s parents were members of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group.

    Boudin “was raised in Chicago by Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn” after his parents were sent to prison on murder charges while he was a toddler, NBC News noted.

    Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders cheered Boudin’s victory in the election. “Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty,” the Vermont Sen. wrote on Twitter Saturday, congratulating Boudin on his “historic victory!”

    The aristocrats! 

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


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 22:05

    Tags

  • Does Schiff's Impeachment Lynch Mob Signal The End Of America's Two-Party Political System?
    Does Schiff’s Impeachment Lynch Mob Signal The End Of America’s Two-Party Political System?

    Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    If anything good can come from the Democrat’s incessant efforts to impeach Donald Trump it will be the outgrowth, from the nurturing ‘mother of necessity,’ of a more inclusive political system that acknowledges more than just a compromised duopoly as the voice of the American people.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With complete disregard for the consequences of their actions, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee under Adam Schiff has abandoned all pretense of democratic procedure in their effort to remove the 45th President of the United States from office.

    Indeed, the Democrats have provided the Republicans with a Machiavellian crash course on the subtle art of decadent behavior for getting what you want, which of course is ultimate political power, and to hell in a proverbial hand basket with the consequences. The Republicans have been snoozing through a game of 2D checkers, holding out hope that Sheriff Billy Barr and his deputy John Durham will round up the real criminals, while the Democrats have been playing mortal combat.

    The dark prince in this Gothic tale of diabolical, dare I say biblical, proportions is none other than Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, who, like Dracula in his castle dungeon, has contorted every House rule to fit the square peg of a Trump telephone call into the bolt hole of a full-blown impeachment proceeding. Niccolò Machiavelli would have been proud of his modern-day protégé.

    As if to mock the very notion of Democratic due process, whatever that means, Schiff and his torch-carrying lynch mob took their deliberations down into the dank basement, yes, the basement, of the US Capital where they have been holding secretive depositions in an effort to get some new twist on the now famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky back in June. But why all the cloak and dagger theatrics when the transcript has long been available for public consumption?

    At one point, the frazzled Republicans bared a little backbone against this bunker mentality when they crashed the basement meetings for some really outstanding optics. Schiff, betraying a lack of foresight, could not defenestrate the well-dressed hooligans since the meetings, as mentioned, are being held inside of a windowless dungeon. The Republican troublemakers were ushered back up the stairs instead.

    Considering what Prince Schiff has managed to pull off over the course of this not-made for television impeachment process is astounding, and could not have happened without the drooling complicity of the lapdog media corporations. Schiff got the ball bouncing when he performed a Saturday Night Live skit of the Trump-Zelensky phone call on the hallowed floor of Congress. The imaginary voices in Schiff’s head made the president sound like a mafia boss speaking to one of his lackeys.

    Not only did Schiff survive that stunt, it was revealed that he blatantly lied, not once but several times, about his affiliation with the White House insider, reportedly a CIA officer, who, without ever hearing the Trump-Zelensky phone call firsthand, blew the whistle anyways. The Democrats claim Trump was looking for some ‘quid pro quo’ with Kiev, which would dig up the dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for the release of $400 million in military aid. The transcript, however, points to no such coercion, while Zelensky himself denies that he was pressured by Trump.

    Meanwhile, Schiff has taken great efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower a ‘secret’ out of “safety concerns.” The Republicans in the House said they will subpoena the whistleblower for the public impeachment that starts next week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters. Yet Schiff has awarded himself the power to reject any witnesses the Republicans may wish to grill.

    “We’ll see if he gives us any of our witnesses,” Jordan said.

    A person need not feel any particular fondness for Donald Trump to find these circumstances surrounding the impeachment show trial as disgraceful, dishonorable and beneath the dignity of the American people. And whether they want it or not, the fallout from Schiff’s shenanigans will have repercussions long into the future of the US political system, which is groaning under the weight of corruption and deceit.

    It is doubtful the Republicans will soon forgive and forget what the Democrats have put them through ever since Trump entered office in 2016. From Russiagate to Ukrainegate, the Trump White House has been held hostage by a non-stop, media-endorsed hate campaign to oust a democratically elected POTUS. Although it would be difficult for the Republicans, who lack the support of the media, an overwhelmingly left-leaning propaganda machine, to exact an equal amount of revenge on the Democrats when the latter have one of their own in the White House, they will certainly try. This will lead the Republic into an inescapable vortex of infighting where the sole function of the political system will be based on that of vengeance and ‘pay backs’ and more waste of time and money as the parties investigate the crimes of the other side.

    The public, which is slowly awakening to the problem, will ultimately demand new leadership to break the current two-party internecine struggle. Thus, talk of a civil war in the United States, while possible, is being overplayed. The truth will be much simpler and far less violent.

    Out of the dust and ashes of the defunct duopoly that is now at war with itself, the American people will soon demand fresh political blood in Washington and this will bring to the forefront capable political forces that are committed to the primary purpose of politics: representing the needs of the people, once again.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 21:45

    Tags

  • Idaho Residents Fume Over State-Wrecking Californians And Other Inflationary Transplants
    Idaho Residents Fume Over State-Wrecking Californians And Other Inflationary Transplants

    As we have documented for years, Californians have been fleeing the Golden State in droves thanks to untenable costs of living which include exorbitant taxes levied by inept bureaucrats. The annual fires, poo-covered streets, and devastating earthquakes are icing on the cake.

    And as we’ve also documented, states experiencing the largest influx of ‘enlightened’ Californians include Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. According to a January report from the Idaho Department of Labor, the land of potatoes is tied with Nevada as the fastest growing state in the nation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Downtown Boise, Idaho (Otto Kitsinger / For The Times)

    Unfortunately for longtime residents of greener (cheaper) pastures such as Boise, transplants are starting to ruin things – driving up home prices and rents while median household income remains below the US average.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    via datausa.io

    The income inequality between natives and transplants has caused so much animosity in Idaho that it underpinned Boise mayoral candidate Wayne Richey’s entire platform: Stop the California Invasion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mayoral candidate Wayne Richey of Boise, Idaho, ran on a simple promise to stop the California invasion.
    (Otto Kitsinger / For The Times)

    Such inequity was what fueled Richey’s quixotic campaign; he came in fifth with 2% of the vote. The 59-year-old auto body technician runs yard sales on weekends and drives for Lyft on Friday and Saturday nights, when “I take drunk people home.”

    His sister had her own business until the Great Recession, when she lost everything and moved in with him. She just bought a house one city over, the only one she could find for about $230,000, and, he said, it’s a piece of you know what. She works in a call center, rents out a room and works craft shows.

    It’s really, really hard to swallow,” he said, “when somebody sells their house in California for $700,000, comes here, buys any house they want in cash and still has money in the bank.

    Their kids get to go to college,” he continued. “They drive nice cars. And they get to enjoy everything we built over the years. We don’t get to enjoy it, because we’re working 40 hours a week and doing craft shows and doing yard sales.” –LA Times

    The median home price in Ada Couty, where Boise is located, has risen 19.3% since February 2018 according to the Idaho Statesman, and now sits at $349, 994. Vacancy rates for the lowest-income residents, meanwhile is just 0.45% according to HousingIdaho.com.

    And according to the Times, Boise needs 1,000 new housing units per year for the next decade – according to officials in the city of 228,000, which is “just not happening.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What should Californians and other transplants do?

    Blend in – remove those California license plates. Don’t flash your money. And don’t do things like ‘promoting inclusion‘ by demanding drag queen story hour at the local library.

    As the Times notes, “California bashing is a cyclical sport with a long history in the heart of Idaho’s Treasure Valley.”

    In late September, former Boise State University kicker Taylor Rausa found a professionally printed card on his car, which read:

    GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA

    WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE

    “One bit of advice Rausa got during the online fracas was that he should change those California plates — and fast. That’s been a longtime refrain from friendly Boiseans to their newest neighbors,” according to the report. 

    “If you come here and love it, everything’s fine,” said 2002 California transplant Rev. Bill Roscoe. “If you come here and fly that California flag in your driveway and have stickers on your car that say, ‘Santa Cruz,’ there’s going to be some hard feelings.”

    Roscoe, the CEO of Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, keeps a sign on his desk that says “I am not from Idaho but I got here as fast as I could.”

    Some Californians have tried to integrate, only to be given the cold shoulder anyway.

    Patricia Flanigan also swapped her California plates for the red-white-and-blue “Famous Potatoes” version when she moved from Dana Point in 2015 to the Boise suburb of Eagle. She had retired as dean of online education and learning resources at Saddleback College.

    I took the position that I would come to Idaho and adapt to the community,” she said. She has a doctorate in education. Earlier in her career, she’d taught English as a Second Language at three Southern California community colleges. She’d also run an ESL program at Lake Tahoe Community College. When she moved, she decided to volunteer with non-English speakers.

    She got an appointment with the director of a nearby community college. But the school wasn’t interested in her offer of free help. She was told to try the region’s refugee center. She sent a resume. And never heard back.

    At the college interview, “I was dressed professionally, looked like a Californian,” Flanigan said. “I probably irritated [the director] by my confidence. There was no way she was going to have me volunteer…. She wanted to get rid of me.

    That professional cold shoulder was her introduction to Idaho, the 66-year-old said. Since then, she has founded a website called “Smart Strategies for Successful Living.” She has a circle of friends and a house that she loves and owns outright. She has not looked back.

    “I’m not here to be a Californian,” she said. “I’m here to be a community member and contribute.” –LA Times

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

    According to the most recent Treasure Valley Survey conducted by the Idaho Policy Institute at Boise State University in 2018, over 70% of those asked said the region is growing too fast, vs. 50% who said the same in 2016.

    “Over the course of two years,residents of the Treasure Valley have gone from being divided about whether the pace of growth was too fast or about right, to adopting the belief that it is too fast by a large margin,” the survey reports.

    During a September town hall meeting held at a strip mall library, resident Yvette Zoe – who moved to Boise in 1972, said “I know that you can’t stop growth, but what are we going to do about our quality of life here?”

    “My kids, they can’t buy a house because they can’t afford it right now, and they work. My grandkids, their schools are crowded.”

    Newcomers are moving here for a better quality of life, but “the very thing they’re leaving in — we know where — Seattle, California, Austin,” they’re bringing to Boise, she said. “What I’d like to see is what can we do for the people that already live here that have been here for a long time.

    One solution proposed by mayoral candidate Wayne Richey is to tax newcomers more than longtime residents – which he dubbed Proposition Zero One Two Three. It would result in sixty-year residents paying no property taxes – while new residents would instead shoulder the burden.

    “This gives much needed relief to longtime residents and forces new people to pay their share,” said Richey on his Facebook page. “Maybe it just might make them think twice about moving here.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 21:25

  • Of Course There Was A Quid Pro Quo! That's The Essence Of Washington's "Foreign Aid"
    Of Course There Was A Quid Pro Quo! That’s The Essence Of Washington’s “Foreign Aid”

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    Amidst all the political brouhaha regarding foreign aid, it is important that we keep in mind the nature and purposes of this particular federal program, as well as its related program, sanctions.

    Foreign aid is money that the U.S. government sends to certain foreign regimes. The purpose of the money is to secure loyalty to the U.S. Empire. That loyalty comes in the form of votes in the United Nations or support for U.S. imperialist escapades abroad.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is hardly ever a formal quid pro quo involved in foreign aid. That is, U.S. officials do not expressly say to a foreign leader, “If you will agree to become a loyal member of the U.S. Empire and support whatever the Empire does, we will send you hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars.”

    Instead, foreign aid is based on an implied bribery agreement. Everyone understands what the core term of the agreement is: “We will give you this money and you, in return, will do as we dictate. If you fail to do so, your foreign aid will be terminated.”

    The situation is somewhat similar to how many politicians in democratic countries handle voters. During their campaigns, the candidates offer voters all sorts of “free” programs. The voters vote for that candidate in order to receive the “free” programs. Once the candidate is elected, he provides the “free” programs or at least does his best to do so. If he doesn’t, he is voted out of office in the next election. Thus, it’s not a formal bribe because there isn’t a formal quid pro quo, but in actuality it’s bribe nonetheless.

    Corruption and socialism

    Another aspect of foreign aid that is important to recognize is that the money is not used to help the “poor, needy, and disadvantaged” in the foreign regime. Instead, it is used for two purposes: one, to fortify the dictatorial control that the receiving regime has over its own citizenry, and, two, to line the pockets of the political leader and the members of his regime, especially those in the military-intelligence sector.

    That’s why foreign leaders are so intent on pleasing U.S. officials. When they receive a “free” check for, say, $100 million, that’s plenty of money to keep and to spread around the bureaucracies, where it then ends up in the private banks accounts of the recipients.

    There is something else important to recognize about foreign aid — the foreign money comes from hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers. The IRS seizes a part of people’s income and then sends it to foreign officials. That’s what makes foreign aid one of the many socialist programs run by the federal government, programs that forcibly take money from people to whom it belongs and send it to people to whom it does not belong.

    Sanctions and extortion

    As previously pointed out, if a foreign regime violates the implied agreement or fails to play ball, foreign aid is terminated or never extended. Oftentimes, however, that’s not all that happens to that regime. That’s where sanctions come into play.

    U.S. officials target the citizens of independent, recalcitrant regimes with economic impoverishment or death as a way to bring the regime into the fold of the empire. Once the citizens begin starving or dying from sanctions, it is hoped that one of three things will happen:

    (1) the citizens revolt, oust their regime, and install a pro-U.S.-empire regime;

    (2) a military coup takes place that installs a pro-U.S-empire military dictatorship; or

    (3) the regime has a crisis of conscience and agrees to join the empire and support its dictates.

    In any of the three cases, the sanctions will be lifted and foreign aid will begin flowing into the regime to ensure the continued loyalty of the foreign regime.

    Thus, while foreign aid is a form of bribery, sanctions are more in the nature of extortion. Both programs are critically important to the operations of the U.S. Empire and its policy of foreign interventionism.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 21:05

    Tags

  • "Ridiculous": $1 Trillion In Orders For $7 Billion Chinese Bond
    “Ridiculous”: $1 Trillion In Orders For $7 Billion Chinese Bond

    In recent years, hardened bond market cynics snickered when insolvent European nations such as Italy or Greece saw 4, 5, or more times demand for their bond offerings than was for sale, whispering to themselves that such oversubscriptions for potentially worthless debt assure a very unhappy ending. Yet not even the biggest cynics were prepared for what just happened in China.

    When Shanghai Pudong Development Bank sold $7 billion in convertible bonds last month, investors placed more than $1 trillion worth of orders, making this a 140 times oversubscribed offering, enough to shock even the most seasoned China investor, the FT reports.

    That $1 trillion in bids was almost as large as the entire stock-market capitalisation of Apple or Microsoft — the two biggest companies in the world. “It was a ridiculous amount,” said Gerry Alfonso, head of research at Shenwan Hongyuan Securities in Shanghai. It is also a testament to how desperate the world has become in chasing yields and return, as well as just how much excess liquidity there is in the market at the moment

    While new issue oversubscriptions have become the norm in recent years, this absurd case had several Chinese market unique characteristics, reflecting a surge in issuance of such equity-linked instruments in China — a rise helped by what the FT called “an unusual embrace of the product by policymakers better known for cracking down on financial innovations to ensure stability.”

    So far this year, Chinese companies have issued a record $40bn in convertible bonds, up more than 80 per cent from the full-year total in 2018, according to Dealogic.

    It now appears that converts have become the latest Chinese bubble due to their hybrid characteristics: while they carry a (lower) coupon payment they also offer investors the right to switch them for equity if a company’s shares rise to a certain price. For companies, convertibles offer a way to raise money more cheaply than by issuing regular debt and do not immediately dilute shareholders’ equity.

    Ronald Wan, chief executive at Partners Capital in Hong Kong, said Chinese convertibles had become more attractive to investors thanks to this year’s stock rally, while the government was promoting the instruments as a way to rein in financing done off-balance sheet, or through a fragile shadow banking sector. Naturally, Wan cautioned that convertibles’ performance “depends on the quality of the issuer”, with investors typically prefering large banks and big blue-chip companies over small and mid-sized issuers, especially in a time when China’s smaller banks are either hit by bank runs or outright getting bailed out.

    Shenwan’s Alfonso meanwhile warned that while large issuers such as Shanghai Pudong have seen ample liquidity in their convertibles after listing, investors in smaller issuers faced the prospect of taking heavy losses in the event of a sell-off.

    “The liquidity is bad but there is liquidity,” he said. “The thing is, the price you’re going to get there is pretty horrendous.”

    That, however, is not preventing every investor scrambling to be allocated a piece of the original bond in hopes of an early pop which can then be sold.

    Some history: China’s first domestic convertible bond was issued in November 1992, two years after the Shanghai Stock Exchange opened. The bond, which never converted to stock, was the only onshore convertible issued for more than half a decade. Today’s market is different, as Chinese convertibles carry special features that set them apart from those in the US or Europe. For one, conversion levels can be reset after a bond is issued, significantly increasing the chances it will switch into stock.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the biggest reason why there is unprecedented investor demand for convertibles right now is that – as of this moment – they tend to be looked on favorably by regulators because they are treated as debt until conversion, meaning investors have a better chance than equity shareholders of getting some form of repayment if the company goes bust. Bitcoin enthusiasts are well aware how violently prices can move depending on what Chinese regulators say.

    Furthermore, Chinese companies are normally required to wait at least 18 months between offerings of shares, which makes convertibles a useful way to gain access to new funds quickly. “The process of [convertibles] approval still takes time — half a year or so — but it’s faster than an IPO or secondary offering,” said Yulia Wan, a senior analyst at Moody’s in Shanghai.

    Ultimately, Chinese investors – well known for their propensity to jump from one bubble to another without giving it a second thought – are now rushing into converts due to hopes for quick capital appreciation. Wan said that because convertibles usually have a maturity of five to six years, a company’s shares have plenty of time to rise high enough for conversion.

    The convertibles’ equity-like features mean they offer higher returns to investors than regular debt. But that alone does not explain the huge over-subscriptions common to the local market.

    Alfonso of Shenwan Hongyuan said some of the rush is down to scarcity. Because existing shareholders are entitled to a large chunk of any convertible bond that is issued, the number of lots a company can offer more broadly is limited.

    As such, those who want to get even a modest allocation have no choice but to submit massive bids in hopes of getting on the underwriter’s good side. Ultimately, investors know that they will get only a fraction of what they request. And because no money is required up front to make an offer, there is no reason not to bid as much as possible to maximise the odds of a successful purchase. “You put up as much as you can and hope for the best,” Alfonso said.

    After all, what is the downside: it’s not like the Chinese are known to ever break a promise…

    Commenting on the issue, Shard Capital’s Bill Blain writes that the Chinese converts remind him “of the glory days of the Japanese Equity Warrants market back in the 1980s. Ah, these were the days. How we played in stuff in we barely understood.  Japanese companies we’d never ever heard of being the hot deal of the day, rumors of backhanders to ensure allocations and all kinds of shady goings on. These were the days….”

    Much the same thing seems to be going on in Chinese convertibles – investors know they are hot so they put in vastly inflated orders in the hope they get some bonds. The future is a mobius strip loop of endless repeat moments.

    Here’s the punchline: Shanghai Pudong’s insane 140x oversubscription is not even the biggest on record. As the FT notes, before regulators banned buyers from bidding through multiple accounts in March, it was not unusual for convertibles to be even more heavily over-subscribed. As such, the largest issuance on record of nearly $6bn, from China Citic Bank, was about 5,500 times oversubscribed, according to local media. That means that there were $33 trillion in orders for the bond offering, roughly three times the size of China’s entire economy.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 20:45

  • Federal Court Rules Suspicionless Searches of Travelers' Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional
    Federal Court Rules Suspicionless Searches of Travelers’ Phones and Laptops Unconstitutional

    Authored by Activist Post

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a major victory for privacy rights at the border, a federal court in Boston ruled today that suspicionless searches of travelers’ electronic devices by federal agents at airports and other U.S. ports of entry are unconstitutional.

    The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and ACLU of Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.

    “This ruling significantly advances Fourth Amendment protections for millions of international travelers who enter the United States every year,” said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “By putting an end to the government’s ability to conduct suspicionless fishing expeditions, the court reaffirms that the border is not a lawless place and that we don’t lose our privacy rights when we travel.”

    “This is a great day for travelers who now can cross the international border without fear that the government will, in the absence of any suspicion, ransack the extraordinarily sensitive information we all carry in our electronic devices,” said Sophia Cope, EFF Senior Staff Attorney.

    The district court order puts an end to Customs and Border Control (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asserted authority to search and seize travelers’ devices for purposes far afield from the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal contraband before they can search a traveler’s device.

    The number of electronic device searches at U.S. ports of entry has increased significantly. Last year, CBP conducted more than 33,000 searches, almost four times the number from just three years prior.

    International travelers returning to the United States have reported numerous cases of abusive searches in recent months. While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman’s cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the student for friends’ social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government, and denied the student entry into the country following the search.

    For the order:
    https://www.eff.org/document/alasaad-v-nielsen-summary-judgment-order

    For more on this case:
    https://www.eff.org/cases/alasaad-v-duke

    For more about border searches:
    https://www.eff.org/issues/border-searches


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 20:25

  • World's Ultra-Rich Preparing For Market Crash, UBS Warns
    World’s Ultra-Rich Preparing For Market Crash, UBS Warns

    A synchronized global slowdown, with no end in sight, has spooked some of the wealthiest investors around the world, according to a new survey from UBS Wealth Management, seen by Bloomberg. UBS polled wealthy investors, who are preparing for a significant stock market correction by the end of next year. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the survey of more than 3,400 high net wealth respondents, 25% said they’ve sold risk assets, such as equities, commodities, and high-yield bonds, and have transitioned into cash. The synchronized global slowdown, coupled with a US-China trade war, were some of the greatest concerns of respondents. 

    “The rapidly changing geopolitical environment is the biggest concern for investors around the world,” said Paula Polito, client strategy officer at UBS GWM, in a statement. “They see global interconnectivity and reverberations of change impacting their portfolios more than traditional business fundamentals, a marked change from the past.”

    About 80% of the respondents expect volatility to increase through 2020, and 55% believe a market plunge could occur before Q4 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Worse, 60% of respondents expected to raise cash levels in the coming quarters (i.e., sell stocks).

    Most respondents said the added caution is due to a possible blowoff top in global equity markets. About 70% of respondents are optimistic through 2030.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The challenge is that they seem to want to respond” to short-term uncertainty “by really shortening their time horizons and shifting to assets like cash that are safe,” said Michael Crook, a managing director on the investment strategy team. Though with many of these people investing on a time horizon across decades and for future generations, that “seems like a mismatch.”

    And while most respondents said they’re preparing for market turbulence in the short term, many should rethink their US outlook for the next decade. Teddy Vallee, CIO of Pervalle Global, shows that the “US is dead money for the next 10 yrs.” 

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

    Vallee suggests that today’s parabolic up moves in stocks could actually be blowoff tops, similar to what was seen in Nikkei 225 in late 1989/90. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 20:12

  • World's Largest CLO Whale Goes Cool On $750 Billion Market  
    World’s Largest CLO Whale Goes Cool On $750 Billion Market  

    The US Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLO) market appears to be in a slump thanks in large part to a pullback from Japanese institutional demand, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. 

    Japnese banks have been significant buyers of CLOs in the last several years, and many were forced to take on more risk in search of yield to cover rising hedge costs as the USD yield curve flattens late in the cycle. 

    Alarmingly, we noted as early as Monday that risky CLO securities netted investors 10% through June. But through the end of October, most of the gains were wiped out. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One of the reasons behind the slump is becoming more evident by the day, and that’s because one of the largest buyers of CLOs has become more selective about purchasing credit products in the last several months.

    Norinchukin Bank, Japan’s major agricultural bank, owns a whopping $73 billion of CLOs as of June, has been recently thinning its positions. 

    Norinchukin has become one of the largest buyers of the $750 billion global CLO market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg recently reported that the agriculture bank started to decrease CLO purchases in Q2 after Japanese authorities tightened financial regulations. 

    “The drop in Norinchukin’s exposure was due to the volume of products maturing exceeding the amount of purchases during the quarter, at a time when there was a lack of attractive new deals,” the sources told Bloomberg.

    Sources also said the bank’s CLO buying spree has likely slowed for now — mostly because its $586 billion asset portfolio has a 13% total exposure to risky credit. 

    Norinchukin’s massive CLO purchases have been critical drivers in the US and European CLO markets in the last year. 

    Sources said the bank saved the US leveraged loan market from completely seizing up in December 2018.

    Norinchukin’s reduced CLO purchases and the risk of a global recession in 2020, could be some of the reasons why monthly returns of US double-B CLO bonds have plunged. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Also, Norinchukin’s pullback in CLO demand could be another reason why CLO new insurances dropped in Q3.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Between the chaos in the repo markets, now tamped down by the promise of endless liquidity from NYFRB, and the ongoing scare in the critical-for-junk-demand CLO market is mainly due to the world’s CLO whales [Japanese banks] pulling back on purchases. These banks own 15% of outstanding CLOs globally. 

    Is a Japanese tsunami out of CLOs nearing?  


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 20:05

  • Journalism School Dean Rips Into "Traumatized" Jeff Sessions Protesters For Harassing Student Journalists
    Journalism School Dean Rips Into “Traumatized” Jeff Sessions Protesters For Harassing Student Journalists

    Update: When the student newspaper apologized for the sin of reporting on an unhinged protest against former Attorney General Jeff Sessions at Northwestern University last week, many professional journalists expressed disbelief that college journalists would openly renounce basic journalism practices.

    They spent less time focused on the actions of the protesters themselves, and after the shitstorm of snowflake outrage that the journalists ignited by daring to take photos and do journalism, Charles Whitaker – the Dean of Northwestern’s Journalism School – has made up for the imbalance : (emphasis ours)

    Journalists have a heady responsibility performing our role as the authors of the first rough draft of history, the term that the late Washington Post President and Publisher Philip L. Graham is credited with coining to describe our work. Journalists often put themselves at great risk not only to expose malfeasance, misfeasance and injustice, but also to hold a mirror up to society and reflect the maneuverings in our daily lives.

    It is important work. Journalism — when executed fairly, accurately and independently — allows a society to see itself in all its splendor and strife. It often is our only chronicle of the people and events that shape and govern our existence. Conversely, when done poorly or unfairly, journalism can most certainly scar individuals and communities. Indeed, there is no shortage of instances in which journalists have parachuted into settings, particularly those occupied by vulnerable or marginalized people, and provided accounts that were devoid of any sense of cultural competency.

    But let me be perfectly clear, the coverage by The Daily Northwestern of the protests stemming from the recent appearance on campus by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was in no way beyond the bounds of fair, responsible journalism. The Daily Northwestern is an independent, student-run publication. As the dean of Medill, where many of these young journalists are trained, I am deeply troubled by the vicious bullying and badgering that the students responsible for that coverage have endured for the “sin” of doing journalism.

    Like those student journalists, I, too, have been approached by several student activists who were angered by the fact that they and their peers were depicted on the various platforms of The Daily engaged in the very public act of protesting the Sessions speech. I have explained to those activists that as Northwestern’s — and the city of Evanston’s — principal paper of record, The Daily had an obligation to capture the event, both for the benefit of its current audience as well as for posterity. I have also offered that it is naïve, not to mention wrong-headed, to declare, as many of our student activists have, that The Daily staff and other student journalists had somehow violated the personal space of the protestors by reporting on the proceedings, which were conducted in the open and were designed, ostensibly, to garner attention.

    That Daily staffers and other students used social media to track down protestors for comment and to verify facts — another affront, according to The Daily’s detractors — is, in my mind and the minds of my colleagues, the kind of industrious reporting and information-gathering that we expect from enterprising reporters. Our young reporters did not root through trash cans, trespass on private property or purloin personal documents. What they tried to do was ask questions and take pictures that they hoped would offer the most accurate account of this wrenching event – one in which the images captured by The Daily’s photographers may provide the only evidence of what actually transpired in the interaction between students and campus police.

    Some have also charged that our students are rude and insensitive interrogators. They say our students behave like boorish voyeurs when approaching students from marginalized communities. My colleagues and I are mindful of these accusations and are working with our students on their reporting techniques. We absolutely want them to introduce themselves as journalists before peppering subjects with a battery of questions. We want to make sure that they understand that private individuals have no obligation to speak with reporters. And we want them to treat everyone they approach — no matter what their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or political persuasion — with dignity and respect.

    But I patently reject the notion that our students have no right to report on communities other than those from which they hail, and I will never affirm that students who do not come from marginalized communities cannot understand or accurately convey the struggles of those populations. And, unlike our young charges at The Daily, who in a heartfelt, though not well-considered editorial, apologized for their work on the Sessions story, I absolutely will not apologize for encouraging our students to take on the much-needed and very difficult task of reporting on our life and times at Northwestern and beyond.

    I understand why The Daily editors felt the need to issue their mea culpa. They were beat into submission by the vitriol and relentless public shaming they have been subjected to since the Sessions stories appeared. I think it is a testament to their sensitivity and sense of community responsibility that they convinced themselves that an apology would affect a measure of community healing.

    I might offer, however, that their well-intentioned gesture sends a chilling message about journalism and its role in society. It suggests that we are not independent authors of the community narrative, but are prone to bowing to the loudest and most influential voices in our orbit. To be sure, journalism has often bowed to the whim and will of the rich and powerful, so some might argue that it is only fair that those who feel dispossessed and disenfranchised have their turn at calling the journalistic shots. But that is not the solution. We need more diversity among our student journalists (and in journalism writ large). We need more voices from different backgrounds in our newsrooms helping to provide perspective on our coverage. But regardless of their own identities, our student journalists must be allowed — and must have the courage — to cover our community freely and unfettered by harassment each time members of the community feel they have been wronged.

    This has been a difficult time for the students studying journalism at Medill. They have been under attack for merely doing what we encourage journalists to do: ask questions and write stories that illuminate the Northwestern/Evanston experience for anyone who might be interested in our community. Have they made mistakes? Most assuredly. They are students learning the craft. But I firmly maintain that our students do not act with malice aforethought. By and large, they want to do the right thing and reflect the community accurately.

    So to our student activists, I say let’s have a dialogue about what journalism is and what you might expect when you hold a protest in a public setting. Feel free to critique the coverage. That’s what The Daily’s opinion pages are for. Better yet, join the staff. The Daily is not and should not be the lone provenance of Medill students. I assure you, your input would be welcomed. But waging war on our students on social media — threatening them both physically and emotionally — is beyond the pale. Our community deserves a more civil level of discourse.

    And to the swarm of alums and journalists who are outraged about The Daily editorial and have been equally rancorous in their condemnation of our students on social media, I say, give the young people a break. I know you feel that you were made of sterner stuff and would have the fortitude and courage of your conviction to fend off the campus critics. But you are not living with them through this firestorm, facing the brutal onslaught of venom and hostility that has been directed their way on weaponized social media. Don’t make judgments about them or their mettle until you’ve walked in their shoes. What they need at this moment is our support and the encouragement to stay the course.

    Journalism is under assault in a variety of spheres. But my hope is that we at Northwestern can model ways in which a community can promote freedom of the press while also demonstrating how we conduct healthy and respectful debate. I would be happy to do my part to facilitate that dialogue.”

    How long until he is “boycotted” out of a job?

    *  *  *

    As The College Fix’s Greg Piper detailed earlier, the spirit of Antifa is infecting student protesters. Not necessarily the gleeful violence against anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, but the visceral aversion to being photographed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Photography, you may be aware, is kind of important to journalism. But not important enough for The Daily Northwestern, which puts the feelings of public protesters ahead of its fidelity to journalism.

    In an editorial drawing bafflement among professional journalists, the student newspaper at Northwestern University apologized for harming – yes, harming – the students who turned out to protest an appearance by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

    What constitutes that harm? Not just taking their photos, but asking them for comment. (Keep in mind Northwestern has an elite yet unaccredited journalism school, Medill.)

    Video from the evening revealed protesters reacting as if they were getting hit by tear gas and rubber bullets in Hong Kong, screaming that Sessions had “violated” them and they were “fighting for their lives right now.” The Daily reported that some were “climbing through open windows and pushing through doors.”

    Protesters knew the cameras were documenting their meltdown. One said they were “not being cute for the Medill photographers,” and an administrator reportedly tried to block someone recording the event.

    And they apparently let the Daily have it for doing its job.

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

    The editorial board starts its cringeworthy column by saying the Daily “was not the paper that Northwestern students deserve.”

    By sending a photographer to cover the protest, the newspaper “contributed to the harm students experienced” at the … “traumatic event”:

    Some protesters found photos posted to reporters’ Twitter accounts retraumatizing and invasive. Those photos have since been taken down. On one hand, as the paper of record for Northwestern, we want to ensure students, administrators and alumni understand the gravity of the events that took place Tuesday night. However, we decided to prioritize the trust and safety of students who were photographed. We feel that covering traumatic events requires a different response than many other stories. While our goal is to document history and spread information, nothing is more important than ensuring that our fellow students feel safe — and in situations like this, that they are benefitting from our coverage rather than being actively harmed by it. We failed to do that last week, and we could not be more sorry.

    If making students “feel safe” is really the newspaper’s mission, it should just shut down entirely. News coverage always makes someone feel unsafe. (See the repeated trashing of campus newspapers.)

    It didn’t get any better from there. The Daily apologized for using the university directory to contact students for interviews – a core practice of any competent college newsroom going back decades – but one that apparently unnerved some students:

    We recognize being contacted like this is an invasion of privacy, and we’ve spoken with those reporters — along with our entire staff — about the correct way to reach out to students for stories. [No “correct” way is given.]

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

    It’s even giving a mea culpa for identifying sources who agreed to be named. When you talk to a reporter covering a protest, and she asks you your name, and you tell her, you realize you might be named in a story, right?

    The paper removed the name of a protester who complained because, alas, it doesn’t want to help The Man:

    Any information The Daily provides about the protest [like reporting on it?] can be used against the participating students — while some universities grant amnesty to student protesters, Northwestern does not. We did not want to play a role in any disciplinary action that could be taken by the University. Some students have also faced threats for being sources in articles published by other outlets.

    It operates under these daycare rules because it’s not a “professional publication.” You got that right, editors.

    And these twits had the gall to claim their groveling editorial is in line with the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics: “Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.” Yeah – it also consists of journalism.

    It’s not clear how the Daily can do its job without, you know, taking photos, asking for interviews and naming people it quotes, but like the surgeon who “just got reinstated … well, not officially,” they’ll figure it out:

    Going forward, we are working on setting guidelines for source outreach, social media and covering marginalized groups. As students at Northwestern, we are also grappling with the impact of Tuesday’s events, and as a student organization, we are figuring out how we can support each other and our communities through distressing experiences that arise on campus. We will also work to balance the need for information and the potential harm our news coverage may cause.

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

    What the Daily is really saying is that it will do whatever any “marginalized” group tells it to do. Print our demand list in full? Check. Hide our identities when we protest in public? Check. Advocate for our cause as a condition of getting interviews with us? Check.

    And most of all, grovel and debase themselves whenever we noble marginalized angels complain about anything you do? Of course. This column has already waved the white flag on the practice of independent journalism.

    Instead, the Daily has made plain that it’s the PR mouthpiece for any person or group claiming to be marginalized.

    Editor-in-chief Troy Closson tried to walk back the editorial in a tweet thread early Tuesday, citing the pressure he has felt as only the third black EIC in the history of the paper.

    But the most he’ll say is that the editors “over-corrected.” The editorial remains unchanged as of now, including its ridiculous insistence that “ethical journalism” requires the abdication of journalism.

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

    I’m not buying his claim that the Daily editors are hobbled by their “gaps in knowledge about what journalism consists of.” Its newspaper office in the Norris building is a four-minute walk from the Medill school on Northwestern’s campus (below).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even though it doesn’t formally oversee the newspaper, the J-school could provide some helpful tips for the editors on covering protests. But it’s not clear from the editorial that the editors would actually follow the advice of veteran journalists.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 19:45

  • Chicago Youth Wreak Havoc With 'Shoplifting Mobs'; Employee's Head Slammed Into Glass Case
    Chicago Youth Wreak Havoc With ‘Shoplifting Mobs’; Employee’s Head Slammed Into Glass Case

    Organized shoplifting teams in Chicago are using children as young as 10-years-old to hit retailers in waves, according to CWBChicago.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chicago police detain two young men and recover duffle bags filled with allegedly stolen merchandise in Lincoln Park on Saturday. Bret Miller via YouTube

    Last weekend police reported that stores in the city’s Magnificent Mile, Lincoln Park and Loop neighborhoods had been hit hard – while one retail employee was reportedly pepper-sprayed and another had their head slammed into a glass merchandise case.

    Retailers are dealing with a wave of organized shoplifting teams that frequently use juveniles to do their dirty work. North Side locations of Forever 21, H&M, Ulta Beauty, DSW, Patagonia, and Burlington have been struck repeatedly — sometimes twice within hours.

    On Sunday, a team of six teenage shoplifters was spotted at the Michigan Avenue Victoria’s Secret store minutes after they struck the nearby H&M location, 840 North Michigan. Police arrested two members of the crew after an H&M manager identified them.

    About five minutes later, around 5:10 p.m., a two-person shoplifting team stole bags of winter coats from Patagonia, 1800 North Clybourn. The offenders stuffed the high-end gear into duffle bags, pushed employees, and fled. No arrests were made.

    The same Patagonia store was struck by a group of kids at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday. Photographer Bret Miller captured video of cops detaining the youths while officers pulled piles of coats out of duffle bags on a nearby side street. Police detained five juveniles. –CWBChicago

    Meanwhile, a local Marshall’s location was hit by a group of “very young kids accompanied by a 6’2″ man. According to a police officer who chased them, they were “real little… 10 years old.”

    on Saturday afternoon, fire personnel transported a Forever 21 employee to Mercy Hospital after a shoplifting team deployed pepper-spray and fought with customers at the chain’s Loop location, 10 South State. Witnesses said the thieves fled into a nearby subway station with “big bags of merchandise.” 

    On Friday, juvenile shoplifting crews struck twice in the South Loop, hitting DSW around 10:10 a.m. and Burlington three hours later. No arrests were made.

    Theft crews struck at least four downtown stores last Wednesday evening.

    Around 5 p.m., seven thieves stole merchandise and knocked down the manager at Zumiez, 2 South State. When the employee tried to take back some of the stolen property, one offender punched him in the face and pushed his head into a glass display case, according to Chicago police. The victim refused medical attention and the shoplifters, all between 13- and 20-years-old, got away with about $1,000 worth of goods. –CWBChicago

    Just another day in progressive utopia!


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 19:25

    Tags

  • Global Business Surveys Slump To Worst Level Since The Great Recession
    Global Business Surveys Slump To Worst Level Since The Great Recession

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Two surveys of global businesses are at their lowest point since the last recession over a decade ago. Both surveys were released Monday and both indicate that it’s just as bad now as it was at the end of the Great Recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Several reports are showing that Americans have not recovered in the past ten years from the previous recession.  This makes the onslaught of another economic downturn daunting at best and it’ll be devastating for many.

    The IHS Markit global business outlook – which surveys 12,000 companies three times a year – fell to the worst level since 2009, when data was first collected.

    The Ifo world economic outlook, which surveys 1,230 people in 117 countries, fell in the fourth quarter to the worst level since the second quarter of 2009.

    Markit’s poll found optimism for activity, employment and profits in the year ahead were all at the lowest level since the financial crisis. Markit also reported a decline in planned investment spending, with inflation expectations at a three-year low. –Market Watch

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Market Watch, the Ifo Institute said assessments of the current situation were unfavorable, particularly in emerging markets. In advanced economies, it was primarily estimates for the coming months that had declined. In emerging markets, the downward trend was based mostly in Asia and in advanced economies, it was concentrated in the United States.

    This decreasing optimism is countering the rise in the stock market. Odd economic data has been surfacing lately that makes little sense.  For example, last week, consumer optimism fell while consumer spending rose.

    Americans continued to spend money and use debt to fund their lifestyles even though they are less confident in the economy. If both of those things are true, many Americans are setting themselves up for a bumpy ride when the next recession does hit.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 19:05

  • Sanders Hot With Nurses; Earns Endorsement From Largest Union In Country
    Sanders Hot With Nurses; Earns Endorsement From Largest Union In Country

    Bernie Sanders has earned the endorsement of the nation’s largest union of registered nurses, which will announce their decision at a California event on Friday, according to Bloomberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 150,000-member union cites his support for Medicare for All, veterans health care and in boosting the labor movement. The union endorsed Sanders in his 2016 Democratic primary bid against eventual nominee Hillary Clinton, and the early endorsement in the 2020 race is a win for him amid a crowded field that includes fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren.

    For nurses, our solidarity is a matter of life or death for our patients,” said union president Jean Ross. “We need a president who makes it easier for us to stand together and hold our employers accountable for putting people above profits.”

    Sanders will attend the Friday announcement in Oakland as part of a series of California campaign stops that include Fresno, Long Beach and East Los Angeles.

    The 78-year-old Sanders was the only 2020 Democratic candidate to actually sit for an in-person interview with the union, while Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called in via video chat and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. sent them a three-minute video.

    Joe Biden and Kamala Harris blew the union off.

    As the New York Times notes, the union endorsement also comes with a giant purse:

    The endorsement also brings Mr. Sanders the support of the union’s super PAC, a thorny issue given that Mr. Sanders, like most of the Democrats seeking the party’s 2020 nomination, has disavowed support from super PACs.

    In 2016 the union’s super PAC spent $5 million backing Mr. Sanders in the primary contest against Hillary Clinton, a relative pittance in the world of super PACs (the one supporting Jeb Bush blew through $87 million). Still, it spent more money backing Mr. Sanders than was spent by any other super PAC on behalf of Mrs. Clinton or other Democrats in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses.

    According to the union’s executive director Bonnie Castillo, the super PAC “will be activated” for Sanders, and vowed not to attack other 2020 candidates.

    “We’re not going negative,” said Castillo. “We are a very positive force. It’s a reflection of who we are as a profession. We are healers.”

    Sanders, responding to the decision, said “What the nurses understand is that the current health care system is not only dysfunctional but extraordinarily cruel.”

    “Together we are finally going to do what should have been done decades ago and make sure that every man, woman and child in this country has quality health care as a human right.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 18:45

  • "I Feel Like A Stranger In A Strange Land…"
    “I Feel Like A Stranger In A Strange Land…”

    Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    “Secrecy begets tyranny.”

    Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Thinking doesn’t pay. Just makes you discontented with what you see around you.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    When I read quotes by men like H.L. Mencken and Robert Heinlein, I realize I’m not really a stranger in a strange land, even though I feel that way most of the time. These cynical, critical thinking, libertarian minded gentlemen understood government tended towards corruption and tyranny, the populace tended towards ignorance and distraction, and reality eventually teaches a harsh lesson to fools, knaves and dumbasses.

    Sometimes we think the current day worldly circumstances are new and original, when human nature, politicians, and governments never really change. When Mencken and Heinlein were writing and providing social commentary during the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, they observed the same fallacies, foolishness, lack of self-responsibility, government malfeasance, and inability of the majority to think critically, that are rampant in society today.

    The quotes above, written during the 1950s, are even more pertinent today. As the ongoing Surveillance State attempted coup against president Trump approaches its denouement, the fabric of this country is being torn asunder. It is the secrecy in which the Deep State has operated without oversight which has led to government tyranny. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden exposed the secrets of powerful interests operating within the CIA, NSA, FBI, White House, Congress and military industrial complex, revealing the malevolent disregard for the Constitutional rights of American citizens and wielding of power for power’s sake.

    The collection of all electronic communications by Americans by all-powerful, unaccountable Deep State psychopaths is worse than anything conceived by Orwell in 1984. The fact Assange and Snowden are treated as traitors and criminals reveals the Deep State is still in control of our political and legal systems. Even though Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Clinton and Obama used their Deep State power to try and overthrow Trump, he still toes the company line by calling Assange and Snowden criminals. Government tyranny is still going strong.

    Heinlein’s point about thinking is well taken. When you look at what is going on in this country and around the world with a critical eye, how could you not be discontented with what you see. We have government run schools inhabited by social justice engineers, teaching our children there are 47 genders, but not basic math or how to read and spell. We have the masses glorying in their ignorance as they worship silicone inflated shallow idols and vote for socialists and communists to provide them with free shit.

    Meanwhile, the national debt just surpassed $23 trillion, annual deficits will never fall below $1 trillion again, the $200 trillion of unfunded unpayable welfare liabilities are ignored, the Fed and other central banks are printing at hyper-speed to achieve 2% GDP growth (at least the stock market is at all-time highs – making the .1% happy), and half the country despises the other half.

    I find myself trying not to think because I just get angry about virtually everything I see. As a libertarian minded person who saw the vile mistreatment and abusive lies flung at one of the few decent human beings in politics – Ron Paul – there is absolutely nothing being done by the despicable dung merchants in Washington D.C. or the feckless financiers inhabiting the Eccles building which benefit myself, my children or future generations.

    The raping and pillaging of the national wealth go on unabated, by billionaires, operating in the shadows, utilizing the mechanisms of the Deep State and carried out by highly compensated lackeys in NYC and D.C. The military industrial complex resists all efforts by Trump to extract U.S. forces from the Middle East, as never-ending war fills their coffers with profits. Even though we proclaim energy independence, we somehow seem to need Syrian oil. Even though everyone knows the Saudis are evil fuckers, we continue to kiss their ass for oil.

    The vast majority of Americans choose not to think, not because it would cause them discontent, but because they are incapable of critical thought. Our joke of an educational system has taught generations of Americans how to feel, rather than how to think. Government controlled schools serve the purposes of the Deep State – dumb down the populace through social engineering, rewarding mediocrity, obscuring history, punishing critical thinking, feminizing boys and drugging those who don’t conform.

    The dumbing down of the masses makes them pliable and easily manipulated through the mass media propaganda spewed from the boob tube and social media conglomerates. The unholy alliance between big tech, big media and big government keeps the masses uninformed, misinformed and distracted by meaningless minutia. The truth is hidden and obscured at all costs. A huge swath of populace will unquestioningly believe whatever they are told to believe, while millions more are so distracted with their iGadgets, they aren’t even paying attention.

    The ruling class doesn’t want people thinking why they have used the military industrial complex in securing Syrian oil fields, supporting Saudi aggression, threatening Iran, attempting a coup in Venezuela, creating havoc in the Ukraine, occupying Afghanistan, and treating Russia and China as imminent threats, when their narrative is we are self-sufficient with regards to oil. The propaganda press peddles half truths about being a net exporter, when we still import 6 million barrels of oil per day.

    The fracking miracle is really a miracle that hundreds of companies could issue junk bonds as they lose money on every barrel pumped out of the ground. The Fed’s easy money “solution” just blew another bubble in fracking. The oligarchs know it’s a farce, that’s why they are using the military to secure oil around the world by creating chaos and then making the world safe for democracy by bombing the shit out of the Middle East.

    Heinlein published Stranger in a Strange Land in 1961, even though the original idea was conceived in 1948 as a modernized version of Kipling’s The Jungle Book, with the child raised by Martians instead of wolves. He didn’t think society was ready for the themes he tackled during the button downed 1950s. The cultural revolution of the 1960s saw a broader acceptance of questioning government power, organized religion, and what individual freedom and liberty meant in society.

    The story focuses on a human raised on Mars and his adaptation to and understanding of humans and their culture. It is set in a post-Third World War United States, where organized religions are politically powerful. There is a World Federation of Free Nations, including the demilitarized US, with a world government supported by Special Service troops. Heinlein sure had a perceptive view of the future, as world government is still the goal of globalists and organized religions are more corrupt and powerful than ever.

    Heinlein always considered himself a libertarian. In a letter written in 1967 he said, “As for libertarian, I’ve been one all my life, a radical one. You might use the term ‘philosophical anarchist’ or ‘autarchist’ about me, but ‘libertarian’ is easier to define and fits well enough.” The theme of personal freedom resonates throughout his body of work. Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought.

    Much like Mencken, Orwell, and Steinbeck, as Heinlein aged, he became more cynical about government and society. He feared our culture and form of government was fatally flawed. Again, he foresaw where we are today – having lost freedoms, liberties, and rights as government laws, regulations and taxes have expanded.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “At the time I wrote Methuselah’s Children I was still politically quite naive and still had hopes that various libertarian notions could be put over by political processes … It [now] seems to me that every time we manage to establish one freedom, they take another one away. Maybe two. And that seems to me characteristic of a society as it gets older, and more crowded, and higher taxes, and more laws.”

    – Robert Heinlein

    Government Power, Corruption and Tyranny

    “Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried. Democracy’s worst fault is that its leaders are likely to reflect the faults and virtues of their constituents – a depressingly low level, but what else can you expect?” 

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Government! Three-fourths parasitic and the rest stupid fumbling.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    When I read Heinlein’s view of democracy, the American populace, and politicians from the 1950s, it makes me wonder whether my cynical pessimistic assessment of our country is nothing new. Has the country been wallowing in ignorance, lack of virtue, parasitic politicians and government incompetence for decades and my depression with the current state of affairs is nothing new among libertarian minded people?

    Since human nature never changes, with a certain percentage of the population driven by greed, a psychotic thirst for power, craving for control over the masses, and unwillingness to govern while keeping the interests of future generations under consideration, I guess it’s just the level of intensity that matters. The cyclical nature of history is pointing towards the intensity level of discontent reaching a crescendo in the near future.

    Even though corruption among government parasites has always existed, it currently permeates the system like a vampire squid on the face of America. It’s the invisible government of the Deep State which has sucked the life from our nation, extracting the national wealth in cahoots with its conduit – The Federal Reserve.

    The Deep State, utilizing corrupted politicians and feckless bureaucrats within the halls of Congress and surveillance state agencies, have been conducting a three-year coup against a sitting president. The blatant disregard for the Constitution and rule of law shows the ruling class is convinced they have dumbed down a sufficient number of citizens so they can do whatever they please, while employing their corporate propaganda media to spin their coup as legitimate and rightful.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The oligarchs in control of our financial system have convinced the masses running up the national debt to $23 trillion, running annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, and accumulating $200 trillion of unfunded pension and welfare liabilities are in their best interests. Not only that, the current crop of socialist presidential candidates wants to add tens of trillions more to the debt load by promising student loan debt write-offs, free college education, open borders, and Medicare for all.

    The masses are onboard after watching the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, and Congress hand over trillions to the Wall Street cabal that almost destroyed the global financial system in 2008 with their criminal mortgage debt control fraud. If free shit is OK for wealthy bankers, why not free shit for everyone else?

    Since September the Fed has been acting like we are in the midst of the 2008/2009 crisis, pumping over $200 billion (not QE) into the veins of the Wall Street junkie banks who were suffering withdrawal symptoms from a devastatingly high 2.25% Federal Funds rate. The result has been a soaring stock market, further enriching the .1%, while the average Joe wallows in $14 trillion of consumer debt and the Wall Street shylocks charge 20% interest rates on credit card debt.

    Delinquency rates on auto loans exceed the levels of 2009. The housing market has hit a wall. When prices begin to fall, mortgage delinquencies will soar. The real delinquency rates on student loans exceed 25%, as degrees in lesbian studies lead to waitress jobs at Applebees. The narrative about best job market ever is a farce, as the growth has been in low paying, no healthcare benefit jobs in the service industries.

    Heinlein’s view of politicians, their corruptibility, and ability to tell half truths which are really lies, is even more evident in today’s world. The candidates are hand picked by the corporate interests. Their salaries while in office are fairly modest, but they leave office as multi-millionaires and are paid handsomely on the Boards of the corporations they were supposed to regulate.

    Bernanke and Yellen now make more giving one speech at a Wall Street bank than they made annually as the Federal Reserve Chairman. Every local, state and federal politician is bought off to some extent. They do the bidding of the vested interests who got them elected, not what is best for their constituents. We are lost in a blizzard of lies. A society addicted to falsehoods and bereft of truth will surely degrade and eventually collapse.

    “He’s an honest politician–he stays bought.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    Liberty, Freedom & Obligations to Society

    “I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime. Yet for every criminal, there are ten thousand honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but it is a force stronger than crime.” – Robert Heinlein

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Heinlein still believed in the noble decency of the majority of people back in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The climactic scene in It’s a Wonderful Life captured the belief that even though there will always be cold hearted evil bankers like Mr. Potter (the Jamie Dimon of his day) feeding off the misery of others, most people are good hearted, kind and giving. Is Heinlein’s view applicable in today’s world? Bad news, bad people and crime produce views, clicks and eyeballs for the corporate media complex.

    Stories about good people doing good things on a daily basis are boring to those controlling the narrative. The purpose of the propagandists supporting the Deep State is to keep the masses fearful and distracted. Scare tactics and keeping half the country at the throats of the other half is good for business. While the masses are distracted by trivialities, boogeymen (Russians), and impeachment porn, the ruling class absconds with what remains of the national wealth.

    Based upon Heinlein’s definition of a dying culture, we have already crossed the Rubicon. The level of vitriol spewed on a daily basis on social media, by the propagandist media, by politicians, and by intellectual yet idiots is a clear indication of a culture gasping its dying breath. There are still good people in this country who can be counted on by their neighbors, friends and families. As the current culture dies and is swept away during this Fourth Turning, what kind of culture will follow?

    Will decent, libertarian minded, freedom loving people arise to guide the country towards a better future? Or will totalitarian minded evil men crush the hopes and dreams of the good people and reign over an even darker period in our history. Goodness without backbone, wisdom and willingness to fight to the death will be overrun by evil.

    “A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “But goodness alone is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.”

    – Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

    I still feel like a stranger in a strange land. But, based on my interactions with good people with hard, cold wisdom over the last ten years, I believe there is still hope for our nation. I think there are enough good people with common sense, critical thinking skills, and the courage and fortitude to stand up to the Deep State and defeat the evil permeating the current social order. Conflict against fellow Americans looms. Allying yourself with good people is essential. Maybe I’m being naïve believing good can win over evil, but it’s better than throwing in the towel and accepting our fate.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 18:25

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest