Today’s News 12th November 2019

  • Turkey's Other Weapon Against The Kurds: Water
    Turkey’s Other Weapon Against The Kurds: Water

    Authored by Alexander Marvar via TheNation.com,

    Since the early 2000s, a massive hydropower project in southeastern Turkey has been mired in controversy, moving forward in fits and starts. But as of this past July, construction is finally complete. As the dam and its reservoir become fully operational, the line between hydropower and state power will be washed away. This fall, the violence that followed a sudden, destabilizing withdrawal of US troops from nearby northern Syria captured the world’s attention as it cleared the path for Turkey’s military to dominate the Kurdish opposition.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, the water slowly rising behind the 442-foot-high, more-than-a-mile-wide wall of the Ilisu Dam across the Tigris River is a less overt sign of that same determination.

    “This dam is a weapon against the lowlands,” said Ulrich Eichelmann, a German ecologist and conservationist and head of the Austrian NGO RiverWatch, over the phone from Vienna.

    “It was planned and is now being built in a way they can hold back the whole Tigris for a long time. If you see water as a weapon, dams are the new cannons. Iraq has the oil, Turkey has the water, and sometimes, it’s much better to have the water.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map of Turkey with the Ilisu Dam. (Numerus Klausus, CC BY-SA 3.0)

    The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, two of the three longest rivers in the Middle East after the Nile, both originate in Turkey. The Euphrates flows across Turkey, south through the heart of Syria, and into Iraq. Now, both of these storied, sacred, ancient rivers are drying up, and the  (once) Fertile Crescent is giving way to arid, cracked ground.

    To some extent, the culprit is climate change. More immediately, the fate and exploitation of these rivers lies with Turkey’s hydropower development and the 41-component project of which the Ilisu Dam is just one part: Dams on the Euphrates have reduced water flow into Syria by an estimated 40 percent in the past 40 years and into Iraq by nearly twice that. With the damming of the Tigris, the last lifeline to this region will also be in Turkey’s grip.

    Downriver, the effects will be water shortage. The Mesopotamian Marshes in Iraq may turn to desert. This region, now a UNESCO World Heritage site, was drained during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980 and again by Saddam Hussein in a tactical maneuver to expose his enemies. After Hussein’s ouster, the dikes he had built were torn down in celebration, and the parts of the marshland ecosystem began to return to its previous, verdant state. With the Ilisu’s restricted water flow will come not only ecological repercussions but also a tactical advantage for enemies of the region’s inhabitants.

    Upriver, the problem will be not too little water but an inundation. As with the creation of any major reservoir, bird and fish habitats will be wiped out and the regional climate will be altered. Ecosystems, residential areas, and archaeological sites will be submerged.

    For the past few years, though, one loss has loomed particularly large: the 12,000-year-old settlement of Hasankeyf, a Kurdish heritage site with untold archaeological value, soon to be inundated by Ilisu’s artificial lake.

    In the context of Turkey’s history of imperialism against the Kurds, the impact of this dam-building spree extends well beyond Kurdish Turkey to the entirety of Syria and Iraq. From there, the geopolitical repercussions ripple outward. More than progress, Ilisu is a play for power and domination.

    After World War I, the Ottoman Empire broke into pieces. One became independently ruled Turkey; others were divided among Western superpowers, who made a provision to the Kurds—indigenous peoples of the stretch of Mesopotamia that stretches across parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia—for an independent Kurdistan.

    But when the boundaries of modern-day Turkey were drawn shortly thereafter in 1923, that provision was left out. The Kurds, now the minority in every country they inhabit, have been fighting for their homeland ever since. Violent friction between Kurdish separatist groups and Turkey over this question is ongoing.

    As early as the 1930s, the new Turkish nation under founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk began to explore how its rivers and the Euphrates in particular could be harnessed for power generation. A proposal for the eventual Southern Anatolia Project—Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi, or GAP—was floated as early as the 1960s. Today, GAP consists of 22 dams—including Ilisu and, on the Euphrates, Atatürk—and the hydroelectric infrastructure to support them.

    Turkey put the first of GAP’s dams on the Euphrates into use in 1974, gaining new control over the water supply to Kurdish, Syrian, and Iraqi neighbors downriver. That same year, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK, the militant separatist organization that tends to frame most discussion about contemporary Kurdish-Turkish relations) was founded.

    In step with the Keban Dam, Syria opened its own dam on the Euphrates, the Tehba, for which planning had been underway in partnership with the Soviet Union since the late 1950s. The combined effect of Turkey’s and Syria’s two dams on the Euphrates sent Iraq into a devastating drought, bringing Iraq and Syria to the brink of war.

    After successfully pitting its neighbors against each other, Turkey entered into an interim water protocol accord with Iraq in 1984 and one with Syria in 1987, early in the PKK’s full-scale insurgency. In the Syrian agreement, Turkey guaranteed a set minimum annual flow from the Euphrates basin into Syria. Further down the page, Syria vowed to end PKK activities on Syrian soil: a vivid quid pro quo.

    In the early 1990s, the Turkish government completed the Atatürk Dam—the fourth-largest dam in the world—causing the forced resettlement of upwards of 50,000 people in a predominantly Kurdish region. It demolished the ancient city of Samosata, an ancient Hellenistic and then Roman capital and birthplace of ancient Greek poet Lucian, as well as Nevalı Çori, a Neolithic settlement where, in the little time they had, archaeologists discovered some of the world’s oldest known temples and monuments. In filling the Atatürk reservoir, Turkey cut off the majority of the Euphrates’s flow into Syria and Iraq for weeks, crippling agriculture. In virtually the same moment, then-President Turgut Özal asked Syria and Iraq to help combat the PKK.

    In the decades that followed, Kurdish-Turkish relations continued to deteriorate; democracy under President Erdoğan continued to backslide; and Turkey’s grip on its neighbors’ fate through control of water only tightened, bringing drought to once-fertile Syrian and Iraqi farmlands, drying up entire villages, and forcing people to relocation to cities.

    In 2009, Turkey responded to an election victory for the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) with hundreds of arrests and detainments of DTP members. That same year, Syria was in the midst of a five-year drought and desperate for Turkey to relinquish more water resources.

    Syria was of no great use in tempering opposition from the PKK, and—possibly in response—Turkey refused to come to Syria’s aid in the water crisis. The mounting unrest that followed ultimately created the political and social volatility that led to Syria’s 2010 Arab Spring. In 2018, The New York Times reported that the Euphrates, surrounded by parched land and depopulated villages, serves as a barrier between American-backed Kurdish-led militias and Turkish-backed rebels. It was this area that fell into chaos with Trump’s October withdrawal of American troops.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    An ancient cemetery in Hasankeyf as pictured in 2008. Today, the graves are being excavated one at a time and moved to plots in a new cemetery at New Hasankeyf. (Alexandra Marvar)

    The Turkish government has stood by the Ilisu project as a means of development and progress in Southern Anatolia. The Turks argue that since the $2 billion dam will generate a projected 2 percent of the national energy budget—enough electricity to power well over a million homes—the displacement of 80,000 people over 125 square miles doesn’t seem significant enough to alter a plan that has been decades in the works. It also claims the project will aid a transition to carbon-neutral power (if one disregards the carbon footprint of constructing a mile-long wall of rock and steel over the course of decades), is rife with new opportunities from irrigation to tourism, and that regulation of water flow into drought-plagued Syria and Iraq could bring the benefit of year-round consistency.

    But experts aren’t buying it. Ercan Ayboga is an environmental engineer and a spokesperson for Keep Hasankeyf Alive, a Kurdish-led NGO advocating for the preservation of Hasankeyf and other at-risk sites in the future Ilisu basin. Of course, the project will generate some electricity, he said over the phone from his home in Germany. At its core, though, he sees the dam as a tool to facilitate the assimilation of Kurdish people into Turkish society, forcing them into cities where their communities and culture will be more diffuse.

    “Today, [Ilisu] is a tool to use against the Kurdish guerilla,” he says. “Tomorrow it could be used against something different—against any form of opposition.”

    The loss of a priceless world heritage site at Hasankeyf was the argument on which the project might have been halted in its tracks. Continuously inhabited for more than 10 millennia by the Byzantines, Romans, Mongols, Ottomans, and, for centuries, the Kurds, these civilizations artifacts and architecture all layered upon each other—ancient cave dwellings, amphitheaters, aqueducts, mosques, minarets—Hasankeyf could easily have fulfilled the necessary five of 10 criteria to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Some experts say, in fact, it meets nine of the 10. But the organization couldn’t intervene to stop the flood because, it said, Turkey never applied for the inclusion of the ancient city of Hasankeyf on the World Heritage List.

    If Hasankeyf could not offer leverage to stop the Turkish government, the UNESCO-protected Mesopotamian Marshes, which experts say will wither and desertify as a result of Ilisu, may have offered another chance. But Iraq, beholden to Turkey by hydropolitics, was unwilling to advocate for the marshlands (and the Marsh Arabs to whom they are home)—it could mean retribution in the form of water deprivation via any of the number of existing dams on the Turkish-Iraqi border. And more dams on this border are already in the works.

    Through the relocation and subsequent cultural assimilation resulting from this development, water policy has helped the Turkish government exercise direct control over the Kurds in Turkey, and by controlling water flow to Iraq and Syria, indirect control over a much larger part of the Kurdish nation.

    According to data from 2016, 11 GAP dams are currently operational, and at least three are under construction. PKK separatists desperate to keep control of the water out of Turkey’s hands have bombed the construction sites of some of the new dams, prolonging the building phase, but development moves forward.

    In Hasankeyf, a barricade blocks the entry of outsiders, and Ayboga reported that the process of relocating its residents—slated for completion earlier this month—has been slow, unclear, and disorganized, leaving hundreds with nowhere to go as the water approaches.

    NGOs like Keep Hasankeyf Alive vow to continue their work to stop Ilisu. But now that halting construction through petition, plea, or compromise is no longer an option, the objective has shifted to somehow emptying the reservoir. Even if Hasankeyf as it was can’t be saved, for the Kurds to give up the fight against this move of Turkish imperialism—against Kurdish heritage, culture, community, agency, autonomy, and health—would be to admit a bludgeoning defeat. “This is not a project we can accept,” Ayboga said.

    Meanwhile, Turkey continues to broaden its reach in the name of progress. The more control over water it has, the more power it has over its enemies.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/12/2019 – 02:00

  • Global Proxy War Escalates: "Destabilizing Operation" Sends Bolivia Into Political Chaos
    Global Proxy War Escalates: “Destabilizing Operation” Sends Bolivia Into Political Chaos

    Authored by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Two days before Bolivian president Evo Morales was pushed out by the country’s military, Mark Weisbot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research penned a warning about what was happening, and what might unfold, in a Nation article titled, The Trump Administration Is Undercutting Democracy in Bolivia.

    He noted:

    Multilateral organizations like the Organization of American States (OAS) have a certain perceived impartiality because they are, in theory, controlled by a diverse group of nations. But sometimes a great power can wield a disproportionate influence. It could theoretically be a coincidence that both the Trump administration and the OAS have tried—without offering any evidence—to discredit Bolivia’s national election in the past couple of weeks. But it’s more likely that this dangerous, ugly, and destabilizing operation is being pushed by Washington.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This “destabilizing operation” came to a head yesterday when Morales resigned under pressure from the military amidst a wave of protests and violence. The situation is Bolivia is complicated, but one thing you can be sure of is anything you hear or read in U.S. mass media will be a heaping pile of lies and propaganda. Fortunately, I came across a really helpful thread courtesy of Kevin Cashman.

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

    Morales was barred by the constitution from running for another term, but he attempted to override this with a referendum which he lost 51% to 49%. The Bolivian Supreme Court later ruled that term limits were unconstitutional, so he decided to run again. He then won this new election in the first round by the 10% spread required, but the Organization of American States (OAS) immediately called into question the validity of the result. This sparked weeks of protests and culminated in yesterday’s military coup. According to Mark Weisbot, the OAS has provided zero evidence of election fraud, and also notes that approximately 60% of the OAS budget comes from the U.S. government.

    Personally, I think Morales should’ve accepted the referendum result and stepped aside, but the military deciding the situation (with likely assistance from the U.S. government/CIA) is not something anyone should cheer on.

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

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

    It seems likely what went down in Bolivia is part of the global proxy war the Trump administration is waging against countries like China and Russia in order to push back against the ongoing transition to a multi-polar geopolitical world. Natural resources always play a key role in such struggles, and Bolivia is no exception thanks to massive lithium reserves, some of which Morales agreed to develop with China earlier this year.

    As Reuters reported back in February:

    Bolivia has chosen a Chinese consortium to be its strategic partner on new $2.3 billion lithium projects, the government said on Wednesday, giving China a potential foothold in the country’s huge untapped reserves of the prized electric battery metal.

    China’s Xinjiang TBEA Group Co Ltd will hold a 49 percent stake in a planned joint venture with Bolivia’s state lithium company YLB, the Bolivian firm said…

    Bolivia has some of the world’s largest reserves of lithium – a key component in batteries that power electric cars – but has yet to produce the metal at a commercial scale.

    It’s going to be very interesting to watch how things unfold in Bolivia from here. Although Morales lost the referendum to run for another term, my guess is a lot of those who voted against him at the time aren’t pleased with the military coming in to handle the situation. Although it’s not often highlighted in U.S. mass media, Morales achieved a great deal of success economically and socially during his presidency.

    For instance, poverty plummeted dramatically:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Then there’s this.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Whether you love him, hate him, or feel indifference, there’s no denying Morales did a lot for many Bolivians who probably won’t take too kindly to what’s being done to him and his supporters by the opposition and military. Let’s not forget he was also the first indigenous president of Bolivia, a country with the largest proportion of indigenous people in Latin America. This story is far from over.

    Bigger picture, the escalation in Bolivia is further evidence of the ongoing trend of political chaos around the world, which is likely get worse and spread to ever more corners of the globe. I continue to believe this unrest is largely symptomatic of the death throes of a dying geopolitical and financial paradigm that’s dominated the world for decades. Keep your seatbelts fastened; things can change, and change very quickly irrespective of where you reside. Such are the times we live in.

    *  *  *

    Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. To make this a successful, sustainable thing consider the following options. You can become a Patron. You can visit the Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin or send cash/check in the mail.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • "We've Had Fires Since Time Began": Australia Deputy PM Slams "Enlightened, Woke Capital-City Greenies"
    “We’ve Had Fires Since Time Began”: Australia Deputy PM Slams “Enlightened, Woke Capital-City Greenies”

    With California wildfires on hiatus for the time being, the global cooling global warming climate change police has diverted its collective outrage to Australia where a series of major fires has erupted in New South Wales where Shane Fitzsimmons, the local fire chief, said it could be “the most dangerous bushfire week this nation has ever seen”, and Sydney is now reportedly facing a “catastrophic” fire danger on Tuesday, the highest warning level that’s ever been issued for Australia’s largest city with Bloomberg adding that “as the country’s bushfire season becomes longer and more intense, the threat to lives and homes across the nation has grown.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Predictably the patron saint of environmentalists, Greta Thunberg took to twitter to inform her 3 million followers that “”The numbers don’t lie, and the science is clear. If anyone tells you, ‘This is part of a normal cycle’ or ‘We’ve had fires like this before’, smile politely and walk away, because they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

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

    Great was referencing an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, accordint to which “Unprecedented dryness; reductions in long-term rainfall; low humidity; high temperatures; wind velocities; fire danger indices; fire spread and ferocity; instances of pyro-convective fires (fire storms – making their own weather); early starts and late finishes to bushfire seasons. An established long-term trend driven by a warming, drying climate.”

    It was enough for Bloomberg News, which is controlled by fervent environmentalist and now presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg (who has a passion for driving gas guzzling helicopters and criss-crosses the globe in his private jets) to declare without a shadow of doubt that “Australia’s Bushfires Are Getting Worse. And Climate Change Is to Blame.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    How did Bloomberg reach this undisputed conclusion? It’s not exactly clear although the author notes that “Australia is the world’s driest inhabited continent and is considered one of the most vulnerable developed countries to global warming“, a conclusion which just a few weeks ago the world’s environmentalists were making about California.

    According to the Bureau of Meteorology, climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of dangerous bushfire conditions, with the season starting significantly earlier in spring in southern and eastern parts of Australia.

    To add some visual flair to its arguments presented as facts, Bloomberg publishes the following dramatic map of Australia’s brushfire risk.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yet, just like in California, one can’t help but wonder if local regulations that have enabled to proliferation of dry kindling by not engaging in controlled fires is to blame; in other words, could it just be another case of local authorities blaming their ineptitude and unwillingness to accept the consequences of their actions on “global warming.”

    Perhaps… but not to the Bloomberg author, who goes so far to even dispense with the politically correct term of “climate change” and insists that this is, in fact, “global warming”, to wit:

    With three people dead and 150 homes destroyed in recent days, and almost million hectares of land burned this season, the fires have thrust the threat posed by global warming back into the headlines in a nation that gets the bulk of its energy from burning coal.

    Yet not everyone has been swept up in the Thunberg-inspired frenzy.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government, under fire from environmentalists for not doing more to curb emissions, denied that climate change is to blame when asked about the bushfires, something which Bloomberg was eager to dismiss presenting the government’s position as one of a “staunch supporter of the coal-mining industry”, and thus – be definition – an evil enabler of global warming.

    But one person that is certain to attract the personal wrath of each and every Thunberg twitter follower, is Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, who in a radio interview on Monday stated what should have been obvious to all, namely that “we’ve had fires in Australia since time began, and what people need now is sympathy, understanding, help and shelter.”

    And then just to ensure that he becomes the top target for militant environmentalists around the globe, he lashed out saying that all those people for whom the brushfire are a true tragedy, “don’t need the ravings of some pure, enlightened and woke capital-city greenies.”

    This is where Greta would respond along the lines of “how dare you.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That said, we doubt the “greenies” ravings will be drowned out, even if it was none other than the liberal New York Times that found some time ago that one hundred years of data showed no actual warming trend.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 23:25

  • Will Julian Assange Die In Prison?
    Will Julian Assange Die In Prison?

    Authored by Barbara Boland via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is suffering significant “psychological torture” and abuse in the London prison where he is being held, and his life is now “at risk,” according to an independent UN rights expert. A senior member of his legal team believes Assange may not live until the end of the extradition process.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Assange mumbled, stuttered, and struggled to say his own name and date of birth when he appeared in court on October 21. The Wikileaks founder is being subjected to long drawn-out “psychological torture” as he battles to prevent his extradition to the United States where he faces a slew of espionage charges, warns Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

    “Unless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life,” Melzer said in a statement on Friday.

    “His physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration,” writes former British ambassador Craig Murray, who was present at the October hearing. “When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to recall both… his difficulty in making it was very evident; it was a real struggle for him to articulate the words and focus his train of thought… Until yesterday I had always been quietly skeptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture… and skeptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that … Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.”

    “One of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable,” writes Murray.

    Melzer, who is not speaking on behalf of the UN, visited Belmarsh prison in May and conducted an extensive review of Assange’s physical and psychological condition. Melzer told the AFP news agency that his increased alarm is based on “new medically relevant information received from reliable sources” that indicate “Assange’s health has entered a downward spiral of progressively severe anxiety, stress and helplessness typical for persons exposed to prolonged isolation and constant arbitrariness.”

    “While the precise evolution is difficult to predict with certainty, this pattern of symptoms can quickly develop into a life-threatening situation involving cardiovascular breakdown or nervous collapse,” he told AFP.

    Assange is kept in complete isolation for 23 hours a day, and permitted 45 minutes exercise. When he has to be moved, guards clear the corridors and lock all cells to guarantee he has no contact with any other prisoner outside the exercise period.

    Assange “continues to be detained under oppressive conditions of isolation and surveillance, not justified by his detention status,” said Melzer, who pointed out that Assange completed his prison sentence for violating his British bail terms and is “being held exclusively in relation to the pending extradition request from the United States.”

    The US charges that Assange, an Australian citizen, violated the U.S. Espionage Act in 2010 when he published a series of leaks provided by Chelsea Manning. Those leaks include the Afghanistan war logs, the Iraq war logs, the Collateral Murder video, and classified U.S. State Department cables. For her role, Manning was court martialed and sentenced to 35 years in prison. After serving seven and a half years in prison, Manning had her sentence commuted by President Obama, but she has since been jailed again for her refusal to testify against Assange.

    The U.S. has claimed that Wikileaks’ publications have caused the deaths of Americans serving overseas. But no evidence has ever surfaced to prove this, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2010 that such claims were “significantly overwrought.”

    Nevertheless, the U.S. wants Assange because the information he published was deeply embarrassing to the government. The British courts have already signed off on an extradition order and he will remain behind bars until the hearing, which isn’t until early next year, according to The New York Times.

    And curiously, even though mainstream media once heralded Assange’s publications, there is substantially less coverage of his current plight, former CIA officer Raymond McGovern told The American Conservative.

    To McGovern, the timing of the U.S. decision to press charges is particularly suspect; charges were announced right after Assange published that the CIA has cyber-tools that can leave a false digital footprint. McGovern, who had visited Assange during his seven-year asylum in the the Ecuadoran embassy, has been a vocal supporter since the beginning.

    “The CIA can hack into a system and make it look like the Russians did it,” said McGovern. This challenges the official narrative that Russians hacked the DNC server, exposing Hillary Clinton’s emails. “Imagine that.”

    The October hearing was Assange’s first public appearance since May. Illness has prevented him from attending previous hearings.

    The UK ignored earlier pleas that to protect Assange’s health and dignity, Melzer said, and his condition has progressed to the point where “his life was now at risk.”

    In fact, when Melzer tried to raise the alarm in the media, The Guardian, The Times, the Financial Times, the Sydney Morning HeraldThe AustralianThe Canberra Times, The TelegraphThe New York Times,The Washington Post, Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Newsweek all refused to publish his op-ed.

    Instead of addressing Assange’s health, “what we have seen from the UK government is outright contempt for Mr. Assange’s rights and integrity,” said Melzer. “Despite the medical urgency of my appeal, and the seriousness of the alleged violations, the UK has not undertaken any measures of investigation, prevention and redress required under international law.”

    Assange has lost 33 pounds during his imprisonment, according to Australian filmmaker John Pilger. He attended the hearing and has visited Assange in Belmarsh prison.

    “To see him in court struggling to say his name, and his date of birth, was really very moving,” said Pilger. “When Julian did try to speak, and to say that basically he was being denied the very tools with which to prepare his case, he was denied the right to call his American lawyer. He was denied the right to have any kind of word processor or laptop. He was denied… his own notes and manuscripts.”

    Assange’s “access to legal counsel and documents has been severely obstructed” undermining “his most fundamental right to prepare his defense,” charged Melzer.

    The judge refused to grant Assange’s request to delay the February trial.

    The lack of legal process in the hearing was “profoundly upsetting,” to watch unfold, writes Murray, because it is “a naked demonstration of the power of the state.”

    “Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed,” writes Murray. “If the state can do this, then who is next?”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 23:05

  • India's Factory Output And Electricity Demand Plunge To Decade Lows Amid Economic Downturn
    India’s Factory Output And Electricity Demand Plunge To Decade Lows Amid Economic Downturn

    The economic slowdown in India is gaining momentum, new government data Monday shows India’s factory output fell to the lowest level in eight years, resulting in power demand across heavily industrialized states plunging to 12-year lows. 

    Asia’s third-largest economy saw industrial production fall to 4.3% in September YoY, the lowest print since Oct. 2011. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Industrial production recorded the second straight month of declines in factory output as the automobile crisis in the country deepens.

    India’s economic growth slipped to a six-year low of 5% for the April-June period as the automobile industry faces a severe downturn. Consumer demand in recent quarters has also weakened, along with a slowdown in government spending. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The industrial slowdown has resulted in a 13.2% drop in India’s power demand for the October period on a YoY basis, a 12 year low according to the data from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA).

    “The slowdown seems to be deep-rooted, especially in the industrial sector. That would certainly increase the anxiety with regard to growth prospects in the current year,” said N R Bhanumurthy, a professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi.

    Energy consumption in heavily industrialized states, including Maharashtra and Gujarat, led the declines with -20% demand drop in October, over the past year. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    India’s infrastructure output contracted 5.2% last month, one of the worst prints in 14 years, as economists are troubled that aggressive government spending is failing to produce a soft landing in the economy.

    The epicenter of the crisis is situated in the heart of the automobile sector, something we warned about several months ago. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 22:45

  • America Needs A War On Waste – 100 Examples Of Federal Taxpayer Abuse
    America Needs A War On Waste – 100 Examples Of Federal Taxpayer Abuse

    Via OpenTheBooks.com,

    Dear Mr. President,

    Congratulations. Unfilled jobs are at a record high. Unemployment for Black Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and those with only a high school diploma is at or near record lows. For women, near a 66-year low. For youths, a 50-year low.

    Wages are increasing. Regulations are far less counterproductive. Corporate tax rates are globally competitive.

    Unfortunately, the federal debt continues to explode—a lurking threat to our country as we have known it. When George W. Bush took office, the federal debt, after 225 years, was $5.7 trillion. Since then, only 20 years, the debt has exploded—quadrupled—to close to $23 trillion and is increasing about $4 billion a day. Sadly, no one in government seems to care.

    Mr. President, the world is undergoing exciting changes—the Internet, the Cloud world, Big Data, 5G, the Information Age—all in the birthing process. The potential progress is beyond imagination. These changes give you the tools to tackle this lurking threat. Today, there is no reason why every government expenditure—local, state, and federal—is not online, available real time to the public via cell phone, iPad, or computer. Taxpayers should know how their every dollar is spent. It is their money. Today, we have the ability to do just that.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    MR. PRESIDENT, YOU CAN CREATE A FOUR-STEP NONPARTISAN TRANSPARENCY REVOLUTION.

    You can do for government what Uber and Airbnb did for their industries. They revolutionized their worlds by giving their customers detailed information instantaneously. You can do the same for your customers, the taxpayers, by giving them detailed on-line, real time information on how their money is being spent. Doing so will change who they vote for. Elected officials will be far more likely to inform their constituents of what they have done to eliminate wasted tax dollars rather than some program they put in place to buy votes. This is culture changing. Changes to the culture in government will be far more productive than a top-down budget initiative.

    The Transparency Revolution could drastically reduce the cost of government. Government is a monopoly. It has an administrative class, public employee unions, lacks a profit motive, and does not have to deal with progress. This is a lethal combination when it comes to spending other people’s money. The following page represents but a small sample of wasted tax dollars.

    STEP 1. PUBLICIZE EVERY WHITE HOUSE EXPENDITURE. DIRECT EVERY DEPARTMENT, EVERY AGENCY IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO DO THE SAME AND REPORT THEIR PROGRESS TO YOU MONTHLY.

    STEP 2. BEGIN A WAR ON WASTE. Appoint a White House Efficiency Executive to examine every White House expense. Cut every dollar of waste. Have every department, every agency in your administration do the same. Report the progress to you monthly.

    STEP 3. MOBILIZE EVERY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. Our government has many fine, dedicated public servants. They know where the waste and incompetence are. They should be encouraged to report what they see. They should be rewarded with a percentage of the realized savings with a smaller percentage going to their department head. Hold an annual recognition dinner.

    STEP 4. REPORT THE PROGRESS OR LACK THEREOF TO THE PUBLIC MONTHLY FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, THEN QUARTERLY FOR THE REST OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION. By reporting frequently, you are telling the public and your administration that the Transparency Revolution, the War on Waste, is a high, ongoing priority.

    Mr. President, fiscal sanity is every bit as crucial to America’s survival as is a strong defense. There are no free lunches, even in government. As a successful businessman, you understand the importance of managing debt.

    Mr. President, you told us that you were going to attack the deficit, drain the so-called Swamp. That is exactly what this Transparency Revolution will do.

    *  *  *

    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PAYS TO PUT RUNNING SHRIMP ON A TREADMILL – $1.3 MILLION

    FY2012-FY2017 | NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | National Science Foundation (NSF) funded an experiment that tested how sickness impaired shrimp mobility by putting the crustaceans on a treadmill made an uproar in the media and in Congress nearly five years ago. Yet the NSF has once again given tax dollars to the same researchers to put the would-be seafood on a cardiovascular workout regime. The investigators – Louis and Karen Burnett – measure the crustaceans’ responses to low oxygen and high carbon dioxide environments in a variety of ways and would also test their reactions “when performing energetically demanding activities,” according to the award abstract. “The energetically demanding activities will be conducted with the aid of a treadmill, as the technique is effective and will help to make the data comparable to previous studies,” Arriens said.

    LOBSTER TAIL & SNOW CRAB PURCHASES — $25.4 MILLION

    FY2017-2018 | DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | As the fiscal year wrapped up, federal agencies celebrated by splurging on luxury food items. The Department of Defense (DOD) originally reported spending $2.3 million on snow crab, Alaskan king crab, and crab legs and claws, plus another $2.3 million on lobster tail. Additionally, agencies spent nearly $300,000 on steak (ribeye, top sirloin, and flank). However, the DOD admitted to inflated disclosures. Their updated numbers reveal lobster and crab purchases amounted to $1.6 million in September 2018 and $25.4 million during an 18-month period. We have additional questions for the agency. Here is a video showing our data download and quantification of $2.3 million (Sept 2018) and $22.1 million (FY2018) in lobster tail purchases as reported by the DOD to the federal government’s official transparency portal at USAspending.gov.

    MISTAKES & IMPROPER PAYMENTS DISTRIBUTED BY 20 FEDERAL AGENCIES – $1.5 TRILLION

    FY2004–FY2019 | OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET | Congressional Research Service released a report on July 16, 2018, titled “Improper Payments in High-Priority Programs: In Brief.” Garrett Hatch, a specialist in American National Government, authored the report. In the summary, Hatch writes, “Over the period of FY2004 through FY2017, high priority improper payments have totaled $1.2 trillion.” Between FY2017 and FY2019 inclusive, the reports compiled by the Office of Management & Budget show that the agencies admit to approximately $140 billion per year in improper payments. Our reporting published at Forbes.

    DEAD PEOPLE RECEIVED MISTAKEN & IMPROPER PAYMENTS – $921 MILLION

    FY2018 | MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES | Dead people received $1 billion in benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, social security payments and also the federal retirement annuity payouts (pensions) kept flowing to dead recipients. Our reporting published at Forbes.

    EXPENSIVE COFFEE CUPS: THE PENTAGON PAYS MORE THAN $1,000 FOR A SINGLE COFFEE CUP

    FY2018 | U.S. AIR FORCE | The Pentagon admitted to spending $1,220 on a single coffee cup. According to Travis Air Force Base Website. “In 2016, the 60th Aerial Port Squadron purchased 10 hot cups for $9,630. The price for each cup surged from $693 to $1,220 in 2018 resulting in a total expenditure of $32,000 for 25 cups. That’s a price jump of $527 per cup which leads to some pricey hot water,” (July 2018).

    LIVING EXPENSE TAX DEDUCTION FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS — $1.6 MILLION

    FY2019 | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | U.S. Senator Joni Ernst introduced the Stop Questionable, Unnecessary, and Excessive Allowances for Legislators Act, also known as the SQUEAL Act, to cut perks for elected officials and make Washington squeal. This legislation would eliminate a provision of the tax code that allows Members of Congress to deduct, for income tax purposes, up to $3,000 annually in living expenses while in the Washington, D.C. area.

    MISTAKES & IMPROPER MEDICARE PAYMENTS – $491.9 BILLION

    FY2004–FY2019 | HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES | Congressional Research Service released a report on July 16, 2018, titled “Improper Payments in High-Priority Programs: In Brief.” Garrett Hatch, a specialist in American National Government, authored the report. On page CRS-5, table 2 shows Medicare (Fee for Service) improper payments amounted to $387 billion between FY2004-FY2017. The Office of Management & Budget updated the improper payment amounts for FY2018 and FY2019: yielding a total of $491.9 billion since FY2004.

    SEX ED FOR PROSTITUTES IN CALIFORNIA – $1.4 MILLION

    FY2016 | BARBARA LEE | CALIFORNIA–13 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 5, the report details the $1.4 million grant to the California Prostitutes Education Project from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    2020 STUDENT LOANS (ESTIMATED BAD DEBT LOSS) — $17 BILLION

    FY2020 | CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (CBO) | The CBO forecasts that the 2020 student loan portfolio will cost the U.S. taxpayer $17.6 billion. ED will loan $102 billion via six college loan programs and the taxpayer subsidy will amount to 17.3% of all money lent in FY2020.

    GROUNDED MOON ROCKET COST OVERRUN — $2.79 BILLION

    FY2012—FY2019 | NASA | NASA will spend $8.9 billion in tax dollars on the Space Launch System (primarily through a Boeing contract), which is $2.7 billion more than the original estimate. A report found that the project’s problems “can be traced largely to management, technical, and infrastructure issues driven by Boeing’s poor performance” yet NASA awarded Boeing $323 million in performance bonuses.

    USE IT OR LOSE IT SPENDING – $97 BILLION

    FINAL MONTH FY2018 | ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES | In the final month of fiscal year 2018, 67 federal agencies spent $97 billion to close out their budgets. It was a massive shop-until-you-drop, taxpayer funded spending spree. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found that roughly one out of every nine dollars in federal contracts disclosed by the executive and military agencies in FY2018 was spent during last week of the fiscal year. Eight departments – including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, State, and Justice – each spent over $1 billion. These findings were aired in a 30-minute interview on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal and published in our oversight report.

    PREPARING RELIGIONS FOR DISCOVERY OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE – $1.1 MILLION

    FY2017 | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION | In 2017, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake published a waste book report. On page 58, the report details the $1.1 million NASA spent enlisting theologians to answer how the world’s religions would respond if extraterrestrial life were discovered.  

    AIRPORT AT MARTHA’S VINEYARD – $19 MILLION

    FY2016—FY2020 | DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION | On May 3, 2018, we published an editorial at Fox News Online titled, “Just how much federal waste, duplication and weird or unnecessary spending are your tax dollars funding?” The editorial quantifies the $9.2 million in federal grants that flowed to the private airport on Martha’s Vineyard in FY2016. Since then, we updated the figures through 2020.

    AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS & UNSPENT BY AGENCIES — $15 BILLION

    FY2018 | Rescissions submitted by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (EOP) | From EOP: The attached rescission proposals include unobligated balances from prior-year appropriations and reductions to budget authority for mandatory programs. These proposals include rescissions of funding that is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was appropriated by the Congress; in many cases, these funds have been left unspent by agencies for years. These proposals also include rescissions of low priority and unnecessary Federal spending.

    2020 U.S. CENSUS COST OVERRUN — $3.3 BILLION

    FY2012—FY2023 | U.S. CENSUS BUREAU | Project:  The 2020 national population count conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau is more than $3 billion over budget and will be the most expensive in U.S. history and government auditors are warning that the current cost estimate is not reliable. Original Cost Estimate:  $12.3 billion in 2015. Current Cost Estimate:  $15.6 billion. Project Began:  2012. Original Completion Date:  September 2023. Federal Spending:  $15.6 billion

    STUDY: HOW FACEBOOK AFFECTS ALCOHOL USE – $147,686

    FY2016 | JIM MCDERMOTT | WASHINGTON–7 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 7, the report details the $147,686 grant given to the University of Washington from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    SPACE RACERS: AN ANIMATED CHILDREN’S CARTOON – $2.5 MILLION

    FY2016 | MO BROOKS | ALABAMA–5 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 7, the report details the $2.5 million grant given to the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission from NASA. 

    FURNITURE BINGE 2018 USE IT LOSE IT — $491 MILLION

    FINAL MONTH FY2018 | MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES | In the final month of fiscal year 2018, Federal agencies spent a half billion dollars on furniture to close out their budgets. It was a massive shop-until-you-drop, taxpayer funded spending spree. To Redecorate – federal agencies signed nearly 10,000 contracts to purchase furniture. Notably, the Department of Defense spent $9,341 on a Wexford leather club chair. Our findings published at Forbes.

    MISTAKES & IMPROPER MEDICAID PAYMENTS – $306.6 BILLION

    FY2004–FY2019 | HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES | Congressional Research Service released a report on July 16, 2018, titled “Improper Payments in High-Priority Programs: In Brief.” Garrett Hatch, a specialist in American National Government, authored the report. On page CRS-5, table 2 shows Medicaid improper payments amounted to $234 billion between FY2004-FY2017. Our auditors updated the numbers through FY2019 using disclosures published by the Office of Management & Budget.

    GRANTS (SUBSIDIZES) TO FORTUNE 100 COMPANIES — $3.2 BILLION

    FY2014—FY2017 | MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES | Our auditors quantified a four-year period during which Fortune 100 companies spent $2 billion lobbying Capitol Hill and received $3.2 billion in federal grants (2014-2017). These grants, or subsidies, are funded by the American taxpayer.  our organization at OpenTheBooks.com released our oversight report, Federal Funding of Fortune 100 Companies. We launched this report on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal and published at Forbes.

    FUNDING TOP 25 COLLEGES WITH LARGEST ENDOWMENTS — $6.9 BILLION

    FY2017—FY2018 | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | The wealthiest colleges received nearly $7 billion in federal subsidies last year. The top 25 universities with largest endowments (collectively $272 billion) reaped $7 billion in federal student aid. Rich schools are getting richer and taxpayers paid for it. Wealthy colleges must make themselves affordable. Our findings published at Forbes and in our oversight report.

    FANCY ROCK SCULPTURE – $482,960

    FY2016 | DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | After a joint investigation with COX Media Washington, D.C., OpenTheBooks published an editorial at Forbes on July 26, 2016, titled “The VA’s Luxury Art Obsession.” The editorial exposed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ array of luxury artwork, including a fancy rock sculpture costing $482,960.

    TALKING TO SAGUARO CACTUS – $10,000

    FY2016 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. On page 10, the report details the $10,000 grant to the Collage Dance Theatre in Los Angeles. Our report launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by Roger Kimball.

    USING SOAP OPERAS TO REDUCE HIV IN URBAN BLACK WOMEN – $567,529

    FY2016 | MIKE CAPUANO | MASSACHUSETTS–7 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 7, the report details the $567,529 grant given to Northeastern University from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    EARNED INCOME AND MISTAKEN TAX PAYMENTS– $18.8 BILLION

    FY2019 | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | Millions of low-income families who Congress designated as qualified recipients were overpaid billions of dollars. The program is rife with errors: the government overpaid $1 in every $4 to beneficiaries. (The IRS administers the program and responded to our request for comment here.) Our auditors used disclosures published by the Office of Management & Budget. Our findings published at Forbes.

    FEDERAL FUNDING INTO THE 50 WORST JUNIOR COLLEGES — $923.5 MILLION

    FY2017—FY2018 | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies flowed to the 50 worst performing junior colleges as ranked by WalletHub last year. The 10 worst junior colleges had an average graduation rate of 12 percent. Students aren’t graduating. Yet, they’re saddled with large debts. Our findings published at Forbes and in our oversight report.

    PR CONTRACTS 2018 USE-IT-OR-LOSE-IT SPENDING SPREE – $462 MILLION

    FINAL MONTH OF FY2018 | MULTIPLE FEDERAL AGENCIES | $462 Million Self Promotion Machine – Federal agencies spent millions on public relations, marketing research and public opinion, communications, and advertising in the final month of fiscal year 2018. The feds already employ 5,000 public affairs officers. It wasn’t enough. Our findings published at Forbes. 

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MISTAKEN & IMPROPER OVERPAYMENTS — $3.6 BILLION

    FY2019 | DEPARTMENT OF LABOR | Unemployment insurance recipients received $3.6 billion in over payments administered by the states through the Department of Labor. The feds blame the states for lax oversight and program management: *The Department of Labor has been aggressively working with states to address unemployment insurance improper payments, providing intensive oversight and technical assistance to states with the highest improper payment rates and providing tools and resources to help all states better prevent, detect, and recover improper payments. Our findings published at Forbes.

    BUYING BOOZE FOR EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD – $308,994

    FINAL MONTH FY2018 | STATE DEPARTMENT & DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | On October 3, 2018, we published an editorial at Forbes, titled “Use It or Lose It – Trump’s Agencies Spent $11 Billion Last Week in Year-End Spending Spree.” Using data compiled by OpenTheBooks.com via the Freedom of Information Act, we quantified $79,000 in alcohol expenditures at the Department of State between September 24 and 30, 2017. We updated the numbers for FY2018 in this piece published at Forbes: For some agencies, the end of the fiscal year seems to be one big party. The Department of Defense and the Department of State purchased beer, wine, and whiskey. Contract recipients included Coors Brewing Company ($76,173); E&J Gallo Winery ($16,510), and more.

    PERFORMANCE BONUSES – 99.6% OF FEDERAL WORKFORCE RATED “FULLY SUCCESSFUL” — $4.4 BILLION

    FY2016—FY2019 | ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES | Approximately $1.1 billion in federal performance bonuses were withheld from disclosure in FY2016. All federal performance bonuses are shielded by anti-transparency language inserted into federal union contracts. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, performance bonuses are sometimes based on salary amount and performance rating, and disclosure may allow others to determine an employee’s rating. According to a Government Accountability Office audit using 2013 data, 99.6 percent of all federal workers received job performance ratings of “fully successful.” That’s a higher rating than the advertised purity of Ivory soap (99.3 percent).

    2020 SBA LENDING (ESTIMATED BAD DEBT LOSS) — $4 BILLION

    FY2020 | CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE | The CBO forecasts that the 2020 SBA loan portfolio will cost the U.S. taxpayer $4 billion. The SBA will loan $44 billion via seven loan programs and the taxpayer subsidy will amount to 9.5% of all money lent in FY2020.

    FLEET OF ARMORED VEHICLES – $1.5 MILLION

    FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES | On October 3, 2018, we published an editorial at Forbes, titled “Use It or Lose It – Trump’s Agencies Spent $11 Billion Last Week in Year-End Spending Spree.” Using data compiled by OpenTheBooks.com via the Freedom of Information Act, we identified a $1.5 million contract between Square One and the Department of Health and Human Services during the week of September 24 through 30, 2018.

    SUPPORTED GREEN GROWTH IN PERU — $10 MILLION

    FY2019 | U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT | USAID is committing up to 10 million American taxpayer dollars to develop new and innovative Alliances with the private sector that advance environmentally-friendly economic development (i.e. green growth) in Peru. The envisioned activities will facilitate private sector financing andinvestment in value chains that lead to improved management of natural resources. 

    RENOVATION BOONDOOGLE FOR NEW HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS — $2.1 BILLION

    Through FY2019 | HOMELAND SECURITY, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION | Trying to turn around an abandoned mental hospital into a new DHS headquarters, the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been attempting, since 2005 and at a cost of more than $2.1 billion to the taxpayer, to establish a headquarters for DHS on parts of the property. This effort includes creating office space for the Office of Secretary of Homeland Security and other crucial senior personnel in the West Campus’ main building.

    HIPSTER PARTIES – $5 MILLION

    FY2015 | NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH | In 2015, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake published a wastebook report. On page 11, the report details the $5 million the federal government spent funding “hipster parties.”

    VIRTUAL REALITY TO TEACH CHILDREN IN CHINA HOW TO CROSS THE STREET – $183,750

    FY2016 | TERRI SEWELL | ALABAMA–7 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 7, the report details the $183,750 grant given to the University of Alabama Birmingham from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    TAI CHI FOR THE ELDERLY – $696,723

    FY2016 | MIKE CAPUANO | MASSACHUSETTS–7 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 8, the report details the $696,723 grant given to the Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Elderly from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    MISTAKES & IMPROPER STUDENT LOANS AND GRANTS – $11 BILLION

    FY2017–FY2018 | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | ED lacks basic in-house financial accounting controls, and admits to overpaying $11 billion in Pell grants and student loans over the last two-years. About four percent of all student loans and eight percent of all Pell grants are overpaid. Our oversight published at Forbes.

    27’ ARTIFICIAL CHRISTMAS TREE – $21,500

    FY2016 | DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | In a joint investigation with COX Media Washington, D.C., OpenTheBooks published an editorial at Forbes on July 26, 2016, titled “The VA’s Luxury Art Obsession.” The editorial exposed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ array of luxury artwork purchases over a ten-year period cost taxpayers $20 million, including a 27-foot artificial Christmas tree. Our story was aired on Good Morning America and ABC World News Tonight. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley wrote an oversight letter to then-VA Secretary Robert McDonald, who apologized for the purchases and instituted new rules to stop the purchases on a go-forward basis.

    BOGUS BONUSES RELATED TO F-35 SPARE PARTS SHORTAGE — $303 MILLION

    FY2019 | INSPECTOR GENERAL DEFENSE DEPARTMENT | “We determined that the DoD did not receive RFI F35 spare parts in accordance with contract requirements and paid performance incentive fees on the sustainment contracts based on inflated and unverified F35A aircraft availability hours. As a result, the DoD received nonRFI spare parts and spent up to $303 million in DoD labor costs since 2015, and it will continue to pay up to $55 million annually for nonRFI spare parts until the nonRFI spare parts issue is resolved.”

    AVERAGE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RECEIVES 43 DAYS PAID TIME OFF – $22.6 BILLION

    FY2016 | U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Mapping the Swamp quantified the taxpayer cost of federal employees’ benefits package. In the report, there is a section titled “Time Off and Benefits,” beginning on page 11. The average federal bureaucrat receives 10 holidays, 13 sick days, and 20 vacation days. That’s 43 days of paid time off each year.

    160,000 DEFAULTED SBA LOANS – $24.2 BILLION

    SINCE 2000 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | In September 2016, we published our OpenTheBooks Snapshot Oversight Report – Truth in Lending, quantifying the 160,000 defaulted Small Business Administration (SBA) loans doled out between 2000 and 2015, costing taxpayers $24.2 billion. Search all bad loans in your own ZIP Code, or any ZIP Code across America, on our interactive mapping platform.

    COSTS 7 CENTS TO MAKE A NICKLE — $150 MILLION

    FY2019 | U.S. MINT | It currently costs 2.06 cents to make each penny and 7.53 cents to make each nickel. In other words, American taxpayers lose money every time the U.S. Mint produces one of those coins.

    It might sound funny, but so many coins are produced annually that the cost actually adds up. Based on estimates from numbers in the U.S. Mint’s annual report, taxpayers lost about $85.4 million from penny production and $33.5 million from nickel production last year. Over the next decade, taxpayers would save $150 million. Source: here.

    FROG MATING CALL STUDY IN PANAMA — $404,991

    FY2019 | NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | The National Science Foundation spent a significant portion of a grant totaling $466,991 on studying the mating call of the male tungara frog of Panama. In a look at the effects of urbanization, the study examined the differences between the mating call in the city and in the forest, including the likelihood of attracting midges and bats.

    SUPERSTORM SANDY FALSE-CLAIM VEHICLE DAMAGE PAYMENTS TO NYC — $5.3 MILLION

    FY2019 | FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY | The problems began when the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) submitted a list of claims to FEMA for a total of $12,758,664 in reimbursement for vehicles, all of which it claimed were damaged by the storm. However, “many of the vehicles” instead were already “non-operational — and some had even been marked for salvage —years before Sandy,” The federal government stated in its complaint. The government also made it clear that proper oversight was ignored every step of the way. Source: here.

    IVY LEAGUE COLLEGES – $42 BILLION

    FY2010–2015 | FEDERAL PAYMENTS, SUBSIDIES, TAX–BREAKS | ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES | In March 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Ivy League, Inc. In this report, we quantified all federal payments, subsidies, and tax breaks for the eight Ivy League schools between FY2010-FY2015. The Ivy League schools have $120 billion in accumulated endowment funds. Our findings launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer-Riley titled, Ivy League Doesn’t Need Taxpayer Help. Our findings were also cited in the Boston Globe as providing research to congress as they instituted a new ‘excessive endowments’ tax in December 2017.

    USING E–DIARIES TO COPE WITH MICROAGGRESSIONS – $173,089

    FY2016 | ADAM KINZINGER | ILLINOIS–16 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 6, the report details the $173,089 grant to Northern Illinois University from the Department of Health and Human Services for these e-diaries.

    DANCING WITH 15–FOOT FISH – $10,000

    FY2016 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. On page 10, the report details the $10,000 grant to the Collage Dance Theatre in Los Angeles.

    MEDITATION BREATHING MOBILE APP – $687,989

    FY2016 | JIM CLYBURN | SOUTH CAROLINA–6 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 6, the report details the $687,989 grant to the Medical University of South Carolina from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    FUNDING A FREQUENTLY INVESTIGATED CHILDCARE FACILITY IN TEXAS – $32.6 MILLION

    FY2013-2020 | DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 6, the report details the $5 million in federal grant dollars given to the Shiloh Treatment Center in FY2016 alone. NPR investigated this center and allegations of medicating children. Recently, we updated the numbers to cover the fiscal years 2013 through 2020.

    WHERE IT HURTS THE MOST TO BE STUNG BY BEE – $1 MILLION

    FY2015 | NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona published a report, titled “Twenty Questions: Government Studies That Will Leave You Scratching Your Head.” On page 7, the report details the $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation for a study asking “Where does it hurt the most to be stung by a bee?”

    MISTAKEN & IMPROPER SBA LENDING — $1.8 BILLION

    FY2018—FY2019 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | The SBA also has a problem with basic internal financial controls and admitted to $924.5 million in improperly paid “over payments” just last year. The agency cited its “inability to authenticate [borrower] eligibility,” and “administrative or process errors made by the agency.” Our findings were published at Forbes.

    SUBSIDIZED LENDING TO WALL STREET BANKERS — $12 BILLION

    FY2014—FY2018 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | A significant portion of SBA lending didn’t go to Main Street; it went to Wall Street. In fact, $12.2 billion in lending flowed to highly capitalized venture capital, mezzanine finance firms, private investor funds and investment pools. That’s not small business.

    35,780 FEDERAL LAWYERS – $14.3 BILLION

    FY2016—FY2018 | OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Mapping the Swamp analyzed the most popular and taxpayer expensive federal employee job titles. On page 16, there is a case study detailing the annual taxpayer cost ($4.8 billion) of employing 35,212 federal lawyers. Only 12,000 of those lawyers are pursuing crime and criminals at the Department of Justice. Recently, we updated the numbers for all the years between FY2016 and FY2018.

    IRS PURCHASE OF 4,600 GUNS & 5M ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION – INCLUDING 621 SHOTGUNS, 539 RIFLES & 15 SUBMACHINE GUNS — $15.5 MILLION

    FY2006—FY2017 | INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE | In December 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report to congress quantifying purchases of $1.5 billion in firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment by federal agencies outside of the Pentagon (FY2010-FY2017). These findings were consistent with our oversight published at The Wall Street Journal in summer 2016, which found 67 federal agencies outside of the Department of Defense purchased $1.4 billion in guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (FY2006-FY2014).

    LUXURY ARTWORK PURCHASES – $20 MILLION

    FY2007–FY2016 | DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | In a joint investigation with COX Media Washington, D.C., OpenTheBooks published an editorial at Forbes on July 26, 2016, titled “The VA’s Luxury Art Obsession.” The editorial exposed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ array of luxury artwork purchases over a ten-year period cost taxpayers $20 million. Our story was aired on Good Morning America and ABC World News Tonight. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley wrote an oversight letter to then-VA Secretary Robert McDonald, who apologized for the purchases and instituted new rules to stop the purchases on a go-forward basis.

    3,390 FEDERAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICERS – $1.1 BILLION

    FY2016—FY2018 | 202 FEDERAL AGENCIES | OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Mapping the Swamp analyzed the most popular and taxpayer expensive federal employee job titles. On page 17, there is a case study detailing the annual taxpayer cost ($368.4 million) of employing 3,618 federal public affairs officers. There are approximately 5,000 public relations officers employed by all federal agencies, but only 3,618 are disclosed. Recently, we updated the numbers in fiscal years 2016 through 2018.

    STUDY: ARE PHYSICIAN TRAINEES RACIST? – $932,741

    FY2016 | TIM WALZ | MINNESOTA–1 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 9, the report details the $932,741 grant given to Mayo Clinic from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    PREVENTING TEEN PREGNANCY THROUGH THEATER – $749,000

    FY2016 | CHAKA FATTAH | PENNSYLVANIA–2 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 9, the report details the $749,000 grant given to the Public Health Management Corporation from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    VIRTUAL SHOE–FITTING – $902,789

    FY2015-2016 | MORGAN GRIFFITH | VIRGINIA–9 | REPUBLICAN | ANNA ESHOO | CALIFORNIA-18 |  DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 10, the report details the $753,502 grant given to Eclo, Inc. from the National Science Foundation. A representative from Rep. Griffith’s office reached out to us, claiming Rep. Griffith was not responsible for this grant. Read Rep. Griffith’s office’s argument here. Rep. Griffith’s office sent a cease and desist letter to our office and we issued a response. Read our response letter here. Recently, we updated the numbers and the total grants amounted to $902,789.

    VIDEO GAME: THE LOGICAL JOURNEY OF THE ZOOMBINIS – $658,388

    FY2016 | KATHERINE CLARK | MASSACHUSSETS–5 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 11, the report details the $658,388 grant given to Technical Education Research Centers, Inc. from the National Science Foundation.

    650 FEDERAL GARDENERS & LANDSCAPERS – $127.1 MILLION

    FY2016—FY2018 | U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Mapping the Swamp analyzed the most popular and taxpayer expensive federal employee job titles. On page 18, there is a case study detailing the annual taxpayer cost ($44 million) of employing 650 federal gardeners and landscapers. Recently, we updated the numbers to reflect the cost during fiscal years 2016 through 2018.

    SBA LOANS TO EXCLUSIVE CLUBS (COUNTRY CLUBS, YACHT CLUBS, ETC.) – $281 MILLION

    FY2007–FY2018 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | In September 2016, we published our OpenTheBooks Snapshot Oversight Report – Truth in Lending, detailing examples of the Small Business Administration (SBA) doling out small business loans to country clubs, yacht clubs, golf courses, and other exclusive entities. This continued our oversight we kicked off in 2014 of the SBA. Recently, we updated the numbers and published the results at Forbes. Since FY2007, our auditors quantified more than $280 million in lending to private country clubs, beach clubs, swim clubs, tennis clubs and yacht clubs across America. In the past five years, $120 million flowed to these exclusive clubs.

    HISTORIC HOBO DAY – $11,987

    FY2016 | KRISTI NOEM | SOUTH DAKOTA–1 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 8, the report details the $11,987 grant given to South Dakota State University from the National Endowment for the Arts.

    STUDY: DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF TRANSLOCATING TORTOISES – $350,773

    FY2016 | GLENN THOMPSON | PENNSYLVANIA–5 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 12, the report details the $350,773 grant given to Pennsylvania State University from the National Science Foundation.

    MOBILE APP FOR SEX DIARY – $1 MILLION

    FY2016 | GRACE NAPOLITANO | CALIFORNIA–32 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 12, the report details the $1 million grant given to Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    CONVINCING MOTHERS TO STOP TEEN GIRLS FROM USING TANNING BEDS – $671,522 

    FY2016 | ED PERLMUTTER | COLORADO–7 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 12, the report details the $671,522 grant to Klein Buendel, Inc. from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    279 FEDERAL INTERIOR DESIGNERS AT VETERANS AFFAIRS – $67.1 MILLION

    FY2016—FY2018 | U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Mapping the Swamp analyzed the most popular and taxpayer expensive federal employee job titles. On page 16, there is a case study detailing the annual taxpayer cost ($22 million) of employing 270 federal interior designers. Recently, we updated the numbers at the VA through fiscal years 2016—2018. 

    LENDING TO MILLIONAIRES: 40,000 $1M+ LOANS — $94 BILLION

    FY2014—FY2018 | SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION | We discovered 40,000 recipients received $1 million plus during fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Since 2007, there were 75,000 recipients receiving $1 million or more. Last year, there were 9,332 recipients, up from 8,275 the previous year. We mapped all of them – recipients of the SBA’s $1+ million loans – by ZIP Code across the country. Search your own neighborhood. Just click a pin (ZIP Code) on our interactive search tool and scroll down to see the results rendered in the chart beneath the map.

    MISTAKES & IMPROPER FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS – $3.7 BILLION

    FY2004–FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | Congressional Research Service released a report on July 16, 2018, titled “Improper Payments in High-Priority Programs: In Brief.” Garrett Hatch, a specialist in American National Government, authored the report. On page CRS-5, table 2 shows USDA Crop Insurance improper payments amounted to $3.7 billion between FY2004-FY2017. 

    HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) PURCHASE OF 1,300 GUNS & 4M ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION – INCLUDING 1 SHOTGUN, 5 SUBMACHINE GUNS & 189 AUTOMATIC FIREARMS – MILLION$

    FY2006—FY2017 | HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

    In December 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report to congress quantifying purchases of $1.5 billion in firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment by federal agencies outside of the Pentagon (FY2010-FY2017). These findings were consistent with our oversight published at The Wall Street Journal in summer 2016, which found 67 federal agencies outside of the Department of Defense purchased $1.4 billion in guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (FY2006-FY2014).Specific to HHS, the agency has resisted transparency to specifically quantify how much they have spent.

    FARM SUBSIDIES INTO URBAN AREAS – $626 MILLION

    FY2015–2017 | POPULATION OVER 250K | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Harvesting U.S. Farm Subsidies, released August 2018, quantifies all federal farm subsidies flowing to urban areas with populations exceeding 250,000 between FY2015-FY2017.

    VIDEO GAME FOR YOUR FUTURE–SELF – $1.4 MILLION

    FY2014—FY2018 | ROBERT WITTMAN | VIRGINIA–1 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 8, the report details the $651,498 grant given to Research and Evaluation Solutions, Inc. from the Department of Health and Human Services. A representative from Rep. Wittman’s office reached out to us, claiming Rep. Wittman was not responsible for this grant. Read Rep. Wittman’s office’s argument here. Our auditor’s updated the numbers to reflect fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

    RESEARCHING STIGMATIZATION OF DANISH SMOKERS – $330,176

    FY2016 | LOU BARLETTA | PENNSYLVANIA–11 | REPUBLICAN | OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 11, the report details the $330,176 grant given to Dickinson College from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    MEASURING BLOOD PRESSURE AT BLACK BARBERSHOPS – $2.1 MILLION

    FY2016 | ADAM SCHIFF | CALIFORNIA–28 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 13, the report details the $2.1 million grant given to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    389 FARM SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS OF $1 MILLION+ – $667 MILLION

    FY2017 | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | Our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Harvesting U.S. Farm Subsidies, released August 2018, quantifies the number of federal farm subsidy recipients pulling down $1 million or more in fiscal year FY2017 payments. Reviewing those farming entities who received over $1 million during the past 10-years (since 2008), we found over 6,600 entities received up to $23 million. Search our interactive map of all $1 million recipients of federal farm subsidies from over 60 USDA programs displayed by ZIP Code across America.

    EPIDEMIC SIMULATION GAME FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS – $350,236

    FY2016 | DAVID MCKINLEY | WEST VIRGINIA–1 | REPUBLICAN | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 14, the report details the $350,236 grant given to Wheeling Jesuit University from the Department of Health and Human Services. 

    HOW AIR POLLUTION AFFECTS BIRTH BY RACE – $788,664

    FY2016 | JERRY MCNERNEY | CALIFORNIA–9 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 14, the report details the $788,664 grant given to the University of California at Berkeley from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

    VIRTUAL WEIGHT LOSS GAME – $228,830

    FY2016 | HENRY JOHNSON, JR. | GEORGIA–4 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 16, the report details the $228,830 grant given to Virtually Better, Inc. from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    SMARTPHONE APP FOR PARKING YOUR CAR – $149,999

    FY2016 | KRYSTEN SINEMA | ARIZONA–9 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 16, the report details the $149,999 grant given to Arizona State University from the National Science Foundation. 

    REFRAMING BELIEFS ABOUT DEATH & DYING AMONG LATINOS – $882,841

    FY2015 | CORNELL UNIVERSITY | NATIONAL INSITUTES OF HEALTH, HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES In March 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Ivy League, Inc. The report includes examples of wasteful grants doled out by the government to the Ivy League colleges. On page 16, the report details the $882,841 in grants given to Cornell University from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

    PAYMENTS TO GAY MEXICAN PROSTITUTES FOR SAFE SEX – $53,419

    FY2015 | BROWN UNIVERSITY | NATIONAL INSITUTES OF HEALTH | In March 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Ivy League, Inc. The report includes examples of wasteful grants doled out by the government to the Ivy League colleges. On page 15, the report details the $53,419 grant given to Brown University from the National Institutes of Health.

    12 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS COLLECTED FARM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS – $637,059

    FY2017 | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | When conducting research for our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Harvesting U.S. Farm Subsidies, released August 2018, our team found 12 members of Congress collecting farm subsidy payments in FY2017. These members of congress sit on the agriculture committee, craft farm policy, vote on the subsidies, and then collect the subsidies. Our Honorary Chairman Dr. Tom Coburn, while in congress, complained to the ethics committee.

    NON–MILITARY AGENCIES PURCHASE GUNS, AMMUNITION, AND MILITARY–STYLE EQUIPMENT – $2.2 BILLION

    FY2006–FY2017 | 67 NON–MILITARY FEDERAL AGENCIES | In July 2016, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – The Militarization of America, quantifying all non-military federal agency purchases of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between FY2006-FY2014. On October 20, 2017, we published updated numbers (FY2006-FY2017) in an editorial at Forbes, titled “Why Are Federal Bureaucrats Buying Guns and Ammo? $158 Million Spent by Non-Military Agencies.”

    CLIMATE CHANGE VOICEMAILS FROM THE FUTURE (2020—2065) – $5.7 MILLION

    FY2012 | COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | In March 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – Ivy League, Inc. The report includes examples of wasteful grants doled out by the government to the Ivy League colleges. On page 15, the report details the $5.7 million grant given to Columbia University from the National Science Foundation. 

    NEW CONDOM DESIGN WITH MORE LUBRICATION – $1.1 MILLION

    FY2016—FY2019 | JOSEPH KENNEDY III | MASSACHUSETTS–4 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 6, the report details the $200,601 grant given to Hydroglyde Coatings from the Department of Health and Human Services. Recently, we updated the numbers to include fiscal years 2016 through 2019.

    FUNDING CHRISTIAN SEMINARIES TO MINT PASTORS & PRIESTS — $815 MILLION

    FY2014—FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | Nearly $1 billion funded 112 seminaries to mint pastors and priests. Our findings were published at Forbes and research published in our oversight report.

    VA PURCHASE OF GUNS, 11 MILLION ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, AND MILITARY-STYLE EQUIPMENT — $17.3 MILLION

    FY2006—FY0217 | VETERANS AFFAIRS | The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a mission to provide basic healthcare for veterans. In 1996, the VA didn’t have a police force. Over the last eight years, however, the VA purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition, which amounts to 2,800 rounds for each of their 3,957 officers. The VA also purchased camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting. Our findings published at Forbes.

    TWO SCULPTURES FOR VA FACILITY THAT SERVES BLIND VETERANS – $670,000

    FY2016 | DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | In a joint investigation with COX Media Washington, D.C., OpenTheBooks published an editorial at Forbes on July 26, 2016, titled “The VA’s Luxury Art Obsession.” The editorial exposed the Department of Veterans Affairs’ array of luxury artwork, including a $670,000 sculpture for a VA facility that serves blind veterans.

    ARTS GRANTS FOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH OVER $1 BILLION IN ASSETS – $143 MILLION

    FY2009–2016 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. The report quantifies all FY2016 arts and humanities funding flowing to organization with over $1 billion in assets each (page 5). Our report launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by Roger Kimball.

    ROBERT REDFORD’S SUNDANCE INSTITUTE – $4.6 MILLION

    FY2009—FY2019 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. On page 7, the report details the $200,000 in funding Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute received in FY2016. Our report launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by Roger Kimball. Recently, we updated the numbers from FY2009 and found millions of dollars in grants to this well healed arts organization with roughly $50 million in gross assets.

    FEMINIST PORN BOOK AND OTHER TITLES – $55,000

    FY2016 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. On page 8, the report details the $55,000 grant the Feminist Press received in FY2016. Our report launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by Roger Kimball.

    EPA PURCHASE OF GUNS, AMMO, AND MILITARY–STYLE EQUIPMENT – $3.4 MILLION

    FY2006–FY2017 | ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY | In July 2016, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – The Militarization of America, quantifying all non-military federal agency purchases of guns, ammunition, and military equipment between FY2006-FY2014. On October 20, 2017, we published updated numbers (FY2006-FY2017) in an editorial at Forbes, titled “Why Are Federal Bureaucrats Buying Guns and Ammo? $158 Million Spent by Non-Military Agencies.” In both studies, we quantified all Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) purchases of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment. Our report launched in a co-authored editorial at the Wall Street Journal with Dr. Tom Coburn titled, Why Does the IRS Need Guns?.

    “GAMES FOR CHANGE” VIDEO GAME CONVENTION – $200,000

    FY2016 | NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES | In July 2017, we published our OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, detailing numerous examples of wasteful grant making by the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. On page 10, the report details the $200,000 grant Games for Change, Inc. received. Our report launched on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal in a column by Roger Kimball.

    CIGAR TASTE TEST – $114,375

    FY2016 | ROBERT SCOTT | VIRGINIA–3 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 5, the report details the $114,375 grant to Virginia Commonwealth University from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    COMEDY CLUB HOLOGRAMS – $1.7 MILLION

    FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | A report by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake quantified $1.7 million given to a nonprofit called the National Comedy Center from the Department of Commerce. The grant was awarded to help the nonprofit construct a comedy museum that will “resurrect” dead comedians as holograms.

    HOW TO USE A LAWYER GUIDE – $728,000

    FY2015 | DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | In 2015, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake published a wastebook report. On page 89, the report details the $728,000 the Department of Agriculture spent on a “How to Use a Lawyer” guide.

    LIGHTING FOR LIQUOR STORES – $50,000

    FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | In 2017, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake published a wastebook report. On page 56, the report details the $50,000 the Department of Agriculture spent on liquor store lighting in Florida, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

    ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS (PR) CAMPAIGNS — $1.4 BILLION

    FY2020 | ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES | U.S. Senator Joni Ernst quantified $1.4 billion per year spent on PR by the federal agencies. These findings are consistent with our previous oversight report in 2015, The Department of Self-Promotion. 

    HOW ALCOHOL AFFECTS MEN’S ATTENTION AND SENSITIVITY TO SEXUAL INTEREST CUES – $180,921

    FY2016 | DAVE LOEBSACK | IOWA–2 | DEMOCRAT | Our OpenTheBooks.com Oversight Report – Where’s the Pork, released in May 2018, includes 50 examples of wasteful federal grants (FY2017). On page 7, the report details the $180,921 grant given to the University of Iowa from the Department of Health and Human Services.

    EXTRA: USDA SPENDS MILLIONS SUBSIDIZING CRICKET FARMS FOR HUMANS TO EAT BUGS

    FY2017 | DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | According to USAspending.gov search results (May 2, 2017) Bugeater Labs received Department of Agriculture funding. The University of Nebraska Omaha College of Business Administration website published an article on April 28, 2017, titled “Bugeater Foods,” explaining the funding. 

    *  *  *

    SIGN YOUR NAME TO OPENTHEBOOKS’ PETITION, URGING THE PRESIDENT TO WAGE A WAR ON WASTE. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 22:25

  • Jimmy Carter Hospitalized For Brain Surgery
    Jimmy Carter Hospitalized For Brain Surgery

    Former President Jimmy Carter has been hospitalized tonight to undergo a procedure to relieve pressure on his brain caused by bleeding following his recent falls.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to a statement the 95-year-old’s surgery is set to take place Tuesday morning at Emory University Hospital. The spokesperson said he was “resting comfortably,” with his wife, Rosalynn by his side.

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

    Carter, the oldest former U.S. president, has had a number of health scares in recent years.

    As CBS notes, in 2015, he announced he had been diagnosed with cancer that had spread to his liver and brain. 

    In May 2019, he suffered another health setback when he fell and broke his hip. The fall left him with a black eye and 14 stitches – but he nevertheless attended the opening ceremony for a Habitat for Humanity build in Nashville along with Rosalynn, who is 92. 

    Mr. Carter suffered two more falls in October 2019, and was hospitalized for a fractured pelvis. Less than two weeks after the fall, he said he planned to return to teaching Sunday school. 

    In the Sunday school service that followed, Mr. Carter told attendees he’s “at ease with death.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 22:05

  • 'Solutions Are Obvious' – The US Higher Education System Is Broken
    ‘Solutions Are Obvious’ – The US Higher Education System Is Broken

    Authored by ‘Solutions Are Obvious’ via The Burning Platform blog,

    The US higher education system is broken. In many cases, it produces individuals with useless degrees purchased at outrageous cost. The system itself is an infestation of ultra liberal professors, spineless administrators and a student body that becomes more and more radicalized and detached from reality the more courses they take.

    The higher education system is the incubator for the anti white, anti male, anti Trump, pro freak, pro censorship, anti gun, pro socialist, anti conservative, pro unlimited immigration, pro free everything mentality that pervades what purports to be the evening news. It infantilizes young adults to produce a steady stream of victims and mental midgets completely unprepared to meet the real adult world. In short, it produces the Democrat voter.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    All is not lost, however. By and large, STEM graduates are less affected by the SJW mental aberration as their critical thinking abilities are necessarily on a higher plane to be able to cope with a curriculum that is more than just opinion. STEM fields have empirically based phenomena to comprehend and must use known tested methods of reasoning and logic to handle the problems and situations a particular field is called upon to investigate. Although STEM students are typically forced to sit through nonsense classes and regurgitate what the instructors deem critical information, they instinctively know its BS and promptly forget it once the class is over. They’re typically not permanently scared.

    The problem lies with the ‘Basket Weaving’ majors where no proof of anything is required or even possible as it’s all just opinion and supposition. The Humanities / Social Sciences / Liberal Arts courses offer an easy path towards a degree, many of which are absolutely worthless. It’s actually a shame that some of them do lead to living wage and beyond employment options that end up producing many of the fraudulent professions society is encumbered by like Economics, Psychiatry and other specializations that can’t prove anything past common sense.

    I’ll concentrate primarily on what to do to eliminate only the most egregious fraudulent degrees that are currently plaguing society.

    The concept of tenure needs to be eliminated. No one should be guaranteed a livelihood by managing to hit some arbitrary mark and thereafter have no responsibility for doing a good job as reviewed by their employer. The education profession needs to get rid of the dead wood clogging the system and consuming resources.

    All higher education facilities should be mandated to provide their graduates with job opportunities via an employment agency owned and operated by the institution, not a contracted for service. The schools should be totally responsible for finding each graduate a position in the degree field of study for 5 years post graduation.

    If the institution is unable to place a graduate, then the former student is entitled to a full refund of all tuition paid for a proven obviously useless degree plus 5 times tuition paid for the waste of time involved and to provide the former student with a funds cushion to get retrained in something with a future. In the case where a graduate is unemployable for no reason the school is responsible for or where there is a dispute over responsibility, a 3rd party would be called upon to make a judgment.

    If this were implemented, Gender Studies, Recreational Science, Hospitality Science, Museum Curator, Drama Studies and similar courses would disappear overnight from most campuses along with the faculty that teach the classes. The schools know these are for the most part BS courses and know that the chances of someone getting employed with one of the basket weaving degrees is so low that it would be financially too risky to offer the course.

    Gone would be the professors teaching these nonsense courses. Gone would be the lenders to provide the student loans, guaranteed by the Fed Gov which steals the funds from the general public. Gone would be the students mentally or some other way incapable of STEM degrees with no option but to consider vocational training or learn how to say – ‘Do you want fries with that’. Gone would be the windfall profits higher ed facilities have enjoyed in recent decades. Gone would be the unsustainable building boom for facilities completely unrelated to teaching but used as enticements to attract low IQ students easily dazzled by shiny objects. Gone would be the nonsense classes STEM students are now forced to take. Gone would be the environment were the purveyors of bullshit get to indoctrinate the latest crop of weak susceptible minds.

    Some may claim this violated free market principles. I would counter that the advancement of institutionalized fraud is not in the society’s best interests. If a student were to sign away his/her rights to compensation and effectively opt for today’s environment, then that would absolve the institution of responsibility. The free market would be restored as long as informed consent is involved.

    In addition, it should be obvious that no one should be able to get an advanced degree in a field that can’t prove it’s basic precepts. As mentioned previously, something like Economics is almost entirely BS. Economists can’t prove anything past common sense and can’t even provide a proper postmortem after an economic catastrophe. Likewise, Psychiatry has not a single empirical test for the hundreds of conditions listed in their DSM. Psychiatry is opinion masquerading as science and is simply an outlet for Big Pharma to push their mind altering poisons. The large majority of mass shooters have been on prescription only psychoactive drugs.

    Other fields that I generally refer to as the ‘story telling’ professions should likewise be reigned in. Paleontology, Anthropology, Cosmology, large portions of Geology and many more fields are largely based on a plausible story as their foundation, sans evidence. Absolute proof for their assertions is impossible and consequently it should be impossible to get a degree above Bachelors in these disciplines.

    No one should claim to be an expert (PhD) in a field that is based on opinion. In the off chance that something like Climate Science might someday actually be able to provide proof of their assertions, it, as an example, should be able to produce Bachelors graduates that can attempt to further the field but would no longer be able to fool the public into thinking they know what’s going on due to their bogus PhD pedigree.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 21:45

    Tags

  • Bay Area Home Prices Continue Slide, Peak Is likely In 
    Bay Area Home Prices Continue Slide, Peak Is likely In 

    Mainstream financial media drummed up a narrative in 1H19 about how this summer’s tech IPOs would lead to overnight millionaires across the Bay Area, and in return, would produce the next leg up in the region’s real estate market.

    The economic narrative never gained traction, partly because of the IPO market imploded. New issues like Lyft and Uber have seen shares nearly halved in the last six months, leaving many investors underwater.

    As for the IPO market pumping out overnight millionaires, well, that remains to be seen as the Bay Area real estate market continues to deteriorate, with expectations of a further plunge in 1H20.

    The Bay Area median sales price in September for an existing home, across nine-counties including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, plunged 4.7% YoY to $810,000, according to real estate data firm CoreLogic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bay Area home prices are some of the most expensive in the country and might have put in a cyclical peak in 2019.

    “I think the immediate trigger a year ago was the run-up in mortgage rates,” said Dr. Frank Nothaft, a chief economist at CoreLogic.

    “Mortgage rates got posted about 5% a year ago, and that put up a chill on all potential buyers in the market place. When mortgage rates go up, that means the monthly mortgage payment is just taking that much bigger of a bite from family income.”

    San Jose-based realtor Holly Barr told NBC Bay Area that prices have been slipping for more than a year. Barr noted that price growth has stalled in the last several years, likely marking the top of the market.

    “If you look at the trend over the last two years, it’s definitely come down,” she said.

    The region has seen YoY sale price declines in the last several months as the slowdown continues to worsen. This recent period of waning demand comes after seven years of rapid price growth.

    Agents overwhelmingly said buyers have been on the sidelines waiting for the right deal. Many wanted to avoid a bidding war and needed prices to correct further before they entered offers.

    Some buyers were concerned about a late 2020 recession, trade war uncertainties, and the threat of a corporate debt bubble implosion.

    The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller San Francisco Home Price Index has likely peaked in a double top fashion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Federal Reserve usually embarks on an interest rate cut cycle in preparation for macroeconomic headwinds developing in the economy that eventually damages the housing market.

    As shown below, the Case-Shiller San Francisco Home Price Index tends to fall in a cut cycle.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bay Area home prices will continue to weaken through 1H20. At what point do millennial homeowners, most of whom bought the top of the market, panic sell into a down market? 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 21:25

  • Citing "Gun Violence", UVA Cancels 21-Gun-Salute Portion Of Veterans Day Ceremony
    Citing “Gun Violence”, UVA Cancels 21-Gun-Salute Portion Of Veterans Day Ceremony

    Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

    Citing “gun violence,” the University of Virginia has canceled the 21-gun salute portion of its Veterans Day ceremony, an annual tradition that dates back at least a decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a statement posted to social media on Saturday, university President James Ryan stated the reason was two-fold:

    to minimize disruptions to classes, given that this event is located at the juncture of four primary academic buildings and is held at a time that classes are in session; and second, recognizing concerns related to firing weapons on the Grounds in light of gun violence that has happened across our nation, especially on school and university campuses.”

    According to the local ABC news affiliate WHSV, the annual ceremony “marks the conclusion of a 24-hour vigil by ROTC cadets and has included the 21-gun salute for more than a decade,” but the decision to nix the salute was made by the provost’s office in conjunction with the colonel of UVA’s ROTC program.

    Backlash has been so severe Ryan said the university will revisit the issue in 2020.

    “[C]ommunity responses have helped us to understand that many see the 21-gun salute as an important element of the Veterans Day ceremony at the University of Virginia. Given that the plans are already in place for this year, we will follow the event organizers’ recommendation to proceed without the 21-gun salute in our Veterans Day Ceremony. Following this year’s ceremony, however, we will work with our ROTC officers and cadets to take a closer look at options for our Veterans Day events, including those that would enable us to re-introduce the 21-gun salute to the program,” Ryan stated.

    According to media outlets in Virginia, the decision prompted anger. The Daily Progress, the newspaper in Charlottesville, Virginia, published several letters to the editor lambasting the decision.

    One letter argued that the decision disrespected the fact that the university’s rotunda hosts plaques honoring hundreds of alumni slain in previous wars. Another argued “veterans deserve better.”

    The decision also sent “an unfortunate message about students: That they are too fragile, too delicate, too distractible to deal with the ‘interruption’ of the salute. That they are too insular, too wrapped up in their own worlds to comprehend and accept this longstanding practice. That they must be protected from the reality that exists outside academia,” another letter writer chimed in.

    Some Twitter users responding to Ryan’s statement were a little more blunt. Among them: “How ‘we’ reached the decision? The buck stops with you. Score one for the snowflakes.”

    Tweeted another: “As a @UVA #UVA student veteran, thank you for marginalizing my community. That is a direct, unmitigated slap in the face to those of us who have served, and especially to those of us who have served and lost. I am deeply sorry that you decided to make this incorrect decision.”

    However Ryan garnered some support, too, with one replying “people forget that rampant mass shootings are commonplace now, so it makes sense not to be firing off guns near classrooms,” and another noting that “as a long-ago alumna, I want you to know how much you continue to impress. You do our university and your role proud.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 21:05

  • President Xi Reiterates Combat-Readiness, Says Army Needs to Be "Powerful As Tigers"
    President Xi Reiterates Combat-Readiness, Says Army Needs to Be “Powerful As Tigers”

    Chinese President Xi Jinping recognizes that the so-called trade war between the US has very little to do with trade; it has more to do with the US attempting to squash China as a rising power. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    PLA Daily reported on Monday that President Xi told a Central Military Committee (CMC) conference on the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) armed forces that it must be combat-ready and adjust to a world of rising volatility.

    “The grass-roots level of the military is experiencing new conditions and changes in its mission, construction, daily operation, unit structure, personnel composition, and social environment,” President Xi, the CMC’s chairman, said.  

    President Xi said all PLA ranks must be ready for combat, even lower-ranked units. 

    “Our commanders and soldiers should be courageous, and our troops should be powerful as tigers,” he added.

    In the last five years, President Xi has led a massive military modernization effort across the PLA. He has guaranteed the immediate deployment of new military weapons, like fifth-generation fighters, modern warships, laser weapons, railguns, stealth drones, and hypersonic missiles.

    He said the modernization effort has led to increased combat-readiness and a strengthened military. 

    President Xi had previously said China was “confronted with unpredictable international developments and a complicated and sensitive external environment” and said PLA forces are ready to answer the call to fight at any given moment.

    China’s increased combat-readiness is mostly due to the US attempting to prevent it from being a major superpower. 

    By 2025-2030, China’s economic, industrial, technological, and military achievements are likely to displace the US as a global superpower. 

    China’s defense budget, the second largest in the world, could outpace the US by 2030

    China is modernizing its military and preparing for a fight against the US. 

    Both China and the US have fallen into Thucydides Trap, one where the rising power (China), challenges the status quo power (the US), usually results in a shooting war. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 20:45

  • Are You Ready For A Catastrophically Cold Winter? Here's What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You…
    Are You Ready For A Catastrophically Cold Winter? Here’s What The Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You…

    Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

    Experts are warning us that this will be a “freezing, frigid, and frosty” winter, and even though the official beginning of winter is still over a month away, it already feels like that in much of the country right now.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Over the next several days, it will literally feel like it is mid-January in much of the central and eastern portions of the United States. Many areas will be hit by temperatures that are 30 degrees below normal, and heavy snow is expected in some areas of the Midwest. Unfortunately, this bitterly cold weather is coming at a very bad time for corn farmers. According to the latest USDA crop progress report, only 52 percent of the corn in the middle of the country has been harvested. So about half of the corn is still sitting out there, and these extraordinarily low temperatures could potentially be absolutely devastating. In essence, this cold front threatens to put an exclamation point on an absolutely horrific year for U.S. farmers. According to the National Weather Service, we could possibly see “170 potential daily record cold high temperatures” over the next three days

    “The National Weather Service is forecasting 170 potential daily record cold high temperatures Monday to Wednesday,” tweeted Weather Channel meteorologist Jonathan Erdman. “A little taste of January in November.”

    The temperature nosedive will be a three-day process as a cold front charges across the central and eastern U.S. from Sunday into Tuesday.

    We are being told that low temperatures in certain portions of Texas could plunge into the teens, and all across the Upper Midwest we could see low temperatures that are well below zero.

    Of course this is not the first wave of record cold weather to come rolling through this season. During the month of October, a couple of major blizzards roared through the Midwest and countless new cold temperature records were established.

    And unfortunately we should expect a lot more bitter weather in the months ahead. Both the Farmers’ Almanac and the Old Farmer’s Almanac are projecting that this upcoming winter will be unusually cold and snowy

    Not long after the Farmers’ Almanac suggested it would be a “freezing, frigid, and frosty” season, the *other* Farmer’s Almanac has released its annual weather forecast—and it’s equally upsetting.

    While the first publication focused on the cold temperatures anticipated this winter, the Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts that excessive snowfall will be the most noteworthy part of the season.

    The Old Farmer’s Almanac, which was founded in 1792, says that the upcoming winter “will be remembered for strong storms” featuring heavy rain, sleet, and a lot of snow. The periodical actually used the word “snow-verload” to describe the conditions we can expect in the coming months.

    So why is this happening?

    It is actually quite simple.

    During a solar minimum, solar activity drops to very low levels, and that tends to mean lower temperatures on Earth.

    Earlier this year, a panel of experts gathered to discuss the current solar minimum, and they came to the conclusion that it “could last for years”

    If you like solar minimum, good news: It could last for years. That was one of the predictions issued last week by an international panel of experts who gathered at NOAA’s annual Space Weather Workshop to forecast the next solar cycle. If the panel is correct, already-low sunspot counts will reach a nadir sometime between July 2019 and Sept 2020, followed by a slow recovery toward a new Solar Maximum in 2023-2026.

    “We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak maximum, preceded by a long, deep minimum,” says panel co-chair Lisa Upton, a solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp.

    But that would actually be a best case scenario.

    There are others that believe that we have now entered a “grand solar minimum” such as the one that our planet experienced several hundred years ago. That one was known as “the Maunder Minimum”, and it resulted in a “little ice age”

    The extreme example happened between 1645 and 1715 when the normal 11-year sunspot cycle vanished. This period, called the Maunder Minimum, was accompanied by bitterly cold winters in the American colonies. Fishing settlements in Iceland and Greenland were abandoned. Icebergs were seen near the English channel. The canals of Venice froze. It was a time of great hardship.

    Ultimately, the longer winters and shorter summers during the “Maunder Minimum” resulted in famine all over the globe, and multitudes ended up perishing

    The Maunder Minimum is the most famous cold period of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures plummeted in Europe (Figs. 14.3–14.7), the growing season became shorter by more than a month, the number of snowy days increased from a few to 20–30, the ground froze to several feet, alpine glaciers advanced all over the world, glaciers in the Swiss Alps encroached on farms and buried villages, tree-lines in the Alps dropped, sea ports were blocked by sea ice that surrounded Iceland and Holland for about 20 miles, wine grape harvests diminished, and cereal grain harvests failed, leading to mass famines (Fagan, 2007). The Thames River and canals and rivers of the Netherlands froze over during the winter (Fig. 14.3). The population of Iceland decreased by about half. In parts of China, warm-weather crops that had been grown for centuries were abandoned. In North America, early European settlers experienced exceptionally severe winters.

    So far in 2019, there have been more than 200 days without a single sunspot on the sun.

    We do not know when solar activity will return to normal, but for now we should all prepare for a bitterly cold winter.

    Beyond that, we had better hope that we have not entered another “Maunder Minimum”, because right now we are struggling to feed everyone on the planet even in the best of years.

    Despite all of our advanced technology, we remain deeply dependent on the weather. Even a year or two of bad harvests could potentially be absolutely catastrophic, and the mainstream media will not tell us the truth until it is way too late to do anything about it.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 20:25

  • CLO Slump Sparks Warning: "There's More Volatility Coming"
    CLO Slump Sparks Warning: “There’s More Volatility Coming”

    It’s not just The Fed’s short-term liquidity pipes that are clogged up, there appears to be some issues in the loan market, signaled by sharp declines in the $680 billion market for collateralized loan obligations (CLO), which could be an early warning sign that the junk bond market is headed for trouble. 

    As President Trump pumps fake trade news, causing the ‘Mother Of All Short Squeezes’ in equity indexes to new highs, the CLO market in October fell 5%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The rare decline in the CLO market was a result of the increasing uncertainties surrounding an economic slowdown.

    S&P Global Market Intelligence data shows the CLO market has grown by $350 billion in the last three years, now stands at $680 billion, yield chasing investors mostly fueled the increase. 

    “We think there’s more volatility coming,” said Maggie Wang, head of US CLO strategy at Citigroup, who spoke The Wall Street Journal.

    “We recommend investors reduce risk and stay with cleaner portfolios and better managers.”

    This late in the cycle, a plunge in CLO bond prices with equities in parabolic up moves indicates something is wrong. 

    The CLO tranches that are experiencing the most stress are in the double-B tranche. These risky CLO securities netted investors 10% through June. But through the end of October, most of the gains were wiped out. 

    “If you think that double-B CLOs are giving a warning sign, that says something about high yield,” said David Preston, head of CLO research at Wells Fargo & Co. “It’s hard to see how both markets can be right.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Data from Palmer Square Capital Management shows Double-B CLO bond yields are about five percentage points higher than the yield of comparably rated junk bonds. 

    “The yield differential hasn’t been this wide since early 2016, when dropping oil prices sparked a selloff in both leveraged loans and high-yield bonds,” The Journal noted. 

    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, some fear the end of the year could bring a notably negative surprise. 

    None other than Credit Suisse’s Zoltan Pozsar (the main in charge of market intelligence for securitized credit markets for The Fed in 2008) has a warning…

    “There is a very real chance that, if we don’t have a better set of pipes from the Fed and a more aggressive QE, then you have a very, very problematic year-end turn.”

    But for now, record-high stocks and trade-deal optimism are all that matters, right?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 20:05

  • Rediscovering America: A Quiz For Veterans Day
    Rediscovering America: A Quiz For Veterans Day

    Authored by David Tucker via InsideSources.com,

    Today is Veterans Day, which has been observed under its current name since 1954 and honors all American veterans.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The quiz below, from the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, provides an opportunity for you to test your knowledge of this national holiday, its origins, and the role of veterans in our national life.

    1. Before 1954, the American holiday honoring veterans was called what?

    A: Flag Day

    B: Armed Forces Day

    C: Armistice Day

    D: Memorial Day

    2. November 11 was chosen for what reason?

    A: Fighting during World War I officially ceased

    B: Treaty of Versailles was signed

    C: Uniform Holiday Bill designated the date

    D: Official ceremony unveiling the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier took place

    3. According to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates, there were how many living veterans in the United States as of September 30, 2018?

    A: 8.3 million

    B: 11.1 million

    C: 14.3 million

    D: 19.6 million

    4. Approximately how many of these veterans served during World War II?

    A: 350,000

    B: 500,000

    C: 1 million

    D: 3.5 million

    5. As early as 1789, the federal government began providing what benefit to veterans?

    A: Health care

    B: Pensions

    C:  Education

    D: Burials in national cemeteries

    6. Which president signed legislation making the Veterans Administration the Department of Veterans Affairs, giving it official Cabinet status?

    A: Herbert Hoover

    B: Franklin D. Roosevelt

    C: Dwight D. Eisenhower

    D: Ronald Reagan

    7. All of the following countries honor veterans on November 11 except this country?

    A: Italy

    B: France

    C: Canada

    D: Belgium

    8. According to the most recent data available, approximately what percentage of veterans are women?

    A: 3 percent

    B: 6 percent

    C: 9 percent

    D: 14 percent

    9. Which president said the following of Veterans Day: “On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting and enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.”

    A: Dwight D. Eisenhower

    B: Lyndon Johnson

    C: George H.W. Bush

    D: George W. Bush

    10. Which of the following celebrities is not a veteran?

    A: Ice-T

    B: Robert Redford

    C: Chuck Norris

    D: Gary Sinise

    *  *  *

    ANSWERS

    1-C; 2-A; 3-D; 4-B; 5-B; 6-D; 7-A; 8-C; 9-A; 10-B.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 19:45

  • Syria (Summed Up In One Iconic Photo)
    Syria (Summed Up In One Iconic Photo)

    As Ömer Özkizilcik writes alongside this somewhat iconic photo, “Russian and American troops crossing each other’s route in northeast Syria.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We wonder what messages were exchanged as the two entities crossed each other…

    All yours (except for the oil)…”

     

    “…tag, you’re it!


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 19:25

  • How To Spend $45,000 On A $27,000 Car
    How To Spend $45,000 On A $27,000 Car

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    As cars become more expensive, and trade-ins worth less and less, buyers go deeper in debt on new cars.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Please consider taking a $45,000 Loan for a $27,000 Ride.

    Consumers, salespeople and lenders are treating cars a lot like houses during the last financial crisis: by piling on debt to such a degree that it often exceeds the car’s value. This phenomenon—referred to as negative equity, or being underwater—can leave car owners trapped.

    Some 33% of people who traded in cars to buy new ones in the first nine months of 2019 had negative equity, compared with 28% five years ago and 19% a decade ago, according to car-shopping site Edmunds.

    Easy lending standards are perpetuating the cycle, with lenders routinely making car loans with low or no down payments that can last seven years or longer.

    Borrowers are responsible for paying their remaining debt even after they get rid of the vehicle tied to it. When subsequently buying another car, they can roll this old debt into a new loan. The lender that originates the new loan typically pays off the old lender, and the consumer then owes the balance from both cars to the new lender. The transactions are often encouraged by dealerships, which now make more money on arranging financing than on selling cars.

    “These aren’t Rolls-Royces,” said David Goldsmith, a lawyer who defends consumers in auto cases. “They’re Ford Escapes.”

    Some 5.2% of outstanding securitized subprime auto-loan balances were at least 60 days past due on a rolling 12-month average during the period ending in June, up from 4.8% the year before and 4.9% two years before, according to Fitch Ratings.

    Examples to Consider

    The Journal cited the case of Mr. John Schricker who kept rolling over loans to the point that it took a $45,000 loan from Ally Financial Inc. to buy a $27,000 Jeep Cherokee.

    Also consider the case of Yolanda Finley. She bought a bought a used 2011 Chevy Traverse with a loan of $25,585 from Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. in 2014. Finley could not afford the payment. Her car was repossessed. She now owes $27,000 on a car she does not even have.

    Nicole-Malia Tennent and Shyanne Fernandez, both in their early 20s, wanted to trade in the car they shared for something less expensive last year. Instead they splurged on a new 2018 GMC Sierra truck, moving the unpaid loan balance of $12,500 into a new loan. The new loan balance is over $66,000. The old loan payment was $500. The new loan payment (I presume for longer), is $900.

    What the hell do two friends need a $66,000 truck for? How will they allot the time between them?

    This is how crazy it’s gotten.

    Three personal anecdotes don’t constitute data but other evidence suggests the problem is widespread.

    Car Dealers Make More Profit On Loans Than Selling Cars

    A third of auto loans in 2019 had a term period over six years. People cannot afford the cars they are buying.

    For discussion, please see Car Dealers Make More Profit On Loans Than Selling Cars

    Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay Middle Class

    On September 9, I noted Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay Middle Class: Revolving Credit Jumps 11.2%

    These are all signs of a “Late Stage Credit Bubble

    Ability to buy things one cannot really afford does not make or keep someone in the “middle class“.

    Wages are not keeping up with needs and desires.

    Collectively, these reports show a late stage credit bubble the Fed desperately wants to keep inflating.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 19:05

  • Trump To Release "Tantalizing" Transcript Of First Ukraine Call This Week
    Trump To Release “Tantalizing” Transcript Of First Ukraine Call This Week

    As the long-awaited ‘public’ impeachment hearings loom – seemingly to discuss the opinions of various leftists about the actual words that Trump and Ukraine’s president Zelensky spoke according to the actual transcript – it appears President Trump has another ace up his sleeve.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As he hinted at on Friday, the president just confirmed by tweet that he will release the transcript of the “most important” first call with the President of Ukraine this week

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

    Trump spoke with Zelensky for the first time shortly after he was elected president of Ukraine in April. The call preceded the July 25 phone conversation that has become the center of the Democrats’ impeachment farce.

    The release of this first transcript is likely to distract from the testimonies of various ‘insiders’ this week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Trump was not done, however, as he took aim once again at Rep. Schiff…

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

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

    Grab your popcorn, it’s going to be a fun week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 18:49

    Tags

  • Baltimore Murder Crisis Could Hit Record, About To Record 300 Homicides For Fifth Straight Year
    Baltimore Murder Crisis Could Hit Record, About To Record 300 Homicides For Fifth Straight Year

    Update (Nov. 11): The murder crisis in Baltimore City could set a record this year.

    The current homicide count is 296 as of Sunday afternoon, following a fatal shooting Saturday morning. 

    In the next week, the murder count could breach 300 for the fifth year in a row.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With 57 days left in the year, the city could record the most murders ever, would need to break 344 homicides, a record that was set in 2015. 

    Councilman Leon Pickett, who represents Baltimore’s seventh district, told CBS 13 Baltimore that the murder crisis is “unacceptable.” 

    “Let’s be clear that one murder in our city is too much,” Pickett said. “The fact that we’re yet again approaching almost 300 murders is unacceptable. Everybody needs to rise up and express the outrage that should be with city approaching that.”

    This time last year, the city saw about the same number of homicides (around 300). 

    “We’ve got to change the culture in our city where people are resolving issues with violent means,” Pickett said.

    Baltimore has the second-worst homicide rate in the country, right behind St. Louis. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For the past several years, homicides across major US metropolitan areas have declined, except for Baltimore City.

    The media has widely criticized President Trump for tweeting about the social-economic chaos in the Baltimore metro area.

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

    And the tragedy of Baltimore is widely due to five decades of deindustrialization, coupled with severe wealth inequality in the inner cities. 

    The opioid epidemic, sparked by local hospitals handing out Oxycontin like candy for two decades, has undoubtedly weighed on the local population. 

    Also, five decades of Democrats running the city have certainly accelerated Baltimore’s demise.

    Baltimore City will continue to descend into chaos into the early 2020s. 

    * * * 

    So here we go again, another depressing story from Baltimore City, a region that is imploding on itself and suffering from a murders crisis, opioid epidemic, a wide gap in wealth/health/education inequalities, and deindustrialization. 

    In this report, we’re only going to focus on the murder crisis and gently touch on the opioid epidemic (because they go hand in hand), however, please search our archives for other stories on Baltimore, because the implosion there is what will be coming to many other inner cities across the country in the 2020s. 

    With that being said, Baltimore City could be on track to surpass last year’s 309 homicides, and if current trends persist, there is a chance that homicides could hit a record high, which means the city could see 342, a level that was previously set in 2015 and 2017. 

    “Baltimore is on course to reach more than 300 homicides for the fifth year in a row, with 232 killings through Wednesday compared to 199 at the same time last year,” The Baltimore Sun said.

    To combat the murder crisis, the federal government and Baltimore City Police unveiled a permanent “strike force” comprised of detectives, prosecutors, and federal agents will begin operations to target Baltimore drug gangs and their Mexican suppliers, who have been flooding the city with heroin and fentanyl.

    No details were provided if the strike force will target hospitals and pharmaceutical companies who continue pumping legal opioids onto the streets. Legal opioids kicked off the opioid crisis across the city several decades ago, not Baltimore gangs and their Latin American suppliers.

    As shown in the chart below, cumulative homicide trends are likely to record the 5th consecutive year of murders over 300. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The next chart shows most of the homicides this year have been caused by a gun. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Geographically speaking, the killings aren’t situated in just one part of the town but are more widespread.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last week, we reported how one neighborhood in the city transformed into a warzone. We said: “There was so much gunfire at one point that not even a single rat was spotted on the streets of East Baltimore City.” 

    🚨Officer Down🚨 Officer struck by gunfire in Baltimore during pursuit as innocent civilians jump for cover during the shooting. If you see Officers pointing their weapons at a suspect, please get out of the line of fire. Find a safe place if you really need to record. pic.twitter.com/OKD6aAWZsq

    — Sgt.Helper (@1Cycle20) August 29, 2019

    On a per-capita basis, Baltimore’s homicide rate is the highest in the country and is on par with a war zone.

    We said this last week, and we’ll repeat it: “There’s no meaningful policy in place to turn Baltimore around in the next decade. So in the meantime, if you value your life, stay away from Baltimore.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 18:45

  • Economists Are Still Hooked On The Myth That Saving Is Bad For The Economy
    Economists Are Still Hooked On The Myth That Saving Is Bad For The Economy

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    According to new data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the personal saving rate in the US in September 2019 was 8.3 percent. That puts it near a six-year high, and comparable to the saving rate we saw during the early 1990s.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indeed, the personal saving rate has been heading upward steadily for the past eighteen months. And that’s a bit of an unusual thing. For at least the past fifty years, the saving rate has tended to increase when the economy is doing poorly, and decrease when the economy is doing well.

    We saw this in the late seventies and early eighties during the age of stagflation and the 1982 recession. We certainly saw it in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when the saving rate quickly rose from a near-low of 3.8 percent in August 2008, more than doubling to 8.2 percent during may of 2009.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But if the BEA’s numbers are correct, that pattern appears to be over, and Americans appear to be more willing to save even when job growth continues to head upward.

    This change could be a result of several factors. It could be Americans are less confident about their prospects for future earnings, even if the current job situation appears bright. Many could be less confident that the assets they do have will provide a cushion in case of crisis. For example, many Americans may have learned their lesson about the myth that “housing prices always go up.”

    The fact that these numbers are averages makes it especially hard to guess. After all, surveys suggests a very large numbers of Americans are saving very little.

    For example, CNBC reported in January that “Just 40 percent of Americans are able to cover an unexpected $1,000 expense, such as an emergency room visit or car repair, with their savings…”

    A separate survey “found that 58 percent of respondents had less than $1,000 saved.

    Regardless of who is doing it, however, increased saving can be a good thing for the economy overall. For instance, even if only the rich are the ones saving more, their saving increases the amount of loanable funds, decreasing the interest rate, and making lenders more likely to lend to riskier borrowers. That’s good for farmers and small business owners.

    Moreover, as the wealthy refrain from spending, they increase the value of cash held and spent by people at all income levels. For example, if the rich are spending less on restaurant meals and pickup trucks, this means the prices for those items are not being bid up as much. When the rich save, that means fewer dollars chasing goods and services, which can lead to more stable, or even falling prices. That can be good for many people at lower income levels.

    Nonetheless, many mainstream economists continue to get hung up on the idea that saving “too much” hampers economic growth. For example, in a recent article at the Wall Street Journal titled “Americans Are Saving More, and That Isn’t Necessarily Good” Paul Kiernan writes:

    if saving outstrips investment opportunities for a long time, some economists say, it can hold down interest rates, inflation and economic growth. Such “secular stagnation” may leave less room to cut interest rates, making it harder for the Federal Reserve to boost growth during downturns.

    “Rather than being a virtue, saving becomes a vice,” said Gauti Eggertsson, an economist at Brown University.

    This is an old story we’ve been hearing for years, and the idea that there is too much saving certainly received its share of promotion during the 2001-2002 recession, and during the 2007-2009 recession.

    Economists do recognize that more saving helps increase loanable funds — and thus puts downward pressure on interests rates — and reduces inflation. But more saving does not, as they think, reduce real economic growth.

    True, it might reduce economic growth as measured by government stats which mostly just add up money transactions . But properly understood, economic growth increases with saving, because the capital stock is increasing, making it easier for entrepreneurs to deliver new goods and services — and more goods and services — to consumers. As Frank Shostak explains, we need more saving to create more and better goods:

    What limits the production growth of goods and services is the introduction of better tools and machinery (i.e., capital goods), which raises worker productivity. Tools and machinery are not readily available; they must be made. In order to make them, people must allocate consumer goods and services that will sustain those individuals engaged in the production of tools and machinery.

    This allocation of consumer goods and services is what savings is all about. Note that savings become possible once some individuals have agreed to transfer some of their present goods to individuals that are engaged in the production of tools and machinery. Obviously, they do not transfer these goods for free, but in return for a greater quantity of goods in the future. According to Mises, “Production of goods ready for consumption requires the use of capital goods, that is, of tools and of half-finished material. Capital comes into existence by saving, i.e., temporary abstention from consumption.”

    The common view among many economists today, however, is that it’s better for economic growth to make sure more people spend every last dime on trinkets at the discount store. Those who have been around long enough to remember previous business cycles will remember that this idea manifests itself during times of recession as pundits insist it’s our patriotic duty to spend more, in order to create economic growth.

    In truth, in a time like today, the best thing people can do is save more. We live in a time of multiple economic bubbles and non-productive sectors of the economy fueled by inflationary monetary policy. When recession finally does come, vast amounts of debt will never get paid back and immense numbers of “assets” held on balance sheets will evaporate. The result will be a lot of lost jobs and a lot of failed businesses. The only real cushion will be real savings which will be badly needed in a time of recession.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 18:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th November 2019

  • "Too Many To Count": The Global Persecution Of Christians
    “Too Many To Count”: The Global Persecution Of Christians

    Authored by Raymond Ibrahim via The Gatestone Institute,

    Today is one of the International Days of Prayer for the Persecuted Church (IDOP). Initiated over 20 years ago by the World Evangelical Alliance, 100,000 congregations around the world and millions of Christians participate on this day.

    “This November let us unite in prayer for our persecuted brothers and sisters,” IDOP noted in a brief video that highlights a few examples of recent persecution, including the Easter Sunday church bombings in Sri Lanka and the ongoing slaughter of Christians by Islamic groups in Nigeria and, increasingly, Burkina Faso.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Discussing this day’s significance, Vernon Brewer, the CEO and founder of World Help, a Christian humanitarian organization, wrote:

    It’s easy to go about our lives and forget that in places like Nigeria, Iran and North Korea being a Christian can often lead to death. After all, for the most part, persecution for our faith isn’t something most of us face… But I can’t forget the believers I’ve met in Iraq, China or at the North Korean border. I can’t forget their scars or their haunted eyes and horrific stories… The more I travel, the more I see that in many countries Christian persecution is worse than ever before.”

    Statistics bear out this grim assertion: “4,136 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons,” noted Open Doors in its World Watch List 2019. “On average, that’s 11 Christians killed every day for their faith.” Additionally, “2,625 Christians were detained without trial, arrested, sentenced and imprisoned” and “1,266 churches or Christian buildings were attacked.”

    The report further states that more than 245 million Christians around the world are currently suffering from persecution. In other words, “1 in 9 Christians experience high levels of persecution worldwide.”

    Typically women fare worse: “In many places, they experience a ‘double persecution’— one for being a Christian and one for being a woman.” As for specific numbers: “At least six women every day are raped, sexually harassed or forced into marriage to a Muslim man under the threat of death for their Christian faith…”

    The “Independent Review into the global persecution of Christians,” led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro, and published in early 2019, states:

    “Evidence shows not only the geographic spread of anti-Christian persecution, but also its increasing severity. In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

    The bishop’s detailed report, which was commissioned by then British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, concluded that the persecution of Christians is near “genocide” levels.

    Both studies make clear that most of the persecution occurs in the Muslim world. In seven of the top ten worst nations, “the primary cause of persecution is Islamic oppression,” notes Open Doors. Additionally, 38 of the 50 nations that persecute Christians the most are Muslim-majority.

    The Bishop of Truro’s report gives specifics:

    • “The persecution of Christians is perhaps at its most virulent in the region of the birthplace of Christianity — the Middle East & North Africa.”

    • “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christian numbers are below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today.”

    • “In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage.”

    • “[T]here is mass violence which regularly expresses itself through the bombing of churches, as has been the case in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia.”

    • “The single-greatest threat to Christians [in Nigeria] … came from Islamist militant group Boko Haram, with US intelligence reports in 2015 suggesting that 200,000 Christians were at risk of being killed… Those worst affected included Christian women and girls ‘abducted, and forced to convert, enter forced marriages, sexual abuse and torture.'”

    • “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence [in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines] was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership.”

    Outside the Muslim world, the persecution of Christians is also getting significantly worse, particularly North Korea, where “never-ending pressure and violence” is directed against Christians. In India, for the first time in modern history, Christians are experiencing “extreme persecution.”

    In the end, numbers and statistics will never adequately capture the magnitude of the problem. “Too many to count, too many unknown,” states the video by International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, “All because they bear the name of Jesus.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/11/2019 – 02:00

  • How The Deep State "Justifies" Itself In America
    How The Deep State “Justifies” Itself In America

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On October 30th, there was a panel discussion broadcast live on C-Span from the National Press Club and the Michael V. Hayden Center. The discussants were John Brennan, Michael McCabe, John McGlaughlin, and Michael Morrell. They all agreed with the statement by McLaughlin (former Deputy CIA Director) “Thank God for the ‘Deep State’”, and the large audience there also applauded it — nobody booed it.

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

    John Brennan amplified upon the thought, and there was yet more applause. However, that thought hadn’t been invented by McLaughlin; it instead had evolved recently in the pages of the New York Times. Perhaps the discussants had read it there. Instead of America’s ‘news’-media uncritically trumpeting what government officials assert to be facts (as they traditionally do), we now have former spooks uncritically trumpeting what a mainstream ‘news’-medium has recently concocted to be the case — about themselves. They’ve come out of the closet, about being the Deep State. However, even in that, they are lying, because they aren’t it; they are only agents for it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In America, the Deep State ‘justifies’ itself in the ‘news’-media that it owns, and does so by falsely ‘defining’ what the “Deep State” is (which is actually the nation’s 607 billionaires, whose hired agents number in the millions). They mis-‘define’ it, as being, instead, the taxpayer-salaried career Government employees, known professionally as “the Civil Service.” (Although some Civil Servants — especially at the upper levels — are agents for America’s billionaires and retire to cushy board seats, most of them actually are not and do not. And the “revolving door” between “the public sector” and “the private sector” is where the Deep State operations become concentrated. That’s the core of the networking, by which the billionaires get served. And, of course, those former spooks at the National Press Club said nothing about it. Are they authentically so stupid that they don’t know about it, or is that just pretense from them?)

    How the Deep State’s operatives perpetrate this deception about the meaning of “Deep State” was well exemplified in the nine links that were supplied on October 28th by the extraordinarily honest anonymous German intelligence analyst who blogs as “Moon of Alabama” and who condemned there (and linked to) 9 recent articles in the New York Times, as posing a threat against democracy in America.

    As I intend to argue here, the 9 articles are, indeed, aimed at deceiving the American public, about what the true meaning of the phrase “the Deep State” is. He headlined “Endorsing The Deep State Endangers Democracy”. (And that’s what the October 30th panel discussion was actually doing — endorsing the Deep State.)

    However, he didn’t explain the tactic the NYT’s editors (and those former spooks) use to deceive the public about the Deep State, and this is what I aim to do here, by showing the transformation, over time, in the way that that propaganda-organization, the New York Times, has been employing the phrase “Deep State” — a remarkable transformation, which started, on 16 February 2017, by the newspaper’s denying that any Deep State exists in America but that it exists only in corrupt nations; and which gradually transitioned into an upside-down, by asserting that a Deep State does exist in the United States, and that it fights against corruption in this country. As always, only fools (such as that applauding audience on October 30th) would believe it, but propagandists depend upon fools and cannot thrive without them. In this case, the Times, in those 9 articles, was evolving quickly from a blanket denial, to an American-exceptionalist proud affirmation, that a Deep State rules this country and ought to rule it. I agree with the statement that “Endorsing The Deep State Endangers Democracy”, but I am more concerned here to explain how that endorsement — that deceit — is being done.

    The first of these NYT articles was published on 16 February 2017, and it denied that the US has any “Deep State” whatsoever.

    The second, published on 6 March 2017, blamed President Trump (since the NYT represents mainly Democratic Party billionaires) for mainstreaming the phrase “the Deep State” into American political discourse, and it alleged that that phrase actually refers only to “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders.”

    The third, published on 10 March 2017, repeated this allegation, that this phrase applies only to “the powerful deep states of countries like Egypt or Pakistan, experts say.”

    The fourth, published on 5 September 2018, was an anonymous op-ed from a Government employee who condemned Trump and “vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” “This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” So: still the NYT’s editors were hewing to their propaganda-line, that no “Deep State” exists in America — there are just whistleblowers, here.

    The fifth, on 18 December 2018, said, for example, that “Adam Lovinger, a Pentagon analyst, was one of the first to wrap himself in the deep state defense” — namely, that they consist of “people who have been targeted for political reasons.” So, the NYT’s editors were now reinforcing their new false ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting just of Government whistleblowers.

    The sixth, on 6 October 2019, said, “President Trump and some of his allies have asserted without evidence that a cabal of American officials — the so-called deep state — embarked on a broad operation to thwart Mr. Trump’s campaign. The conspiracy theory remains unsubstantiated.” So: the NYT’s editors were back, again, to denying that there is any “Deep State” in America. This was a signal, from them, that they were starting to recognize that they’d need to jiggle their ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” at least a bit.

    The seventh, on 20 October 2019, was by a member of the Editorial Board, and it boldly proclaimed, about “the deep state,” “Let us now praise these not-silent heroes.” The propagandists now had settled firmly upon their new (and previously merely exploratory) ‘definition’ of “Deep State,” as consisting of whistleblowers in the US Government’s Civil Services, “individuals willing to step up and protest the administration’s war on science, expertise and facts.”

    The eighth, on 23 October 2019, equated “the deep state” even more boldly with the impeachment of President Trump: “Over the last three weeks, the deep state has emerged from the shadows in the form of real live government officials, past and present, who have defied a White House attempt to block cooperation with House impeachment investigators and provided evidence that largely backs up the still-anonymous whistle-blower.”

    The ninth, on 26 October 2019, which came from “a contributing opinion writer and professor of history,” alleged that the origins of “the deep state” are to be found with Teddy Roosevelt in the 1880s, when “A healthy dose of elitism drove Roosevelt’s crusade, as the spoils system had been the path to power for immigrant-driven political machines in big cities like New York. Yet the Civil Service laws he and others created marked the beginning of a shift toward a fairer, less corrupt public realm.”

    In other words: the Deep State, in America, are not perpetrators of corrupt government (such as in “countries like Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, where authoritarian elements band together to undercut democratically elected leaders”), but are instead courageous enemies of corrupt government; and they are instituted by the aristocracy here (today’s American billionaires), in order to reduce, if not eliminate, corruption in government (which, the Times now alleges, originates amongst, or serves, the lower classes).

    The lessons about Big Brother, which were taught by George Orwell in his merely metaphorical masterpiece 1984, were apparently never learned, because even now — as his “Newspeak” is being further refined so that black is white, and good is bad, and truth is falsehood — there still are people who subscribe to the propagandists and cannot get enough of their ridiculous con-games. Though in some poor countries, a corrupt Deep State rules; a Deep State rules in America so as to reduce if not prevent corruption, the New York Times now concludes.

    You can see how it’s done, in those nine NYT articles. Isn’t it simply amazing there?!


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 23:30

    Tags

  • Chaos In Bolivia After President Morales Resigns, Claims He Was Victim Of A Coup
    Chaos In Bolivia After President Morales Resigns, Claims He Was Victim Of A Coup

    Shortly after the country’s military “urged” him to do so, Bolivian President Evo Morales resigned on Sunday to ease violence that has gripped the South American nation since a disputed election last month, but he stoked fears of further unrest in a country that has been paralyzed by weeks of protests after saying he was the victim of a “coup” and faced arrest.

    Morales, who has been in power for nearly 14 years, said in televised comments that he would submit his resignation letter to help restore stability, though he aimed barbs at what he called a “civic coup” and later said police planned to arrest him.

    “I resign from my position as president so that (Carlos) Mesa and (Luis Fernando) Camacho do not continue to persecute socialist leaders,” Morales said in the televised address naming the leaders of the opposition.

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

    Morales said that he decided to leave the post in hopes that his departure would stop the spate of violent attacks against officials and indigenous people, “so that protesters do not continue burning the houses of public officials” and  “kidnapping and mistreating” families of indigenous leaders.

    “I am resigning, sending my letter of resignation to the Legislative Assembly,” Morales said, adding that it was his “obligation as indigenous president and president of all Bolivians to seek peace.”

    Morales has received a reputation as a staunch defender of socialism and an ardent critic of US foreign policy. The country’s highest court ruled in 2018 that he could run for the fourth time.

    Underscoring the ongoing tensions, Morales later said on Twitter that the police had an “illegal” warrant for his arrest and that “violent groups” had attacked his home, according to Reuters, although the local police chief later refuted there was a warrant for Morales’ arrest.

    Shortly before Morales announced his resignation, Bolivian TV channels aired footage of what they say was a presidential plane departing from  El Alto International airport. It was reported that the plane took Morales to his political stronghold of Chimoré in the Department of Cochabamba, 300 kilometers east of La Paz, a city where he launched his reelection bid back in May.

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

    The resignation of Morales, a leftist icon and the last survivor of Latin America’s “pink tide” of two decades ago, has already sent shockwaves across the region at a time when left-leaning leaders have returned to power in Mexico and Argentina.

    Completing a trifecta of resignations, Vice President Álvaro García Linera also resigned, as did Bolivia senate’s president, Adriana Salvatierra.

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

    Echoing Morales, some of his leftist Latin American allies decried the turn of events as a “coup,” including Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Brazil’s Lula (who last week was released from prison) and Argentine President-elect Alberto Fernandez. Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said his country would offer Morales asylum if he sought it.

    While Bolivia under Morales enjoyed a period of welcome prosperity, including one of the region’s strongest economic growth rates and its poverty rate was cut in half, his determination to cling to power and seek a fourth term alienated many allies, even among indigenous communities.

    * * *

    Pressure had been ramping up on Morales since he was declared the winner of the Oct. 20 election. Ahead of today’s announcement, General Williams Kaliman, the head of Bolivia’s armed forces, on Sunday said the military had asked Morales to step down to help restore peace and stability after weeks of protests over the vote. Kaliman added that the military was calling on the Bolivian people to refrain from violence and disorder.

    Videos from La Paz, the site of many recent anti-Morales protests, showed crowds cheering after the resignation announcement.

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

    After the contested October elections there were rival rallies of Morales’ opponents and supporters throughout the country. While many anti-government protests remained peaceful, others have led to rioting in major cities, clashes with police, and attacks on pro-government politicians. On Saturday, protesters burned the house of Oruro city governor  Víctor Hugo Vásquez, who stood by the president as tensions flared up.

    Earlier on Sunday, Morales had agreed to hold new elections after a report from the Organization of American States (OAS), which conducted an audit of the Oct. 20 vote, revealed serious irregularities. The OAS report said that election should be annulled after it had found “clear manipulations” of the voting system that called into question Morales’ win, with a lead of just over 10 points over main rival Carlos Mesa.

    Bolivian opposition urged Morales to resign altogether despite his promise of the new elections. While he briefly resisted such calls, branding them “unconstitutional” and an “attempted coup,” the President eventually gave in after the military joined that chorus.

    Adding to the chaos resulting from weeks of protests, the resignations of Morales and his vice president meant it was not initially clear who would take the helm of the country pending the results of new elections.

    According to Bolivian law, in the absence of the president and vice president, the head of the Senate would normally take over provisionally. However, as noted above, Senate President Adriana Salvatierra also stepped down late on Sunday, leaving an unprecedented power vacuum (which we are confident will be filled quick). Legislators were expected to meet to agree on an interim commission or legislator who would have temporary administrative control of the country, according to a constitutional lawyer who spoke to Reuters.

    Morales, speaking at an earlier news conference, had tried to placate critics with a pledge to replace the electoral tribunal for the new vote, though his opponents – already angry that he ran in defiance of term limits – were not assuaged.

    The election standoff has dented the image of Morales – who has helmed Bolivia through a period of relative stability and economic growth – and hit the landlocked nation’s economy. His “legacy will be compromised and the region will suffer another impact with consequences well beyond Bolivia,” said Juan Cruz Diaz, managing director of risk advisory Cefeidas Group, referring to Argentina, Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Brazil.

    Luis Fernando Camacho, a civic leader from the eastern city of Santa Cruz who has become a symbol of the opposition, said the OAS report on Sunday clearly demonstrated election fraud. He had reiterated his call for Morales to resign.

    “Today we won a battle,” Camacho told a crowd of cheering supporters in the capital before Morales’ resignation, though he added more time was needed to repair the constitutional order and democracy. “Only when we can be sure that democracy is solid, then will we go back home.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also welcomed the call for a new vote to “ensure free and fair elections.”

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

    As the fall-out from the audit report swept across Bolivia, and as the military pulled its backing, Morales’ support crumbled on Sunday.   Several of his allies resigned, including Mining Minister Cesar Navarro and Chamber of Deputies President Victor Borda, who belongs to Morales’ party. They both cited fear for the safety of their families as the reason for stepping down. Juan Carlos Huarachi, leader of the Bolivian Workers’ Center, a powerful pro-government union, said Morales should stand down if that would help end recent violence.

    But the straw that broke the camel’s back is when the police forces also joined anti-government protests, while the military said it would not “confront the people” over the issue. The attorney general’s office also announced it had ordered an investigation with the aim of prosecuting the members of the electoral body and others responsible for the irregularities.

    Mesa had also said Morales and his vice president should not preside over the electoral process or be candidates.

    Morales, who came to power in 2006 as Bolivia’s first indigenous leader, had defended his election win but said he would adhere to the findings of the OAS audit. “The manipulations to the computer systems are of such magnitude that they must be deeply investigated by the Bolivian State to get to the bottom of and assign responsibility in this serious case,” the preliminary OAS report had said.

    So just as some blame Russia when elections don’t go their way, others finds a culprit in computer system manipulations.

    Voting in a new election should take place as soon as conditions are in place to guarantee it being able to go ahead, including a newly composed electoral body, the OAS said. The OAS added that it was statistically unlikely that Morales had secured the 10-percentage-point margin of victory needed to win outright.

    Morales stressed that his resignation does not mean that the socialist case is defeated.

    “It is no betrayal. The struggle continues. We are a people,” he said.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 23:19

    Tags

  • Where U.S. Troops Are Based In The Middle East
    Where U.S. Troops Are Based In The Middle East

    After the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria caused turmoil in the region, Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that some units formerly stationed in Syria have moved to stay in Iraq.

    The country had formerly been the base of more than 5,000 U.S. troops, as our graphic shows.

    Infographic: Where U.S. Troops Are Based In The Middle East | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Other Middle Eastern countries host many more U.S. troops.

    The largest U.S. base in the Middle East is in Qatar. The country hosts around 13,000 U.S. troops, according to numbers compiled by Axios. Located southwest of Doha, Al Udeid Air Base has proven crucial in the fight against ISIS. Qatar invested $1 billion in constructing the base and it’s also home to the the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center, responsible for coordinating U.S. and allied air power across the Middle East, particularly in airspace over Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

    The above infographic also highlights just how important Qatar, along with Kuwait, is to the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

    Both countries hosts an estimated 13,000 U.S. troops.

    Neighboring Bahrain is also vital to American interests in the region, home to the Naval Support Activity Bahrain, the U.S. Fifth Fleet and a substantial military presence at Isa Air Base. 7,000 troops are based there.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 23:00

  • Who Wants To Destroy The World?
    Who Wants To Destroy The World?

    Authored by Phil Torres via OneZero,

    For most of human history, the question of who would want to destroy the world didn’t much matter. The reason, of course, was that that no individual or group of humans could demolish civilization or cause our extinction. Our ancestors just didn’t have the tools: no amount of spears, arrows, swords, or catapults would have enabled them — even the most bloodthirsty and misanthropic — to have inflicted harm in every corner of the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This changed with the invention of the atomic bomb. While scholars often identify 1945 as the year that human self-annihilation became possible, a more accurate date is 1948 or 1949, since this is when the United States stockpiled enough nuclear weapons (about 100) to have initiated a hemisphere-spanning “nuclear winter.” (See this work in progress for why I’m focusing on 100 nuclear weapons as a threshold.) A nuclear winter occurs when soot from burning cities significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface for a period of months or years, thereby causing temperatures to plummet and famines to ensue. Quite unsettlingly, it wasn’t until the 1980s — decades after we had enough nukes to blot out the sun — that the nuclear winter phenomenon was first identified, although lingering questions remain even today.

    The U.S. monopoly on world-ending power didn’t last long: by 1953, the Soviet Union had likewise expanded to 100 weapons. Now there were two nations on Earth that could obliterate civilization. But again, this didn’t last very long. The United Kingdom joined the club of potential world-enders around 1962, China around 1971, and France around 1973, with Israel, Pakistan, and India becoming members of this club in the 2010s. Hence, in less than a century, the world went from containing zero actors capable of unilaterally destroying the world to eight.

    This is a scary situation. Unfortunately, it’s getting worse — much worse. The reason is that states are no longer the only players in the game. Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and they might be a lot more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

    My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. Consider the following answers, taken from different online sources, to the question of whether one would destroy the world if one could (quoting typos and all):

    “Yes. It is obvious that we gain nothing from living and there is a huge amount of human suffering that I find quite unjustifiable. The complete annihilation of the human race would be the greatest act of compassion ever.” Reddit.com

    “Yes, we suck as a human race.” Reddit.com

    “Yes. Because you all are assholes. And this is not a joke I would love to push something that ends humanity. I always thought about it and now there is the question about that topic and I am happy to say I want you all dead everyone single one of you fuckers. Please give me the chance to wipe out humanity.” Reddit.com

    “My view is that Mankind is a plague… I vote to destroy mankind and let nature start over.” Debate.org

    “The human animal is the only evil animal in the animal kingdom. We destroy everything… I email the president weekly and beg him to push the button and stop the madness already.” Debate.org

    “In the short time we’ve been on this planet, humans have already destroyed so much. We destroy ecosystems, and kill off entire species of animals… The world would be better off without humans as a whole.” Debate.org

    Of course, saying something definitely isn’t the same as doing it. Even so, can we be fully certain that not a single person in the world would attempt to follow through on his or her annihilatory fantasies? One way to approach this question is to look for historical examples of groups or people who both expressed a desire to kill everyone and committed some terrible act or acts of violence. The combination of these two phenomena implies that such people would be willing to act on their omnicidal (meaning killing everyone) impulses and willingly, perhaps even eagerly, push a doomsday button. So are there such examples?

    Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. And they seem to fall into a handful of basic categories.

    Consider the disturbing case of Eric Harris, the psychopathic mastermind behind the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. His journal is full of all sorts of genuinely horrifying, ghoulish fantasies. On several occasions, he explicitly mentions his burning desire to extinguish humanity. At one point. he writes: “If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Kill them all. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive.”

    Elsewhere, Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

    When Harris and Dylan Klebold, his partner in crime, perpetrated their massacre in Columbine, they were equipped with garden-variety weapons. Dangerous to be sure, but hardly capable of “burning the world.” Can there be any doubt, though, that if Harris — who was relatively intelligent and liked math and science — had had access to some of the advanced technologies of tomorrow, he would have, when committing suicide, tried to go out with a much bigger bang?

    The Columbine massacre had a huge influence on later rampage shooters, some of whom also dreamt of omnicide. For example, in 2007, an 18-year-old Finnish student named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot several people at his school, which he also tried to burn down. Like Harris, he wrote about “a final solution” as “the death of the entire human race,” and described his massacre as “an operation against humanity with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.” Yet another rampage shooter from Finland, Matti Saari, wrote in his suicide note, “I hate the human race, I hate mankind, I hate the whole world, and I want to kill as many people as possible.”

    Then, of course, there was Elliot Rodger, the incel psychopath who killed seven people and injured 14 in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. In a video shot one day before the rampage, he said in no uncertain terms: “I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. And rightfully so. You deserve to be annihilated. And I’ll give that to you.”

    School shooters and other lone wolves have idiosyncratic motives, such as a misanthropic hatred of humanity, or a desire to retaliate against women for perceived romantic and sexual slights. Together, though, they comprise a relatively cohesive category of omnicidal actors, and a relatively unpredictable one at that.

    Another type of omnicidal actor comes in the form of apocalyptic terrorists who believe that to save the world, it must first be destroyed. ISIS, arguably the largest and richest terrorist group in history, is a paradigm case. While some members of ISIS probably didn’t hold apocalyptic beliefs, the leadership most certainly did — and they made strategic decisions based on these beliefs. The man who essentially founded ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed that Islam’s version of Armageddon was about to unfold around the small Syrian town of Dabiq. Hence, the name of the group’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq. After the U.S. military killed al-Zarqawi in 2006, leadership of ISIS transferred to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a fevered apocalypticist who insisted that the Islamic end-of-days messianic figure, the “Mahdi,” was about to appear in Iraq. Like al-Zarqawi, he based his strategy on his apocalyptic belief — and it backfired. He soon met his end at the hands of Western forces.

    Both of these individuals really believed that the end was nigh, and that it was their duty to use violence — catastrophic violence, to be more specific — to bring about the apocalypse. ISIS members talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, releasing deadly pathogens, and building dirty bombs. I personally haven’t spoken to a single terrorism scholar who doesn’t think that ISIS would have gleefully pushed a “destroy-the-world” button, especially if Western forces were marching toward Dabiq.

    But ISIS is far from the only apocalyptic group. Famously, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to trigger Armageddon by releasing sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995. Here in the U.S., more than a dozen hate groups subscribe to Christian Identity, an apocalyptic worldview that endorses the use of catastrophic violence as a means of triggering a “race war” that will initiate the end of the world. And one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, the Taiping Rebellion, involved an apocalyptic movement called the “Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.” This was led by a man named Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, “commissioned by the Lord of Heaven to slay the devil-demons (Manchus) whose rule had brought ruin to China.”

    A final type of omnicidal actor lingers within the outermost fringe of radical environmentalist, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite ideologies. Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, provides an example par excellence. Beginning in 1978, Kaczynski perpetrated numerous domestic terrorist attacks, killing three people and injuring 23 others. A former UC Berkeley mathematics professor and Harvard alumnus, Kaczynski didn’t wish for humanity to go extinct. Rather, he wanted to trigger a global revolution against industrial society, with the ultimate goal of causing its collapse. Kaczynski ultimately didn’t care whether his revolution would cause people to die, since in his utilitarian calculus the ends would justify the means. As Kaczynski wrote in 1995: “This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.”

    In contrast, other actors in this category have explicitly embraced pro-extinction convictions. For example, the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, holds as their mission “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

    How might they accomplish their omnicidal aims? GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

    This parallels an anonymous article in the Earth First! Journal, published in 1989, meaning that this idea has been around for a while: “Contributions are urgently solicited for scientific research on a species specific virus that will eliminate Homo shiticus from the planet. Only an absolutely species specific virus should be set loose. Otherwise it will be just another technological fix. Remember, Equal Rights for All Other Species.”

    While the most radical fringe of the environmentalist movement has avoided the limelight in recent years, some experts, such as the terrorism scholar Frances Flannery, expect a resurgence as climate and biodiversity crises worsen. This poses an obvious danger in a world replete with bullets and bombs; but it poses an existential threat in a world of cheap and easy gene editing. Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

    Are there any solutions to the problems posed by virus-toting omnicidal maniacs? One hard-to-avoid — and completely terrifying — answer is mass surveillance. This could take the form of what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called a “panopticon,” whereby the state (perhaps run by computer programs designed specifically to govern — a form of government called “algocracy”) monitors every action of its citizens. The obvious danger is that this could collapse into tyrannical totalitarianism, which itself constitutes an existential risk.

    Another possibility involves what the science fiction writer, David Brin, dubs the “transparent society.” This would make surveillance egalitarian, so to speak: everyone would be able to see what everyone else is doing all the time, thereby enabling those watched to watch the watchers. Brin doesn’t argue that this is an ideal situation, only that it’s a better situation than one in which the state has all the power. Perhaps a total loss of privacy is the cost of existential security.

    Alternatively, I have previously claimed that, in order to reduce the risks posed by malicious agents like those mentioned above, society should prioritize mitigating climate change and ecological destruction. Both phenomena are threat multipliers and threat intensifiers, which means that they’ll introduce new problems while making old problems even worse. Better environmental policies would lower the threat posed by ecoterrorists, whose fundamental complaint — “Humans are stupidly destroying the biosphere” — is scientifically accurate. Such policies would also decrease the number and severity of natural disasters, which could fertilize apocalyptic fervor among religious extremists. As the terrorism scholar Mark Juergensmeyer has remarked, “radical times will breed radical religion,” a hypothesis apparently supported by the rise of ISIS during the Syrian civil war.

    Moving forward, people who care about human survival need to think hard not just about the various technologies that will become available, but about the types of actors who might try to use these technologies for catastrophic ill. The future of the human race could quite literally depend on it.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 22:30

  • Caught On Video: Hong Kong Protester Shot By Police During Morning Clashes; Hang Seng Tumbles
    Caught On Video: Hong Kong Protester Shot By Police During Morning Clashes; Hang Seng Tumbles

    Hong Kong police opened fire and hit at least one protester on Monday according to multiple news sources, as chaos erupted across the city a day after officers fired tear gas to break up demonstrations that are entering their sixth month.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Police fired live rounds at protesters on the eastern side of Hong Kong island, and local Cable TV said one protester was wounded when police opened fire.  Video footage showed a protester lying in a pool of blood with his eyes wide open. Police also pepper-sprayed and subdued a woman nearby as plastic crates were thrown at officers, the video shared on social media showed.

    A longer clip of the shooting is below. Reader discretion advised.

    The shot protester is said in critical condition, according to CableTB.

    Riot police soon appeared after the shooting,  helping the traffic officers subdue the protesters according to RTHK. Angry people started demanding explanations for the shooting, but were pepper sprayed by riot police. A woman who continued to confront the officers was thrown to the ground, then subdued, as the enraged crowd threw objects at the officers and cursed them.

    An ambulance arrived around six minutes after the shooting, by which time the first man who was shot appeared to be barely moving, lying in a pool of blood. The camera operator was by this time sobbing as he recounted the shooting to his audience.

    Following the shooting, police cordoned off the area, but a large crowd of many hundreds of people quickly gathered at the intersection, yelling abuse at the officers, many of them extremely emotional. Police ordered them to leave immediately, only to be ignored. Officers then used pepper spray on the crowd. Some then left, and officers rushed forward to arrest a few of them.

    Police issued a statement saying that radical protesters had set up barricades at multiple locations across the city and warned the demonstrators to “stop their illegal acts immediately.” They did not comment immediately on the apparent shooting.

    Services on some train and subway lines were alsodisrupted early on Monday, with riot police deployed near stations and shopping malls. Many universities cancelled classes on Monday and there were long traffic jams in some areas.

    Monday’s violence followed a 24th straight weekend of anti-government unrest as activists blocked roads and trashed shopping malls across Hong Kong’s New Territories and Kowloon peninsula.

    Today’s chaos follows the death last Friday of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology student Chow Tsz-lok, days after he fell in a car park near a police dispersal operation where tear gas had been fired.

    Protesters are angry about what they see as police brutality and meddling by Beijing in the former British colony’s freedoms, guaranteed by the “one country, two systems” formula put in place when the territory returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Meanwhile, China has repeatedly warned that continued violence could be met with a ground invasion of Hong Kong, although so far Beijing has demonstrated an unwillingness to escalate.

    The Hang Seng stock index tumbled more than 2% in early trading following news of the shooting.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 22:01

  • Bank Behind World's Largest Money Laundering Scandal Offered Russians Gold Bars To Hide Their Fortune
    Bank Behind World’s Largest Money Laundering Scandal Offered Russians Gold Bars To Hide Their Fortune

    When we last looked at Danske Bank, the Danish lender was at the center of what has been dubbed the world’s largest, $220 billion money-laundering scandal that allegedly involved Russians transferring funds offshore in violation of European regulations (it also involved the chronically criminal Deutsche Bank). Then, two months ago, the scandal took a lethal turn when the CEO of the bank’s Estonia branch was found dead in a still-unexplained suicide. Now, we learn of yet another bizarre twist in what some have dubbed the biggest dirty money scandal of all time: the Danish lender was offering gold bars to wealthy clients to help them keep their fortunes hidden.

    According to Bloomberg, the bank’s Estonian branch – whose CEO committed suicide – which was already wiring billions of client dollars to offshore accounts, told a select group of mostly Russian customers some time around 2012, that they could now also convert their money into gold bars and coins.

    So for those asking the benefits of holding money in physical gold instead of fiat (or crypto), here is the answer: aside from offering a hedge against risk, Danske presented gold as a way for clients to achieve “anonymity,” according to the documents. More importantly, the bank said that using gold ensured “portability” of assets, according to an internal presentation dated June 2012.

    As one would expect, the gold/money-laundering service did not come cheap: Danske charged a fee of 0.5% on larger orders, while smaller orders had a commission of as much as 4%.

    This is the first time we learn that Danske offered such “services” – in the bank’s own report on its non-resident unit, the bank listed the services it provided to clients. Aside from payments, these included setting up foreign-exchange lines, as well as bond and securities trading. The bank didn’t list the sale of gold bars.

    While it’s not known how much gold Danske managed to sell while the now defunct Estonian unit was still running, an internal email seen by Bloomberg revealed that at least some clients used the service. Local private banking clients were also offered the service.

    Furthermore, for gold bars weighing 250 grams or more, Danske clients could obtain the precious metal without a sealed pack or paper certificates. Bloomberg adds that anti-money laundering approval was needed before customers could collect the gold, but such approvals weren’t necessary if the gold was kept in long-term storage, according to the documents.

    The report goes on to note that the alleged “gold laundering” service – somewhat similar to the Turkey-Dubai-Iran PetroGold Triangle that emerged in 2012 as a means by which Iran evaded the Western blockade – was no longer offered after 2013, when the price of gold tumbled. A bank presentation dated from June 2012, when gold was trading close to an all-time high, told clients that “the product is not being advertised publicly or in the media.”

    Additional documents revealed that Danske’s Estonian branch sourced its gold from two partners, depending on the size of orders. One partner handled orders that exceeded 300,000 euros, equivalent to 6 kilograms at the time, and bought the gold from the Austrian mint; the other was used for smaller orders, according to the presentation, which didn’t name the suppliers.

    Some of the documents promoting gold bars are signed by Howard Wilkinson, the whistleblower who brought the Danske Bank laundering scandal into the public light. His lawyer, Stephen Kohn, didn’t immediately comment on the matter when contacted by Bloomberg.

    As reported previously, Danske Bank is currently investigated by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S. In Europe, it’s the target of criminal probes by prosecutors in Denmark, Estonia and France, according to Bloomberg. The bank has also had several class-action lawsuits brought against it, and its former chief executive officer, Thomas Borgen, is under preliminary criminal investigation in Denmark, along with many other former directors at Danske.

    As an aside, gold has traditionally played a special role in the “historic ties” between Russia and Estonia, which was swallowed by the Soviet Union in 1940 after it gained independence following WWI, and which communists participating in the Russian revolution used as a bridge to channel vast quantities of gold taken from the murdered family of Czar Nicholas II into the West.

    In the early 1920s, about 700 tons of Czarist coins dodged a western blockade by passing through Tallinn with the knowledge of the country’s leaders, before heading for Scandinavia and the U.K. It now appears that Russian elite may have used the same path.

    It remains unclear who bought the Danske gold, or where it now resides.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 22:00

  • Gabbard And Trump Jr. Change America's View Of 'The View'
    Gabbard And Trump Jr. Change America’s View Of ‘The View’

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

    The unbearable harpies of The View that gather every weekday on ABC to show the world what toxic femininity looks like reached their peak of relevance this week thanks to two Presidential candidates, Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Donald Trump Jr. (R-Future).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Both Gabbard and Trump Jr. sat in the middle seat and commanded it like they owned it, doing what most of America has been begging for for years, to put both the panel and their hand-picked audience in their place.

    Since she entered the race for the Democratic nomination Gabbard has been under consistent attack by the establishment.  They repeatedly make the arrogant mistake of trying to bully from their pulpit believing they can destroy a person of obvious character into submission who dissents from foreign policy orthodoxy, the true third-rail of American politics.

    The hope is that Gabbard will make a mistake which can be then played ad nauseum, ad infinitum until she slinks off the stage in shame.

    But Gabbard is too strong for that.  And the difference in demeanor and character was plainly evident as she turned on Joy Behar, the lead torchbearer for all things anti-Trump, war-like and pathetic.

    Gabbard didn’t waste time, taking the fight to The View before they knew what was happening.  Because she has learned in this game that you do not fight on ground prepared by your opponent. 

    You set the stage.  You command the field.  It’s safe to say she’s learned something while being in the military for the past seventeen years.

    Doing this, you make your opponents look petty, venal and stupid for saying the things they’re saying.

    By confronting her accusers directly Gabbard showed everyone watching the difference between the caricature created by Clinton and her cronies on The View and the reality of her character. 

    And that is the kind of narrative-breaking moment that sinks careers for some and defines them for others.

    Speaking of careers, like it or not, Donald Trump Jr. has a future in politics.  He came onto The View, like Gabbard the day before, armed to the teeth and ready use everything at his disposal. 

    He knows walking into that arena they aren’t going to fight fair, that they’ll fall back on the laziest of arguments, like Meghan McCain virtue signaling her false eyelashes off over “Gold Star Families” who are disrespected by President Trump’s private locker room conversation, while disgustingly wrapping herself in her dead father’s flag.

    And his comebacks and arguments were so strong that he had The View’s audience cheering for him.  It forced Joy Behar to publicly scold her audience that her show wasn’t a MAGA rally. 

    A very Behar moment — petty, venal and stupid.

    And when he goes anywhere near attacking their character they scream him down, and fade to black. Whoopi comes out looking like a pathetic bully having to ‘call for the bailiff’ to stop a conversation and fight she knows she’s going to lose.

    Because how do you excuse pedophilia unless you’re a sick twisted bitch?

    Trump Jr. in less than one seven-minute television segment ripped off their masks revealing the true depth of The View’s ugliness.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The View Revealed (H/T The Bleeding Fool)

    It was masterful.

    It proves that he learned at his father’s knee and is absolutely a force to be reckoned with.

    It revealed that The View’s view of America comes from Hell itself.

    These are bile-filled opportunists who champion infanticide, defend child molestation and cover for mass murderers while showing zero tolerance for dissent because ‘muh feelingz are your responsibility.’

    Newsflash for you Whoopie, they most certainly are not.

    Their worldview is so solipsistic the name of the show is ‘The View.’ Not A View or Our View.

    The View.

    Now, why is this important?  Why am I going on about this? 

    Because The View, like so much of televised media, is a pillar of the system of control to shape what you think, who you think these thoughts at and what to say to someone who doesn’t think them. 

    It exists to reinforce whatever narrative the self-serving Western oligarchy wants the women of America to think about politics. 

    When Gabbard went on, the establishment was already up to its neck burying the James O’Keefe’s bombshell video of Good Morning America’s Amy Robach talking about how her expose of Jeffrey Epstein was squashed by pressure from the British royal family.

    And for Gabbard and Trump Jr. to come in on consecutive days and rip The View apart reminds us just how sad and ineffectual that system has become.

    Because these incidents remind us that we live in a Post Dorothy Oz. 

    Dorothy pulled back the curtain to reveal a sad, pathetic man with no power and then goes home leaving a landscape behind her that will have to struggle with the loss of institutional control.  Oz is revealed as a false god and the Witch is dead but what’s next? 

    Because, we can see them.  We’re all wearing our Roddy Piper sunglasses.

    But are we ready to chew some bubblegum?

    I think so.

    Gabbard and Trump Jr. woke thousands of people up this week outside of their respective echo chambers. 

    They are becoming champions to the voiceless.  And everywhere we look new instances of “Jeffrey Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself” are springing up not just the Internet but the real world. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It seems everyday more people are donning their Guy Fawkes masks ready to tear the entire rotten edifice down.

    The revolt against these revolting people is here.  Hillary Clinton still thinks she can call up her friends at CNN or ABC and seed her Alinsky-inspired talking point into the narrative to shape reality in her favor.

    That only works when the people are still willing to believe that the Wizard is all-powerful. 

    The system, however, doesn’t work anymore.  But unfortunately, the remnants of it are still functioning and capable of doing tremendous damage while it fails. 

    It doesn’t matter if we’re looking at places like Syria, Yemen, Hong Kong, the shit-filled streets of San Francisco or Libya.  These places all remain incredibly dangerous because while the control systems are failing, the infrastructure it protects is still operating.

    If anything, it’s going into overdrive with the push for pre-crime, total surveillance, the scrubbing of inconvenient historical truths and assaults on basic human liberties and dignity.

    And keepers of the status quo like Joy Behar, Whoopie Goldberg and ABC News will not survive it with their View intact.  

    *  *  *

    Join My Patreon if you think the wizard isn’t all-powerful. Install the Brave Browser if you don’t want to empower him.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 21:30

  • Old People Can Start Infusing Children's Blood Again
    Old People Can Start Infusing Children’s Blood Again

    Less than a year after the FDA warned old people against infusing the blood of young people, Stanford graduate Jesse Karmazin says his company, Ambrosia, is back in business despite the agency issuing a ‘buyer beware,’ according to OneZero.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jesse Karmazin, the CEO and founder of Ambrosia, told OneZero in an interview that the company had resumed giving customers transfusions of plasma, the colorless liquid part of the blood, from young donors about a month ago. “Our patients really want the treatment,” he said. “Patients are receiving plasma transfusions from donors ages 16 to 25 again.” One-liter transfusions cost $8,000, and two-liter transfusions are $12,000. –OneZero

    Karmazin, who isn’t a licensed medical practitioner, stopped treating patients following the FDA announcement earlier this year and disabled his website.

    Now, young blood is back on the market – you just have to get it “off-label,” meaning a doctor can prescribe it for something other than its approved use.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Karmazin is a graduate of Stanford Medical School but does not have a license to practice medicine and does not do the transfusions himself. Instead, he contracts with doctors to do the procedures. When asked, he would not name any doctors he works with or other Ambrosia employees. He says the company does not obtain blood directly from young donors but gets it from licensed blood banks in the United States. –OneZero

    We’re a company interested in making you young again,” he said at a 2017 conference. The company says that “experiments in mice called parabiosis provided the inspiration to deliver treatments with young plasma.”

    That said, while plasma can help blood to clot or to manage excessive bleeding during surgeries, experts say there is no basis for using it to slow or reverse aging-related diseases as Karmazin has claimed.

    There is no proven clinical benefit of infusion of plasma from young donors to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent these conditions, and there are risks associated with the use of any plasma product,” read a February statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Peter Marks, who leads the agency’s biologics center. 

    The reported uses of these products should not be assumed to be safe or effective,” the said. “We strongly discourage consumers from pursuing this therapy outside of clinical trials under appropriate institutional review board and regulatory oversight.” 

    “We’re concerned that some patients are being preyed upon by unscrupulous actors touting treatments of plasma from young donors as cures and remedies.”

    The agency told OneZero “The FDA has not licensed or approved any plasma product obtained from young donors for any use.”

    As of last fall, the company had performed the procedure on about 150 people ranging in age from 35 to 92, while 81% of those people participated in the company’s clinical trial. The trial gave patients one and a half liters of plasma from a donor between the ages of 16 and 25 and was conducted with David Wright, a physician who has his own intravenous blood therapy center in California.

    Trial participants footed the bill for their own treatments – while the results of their clinical trials have not been publicly released.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 21:00

  • Doug Casey On What Happens When Socialists Win Elections
    Doug Casey On What Happens When Socialists Win Elections

    Via InternationalMan.com,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    International Man: Earlier this year, it became apparent a socialist would win Argentina’s presidential election.

    The Argentine peso lost 30% of its value in a single day. The same day, in US dollar terms, the value of the Argentine stock market was cut in half.

    Doug, you spend a lot of time in Argentina and the Southern Cone. What’s your take on the situation? Is Argentina headed for another currency collapse?

    Doug Casey: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected vice president and Alberto Fernández was elected president in the October 27 election. They basically destroyed the incumbent Mauricio Macri.

    It’s a real pity because Macri is a decent human being whose heart was is in the right place politically and economically. But he was too timid. He did too little too late. Typical of “conservatives” everywhere, he didn’t make a moral argument to the populace. He made no effort to pull the corrupt fascist welfare state out by its roots, explaining why it’s destructive and why the state is the cause, not the cure, of the country’s problems. Instead, he just made some marginal improvements around the edges, and made things more comfortable for the Peronists now that they’re back in office.

    And—since he’s associated with the free market—he actually discredited the free market.

    In any event, Argentina is going back into the toilet. Who knows what kind of new stupidities, in addition to the usual old stupidities, the two Fernándezes are going to impose upon the country?

    On the bright side—but only for tourists—Argentina is one of the cheapest countries in the world right now. That’s because the currency has collapsed. Good news for tourists and foreign speculators but a disaster for Argentines, most of whom have all their savings and earn their salaries in the increasingly worthless peso.

    If you’re a long-term believer in Argentina or if you want to enjoy a great lifestyle, now’s the time to go shopping there. Real estate is at bargain levels again. There’s really no bid for a lot of properties. In Buenos Aires an apartment costs 5–10% of its equivalent in New York or London.

    Things are definitely in crisis in Argentina. But the fact is that just about every other country in the world is heading in the wrong direction—at a faster or slower rate—certainly including the United States, Canada, and countries in western Europe. The socialists, the fascists, and the jingoists are in the ascendant all over the world.

    There are many reasons for this. One is that Marxist-oriented professors have been indoctrinating the younger generation in high school and college for decades. The left has totally taken over educational systems everywhere. The average person has been inculcated with perverse and destructive ideas about economics, politics, philosophy, and ethics from roughly age 6 to age 22. It’s hard to get these things out of their heads once they’ve learned them in their youth.

    Also, remember that, especially since the end of the 19th century, “democracy”—really just a polite form of mob rule—has been the world’s ruling ideology. It’s resulted in the politicization of all areas of society. When every parliament or legislature in the world meets, they believe it’s not just their right but their duty to pass new laws. And that’s idiotically applauded as a good thing by the hoi polloi. Those laws tell you what you must do and what you must not do and designate penalties if you don’t obey. And all that legislation, which accrues like barnacles on a ship’s hull, has to be paid for with taxes.

    Fortunately, science and technology are still advancing at the rate of Moore’s Law. Unfortunately, the world is degenerating politically at about the same rate. Argentina is not an aberration from that point of view. It’s just a generation or so “ahead” of the United States in sliding down the slippery slope.

    That said, it’s more important than ever that you have a crib in a second country, no matter where you live—because anything can happen anywhere. If you can afford it and are able to do so, you should have a backup plan someplace else in the world.

    International Man: As you said, Argentina isn’t the only country headed down a path toward economic hardship. Governments around the world are printing dollars, pounds, euros, pesos, and what have you by the trillions, and the trend seems to be accelerating. How do you see this playing out in the next few years?

    Doug Casey: We’re going into what I’ve styled the Greater Depression. We entered the leading edge of a gigantic financial and economic hurricane in 2007 and went through it in 2008 and 2009, and now we’re in the eye of the storm.

    It’s a very big hurricane, and the storm has a very big “eye,” but we’re now approaching the trailing edge. When we go into the storm’s trailing edge, it’s going to be much longer lasting, much different, and much worse than what we experienced in 2008—if anybody remembers how scary that was.

    It’s going to be accompanied by social, cultural, and probably military upsets as well. Now’s the time to prepare. It’s going to be one for the record books, and not just in the United States. It’s going to happen all over the world, because all the world’s central banks and governments think the same way. They’re all bankrupt and trying to solve the problems they’ve created by printing up more currency and passing more laws. It’s bad news.

    International Man: Americans are growing increasingly sympathetic to socialist ideas and politicians that promise “free stuff.” How does this trend translate into a situation like what’s happening in Argentina?

    Doug Casey: The world’s governments—prominently including the US’s—are creating massive new amounts of fiat money as we speak. So far, most of this money has gone into the financial markets, creating gigantic bubbles in stocks, bonds, and real estate. A lot of people are relying on these artificially high values. They’re going to get hurt.

    Over the coming decade, governments and their central banks are going to destroy their national currencies. The average guy—if he’s able to save at all—saves in dollars, euros, or yen, etc. He’s going to be wiped out.

    The rich will continue to get richer, because they stand next to the fire hose of money being created. The middle and lower classes resent the politically favoured classes getting more. The middle and bottom levels of society could see real social upset, with catastrophic political ramifications.

    It’s one of the reasons the odds favor Trump losing in 2020. I say that as someone who bet that he’d win in 2016. If the economy gets ugly, you’re going to get one of these absolutely crazy socialists or welfare statists that we see lined up on the Democratic debate stage. The best case is that somebody like Bloomberg—basically kind of a mellower Trump—steps in for the Democrats.

    On the off chance that Trump wins in 2020, then the storm is going to definitely break during his next administration. That guarantees that the crazy Democrats—which is to say the socialists, radical welfarites, and cultural Marxists—are going to win in the next election. The conflict in basic belief systems between the Red and Blue counties is so acrid and radical—it’s the kind atmosphere you see before a civil war.

    Who knows what either the Red or Blue people will do? They’re capable of absolutely anything. None of it good. I don’t see a way out.

    But let’s go back to Argentina for a minute. As I said, the US is only about a generation behind the Argentines, and the Argentine electorate has been totally corrupted. The place is a blueprint for where the United States is going.

    The US’s size, accumulated capital, and the productivity of its people have insulated it from a lot of the stupid things its government and the Fed have done. But if the US destroys its currency—and it’s well on the way to doing so—it will be much worse than when the Argentines destroy their currency.

    Argentines have hundreds of billions of dollars stored abroad in foreign banks. When the Argentine peso collapses, that money can be brought into Argentina to pick up the bargains and bring capital into the country to get things going again.

    If the US dollar is destroyed, however, it will be completely different.

    First, the dollar is the major asset of most banks all around the world. It’s actually the world’s currency. If the dollar goes, it’s going to destroy their balance sheets.

    Second, people all over the world who have foreign bank accounts generally save in dollars. They’re going to be devastated.

    Third, Americans don’t have a lot of money abroad to bring back into the country to get things going again. In fact, the US government has made it quite hard for the average American to diversify internationally.

    Fourth, the major US export for decades hasn’t been wheat or Boeings. It’s been dollars. The foreign trade deficit of $600 billion per year has given Americans an artificially high standard of living for many years. Nice foreigners give us real goods in exchange for fiat dollars. When confidence in the dollar collapses, Americans will feel it.

    So, it’s going to be extremely serious when the chickens come home to roost this time. It’s a consequence of what the Federal Reserve is doing to the dollar. They’re inflating it—but they call that “Quantitative Easing.”

    The Chinese symbol for the word crisis is a combination of the symbols for danger and opportunity. I’ve been pointing out the danger part, but I also want to point out the opportunity part of the equation.

    The good news is that precious metals should go on a really wild run up in price. If you own a lot of gold and silver, you should not only be insulated from many of these financial and economic problems, but you should gain in relative terms.

    The cheapest part of the market right now is gold and silver mining stocks. There’s going to be a panic into these stocks; they’re the only part of the stock market that offers real upside.

    It’s a good-news/bad-news type of thing. The good news being that if you position yourself now, you should be able to profit from what’s going to happen. The bad news is that in a real depression everybody loses; the winners are merely the ones who lose the least.

    The important thing to remember is that most of the real wealth in the world will still exist no matter how bad the Greater Depression is, and your share of it can grow if you allocate capital properly now.

    International Man: The 2020 presidential election is just around the corner. Whether Donald Trump gets reelected or a Democratic candidate wins, how do you think it will affect the overall economic situation in the US?

    An avalanche of money printing to finance deficit spending seems certain no matter who wins.

    Doug Casey: As I said before, if Trump is reelected because the economy holds together until November 2020—which I doubt—it’s definitely going to collapse on his next term in office.

    Trump is incorrectly associated with the free market and capitalism. Trump is basically a statist who thinks the government really ought to control the economy—but in the way he thinks best. Once again capitalism—what’s left of it—will be blamed in the next crisis, and in the following election the socialists will grab the economy in a stranglehold and choke it to death.

    In a way, it doesn’t matter if the socialists win this time or the next time. The trend is in motion, and a real crisis seems inevitable.

    I think the United States is going to be hard to recognize in five years. That’s not even counting the fact that the US government might have a serious war with the Iranians, the Chinese, or the Russians. None of this is necessary, but it’s probable.

    International Man: What can people do to protect themselves and prevent the crisis from wiping them out?

    Doug Casey: Buy physical gold and silver. Speculate in mining stocks. Be aware that commodities in general— and especially agricultural commodities like corn, soybeans, cattle, hogs, coffee, orange juice—are all very, very cheap.

    It’s likely that we’re going to see an explosion in some or all of these things over the next few years. Last but not least, start getting into some—or all—of the second- and third-generation cryptocurrencies. My colleague Marco Wutzer, who knows about ten times more than anyone else in the field, makes an excellent case that some of them have 1,000-to-one potential from current levels.

    *  *  *

    Marco just released a new exclusive video on what he thinks is the most compelling crypto play right now. Click here to watch it now.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 20:30

  • California Approves $3.2 Billion Bond For High Speed Train To Nowhere
    California Approves $3.2 Billion Bond For High Speed Train To Nowhere

    The high speed train is dead, long live the high speed train.

    Less than a year after California Gov. Gavin Newsom brought California’s dreams for a LA to San Fran bullet train crashing down, when he said in February that he is ending the state’s hugely expensive and hopelessly quixotic high-speed rail line fiasco (which would have been completed in 2033 at a staggering cost of $77 billion), California is about to unleash another high speed train project, and this one is even more idiotic.

    The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) has authorized a $3.2 billion tax-exempt, fixed-rate revenue bond issuance to help DesertXpress Enterprises, an affiliate of Virgin Trains USA, build a high-speed train from Victorville, California, to Las Vegas. The new XpressWest service, at speeds of up to 180 miles per hour, will take about 90 minutes one way. 

    There is just one problem: Victorville, located in SoCal’s high desert, is quite literally in the middle of nowhere.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More on that in a second.

    DesertXpress will be able to use the money to pay for the 135 miles of the project located within the state of California. This, according to ConstructionDrive, includes the costs of design, development, construction, operation and maintenance of the rail system itself; a passenger station; a maintenance facility; train cars; and electrification infrastructure. DesertXpress will also be able to use the bonds, which are sponsored by the California county of San Bernardino, to establish a debt service reserve fund, as well as pay for interest and other bond-related expenses. While total spending is listed at around $4.8 billion, “hard construction costs” are $3.6 billion.

    Construction, which is expected to begin in the second half of 2020 and wrap up in 2023, according to an IBank staff report, will generate more than 15,800 temporary construction jobs.

    That’s the good news. The bad news is… what the hell are they thinking?

    In theory, it’s not a terrible idea: California has for decades sought to find a fast path between Los Angleles and Las Vegas. In practice, the fact that the train runs to Victorville assures that the project is DOA.

    The XpressWest between California and Las Vegas, according to the IBank staff report, will take about half the time of a car trip, but Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, thinks that there simply won’t be enough potential passengers — at least enough to make the new bullet train a success.

    “If you’re driving from Los Angeles to Victorville, by the time you get there, you’re pretty much halfway to Vegas,” O’Toole said, “so why would you stop and leave your car somewhere and take a train and then have to walk to wherever your destination is — or take a cab or an Uber or Lyft — when you can just drive your car there?”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s probably a question the creators of the project should have asked first.

    Here’s the problem: the distance between Los Angeles and Victorville is about 90 miles and about 190 miles from Victorville to Las Vegas.

    “Driving from Los Angeles to Victorville,” O’Toole said, “you’re driving through all the traffic — you’re driving over the mountains … and you get to Victorville and it’s just a straight shot to Las Vegas. It’s more miles, but there’s very little traffic.

    “If they were going to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, they might have a chance of attracting some customers, but going through the mountain would be extremely expensive,” he said. “They’re building the easy part of the rail line but not the part that they need to build to actually attract customers.”

    Virgin Trains USA is a majority owner of Virgin Trains USA Florida, formerly known as Brightline, and currently owns and operates an express rail passenger rail system that runs from Miami to West Palm Beach. The company is building a $4 billion extension to Orlando International Airport. The estimated completion date is sometime in 2022.

    And while the company’s projects may be viable in Florida, they will be another epic waste of funds in California.

    Meanwhile, when we said that the first high speed train is dead, well that wasn’t quite right: the construction of the original California bullet train is still chugging along, albeit on a reduced scale. While Governor Gavin Newsom shelved the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s plans for a $77 billion rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles after amid concerns over escalating costs and schedule delays, the governor limited work to the $20 billion Central Valley portion of the project that will take passengers between Bakersfield and Merced.

    In other words, another high speed train going from nowhere to nowhere.

    So why does California continue to press along with not one but two train projects it knows will be a disaster? The answer is simple: “free” Federal money. The High-Speed Rail authority is trying to beat a Dec. 31, 2022 deadline in order to not lose a $929 million Federal Railroad Administration grant for that particular segment.

    In other words, instead of saving almost a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, and applying them to something useful, California is willing to begin a project which everyone knows will be a catastrophic waste of funds, but since the money has to be spent, even if it means digging holes just to fill them up again… well, so be it. After all, this is the government hard at work.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 20:11

  • Young First-Time Buyers Are Vanishing From US Housing Market
    Young First-Time Buyers Are Vanishing From US Housing Market

    Seeing as most young Americans are saddled with student-loan debt, underemployment and other economic blights, few have any money left for important large purchases like a home. At this point, it’s beginning to look like millennials will be remembered as the first rentier generation in the country’s history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To wit, according to data from the National Association of Realtors, the median age of first-time home buyers has increased to 33 in 2019, the highest median age since they started collecting the data back in 1981. Meanwhile, the median age for all buyers hit a fresh record high of 47, climbing for the third straight year, and well above the median age of 31 in 1981.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Though the median age for first timers only increased by one year, BBG reports that it reflects a variety of factors impacting those who are searching for a home.

    For one, since the housing-market collapse ten years ago, construction of affordable housing has never recovered. Low housing stock, coupled with low interest rates, has stoked higher prices, especially in more affordable markets from the coasts to the middle of the country. This made circumstances ideal for older Americans with more assets to borrow against and cash on hand. But younger Americans who don’t have enough saved for a down payment lost out.

    “Housing affordability is so difficult today, especially when coupled with rising rents and student loan debt, that they’re finding different ways to enter home ownership,” said Jessica Lautz, vice president of demographics and behavioral insights at the Realtors group in Washington.

    That’s not all: the percentage of first-time buyers who are married has declined as more single people buy homes to share with girlfriends, boyfriends or roommates. As the average ages of home buyers increases, average incomes have also risen. The median income of purchasers rose to $93,200 in 2018 as the disappearance of affordable housing pushes low-income buyers out of the market.

    Factoring in the expansion of economic inequality, young buyers who do manage to buy their own homes typically receive a small gift from their relatives to help cover the down payment first.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 20:00

  • Mauldin: How China Plans To Take Over The US
    Mauldin: How China Plans To Take Over The US

    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.

    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.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    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.

    *  *  *

    I predict an unprecedented crisis that will lead to the biggest wipeout of wealth in history. And most investors are completely unaware of the pressure building right now. Learn more here.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 19:30

  • WeWork Disaster Aftermath: With 97% Of Companies Using Non-GAAP Metrics, Is Everything Fake?
    WeWork Disaster Aftermath: With 97% Of Companies Using Non-GAAP Metrics, Is Everything Fake?

    Back in August 2018, long before WeWork’s historic implosion, we discussed how WeWork’s EBITDA is “whatever you want it to be” thanks to the company’s bizarre pro forma addbacks, which transformed a $933MM net loss and a $193 million adjusted EBITDA loss, into a “positive” $233 million “community-adusted” EBITDA for 2017, and a net loss of about $1.9 billion using standard accounting, to a $467 million “profit” in 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is what we said:

    Here, for the first time we saw not just one adjustment to adjusted EBITDA, but an adjustment to the adjustment to the adjustment, and it was called “Community Adjusted EBITDA”, which by the miracles of non-GAAP “accounting”, pushed the company’s EBITDA from negative $193 million to positive $233 million.

    We made this observation in the context of Moody’s inexplicably scrapping its B3 credit rating on WeWork. Commenting on this, we said:

    It wasn’t clear why Moody’s – the rating agency with the lowest opinion of the office space leasing company – withdrew its rating, but it could be an indication that finally rating agencies are getting tired of the bizarre – and in this case, ridiculous – adjustments that companies increasingly come up with to lipstick their pig, and present their company in a far better light than reality.

    Fast forward to today, when the topic of WeWork’s community-adjusted EBITDA has once again come up after the WSJ reported that in the weeks before its now failed attempt to go public, the SEC had “ordered WeWork to remove the measure, before the company offered to substantially change it.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Specifically, according to a WSJ report on the “wrangling” that was taking place between WeWork and the SEC over whether or not to include the grotesque EBITDA adjustment, which the company had since renamed to the less jarring “contribution margin”, as the IPO loomed, “the SEC zeroed in on how WeWork framed its heavy losses, particularly through a bespoke profitability metric called “contribution margin,” a version of which had formerly been known as “community-adjusted Ebitda.” The agency had first ordered WeWork to remove the measure, before the company offered to substantially change it.”

    Demonstrating just how seriously corporations takes the SEC, however, the day before WeWork had hoped to start the roadshow to peddle its IPO to investors, the metric was still mentioned in its revised prospectus more than 100 times (WeWork supposedly planned to amend the filing before starting the roadshow — but instead shelved the IPO, as investors questioned the company’s worth and its corporate governance.)

    There are two key points here: the first, of course, is that WeWork was hoping to mislead investors (all of whom were sophisticated enough to know the garbage that “community-adjusted” anything is) by keeping this massive pro forma adjustment; the second is that WeWork appears to be openly defying the SEC’s instructions on cleaning up its prospectus – something it obviously couldn’t do if it hoped to deflect attention from the company’s massive losses.

    “It’s highly unusual to have issues that are so important still being disputed while they are out there marketing the stock to investors,” said Minor Myers, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who reviewed the correspondence at the Journal’s request. As WeWork was battling the SEC over its metrics, its advisers were “figuring what they can sell using these numbers,” Mr. Myers added.

    The WSJ also reports that WeWork’s resistance to removing the metric was directed by Mr. Neumann himself, who had “previously boasted about the metric to reporters and investors, to show how the company’s core business was profitable.”

    Of course, the core business wasn’t profitable as demonstrating previously just how dismal WeWork’s real bottom line was:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Furthermore, if WeWork was “profitable” along any metric, it would not have scrapped its IPO and demanded a SoftBank bailout.

    It wasn’t just the community-adjusted EBITDA that was a concern for the SEC: among other issues the SEC targeted was what the WeWork prospectus called “illustrative annual economics.” The agency questioned how the company had arrived at some rosy numbers. “Please explain to readers and tell us how your assumed workstation utilization rate of 100% is realistic,” its letter said. In reply, WeWork agreed to drop the illustrative economics section from the prospectus.

    The bottom line, as the WSJ summarizes, “WeWork’s liberal use of customized metrics that don’t comply with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, was central to its wrangling with the SEC, according to people close to the process. The draft prospectus WeWork filed in December cited at least six non-GAAP metrics; by the time it issued the prospectus in August, the tally had fallen.”

    Yet even after the back and forth with the SEC, and the IPO debacle, WeWork refused to change its way: on Friday, after markets closed, WeWork published a slide deck from Oct. 11—long after the company’s self-annointed messiah, Adam Neumann resigned, that showed financial results including a “location contribution margin” that appeared to be a renamed version of the metric at the center of its dispute with the SEC.

    In short, once you start lying to the investing public in how you misrepresent your business, it is virtually impossible to stop, unless you are SoftBank of course in which case you just assume everyone is an idiot as Masa Son’s financial juggernaut did with these two slides.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, it is not our intention here to focus on WeWork’s fake financials – we did that last August. Instead, it’s to point out that there is never just one cockroach. In fact, when it comes to non-GAAP adjustments, and “fake numbers”, one can say that everyone is a cockroach: as the WSJ points out, nearly all big companies now use at least one non-GAAP financial metric. Last year, 97% of S&P 500 companies used non-GAAP metrics, up from 59% in 1996, according Audit Analytics.

    Which begs the question: in the aftermath of the WeWork fiasco, which relied exclusively on non-GAAP, “community” adjustments to make its financials appear respectable even though fundamentally they were a disaster, is every financial report – and with 97% out of all companies using non-GAAP metrics one can be excused to use the term “ever” – nothing but fake financial news, and when the veil is finally lifted, as was the case with We Work, what will happen to all those trillions in market capitalization built upon “one-time”, “non-recurring” addbacks and pro forma, adjusted, recasted and otherwise fake foundations?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 19:00

  • The Long March Has Paid Off: Millennials Love Socialism
    The Long March Has Paid Off: Millennials Love Socialism

    Authored by Onar Am via LibertyNation.com,

    According to a new poll conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, 70% of millennials would likely vote for a socialist candidate. Furthermore, 19% of them see The Communist Manifesto as a surer guarantee of freedom and equality than the Declaration of Independence, and 15% think that the world would be a better place if the Soviet Union still existed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Conundrum

    To many, this may come as a shock. Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried and communism has cost the lives of more people than any other ideology in a comparable amount of time. Historical circumstances produced a near-perfect scientific test of the system in the 20th century. In every case, communism failed – ending in a bloodbath, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, and development stage.

    Simultaneously, near-capitalist societies were tested with those same ethnicities and cultures: East- versus West-Germany, North- versus South-Korea, and Hong Kong versus mainland China. The outcome was as conclusive and decisive as any social experiment could ever get: While capitalism lifted people out of poverty and created largely stable and prosperous societies, communism produced murderous and oppressive hellholes from which people desperately tried to flee.

    Given the massive evidence of the positive effects of capitalism and the disastrous results of socialism, a resurgence of communism should have been impossible. How could it happen?

    The Long March Through The Institutions

    The answer is straightforward: Teachers and professors are bombarding students with communist propaganda. They teach that the U.S. was founded on slavery while conveniently overlooking the fact that western civilization is the only one in the world to have successfully abolished slavery.

    They teach that Hitler was the vilest person ever to have existed but conveniently forget to mention that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Mugabe, Barre, and Castro together killed far more than 100 million people and enslaved many more across four continents. Students learn about the Holocaust, but not the Holodomor.

    The professors are not doing this out of ignorance. After World War II, when it became clear that Marxism could never compete with capitalism as an economic system, the radical left formulated a strategy of achieving their utopia by taking over the educational institutions and indoctrinating children with their worldview.

    That would have sounded like a conspiracy theory if it hadn’t been for the fact that leftists have been open about this goal for a long time. In the 1960s, German communist Rudi Dutschke formulated the slogan the “long march through the institutions.” He described it as a way of creating the necessary conditions for a communist revolution by infiltrating said institutions. One of the prominent figures of the so-called Frankfurt School in America, Herbert Marcuse, agreed with this strategy in 1971: “[I] regard your notion of the ‘long march through the institutions’ as the only effective way … ”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In his recent book The Madness of Crowds, author Douglas Murray documents that leftists in the 1980s saw the working class voting for Ronald Reagan as traitors to the socialist cause and therefore needed to turn their back on ordinary people and instead make minorities the focus of their campaign to destroy capitalism.

    The near-unthinkable surge of socialist and communist sympathies among millennials in the freest, most prosperous nation in the world is the result of that 70-year-long march through the institutions.

    A Feature, Not A Bug

    But why? Why would a group of radical leftists want to destroy the system that has uplifted so many people out of poverty in favor of a system that has murdered millions? In a conversation with Eric Weinstein, Peter Thiel presents a chilling possibility. Mass murder is a feature of communism, not a bug:

    “My Stanford professor René Gerard had the observation that communism among Western intellectuals became unfashionable in 1953, the year Stalin died, and the reason was that they were not communists despite the millions of people being killed; they were communists because of it.”

    For naïve students, communism and socialism are just idealistic fantasies – but how many of their professors harbor far more sinister motivations?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 18:30

  • Onerous Loan Terms Are Crippling Already Broke Subprime Auto Buyers
    Onerous Loan Terms Are Crippling Already Broke Subprime Auto Buyers

    As the bubble in subprime auto continues to grow bigger – even at the same time the auto industry is mired in recession – terms on new loans for new buyers continue to get more burdensome for already broke consumers. 

    In fact, many people are piling on debt to their auto loans that far exceeds the car’s value, according to the Wall Street Journal. Like homeowners during the financial crisis, this leaves many people with negative equity or “underwater”.

    33% of people who traded in cars to buy new ones in the first nine months of 2019 had negative equity. This compares to 28% five years ago and 19% 10 years ago. The borrowers owed about $5,000, on average, after trading in their cars before taking on new loans. Five years ago that figure stood at an average of about $4,000.

    And the rise in car prices isn’t helping, either. Easy lending standards are helping perpetuate the cycle, with lenders now issuing loans that can last 7 years or longer, as we have documented here on Zero Hedge. 

    Borrowers remain responsible for paying their remaining debt even after they get rid of the vehicle that’s tied to it. When buying a new car, they just roll this debt into a new loan. Dealerships, who now make more money on financing than on selling the car, encourage this type of refinancing. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Consumer lawyers say that customers are often forced to trade in their vehicles, either due to changing needs or vehicle problems. 

    David Goldsmith, a lawyer who defends consumers in auto cases said: “These aren’t Rolls-Royces. They’re Ford Escapes.”

    Borrowers that have negative equity at the time of buying a new vehicle are often saddled with longer loan terms, higher interest rates and higher monthly payments. The higher rates and longer amortization schedule means that a smaller share of their payments go to paying off their principal. The result is obvious: many consumers wind up deeper and deeper in the hole everytime they trade in a new vehicle. 

    Underwater loans are most prevalent with subprime borrowers, mainly due to consumers with lower credit scores lacking the means to pay off the remaining balances on their loans before taking out the next one. In the even of a default, lenders generally take possession of the vehicles and try to resell them. That money is then applied to the unpaid balance, but often isn’t enough to cover the total balance. 

    Most of these loans are originated at dealerships now, which then assign the loans to a number of lenders, banks and credit unions. Many loans are also bundled into bonds and sold to Wall Street.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The added debt from these loans can make it difficult for borrowers to stay current. 5.2% of outstanding securitized subprime auto loan balances were at least 60 days past due on a rolling 12 month average period ending June 2019. This is up from 4.8% the year before and 4.9% two years prior. 

    Nicole-Malia Tennent and Shyanne Fernandez, both in their early 20s, are a perfect example. They sought to trade in the car they shared for something less expensive last year. They instead ended up splurging on a new vehicle and rolling over their $12,500 unpaid loan balance from their last car into a loan for a new 2018 GMC Sierra. 

    The new loan balance stood at $66,000 as a result of the old loan being rolled over. They split the payment of $900 per month now, which they have 84 months to pay off. Their old loan was about $500 per month.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 18:00

  • Morgan Stanley: "Climate Will Be A Key Driver Of Asset Prices In The Months And Years Ahead"
    Morgan Stanley: “Climate Will Be A Key Driver Of Asset Prices In The Months And Years Ahead”

    “Sunday Start”, authored by Morgan Stanley equity strategist, Jessica Alsford

    In three weeks, the world’s leaders will begin to gather in Madrid for the 25th United Nations Climate Change Conference. The intensity of the global climate strikes this year suggests that the proceedings will be scrutinized as never before. But the decisions made, or not made, will also have repercussions for global markets.

    We’re transitioning towards a lower carbon economy, albeit at a slower pace than needed to stay within a two degrees Celsius climate scenario (2DS). For companies that can build offshore wind installations, develop electric vehicles and manufacture renewable diesels, we see potential for material earnings growth. In Decarbonisation: The Race to Net Zero, we estimated that more than US$50 trillion of capital will need to be deployed into renewables, EVs, hydrogen, biofuels and carbon capture and storage over the next 30 years, putting US$3-10 trillion of EBIT up for grabs.

    Decarbonising electricity is the largest opportunity to reduce carbon emissions, with the power sector responsible for a quarter of global emissions. Strong renewables growth should be achievable given the significant improvements we’ve seen in solar and wind economics. But costs continue to constrain many other clean technologies, including battery storage, green hydrogen, CCS and biofuels.

    If governments are serious about halting climate change, some form of stimulus will be needed.

    Subsidies have already been key in industries like renewables. In the US, federal subsidies have helped to drive the transition to renewable energy, which rose from 14% of total power generation capacity in 2000 to 24% in 2018.

    One alternative is to make high-carbon incumbents prohibitively expensive. European regulation on CO2 emissions, together with city bans on diesel, has catalyzed investment by global OEMs into electric vehicles. While the transition will be costly for the autos industry, it’s hard to see another path towards achieving aggressive targets.

    Taxes should be another means of incentivizing investment in low-carbon technologies, but they remain ineffective. Even in Europe, where the carbon price has increased three-fold since the end of 2017, it remains far below the US$75 per tonne estimated by the IMF as necessary by 2030 to achieve a 2DS.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even if the price of carbon rises to that level, a global tax is needed, through either a multilateral agreement or a carbon border adjustment. Domestic carbon taxes are unlikely to succeed in a world where many industries can move to regions with less punitive environmental regimes.

    Until now, the willingness of governments to take steps to halt climate change has been open to question, given the potential implications for inflation, government debt and employment. But we see several reasons why change may come over the next 12 months. Significantly, awareness and concern about climate change among the general population are growing, driven by more frequent extreme weather, media coverage and actions by protest groups.

    Regarding political appetite for change, we see notable shifts in tone across the world. The EC’s incoming president, Ursula von der Leyen, has announced the intention to create a climate plan. This includes legislation to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the introduction of a green border tax and the creation of a fund to advance a “just transition”. In the US, the current administration has formally notified the UN that it intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement the day after the 2020 presidential election. However, the majority of Democratic candidates have made climate change a key item in their policy agendas.

    Climate and carbon could also become drivers of QE. Christine Lagarde has made it abundantly clear that climate change will be a priority during her tenure as ECB president, suggesting that the central bank might use monetary policy to support a climate-friendly stance.

    As with many market drivers, it’s hard to pinpoint the moment when a risk will become a reality. But to us, the direction of travel for the carbon price is clear. Challenges still lie ahead, but if the next 12 months don’t bring a material response from the world’s leaders, we see an increasing likelihood that carbon will impact asset prices through other channels. Between 2016-18, climate-related disasters such as wildfires and hurricanes have caused over US$650 billion worth of economic damage worldwide (or 28bp of global GDP).

    Whichever trajectory we end up following, it seems clear that climate will be a key driver of asset prices in the months and years ahead.

    * * *

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 17:30

  • Twitter CEO Hosted MbS 6 Months AFTER Saudi Spies Discovered Within The Company
    Twitter CEO Hosted MbS 6 Months AFTER Saudi Spies Discovered Within The Company

    More fallout at Twitter after it was revealed last week that that two Twitter employees spied on users on behalf of Saudi Arabia — and after the arrest of one as another fled the country: CEO Jack Dorsey had actually met privately with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman six months after the company uncovered the Saudi intelligence infiltration, a new report has revealed. 

    Middle East Eye uncovered the critical timeline related to the meeting via the Justice Department’s criminal complaint filed in California, which raises a host of pressing questions, given the scandal was known internally to Twitter executives by December 2015, yet Dorsey sat down with MbS in June 2016. Middle East Eye reported Saturday:

    Lawyers for one of the Saudi dissidents targeted in the operation say Dorsey and Mohammed bin Salman’s meeting raises questions about what the CEO of Twitter, a company which has seen massive Saudi investment in recent years, knew and when he knew it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via the Middle East Eye report: Jack Dorsey and MbS shaking hands in photo posted by Bader al-Asaker in June 2016. Image source: Instagram

    The Washington Post reported that two employees working for the company in 2015 accessed the private information of more than 6,000 Twitter accounts. Their Saudi intelligence “handler” had actually been a close associate to MbS at the time. And yet even after this bombshell scandal was unearthed internally Jack appeared chummy and business as usual with MbS in New York

    Crucially, at least one of the accounts accessed by the spies could be related to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, given it belongs Saudi dissident Omar Abdulaziz, well-known to have been a close friend and confidant of Khashoggi. 

    Thus it’s further important to remember that this major Saudi spy infiltration of Twitter occurred significantly prior to the October 2, 2018 murder of Khashoggi by a Saudi hit team at the Istanbul consulate. What did Jack know and when of the personal Twitter information collected on Saudi dissidents accessed from within the company? Did he broach the issue with MbS during their 2016 meeting? 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The two former Twitter employees, identified as Ahmad Abouammo and Ali Alzabarah – the former arrested in Seattle and the latter believed to have fled US soil – along with their alleged Saudi intelligence ‘handler’ Ahmed Almutairi, who was identified as serving as the intermediary between Saudi Arabia and the Twitter staff, were central to the broader MbS campaign to muzzle critics and activists overseas

    According to the criminal complaint, Twitter did take some limited action a week after uncovering the spy plot to warn several dozen users that they “may have been targeted by state-sponsored actors”. 

    The attorney for the friend of Khashoggi who was targetted, Omar Abdulaziz, told Middle East Eye the following:

    “The thing that strikes me is when you look through the government’s complaint, this guy hacked 5,500 records in June. That’s not a small number. It raises the question about what Twitter did and did not want to know,” said Mark Kleiman, an attorney who represents Omar Abdulaziz, a Saudi dissident living in Canada.

    Kleiman told Middle East Eye that he and Ben Gharagozli, a second lawyer representing Abdulaziz, understood that “somebody from one of the three-letter agencies in the US” tipped Twitter off about Azabarah, before company put him on administrative leave in early December 2015.

    Abdulaziz and his attorney are furious, given it was literally life and death on the line, as was proven with Khashoggi’s heinous murder by Saudi state assassins, which possibly was even planned with information gleaned from Twitter or other messaging platforms. 

    Kleiman underscored that “It’s hard to imagine that [Dorsey] wouldn’t have heard about it six months later.

    * * *

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

    Middle East Eye notes in its report that it sent Twitter a list of the following questions, though it initially received no response:

    • When and how Twitter became aware of Alzabarah’s activities
    • Whether Twitter believed its accounts had been targeted by a state-sponsored actor in December 2015
    • Whether Twitter was aware in December 2015 that Alzabarah had been feeding user data to Bader al-Asaker, who had close ties to the Saudi ruling family
    • Whether Dorsey had been made aware of Alzabarah’s activities and the fact that he had been involved in state-sponsored activity and, if so, whether he knew about these actions when he met with Mohammed bin Salman in June 2016
    • Whether Dorsey raised any concerns over the incident with Mohammed bin Salman or Asaker during the June 2016 meeting


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 17:00

  • Former Central Banker: "As A Young Man I Would Have Never Imagined This Would Be Our Destination"
    Former Central Banker: “As A Young Man I Would Have Never Imagined This Would Be Our Destination”

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “Hmmm,” said the former central banker, leaning back in a chair. I’d asked how his thinking on the meaning of money had changed over these last three decades. We both started this journey in 1989, and our paths somehow led us to this long table in Tokyo. In that time, much changed. Back then, Japan’s gov’t debt-to-GDP was roughly 50%, 10yr JGB yields were 5%, the dollar was worth 127 Yen. But now, debt/GDP is roughly 250%, the central bank has printed enough money to buy half of it, 10yr yields are -0.07%, the Yen has strengthened to 109.

    “You are correct, as a young man I would have never imagined this would be our destination,” he said, after some consideration. “And I am trying to think about how my views changed over so many years, because I cannot recall a moment when I realized everything was not as I had previously understood,” he said. “Perhaps, over such a long span of time our thinking gradually evolves, and we’re not aware that it has.” I nodded, quietly considering my long wander. “But here we are, and while I do not understand it perfectly, it makes some sense.”

    Fishy

    We were discussing equity markets over sushi. America’s has had an extraordinary run. In the 30yrs from Japan’s 1989 Nikkei high, the S&P 500 gained 925%, and from the 2009 GFC crisis lows the S&P 500 gained 464%. The Nasdaq gained 1,948% since 1989 (+655% from 2009 low). They say the reason for this recent extraordinary march is the Fed’s QE and a policy of low rates that has combined to push America’s CEOs to buy back stock, while forcing global investors to pay any price for growth in an ageing economy, where growth is scarce.

    “I suppose that explanation for America’s bull run makes sense in isolation,” said the CIO in Tokyo. But Japanese rates are -0.10%. The BOJ printed enough money to make an Italian central banker blush and continues buying stocks directly on the open market. Japan is the ultimate ageing economy, with slow growth, world-class technologists, researchers, and plenty of entrepreneurs.  “Investors have come to accept that overall explanation without reservation. Yet, if it is true, how can it also be true that the Nikkei remains 40% below its 1989 high?”
     
    Hump Day

    The Japanese work culture is notorious for its long hours. Microsoft Japan conducted an experiment in August with 2,300 workers. It paid them to not work on Fridays. It encouraged online chats in place of meetings or emails. It insisted meetings include five people or fewer and last no longer than 30mins. Microsoft saw a 40% increase in sales/worker, a 59% decline in paper usage, and a 23% drop in electricity consumption. Asked what day employees would like off if the firm moves to a 4-day workweek, 50% answered Wednesday.

    Minnows

    The dynamism in Japan’s economy is not to be found in the conglomerates,” said the CIO, focused on small cap stocks. “To find the interesting companies, you must look at the small and mid-sized firms that supply the large players – they’re the ones where you find the creativity, the risk takers, innovators.” Japan spends 3.5% of GDP on Research & Development, the US spends 2.8% and China 2.0%. Only South Korea spends a larger percentage of its GDP on R&D (4.3%). “The very big firms here have grown to resemble state owned enterprises.”

    Anecote

    “We move slowly here,” said the executive, chain smoking Seven Stars. “We have refined the art of flawless production,” he explained. “But there was a time when it was not so.” Two Asahi Extra Dry’s arrived, the thick foam head in each glass identical, poured deliberately, in perfect proportion, beautiful beer. “We once copied the chemical compounds designed in America,” he admitted. “As we amassed knowledge, we developed our own, and accumulated manufacturing know-how, capital.” In the distance, Japan’s factories spewed smoke, but at a pace that made the past appear more frantic than the present. “We produced chemicals and materials for the world to incorporate into nearly every product, and in pursuit of perfection, we introduced quality controls. Then controls on controls. And controls on controls on controls, ensuring that our final output was flawless.” The executive smiled, drawing deeply, his wrinkled face aglow. “But this pursuit of perfection slowed our ability to develop new compounds. And now the Chinese outpace us. They copy our formulas as we once copied yours. They produce at a pace that ensures higher impurities, but greater throughput, wider margins. And without having to bear the costs of R&D investment, they slash prices savagely.” The executive lit another Seven Star, turned his head slowly, exhaled. “The Chinese test their compounds with scant regard to safety. Then iterate again and again. Racing to produce compounds that may not be great but are perhaps good enough. They scale production overnight. They do what they must to capture market share,” he said, growing quiet, contemplative. I matched his silence, waiting for him to fill the void. Across the world’s third largest economy, the mighty conglomerates lumbered onward, industrial inertia. “And while we know this, and see this all unfolding, we appear unwilling to respond, unable to change course, accelerate.”

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/10/2019 – 16:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th November 2019

  • Escobar: America's 'Blue Dot' Barely Visible From New Silk Roads
    Escobar: America’s ‘Blue Dot’ Barely Visible From New Silk Roads

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    The US-Australia-Japan alternative to Belt and Road helps explain why the US sent a junior delegation to Thailand and why India opted out of RCEP…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s President Xi Jinping waves during the opening ceremony of the China International Import Expo in Shanghai on November 5. Photo: AFP/Hector Retamal

    Chinese President Xi Jinping six years ago launched New Silk Roads, now better known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the largest, most ambitious, pan-Eurasian infrastructure project of the 21st century.

    Under the Trump administration, Belt and Road has been utterly demonized 24/7: a toxic cocktail of fear and doubt, with Beijing blamed for everything from plunging poor nations into a “debt trap” to evil designs of world domination.

    Now finally comes what might be described as the institutional American response to Belt and Road: the Blue Dot Network.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Blue Dot is described, officially, as promoting global, multi-stakeholder “sustainable infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.”

    It is a joint project of the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation, in partnership with Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

    “The development of critical infrastructure—when it is led by the private sector and supported on terms that are transparent, sustainable, and socially and environmentally responsible—is foundational to widespread economic empowerment,” said Bohigian. “Through Blue Dot Network, the United States is proud to join key partners to fully unlock the power of quality infrastructure to foster unprecedented opportunity, progress, and stability.”

    “This endorsement of Blue Dot Network not only creates a solid foundation for infrastructure global trust standards but reinforces the need for the establishment of umbrella global trust standards in other sectors, including digital, mining, financial services, and research,” said Krach. “Such global trust standards, which are based on respect for transparency and accountability, sovereignty of property and resources, local labor and human rights, rule of law, the environment, and sound governance practices in procurement and financing, have been driven not just by private sector companies and civil society but also by governments around the world.”

    “Australia is committed to promoting high-quality infrastructure, inclusive approaches, and facilitating private sector investment in the Indo-Pacific region,” said Maude. “I’m pleased that this commitment is shared by East Asia Summit Leaders, and we look forward to working closely with our regional partners to develop Blue Dot Network to take action on this commitment.”

    “Blue Dot Network is an initiative that leads to the promotion of quality infrastructure investment committed by G20 countries,” said Maeda. “As JBIC has a long history of infrastructure finance all over the world, JBIC is pleased to share such experience and contribute to further development of Blue Dot Network.”

    Now compare it with what just happened this same week at the inauguration of the China International Import Expo in Shanghai.

    As Xi stressed:

    “To date, China has signed 197 documents on Belt and Road cooperation with 137 countries and 30 international organizations.”

    This is what Blue Dot is up against – especially across the Global South. Well, not really. Global South diplomats, informally contacted, are not exactly impressed. They might see Blue Dot as an aspiring competitor to BRI, but one that’s moved by private finance – mostly, in theory, American.

    They scoff at the prospect that Blue Dot will include some sort of ratings mechanism that will be positioned to vet and downgrade Belt and Road projects. Washington will spin it as a “certification” process setting “international standards” – implying Belt and Road is sub-standard. Whether Global South nations will pay attention to these new ratings is an open question.

    The Japanese example

    Blue Dot should also be understood in direct comparison with what just happened at the summit-fest in Thailand centered on the meetings of East Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

    The advent of Blue Dot explains why the US sent only a junior delegation to Thailand, and also, to a great extent, why India missed the RCEP train as it left the pan-Asian station.

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is still between a rock – Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy – and a hard place – Eurasia integration. They are mutually incompatible.

    Blue Dot is a de facto business extension of Indo-Pacific, which congregates the US, Japan, Australia – and India: the Quad members. It’s a mirror image of the – defunct – Obama administration Trans-Pacific Partnership in relation to the – also defunct – “pivot to Asia.”

    It’s unclear whether New Delhi will join Blue Dot. It has rejected Belt and Road, but not, finally and irrevocably, RCEP. ASEAN has tried to put on a brave face and insist differences will be smoothed out and all 16 RCEP members will sign a deal in Vietnam in 2020.

    Yet the bottom line remains: Washington will continue to manipulate India by all means deemed necessary to torpedo – at least in the South Asian theater – the potential of Belt and Road as well as larger Eurasia integration.

    And still, after all these years of non-stop demonization, the best thing Washington could come up with was to steal Belt and Road’s idea and dress it up in private bank financing.

    Now compare it, for instance, with the work of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia. They privilege the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, an original Indonesian idea, instead of the American version. The institute’s president, Hidetoshi Nishimura, describes it as “a guideline for dialogue partners” and stresses that “Japan’s own vision of the Indo-Pacific fits very well with that of ASEAN.”

    As much as Nishimura notes how “it is well known that Japan has been the key donor and a real partner in the economic development of Southeast Asia throughout the past five decades,” he also extols RCEP as “the symbol of free trade.” Both China and Japan are firmly behind RCEP. And Beijing is also firmly stressing the direct connection between RCEP and Belt and Road projects.

    In the end, Blue Dot may be no more than a PR exercise, too little, too late. It won’t stop Belt and Road expansion. It won’t prevent China-Japan investment partnerships. It won’t stop awareness all across the Global South about the weaponization of the US dollar for geopolitical purposes.

    And it won’t bury prevailing skepticism about the development project skills of a hyperpower engaged on a mission to steal other nation’s oil reserves as part of an illegal Syrian occupation.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 23:30

  • A Visual Timeline Of AI Predictions In Sci-Fi
    A Visual Timeline Of AI Predictions In Sci-Fi

    They say you shouldn’t believe everything you see on the big screen.

    However, as Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh explains below, in the case of science fiction, the human imagination has gotten a few things right – especially when it comes to futuristic forecasts. Today, the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution is transforming everything, but it turns out we had a hunch about it all along.

    When AI Comes to Life

    Today’s infographic from Noodle.ai takes a look at how some movie and television predictions for AI’s capabilities have taken hold in the real world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Many early “predictions” about future technologies certainly missed the mark—but it seems science fiction was able to accurately forecast a thing or two about AI.

    AI Basics: Making Life Better

    Artificial intelligence is all about equipping machines with the ability to mimic human decision-making processes. It has a wide range of applications, from basic automation to advanced machine learning models.

    AI has proliferated into virtually every aspect of life, and in the graphic, it’s clear that several sci-fi-turned-real inventions are aimed at making things more convenient for us humans.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, these have had varying degrees of success. While Google Glass didn’t initially resonate with the wider public, the augmented reality smart glasses have now proved useful in businesses such as manufacturing.

    Elsewhere, sci-fi-inspired advances in industries like healthtech are providing a new lease of life for many patients—and continuously reinventing the frontier of what we think is possible.

    Sci-Fi Helps Us Push Boundaries

    One monumental event in AI history occurred in 1997, when IBM’s Deep Blue beat a chess master at his own game. This event shook the world when we realized what AI could truly be capable of—even though sci-fi had in fact anticipated it 20 years prior.

    But as the graphic shows, not all is rosy in science fiction’s likeness of AI. It’s often depicted as something to fear, and certain predictions have proved to be eerily accurate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While not all of these are causes for alarm, they clearly demonstrate that sci-fi has the capacity to influence the breakthrough technology we could end up seeing a few years down the line. However, turning reel to real can raise some curious dilemmas.

    Rights for Robots?

    Last year, the European Parliament debated an interesting question: do robots qualify as people?

    The resolution considered granting “personhood” to sophisticated, autonomous robots. However, over 150 AI experts strongly warned against this proposal, arguing it would “blur the relation between man and machine” in a way that is too unethical.

    Nevertheless, this thought experiment proves that artificial intelligence is matching our wildest imagined predictions for it.

    AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.

    – Tesler’s Theorem

    As we move ever closer towards a world where AI is inextricably linked with the everyday, how else could science fiction shape our expectations of the future?


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 23:00

  • J.P.Koning: The Gamification Of Bitcoin
    J.P.Koning: The Gamification Of Bitcoin

    Authored by J.P.Koning via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Eleven years ago, Satoshi Nakamoto announced the bitcoin whitepaper to the world. Coinbase, a large cryptocurrency exchange, recently celebrated this milestone with a retrospective.

    I’m going to remix Coinbase’s narrative to tell a different account of bitcoin’s last 11-years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The thing that fooled us all for a while, myself included, is that we all thought bitcoin was solving a monetary or payments problem. It was labelled a coin, after all, and coins fall within the realm of monetary economics. To further complicate matters, Satoshi told his story using phrases like “electronic cash system” and “non-reversible transactions”. Perhaps we deserve to be forgiven for not seeing bitcoin’s underlying nature. After all, tearing down the existing monetary system and building a new one was a fresh and exciting narrative.

    Anyways, Coinbase still believes this old tale.

    “As with other technologies, money has gone through many upgrades over the years,” its marketing team writes.

    “Bitcoin is the latest breakthrough in a technology that’s millennia old.”

    What is now apparent is that bitcoin was never a monetary phenomenon. No, bitcoin is a new sort of financial betting game. It is a digital, global, highly-secure, and fairer version of the old-fashioned chain letter.

    The premise behind bitcoin-the-game is that the current wave of buyers must guess when (or if) a subsequent wave of buyers will emerge, this second next wave’s participation being contingent on when (or if) they believe a third wave of buyers to emerge. If they guess right, the early birds win at the expense of the late ones. And they can win a lot of money, as Coinbase points out in its post:

    Think of bitcoin as a pure mind game, a Keynesian beauty contest in which we “devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be.” Those old fashioned chain letters that you (or your parents) used to get in the mail were an early type of beauty contest. The price that Alice was willing to place on a chain letter was a function of whether she expected the next recipient, Bill, to play by the rules and send it on, Bill’s expectation in turn depending on the odds that Jack would join the game.

    But chain letters had a major flaw. The chain order could be easily compromised by a fraudster who miscopied the list and put their name at the front. Bitcoin fixes this by introducing robustness to chain letter-type games. Bitcoin’s blockchain is an unbreakable public record of where in line game players stand. Altering this chain order would require tremendous amounts of computer power, as Coinbase illustrates in this chart:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bitcoin-the-game has been spectacularly successful. As Coinbase points out, it “went from an idea in 2008, and a first transaction in 2009, to over 27 million users in the US alone in 2019, or 9% of Americans.” Below, Coinbase has charted the number of active bitcoin addresses that have been created over the years:

    Why did bitcoin-the-game succeed?

    First, it’s a fun and cutting-edge game. Many people dream of thrusting themselves out of financial obscurity into millionaire land. Bitcoin is a technologically-sophisticated way to get there. No one wants to play grandpa’s lottery.

    Secondly, the way that bitcoin is designed helps it spread. Most of the legacy financial games that bitcoin competes with (poker, lotteries, sports betting) are regulated by the government. Strict rules prevent game providers from reaching a wide audience. For instance, online casinos may be prevented from serving out-of-state players, problem gamblers may be banned, and those who are under 18 must be excluded. These financial games are usually centralized. This means they are hosted on a single website, or at a physical location like a casino, or by a government-run lottery corporation. Which makes it easy for regulators to shut down game providers who break the rules.

    But bitcoin is different. Because it is a decentralized and digital financial game, it can’t be regulated or shut down. And so it can serve the entire globe with impunity. Which it has done by spreading into every crack and cranny on earth. As is illustrated by another of Coinbase’s charts:

    Based entirely on whisps and storms of psychology, the price of bitcoin is inherently volatile. Its core volatility has stayed pretty much constant over the last 11-years. Users should expect the same for the next 11 years. Even if more people join a Keynesian beauty contest, the average opinion of the average opinion will always be a fickle, inconsistent thing, and so price will always be jittery.

    So what about bitcoin-as-money? Yes, people do use bitcoin for payments. But this gets dwarfed by its popularity as a financial game. The problem is this. Bitcoin payment functionality is implemented on top of a highly volatile chassis, a fun but fickle beauty contest. Which hobbles the effectiveness of the payments platform. Regular folks won’t use the stuff to pay. They don’t want the value of their spending stash to fall by 20% overnight. And game players don’t want to waste their tokens on buying goods & services. That could mean potentially missing out on a life changing jackpot. That’s why the promise of mainstream bitcoin payments has died a thousand deaths over the last 11 years.

    That being said, the demand for bitcoin in economically volatile regions such as Venezuela has hit record highs. Coinbase suggests that thanks to inflation and capital controls, bitcoin is finally being used as the electronic cash for which it was originally designed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Coinbase could be right. In places like the U.S. with functioning monetary systems, bitcoin is just too awkward to serve as a payments alternative. But in places where monetary breakdowns have occurred, regular folks may be more willing to put up with the inherent pitfalls of transacting with bitcoin. And so we finally get to see bitcoin-as-money emerging.That’s a good thing.

    But bitcoin’s popularity in Venezuela is also consistent with the bitcoin-as-game narrative. When people are desperate to improve their lives, they may have little other option but to roll the dice. In Run Lola Run, Lola needs to quickly make 100,000 Deutschmarks to save her boyfriend’s life. She races to a casino and plays roulette. Likewise, in the face of societal collapse,  Venezuelans may simply be gambling on whatever potentially life-changing bet they can find. Bitcoin is one such a bet. Unwinding what portion of Venezuelan usage is due to bitcoin-as-game versus bitcoin-as-money is tricky.

    Coinbase goes on to spout the typical cryptocurrency industry nonsense about legacy payments. It claims that “sending an international wire transfer by major US banks costs around $45, can take days to process, and can be done only during banking hours.” And here is the chart it uses:

    That may be a good critique from ten years ago. But with SWIFT gpi having rolled out a few years back, multinationals can make near real-time cross border payments using the traditional correspondent banking system. For individuals and small businesses, fintech Transferwise offers instant remittances over fiat rails. These can settle on weekends in nations like the UK, which have real-time retail payments systems. I’ve touched on this before.

    Continuing along with hyperbole, Coinbase makes the claim that bitcoin remittance fees are minimal compared to fiat. But this ignores the sizable foreign exchange fees that one must pay when converting fiat into bitcoin and back into fiat. I’ve gone into this calculus before.

    What’s next for Bitcoin? asks Coinbase in closing. Let me give it a shot. It’s possible that bitcoin-as-game will stay popular for a very long time. And if it does, that could be a good thing. As I’ve suggested before, there is a demand as-such for financial games and bets, specifically early-bird bets. Compared to many of the fly-by-night games out there, bitcoin provides a fair and trustworthy option.

    What about the original vision that got us all so excited, bitcoin-as-money? Crippled by bitcoin’s game-based engine, bitcoin payments are probably never going to move beyond the niche role that they currently occupy. That’s better than nothing. When those on the fringes are temporarily cut off from the conventional payments system, they’ll always have an option for making transactions. It might not be a user-friendly option, but at least it’s there.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 22:30

  • 53 Million Americans Drowning In Cycle Of Low-Wage Work 
    53 Million Americans Drowning In Cycle Of Low-Wage Work 

    It’s the “Greatest Economy Ever,” right? Well, it depends on who you ask.

    For instance, a new report sheds light on 53 million Americans, or about 44% of all US workers, aged 18 to 64, are considered low-wage and low-skilled. 

    Many of these folks are stuck in the gig economy, making approximately $10.22 per hour, and they bring home less than $20,000 per year, according to a Brookings Institution report.

    An overwhelmingly large percentage of these folks have insurmountable debts if that are student loans, auto loans, and or credit card debt. Their wages don’t cover their debt servicing payments as their lives will be left in financial ruin after the next recession. 

    While the top 10% of Americans are partying like it’s 1999, most of whom own assets, like stocks, bonds, and real estate, are greatly prospering off the Federal Reserve’s serial asset bubble-blowing scheme and President Trump’s stock market pumping on Twitter.

    Today’s artificial economy isn’t working for everyone as the wealth inequality gap swells to crisis levels. 

    The US is at the 11th hour, one hour till midnight, as the wealth inequality imbalance will correct itself by the eruption of protests on the streets of major metro areas, sort of like what’s been happening across the world in Chile, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Barcelona. 

    An uprising, a revolution, people are waking up to the fact that unelected officials and governments have ruined the economy and has resulted in their financial misery of low wages and insurmountable debts. 

    The report shows almost half of all low-wage workers are clustered in ten occupations, such as a retail salesperson, cooks and food preparation, building cleaners, and construction workers (these are some of the jobs that will get wiped out during the next recession). 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shown below, most of these low-wage workers are centered in areas around the North East, Mid-Atlantic, and Rust Belt. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we’ve detailed in past articles, millions of these low-wage and low-skilled jobs will never be replaced after the next recession, that’s due in part to mega corporations swapping out these jobs with automation and artificial intelligence. 

    The solution by the government and the Federal Reserve, to avoid riots in the streets, will be the implementation of various forms of quantitative easing for the people. 

    There’s a reason why you already hear the debate of universal income, central banks starting to finance green investments, and other various forms of short/long term stimulus, that is because the global economy is grinding to a halt — and the only solution at the moment is to do more of the same. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 22:00

  • David Stockman On How The Deep State Really Works
    David Stockman On How The Deep State Really Works

    Via InternationalMan.com,

    International Man: Last year, President Trump took the unusual step of bypassing his advisors to announce his intention to withdraw all US troops from Syria quickly. The decision rattled Washington and the mainstream media. It caused former Defense Secretary Mattis to resign. Almost a year later, the US has withdrawn only a token number of soldiers. It still has thousands of troops occupying the part of the country where oil fields are located. What is going on here?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    David Stockman: Well, that’s the Deep State at work.

    Donald Trump is all by his lonesome. He’s home alone in the Oval Office. Now, half of it, he can blame himself. If he hires someone, a known idiot like John Bolton, what does he expect is going to happen except that everything he wanted to do is going to be undermined.

    Nevertheless, he can’t seem to find anybody who can articulate on a day-to-day basis a pathway to the more restrained America First posture that he had in mind.

    He’s surrounded by people who constantly countermand his orders. You have James Jeffery, the US Ambassador and special envoy to Syria saying, “Well, Trump didn’t mean that when he said he wanted the troops out of Syria.”

    We have the same thing with North Korea. Trump finally said, here we are, 66 years after the armistice and we still don’t have a peace treaty, and we’re still occupying the Korean peninsula, which is of no interest to our national security one way or the other.

    You have to do what I would call “contrafactual history.” In other words, if you understand what could have happened the other way, then maybe you’re not going to be so impressed with all this threat inflation.

    I go back to why the Korean War happened, because I think it’s important to this whole thing going on now, with Trump trying to make a deal with Kim Jong-un.

    In the late ’40s, Washington officials said that Korea is outside our sphere of influence, the line between North and South hastily drawn at the Potsdam war conference in July 1945. Dean Acheson, the US secretary of state in the late 1940s, said it was a mere surveyor’s line; it’s of no strategic influence. What if common sense had prevailed, instead of the hot-headed advice that President Truman got?

    What if Truman had said, “Okay, we’re vacating this damn peninsula”? Well, it would have become a quasi-province of China, just like all the rest of them.

    They’d probably be making all kinds of stuff, sending it to Walmart today, and nobody would know the difference.

    Instead, we had a war. If I remember right, 54,000 servicemen were killed. The whole peninsula was pummeled, carpet bombed, and literally destroyed. It was like a wasteland in the north. There are reasons why the Kim family has survived all these years, because they hate us for what happened. People remember. It was really scorched earth. I mean, it was in some sense genocide, even then.

    So, all of that happened, and Eisenhower comes in and is astute enough to say that we don’t really have national security on the line. He negotiated an armistice, and yet the War Party kept tension on the DMZ for all those years because it had to be in the playbook of threats.

    I remember well when I was fighting the big Reagan defense build-up, back when I was budget director. It was always, we need all these different new tanks and attack aircraft and resupply logistics capabilities, because we have to have the ability to fight two and a half wars.

    Well, where was the half war? I knew where the other ones were. The half war was in Korea. Well, why did we have to have a half war in Korea? But nevertheless, that was part of the rationalization—justification—for this massive military force that really is a tool of empire and not a tool of homeland defense.

    Today, we have Trump finally saying, let’s let the Koreans decide how to run the future of Korea—and back off this long-running, 65-year confrontation.

    And yet as courageous in some ways as he has been, he’s constantly being undermined by his own people, who as soon as he’s not looking send real nasty messages to the North Koreans—that will only set Kim back on his heels—and therefore nothing gets done. Even though it could very easily be done.

    When you have a regime change policy—and this was the one real positive thing Trump brought to the table. He said regime change has failed; we’re not going to do it under my policy.

    Why do you think the North Koreans are quasi-starving? And I know the Communist elite and Kim’s family and so forth live a pretty fat life, but nevertheless they’re in dire straits economically.

    Why do they invest all this money in developing nuclear capability and missile capability? Because they don’t want to be regime changed. Kim is a young man, he’s in his mid-30s, and he doesn’t want to be another Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.

    He knows what happens. You get hung on national TV if you’re a Hussein, or you get tortured and drugged behind a Jeep if you’re a Gaddafi.

    Obviously, this stuff has consequences. These idiots in Washington and all these think tanks that talk about regime change and bringing democracy to the world and so forth—never even think about the consequence—the message that these violent episodes send—and the unfortunate reaction that people take in order to defend themselves.

    International Man: With John Bolton out of the picture, do you see US talks with North Korea bearing fruit for Trump?

    David Stockman: I think it’s touch and go.

    The problem is there’s lasting damage when you engage in all this regime change over so many years and episodes. They don’t trust you.

    Trump has worked very hard, using an odd, idiosyncratic personal diplomacy to build up trust with Kim. It seems to be working, but there are just so many forces at work behind the scenes that are aiming to undermine that trust-building so that nothing happens.

    They want to keep 29,000 troops in South Korea, in harm’s way, as a tripwire, so that the North Koreans obey us as we tell them to behave. It’s crazy.

    I would give it a 50/50 chance. I know he wants a big victory, a foreign policy win. He’s desperate for one, because not much is happening elsewhere and what he intended to do is being totally undermined.

    Maybe there’s a chance that something could happen here, but I am so distrusting of the Deep State machinery and their need for perennial threats.

    If you take away the Korean threat, if you recognize the Iranians aren’t a threat, if you see that Russia is a tiny little country that’s not going to invade Western Europe and crash through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, and so forth—

    All of a sudden somebody is going to do the math as we get into the coming fiscal crisis and say, “We can’t afford all this defense that we don’t need. Let’s cut it back dramatically.”

    They don’t want this to happen. And so, they have to keep these hot spots burning and these threats maintained or inflated, because they know if the real truth of the world were considered by Congress, the defense budget would be slashed dramatically.

    International Man: So far, President Trump has had a very different foreign policy than Candidate Trump. What will happen to Trump’s chances for re-election if he doesn’t make any progress on ending the war in Afghanistan, withdrawing from Syria, and bringing peace to Korea?

    David Stockman: I think his re-election is binary.

    If the stock market holds up and the economy manages to skirt recession, he’ll be in good shape. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    I think the stock market is in its last days of bubble excess. I think the economy is slouching toward recession within a matter of a few quarters or months. If that happens, Trump is toast. Elizabeth Warren becomes president, and then that’ll be a whole new ball game that is hard to figure.

    International Man: What kind of role do you see foreign policy playing in the 2020 election?

    David Stockman: It won’t be the normal sense of debating policy—where there’s usually the bipartisan duopoly, with nuanced shades of difference that they like to debate and pretend are meaningful.

    That isn’t even going to happen this time. Foreign policy has been totally taken over by the Democratic paranoia about Russia and Putin and meddling in our elections.

    Now it’s extended to the whole impeachment inquiry and Ukraine-gate. That’s what the whole debate is going to be about. The debate is going to be about a sideshow.

    The underlying issues are why we are constantly steaming warships into the Black Sea. That’s like the Gulf of Mexico to Russia.

    Why are we sending warships into the Baltic?

    Why are we constantly doing big maneuvers in Poland and in the Baltic states, right on Russia’s doorsteps with these tens of thousands of forces going through these maneuvers and exercises? What the hell are we doing all this for?

    Those are the issues. But they’re not even going to get debated.

    One last point: Trump had raised the question, isn’t NATO obsolete? The Soviet Union is gone. The 50,000 tanks allegedly on the central front facing western Europe have been melted down for scrap. And yet, he can’t even do anything about NATO.

    He’s had to double-talk his way into saying, “Well, the other countries are going to commit some more money they don’t have. They’re going to waste more money on defense.” That’s all that’s come of it.

    The point is we ought to be debating what the hell are we doing with NATO 25 years after the Soviet Union disappeared from the face of the earth?

    Why isn’t Washington and the president leading the world with this disarmament conference so that we can begin to reduce this massive expenditure for weapons that nobody can afford?

    This is what Washington should be doing. The president of the United States should be leading the great global disarmament conference of 2021, and yet that won’t even come up. It’s not even on the radar screen.

    It’s not even mentioned because, as I say, the Warfare State machinery essentially squelches any kind of debate, suffocates any kind of thought that at all deviates from the status quo.

    The big issue in the world today is war and peace, and we’re facing a campaign in 2020 where it won’t even be mentioned.

    *  *  *

    Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare… The coming economic and political crisis is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past. That’s precisely 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

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 21:30

    Tags

  • California Approves $3.2 Billion Bond For High Speed Train To Nowhere
    California Approves $3.2 Billion Bond For High Speed Train To Nowhere

    The high speed train is dead, long live the high speed train.

    Less than a year after California Gov. Gavin Newsom brought California’s dreams for a LA to San Fran bullet train crashing down, when he said in February that he is ending the state’s hugely expensive and hopelessly quixotic high-speed rail line fiasco (which would have been completed in 2033 at a staggering cost of $77 billion), California is about to unleash another high speed train project, and this one is even more idiotic.

    The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) has authorized a $3.2 billion tax-exempt, fixed-rate revenue bond issuance to help DesertXpress Enterprises, an affiliate of Virgin Trains USA, build a high-speed train from Victorville, California, to Las Vegas. The new XpressWest service, at speeds of up to 180 miles per hour, will take about 90 minutes one way. 

    There is just one problem: Victorville, located in SoCal’s high desert, is quite literally in the middle of nowhere.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More on that in a second.

    DesertXpress will be able to use the money to pay for the 135 miles of the project located within the state of California. This, according to ConstructionDrive, includes the costs of design, development, construction, operation and maintenance of the rail system itself; a passenger station; a maintenance facility; train cars; and electrification infrastructure. DesertXpress will also be able to use the bonds, which are sponsored by the California county of San Bernardino, to establish a debt service reserve fund, as well as pay for interest and other bond-related expenses. While total spending is listed at around $4.8 billion, “hard construction costs” are $3.6 billion.

    Construction, which is expected to begin in the second half of 2020 and wrap up in 2023, according to an IBank staff report, will generate more than 15,800 temporary construction jobs.

    That’s the good news. The bad news is… what the hell are they thinking?

    In theory, it’s not a terrible idea: California has for decades sought to find a fast path between Los Angleles and Las Vegas. In practice, the fact that the train runs to Victorville assures that the project is DOA.

    The XpressWest between California and Las Vegas, according to the IBank staff report, will take about half the time of a car trip, but Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, thinks that there simply won’t be enough potential passengers — at least enough to make the new bullet train a success.

    “If you’re driving from Los Angeles to Victorville, by the time you get there, you’re pretty much halfway to Vegas,” O’Toole said, “so why would you stop and leave your car somewhere and take a train and then have to walk to wherever your destination is — or take a cab or an Uber or Lyft — when you can just drive your car there?”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s probably a question the creators of the project should have asked first.

    Here’s the problem: the distance between Los Angeles and Victorville is about 90 miles and about 190 miles from Victorville to Las Vegas.

    “Driving from Los Angeles to Victorville,” O’Toole said, “you’re driving through all the traffic — you’re driving over the mountains … and you get to Victorville and it’s just a straight shot to Las Vegas. It’s more miles, but there’s very little traffic.

    “If they were going to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, they might have a chance of attracting some customers, but going through the mountain would be extremely expensive,” he said. “They’re building the easy part of the rail line but not the part that they need to build to actually attract customers.”

    Virgin Trains USA is a majority owner of Virgin Trains USA Florida, formerly known as Brightline, and currently owns and operates an express rail passenger rail system that runs from Miami to West Palm Beach. The company is building a $4 billion extension to Orlando International Airport. The estimated completion date is sometime in 2022.

    And while the company’s projects may be viable in Florida, they will be another epic waste of funds in California.

    Meanwhile, when we said that the first high speed train is dead, well that wasn’t quite right: the construction of the original California bullet train is still chugging along, albeit on a reduced scale. While Governor Gavin Newsom shelved the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s plans for a $77 billion rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles after amid concerns over escalating costs and schedule delays, the governor limited work to the $20 billion Central Valley portion of the project that will take passengers between Bakersfield and Merced.

    In other words, another high speed train going from nowhere to nowhere.

    So why does California continue to press along with not one but two train projects it knows will be a disaster? The answer is simple: “free” Federal money. The High-Speed Rail authority is trying to beat a Dec. 31, 2022 deadline in order to not lose a $929 million Federal Railroad Administration grant for that particular segment.

    In other words, instead of saving almost a billion dollars in taxpayer funds, and applying them to something useful, California is willing to begin a project which everyone knows will be a catastrophic waste of funds, but since the money has to be spent, even if it means digging holes just to fill them up again… well, so be it. After all, this is the government hard at work.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 21:01

  • CA Wildfires Make Homeless Crisis Even Worse
    CA Wildfires Make Homeless Crisis Even Worse

    Authored by Jenny Jayne via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Homelessness in California has already reached a state of crisis, but with the winter approaching and the homeless population growing, the problem continues to worsen. A lack of affordable housing coupled with the national opioid crisis has resulted in a growing homeless population that lives on the streets of California.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    California homeless populations live in squalor in makeshift homes made of tarps, tents, and discarded scrap wood. Sanitation for that many people living outside is virtually non-existent and feces and urine are left in the open next to filthy bedding.

    Filth in the streets, particularly “Skid Row”, has lead to the comeback of “Medieval Diseases” once thought to be eradicated.

    The housing situation in California shows no signs of improving.

    As Californians continue to witness the desolation camped right outside their front doors, their patience grows thin and their tolerance dissipates.

    The New York Times reports:

    California may pride itself on its commitment to tolerance and liberal values, but across the state, record levels of homelessness have spurred a backlash against those who live on the streets. (source)

    The homeless arrive on the streets of California for various reasons, but lack of housing is the resounding cry. Affordable housing is scarce and lower-income citizens are forced out as rents continue to rise. But another huge factor has resulted in new homeless that have overrun the already overwhelmed resources: wildfire evacuees. As a result, more recent homeless are clashing with the older homeless population. Many of the State’s “new” homeless have nowhere to go after their houses went up in flames. The two camps may have come to homelessness in different ways, but their needs are the same. And these two camps of homeless are fighting for dwindling resources.

    The wildfires are contributing to the housing problem.

    Wildfire destruction is making the lack of affordable housing into a bigger and more urgent problem. Wildfires are wreaking havoc on the already limited housing, forcing families displaced by fires onto long waiting lists for even temporary shelter. Even if families had the resources to move into permanent housing, there’s little left available. The fires are torching what little housing there is left and making already insanely priced housing even harder to come by. Compounding the problem is the lack of affordable home owner’s insurance. Even longtime homeowners are being forced out due to insurance companies dropping property coverage in “high risk” areas and tripling rates. This is displacing even more Californians.

    Wildfires continue to rage and take housing with them. The already out-of-control California fire situation is only getting worse. It’s so bad that California is issuing a “severe red flag” warning for the risk of wildfire with some areas getting hurricane-force winds. These winds only increase the chances of fires starting and spreading faster.

    And the homeless, an already fragile population with few resources, are growing exponentially in conjunction with the devastation of housing in wildfire areas. Displaced from their homes and housing already at a crisis point, the evacuees from wildfires have nowhere to go and few places to turn to for help. They have resorted to living in tents in open fields or Walmart parking lots as they wait on interminably long lists for available and affordable housing. Many, including a disproportionate number of elderly citizens, are simply turned away and left on their own.

    The Governor of California has offered a solution: rent control. This has been met with backlash from their citizens who have opposed this. Even where rent control has already been instituted, the homeless population has continued to grow, lending credibility to the opinion that the only real solution is construction, which is hampered by price controls, wildfire, and the exodus of home and property insurers.

    Fox News reports:

    Rent control has been a proven failure in addressing housing problems. It prompts landlords to convert their properties into owner-occupied homes, and deters investment in the housing market, aggravating the shortages that caused them in the first place. (source)

    The situation is dire for people who cannot find housing.

    While fires continue to ravage homes and cause billions in damage, the homeless population continues to grow and winter is coming. Surprisingly, the state with the most homeless deaths due to hypothermia is The Sunshine State.

    What does that mean for those who cannot find shelter? The homeless, including those who are refugees from the devastation caused by wildfires, will still be on the streets when the temperatures drop. Compassion from their fellow Californians has worn thin. There are fewer options for warm shelter and more people fighting for those few resources provided.

    Little has been done to address the fast-approaching problem of “where will they go?” when it gets too cold to be outside. We can only hope that they will find shelter before more tragedy strikes.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 20:30

  • D.C. Braces For Erdogan Visit Next Week: Here's What Happened Last Time
    D.C. Braces For Erdogan Visit Next Week: Here’s What Happened Last Time

    Earlier this week both Ankara and Washington confirmed that President Erdogan’s upcoming Nov. 13th visit to the White House on Trump’s invitation will happen as planned, despite US-Turkey relations being at their lowest point ever. This due to a host of issues including the S-400 and F-35 controversy, as well as the ‘Operation Peace Spring’ incursion into northern Syria which has seen Turkish forces fire dangerously close to US troop positions. 

    D.C. is now bracing for Erdogan and his security entourage’s visit. This will no doubt include the heightened alert of Capitol Police and the Secret Service, given what happened during the Turkish president’s prior two-day visit in 2017, when this shocking scene played out:

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

    A massive brawl, caught on video, had been instigated by Erdogan’s security detail at the Sheridan Circle in front of the Turkish ambassador’s residence.

    The bodyguards literally attacked a group of pro-Kurdish protesters, which included Americans, on US soil. But now with tensions between the US and Turkey at boiling point, will we witness such an attack play out again? 

    At the time Turkey even had the gall to accuse U.S. law enforcement of failing to quell an “unpermitted” and “provocative” demonstration, in an international incident which put pressure on Trump to condemn it. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US police at the time accused Erdogan’s bodyguards of viciously attacking the peaceful protesters. The State Department had called the conduct of Erdogan’s body guards “deeply disturbing” and has “raised concerns about those events at the highest levels,” according to a spokeswoman, and even later sought to bring charges against eleven among Erdogan’s detail, who later left the country. 

    The 2017 “Protest Beat down” drove international headlines at the time and was highlighted in foreign media: 

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

    Even apart from those shocking scenes in 2017, The Washington Post on Friday detailed the following which has not been publicly reported at the time

    But newly revealed State Department memos show the two-day visit in 2017 was filled with other troubling antics and discord. D.C. police and federal officers who were supposed to be helping protect a visiting head of state were instead entangled with his security forces from the moment the delegation’s two planes touched down at Joint Base Andrews.

    At one point, U.S. authorities intervened in a squabble among the Turkish guards. In another case, they seized a guard’s weapon and handcuffed him. They later admonished a security officer who accosted a passerby filming the entourage on a downtown street and barred a guard from traveling in a State Department car. In the course of the visit, several U.S. officers and federal agents were hurt, and at least one was punched.

    Considering this past behavior, and given what’s playing out in northern Syria with Kurdish forces under attack and facing ethnic cleansing by pro-Turkish forces, it is likely we’re in for more. 

    Pro-Kurdish groups in the US are already planning major protests, and DC police have begun preparations. 

    Police Chief Peter Newsham was quoted in the Post as saying his department “will take every measure possible to make sure we don’t have another conflict like we had the last time.” They are also coordinating with the State Department and Secret Service. 

    No doubt Erdogan’s goons and synchphants are also taking note, and making their own preparations for what will likely be another rumble in Washington.. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 20:00

    Tags

  • Scientists In China Are Using Live Pigs As Crash Test Dummies
    Scientists In China Are Using Live Pigs As Crash Test Dummies

    Authored by  John Vibes via TruthTheory.com,

    A recent case study of crash test simulations in China has shown that some researchers are involved in extremely inhumane animal testing. Images released with the case study show live pigs being used as crash test dummies.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The study highlighted the case of one test that involved 15 young pigs, who were strapped into car seats and used as dummies for high-speed simulations. Many of these pigs were still very young, having only been alive for 70 or 80 days before they were used in the tests. In the tests, the animals were strapped into various different seatbelts for impact testing.

    Half of the animals died in the tests, and the others were badly injured and likely traumatized from the experience.

    The researchers said that it was necessary to use the young pigs because their bodies are very similar to that of a human child, and they were hoping to actually see what these crashes would do to a living creature’s organs.

    The scientists responsible for these experiments say that they were compliant with US guidelines and claimed that their study was approved by an ethics committee. However, it seems that they may not be very familiar with what the laws in the US are, because it has been illegal to use pigs and other animals in these types of experiments in the states since the 1990s.

    Zachary Toliver of PETA said that these experiments were senseless and cruel.

    “Despite the existence of sophisticated animal-free models, experimenters continue to fasten abused, frightened animals into car seats and crash them into walls until their bodies are bloody, bruised, and mangled. Live pigs are pulverised in these tests, leaving them with broken bones and severe internal injuries before they’re killed and dissected,” he said.

    “Pigs don’t naturally sit up in car seats. Their anatomy is also very different from that of humans, so the data obtained from these horrific animal experiments aren’t applicable to human car-crash victims. Car companies figured out years ago that these kind of experiments are worthless and tell us nothing about a human experience in a car crash,” he added.

    Earlier this month, Truth Theory reported on the disturbing footage that was recently leaked from a German pharma laboratory, showing monkeys and other animals being tortured and abused. The facility is now under criminal investigation for charges related to animal cruelty.

    [ZH: we have one question… aren’t they facing a massive pig shortage?]


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 19:30

  • CTAs Are Almost Done Selling Bonds: Why The Market's "Great Rotation" Is Almost Over
    CTAs Are Almost Done Selling Bonds: Why The Market’s “Great Rotation” Is Almost Over

    In his latest note, which we covered on Friday, JPMorgan Marko Kolanovic discussed how much higher he thinks 10Y yields can rise “before they become a potential problem” for stocks (his answer: 150bps, although an even more important question is how fast they get there, and lately they have been surging).

    The JPM quant also explained why he thinks stocks are primed to rise further from current levels: in short, an unwind of the massive defensive “recession is coming” trade that defined much of 2019, as active managers rush to dump losers and scramble to make up for underperformance in the last 7 weeks of the year, in the form of a “chasing beta” rotation, to wit:

    There is still extreme crowding in defensive styles and momentum that we illustrated in our previous reports. An additional illustration is shown in Figure 1 below. It shows two strategies that in theory should have little to do with each other: one is equity long-short selection of winning/momentum stocks (momentum factor) and the other is CTA macro investing that doesn’t even hold any individual stocks, but rather mostly fixed income instruments. One can see that recently they are nearly 100% correlated. This is yet another indication of the prevalence of groupthink and crowding across investment strategies. The most recent crowding episode was largely driven by bond yields, and fears of the trade war impact and recession. A similar level of crowding can be illustrated by the performance of small-large factor and value equity factor. In theory these should be uncorrelated, but they are effectively one and the same, and they are just the inverse of the previously described momentum strategies. Our view is that the best hedge for a continued unwind of this investment groupthink is to overweight deep cyclicals like energy, metals/mining, as well as small cap stocks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shortly after Kolanovic laid out his thesis, Bloomberg followed suit with “Get Ready as ‘Beta-Chasing’ Stock Managers Try to Make Up Ground.”

    It’s been the same trade all year. A recession is coming, so get defensive. Now the strategy is unwinding and stock managers who toed the line all the way into November have furious catching up to do.

    We disagree.

    While we discussed previously why we find issues with Kolanovic’s assessment that cyclical and value stocks are set to explode higher at the expense of defensive/momentum names, here is an alternative take, one from Nomura, which looks at ‘the main driver behind the main driver’ of the recent stock market move, so to speak.

    As a reminder, the biggest catalyst for September’s violent rotation out of momentum/growth names and into value stocks was the sudden spike in Treasury yields as the market repriced the probability of a near-term recession. As such, it was the sharp move in yields that catalyzed the quant crash of early September, resulting in the violent reversal between cyclicals and defensives…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … and specifically the sudden reversal in that most aggressive investor class, CTAs.

    So looking at the role CTAs played in the sharp yield moves of 2019, what becomes clear is that it was the aggressive build up of net long positions by CTAs starting in September 2018 and culminating in September 2019, before a violent reversal saw CTAs puke their long bond positions, in the process crashing pure momentum portfolios…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … as trend-following strategies were clobbered as a result of the kneejerk moves in the 10Y:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So what happened since?

    For the answer we go to Nomura, which points out that while the period through August was characterized by selling (shorting) of high-risk assets and factors and buying of low-risk assets and factors, these tendencies were thrown into reverse by hedge funds liquidating positions in advance of their November results announcements. Of course, DM sovereign debt stands as the classic example of a low-risk asset.

    Why does this matter? Because trend-following CTAs, which are more technically minded than other hedge funds and also quicker to act, have since September been unwinding the substantial net long positions in DM government bonds that they had accumulated.

    But how much? And here is the punchline: after hitting a near record high net long exposure in sovereign rates which peaked right around the time $17 trillion in global bonds traded with a negative yield, the same CTAs have now shrunk their aggregate net long position in major DM government bond futures (US, Japan, Germany, UK) by about 80% from the late August peak!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In other words, there is just over 20% left in the great rate unwind before CTAs turn neutral, and there is no more impetus for them to liquidate positions.

    Meanwhile, as the 10yr UST yield broke above 1.90% earlier this week, which Nomura estimates to be the average cost of CTAs’ cumulative net buying of TY since April, this drew CTAs into further loss-cutting, and even more negative rates in a higher yield – greater liquidation feedback loop.

    * * *

    Yet even as the forced liquidation of CTA bond net longs – the primary catalyst behind the violent cyclical/defensive rotation – comes to an end, the big question is what happens next: do they resume accumulating long positions, or do they turn short.

    Here Nomura points out that if the last trigger line at around 2.05% (average cost of net buying since March) gets knocked out, CTAs would be pressed not only into the final phase of unwinding their TY long positions, but potentially moving net short, something they haven’t done since last summer. In that event, Nomura estimates that the systematic selling pressure on bond futures could lift 10yr UST yields well into the 2.0-2.5% range.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If that happens, then the violent reversal of consensus trades predicted by Kolanovic will be fully in place, resulting in a potentially shattering surge in value stocks (the question whether any value funds are left to take advantage of such a move is worth pursuing). After all, as we showed yesterday, the correlation between 10Y yields and YTD consensus trades has never been more negative.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here, we repeat the final point we made yesterday: since it is the consensus trades that get crushed as yields and cyclicals rise and as defensive stocks fall, hedge funds should be praying that Kolanovic is wrong. Because if he is right, 2019 will be another year in which the vast majority of hedge funds not only underperform the market, but post negative absolute returns, and find themselves out of a job.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 19:00

  • The One Metric That Matters For Electric Cars
    The One Metric That Matters For Electric Cars

    Authored by Leonard Hyman and William Tilles via OilPrice.com,

    Looking beyond the dramatic headlines – the cliff-hanger nature of Tesla’s financial statements and the Trump administration’s efforts to re-engineer the auto industrywe need to focus on one number that determines when electric vehicles (EVs) will make economic sense. So says a report out of Argonne Laboratories sponsored by the Department of Energy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That number, according to researcher George Crabtree, is the price of the battery (as measured in $ per kwh), which he says has to halve in order to make EVs competitive with conventional cars. Not promising one might think. Well, researchers now believe that battery prices could reach the magic level somewhere between 2022 and 2026.

    But, there is more to come. Researchers are working on lithium ion-solid state batteries. These would not only eliminate the unfortunate flammability issue that dogs lithium batteries but also possibly double the mileage per charge. Toyota hopes to have such a battery ready in the early 2020s.

    Still, what about the potential shortage of minerals required to build the batteries? Crabtree points out that the key to making sure we do not have a lithium shortage is to recycle the batteries. At present we recycle almost 100% of lead acid automotive batteries and less than 5% of lithium batteries. However, figuring out how to recycle the latter economically will require research.

    What all this says is that the electric vehicle could emerge from its present position in the United States as a well subsidized status symbol to a commercially competitive vehicle within five years. It looks as if the automobile manufacturers will be ready.

    But how about the electricity producers? This requires new modes of power distribution for charging stations as well as an ongoing commitment to fossil-free energy sources. This is not a trifling issue for electricity producers. Electric vehicles could eventually account for 30-40% of US electricity sales. This is huge. But these sales will not be made unless the industry has in place an infrastructure to deliver the power to the right places at the right time.

    That brings up the perennial chicken-or-the-egg question.

    • Should we incur the expense and build EV infrastructure hoping demand will eventually follow?

    • Or should we first allow car manufacturers to first build and sell their cars while hoping electric utilities move fast enough to satisfy the demand for EV charging infrastructure?

    In real estate for example, developers build roads and lay water pipes rather than tell prospective home buyers to do the job after they have taken possession. Electric utilities have in the past put in necessary infrastructure or made commitments to customers ahead of demand. But this has typically occurred only after receiving the blessing of state utility commission regulators who would permit these new assets to be added to rate base and earn incremental monies for the utility. In that way, the utility recovers its initial, considerable investment. Without the regulator’s blessing, we believe risk adverse utilities will be loath to invest in a seemingly speculative venture, especially when the Federal administration seems so averse to the new technology.

    But aside from limitations of batteries, energy density and mineral shortages, the electrification of transportation has the potential to eliminate roughly one quarter of US carbon emissions. This also assumes electric utilities install EV charging infrastructure while continuing to decarbonize base load power generations (which would knock another quarter off carbon emissions). And it now looks as if electricity producers and distributors have little more than five years to get their acts in order. This means that near term utility capital allocation decisions should be reflecting these changes. If not then perhaps another entity will assume responsibility for this aspect of the energy transition.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 18:30

  • "It's As If JPMorgan And Goldman Vanished…"
    “It’s As If JPMorgan And Goldman Vanished…”

    The equity-ification of the bond market has been closely followed by Bloomberg News and other financial journalists. Unfortunately for the big banks, it’s a trend that has largely been led by fintech firms like TradeWeb and Bloomberg. Many corporate bonds from investment grade to deep in speculative territory can be found trading on-the-run on both platforms.

    This trend virtually guarantees that, even as trading volume increases (thanks to the growing prevalence of HFT “market makers”) banks’ trading revenue will likely continue to decline, though in its early years in the pre-crisis days some believed the pullback in bank trading revenue might be temporary.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Trading revenue has been sliding since the financial crisis. According to BBG data, trading revenues at the largest banks have fallen for six out of the past seven quarters to their lowest levels in decades, with 2019 expected to set a new low.

    Last year’s $110 billion revenue haul at the 12 largest global banks was down from $149 billion in 2010, and the biggest firms are down more than 5% through the first nine months of 2019. If we add the expected slide from 2019, that’s roughly equivalent to Goldman and JPM disappearing from the market.

    In its story, BBG contends that the loss of some of the most lucrative pre-crisis products, like synthetic CDOs and their ilk, is another factor driving the fall in trading revenues among the big banks. But although markets for these securities are much smaller, and the products themselves slightly less lucrative, we’ve written extensively about their slow, creeping return (albeit in a “safer” packaging guaranteed to not spark the implosion of the global financial system).

    It’s only a matter of time before banks really ratchet up the marketing of these products. Investors’ reaction to bank earnings this season proved once again that they’re not ready to simply accept the drop in trading revenues as a secular trend affecting the entire industry. No, the big banks will face tremendous pressure to do whatever they can to revive the business. Some might try to buy their way out of it by gobbling up some of the smaller firms who BBG says account for one-third of the $39 billion drop in banking revenue mentioned above (BBG blamed lower fees and spread-compression driven by electronic trading for the other two-thirds of the drop).

    Larry Tabb, the founder of research firm Tabb Group, told BBG that the buy side is, in many cases, taking advantage of new regulatory restrictions on SIFI (systemically important financial institutions) banks to muscle in on their territory.

    “Their business model is being attacked from multiple directions,” Tabb said.

    Of course, the one-way momentum of QE-driven markets over the past decade, which has artificially depressed interest rates, has hurt both fixed-income and equity trading, while squeezing banks’ all-important net interest income, a key variable that tracks how much banks can earn from lending.

    The Trump Administration could make their jobs a whole lot easier by finally relaxing Dodd-Frank, particularly the provisions banning proprietary trading, a practice that once brought in as much as $5 billion in revenue a year on some trading desks.

    Passive investing hasn’t only hurt the wealth-management and fund-management industries, it’s also contributed to the drop in banks’ trading revenue by triggering the decline of the hedge fund industry. Hedge funds once were banks’ largest clients. But in recent years they’ve suffered outflows while trying, and often failing, to outperform significantly cheaper passive funds. Risk constraints are also making this a big problem for banks. At Goldman Sachs, the regulatory limit for value-at-risk – i.e. the measure of how much a bank’s traders can theoretically lose in a day – was just $55 million during the first nine months of the year, making large trades impossible.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Moreover, new financial regs that put restraints on bank capital, QE, a near-zero interest rate environment, political uncertainty and the ongoing debate about whether there is too much, or not enough, volatility, are also choking banks’ trading revenues. Job cuts in those areas have followed, as banks like Citigroup, DB, HSBC & SocGen have slashed thousands of positions.

    “There’s a lot of things going on in the world,” Marty Chavez explained in a Bloomberg Television interview shortly after announcing he was stepping down from his role as co-head of Goldman Sachs’s trading business. “I would say regulatory change is a part of it; interest rates; quantitative easing for very long periods of time; the cleanup, the aftermath of the financial crisis; the rise of technology — one of the most deflationary things that exists; the availability of data, broadly disseminated, to everybody; and derived data or analytics on the data. All of these things have combined.”

    To be sure, there are some signs that one or two of the largest banks might end up with the bulk of market share as its rivals exit. Just look at JPM’s Q3 earnings report.

    Focusing on JPM’s Corporate and Investment Bank, it is here that the bank surprised with an impressive FICC revenue print, which rose a whopping 25% Y/Y to $3.56BN, up $713MM compared to the year-ago quarter “which reflected less favorable market conditions.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At the same time, JPM reported Equity Markets revenue of $1.52BN, missing expectations of $1.66BN and down 5% compared to a strong prior year, “reflecting lower revenues in derivatives, partially offset by higher Cash Equities.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, several major banks, including Goldman, announced plans to pull back from FICC (fixed income, currencies and commodities) trading this year.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 18:00

  • Technology Spurs On Our Ability To Deceive
    Technology Spurs On Our Ability To Deceive

    Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

    Caught between the forces of mainstream media and government propaganda it seems we can believe nothing we see or hear. Much of this problem is rooted in the agendas of large companies and those who control them. These companies have become so big and powerful that they now influence government’s message and direction. Fake news and false flags have left many of us having a difficult time deciding what is real, adding to this is the rapidly growing ability of computers to generate and alter human images. This is all about to go to a whole new level.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Margrethe Vestager, the European Union Antitrust Chief, is busy touting that the EU’s influence gives it the opportunity and power to shape the world. She insists the EU is ready to take on companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon which she contends has used their power to undermine competition, keep out innovation and collect data on us. This has given these companies great power to manipulate society. Google did this when it used the power of its search engine to favor its own comparison shopping service. While the EU  has signaled it is going to make several big companies use their power in a way that’s fair and doesn’t discriminate the fact is this is easier to say than do.

    The EU plans to do this by flexing its muscle with a combination of competition policy and regulation changes, however, whether it will be successful remains to be seen. Like many people, I remain dubious. These powerful companies already are overly involved with shaping the message of media and government propaganda are about to unleash upon society a great deal more computer-generated models and images. These have advanced to where they blur reality and diminish the need for humans to act as spokespeople or to represent organizations.

    Back in 2011, Swedish fashion chain H&M admitted to using computer-generated models to showcase collections on its website. Since that time the ability to create computer-generated images has only gotten better. We have advanced to where it is difficult, no, it would be more accurate to say impossible to know if what you are seeing is really a person or simply the image of one. Drilling down into this issue forces us to where creativity, marketing, and price-point intersect and that has huge implications for society going forward. We have reached the point where what we are asked to believe in a world of fake news and false flags is only limited by our imagination.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Real Or Not? Click here to take the test

    An example of this and somewhat harmless can be seen in the virtual models H&M has generated for use in ads. These images look completely human, but upon inspection, if you look closely, they might all have the same body shape and pose with a real model’s head superimposed on the body where the skin tone has been digitally altered to match her complexion. This step which moves past “photoshopping” has created a bit of controversy. H&M has drawn criticism for creating a false reality and creating an unrealistic body image for women to live up to. The Swedish website Aftonbladet first noticed the uncanny similarities of the models. Hacan Andersson, a spokesman from H&M, confirmed the deception by saying:

    “It’s not a real body, it is completely virtual and made by the computer. We take pictures of the clothes on a doll that stands in the shop, and then create the human appearance with a program on a computer.”

    Andersson argued the company made the choice to use the images of computer-generated models because it simplified the process of the photoshoot and also that it allowed customers to focus on the clothes rather than the models. He acknowledged, “The result is strange to look at, but the message is clear: buy our clothes, not our models.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Fact Is Computer-Generated Images Often Appear More Real Than Reality

    Computer-generated imagery, known as CGI, encompasses the tricks and the ability to generate and manipulate images. This creates some interesting possibilities going forward as well as greasing an already slippery slope with endless possibilities. Eventually, this could lead to a form of “Photoshop” on steroids. Anyone familiar with Photoshop knows it delivers the magic that helps people bring their creative vision to life. By editing raw image files and photos using state-of-the-art photo editing not only can people create compelling high-dynamic-range images (HDRI) they can also mislead viewers as to what is real.

    Expect a lot more of this in the future. By adding distinct characteristics from individuals that society views in a very positive light to a CGI it is not difficult to imagine that we might extend some of that same positive feeling to that image. If this is true then it is not difficult to envision both politicians and others “scrubbing” their voice and persona ever so slightly as to improve the impact they have on advancing their cause. Slowing their speech, deepening the tone of their voice, shaving off a few unwanted pounds. Manipulating people in this way could be looked at as a form of propaganda but in reality, it is only one step farther than we already go when we do extreme editing of a news clip to sway public opinion.

    The future of TV news could be very different in that it could be completely computer-generated. Take, for instance, the many imitation sounds engineered into some electronic keyboards today. While an audiophile may be able to tell the difference the average listener cannot and most people don’t care if it results in a less expensive download for their iPod. Since the same thing can be said about music and even art this can be scary, especially if you are the person suddenly discovering that a robot could take your job. In Vegas, stage shows used to all have live orchestras but now many musicians have a difficult time finding work on the strip. We have also seen the electronic equivalent of human-generated music gain a foothold as a genre and become a market all its own. Voice actors are already feeling the heat as the encroachment of synthetic voices hit the industrial/corporate market and push into audiobooks.

    The ability to produce a human-sounding voice with all the inflections, nuances, and timing that makes it interesting often requires as much technical artistry from a software engineer as it does from an experienced voice actor, however, at some point computers will be able to take over and perform this task as routine. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been watching recent trends in technology. A quick search for the words “voiceover” and “computer voice” will bring you rapidly up to speed. Apple has even designed into its iPhone a feature called voiceover which the visually impaired find very valuable, it reads the words on the screen out loud in what Apple calls a “spoken English interface.”

    Much of this is happening beneath the surface with little fanfare because most people consider it harmless. The fact is we now have computers that sound more human than humans and on a positive note speak more clearly. It is not difficult imagining such figures saving media networks money by delivering the news. All this takes us to a time in the future when computers have the ability to generate images that deliver dialog and can act with emotion. By mimicking figures of the past or their best qualities and traits it would be possible to create false figures with compelling personalities.

    In life most people never meet or hear their Senator or President speak in person, this means a “gentle concealed” enhancement could go a long way to make them appear more appealing. It is important to consider that if this technology can be used to enhance the stature of a person it could also be used to diminish their standing or even as a tool for character assassination. This makes this sometimes deceptive and potentially dangerous area of technology ripe for abuse. Sadly, it appears in the future it will become even more difficult to determine what is real and what is false.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 17:30

  • 'Greta' Uber Alles?
    ‘Greta’ Uber Alles?

    Forget Big Brother, in San Francisco it’s Big Sister as the uber-liberal city that prides itself on its eco-consciousness is poised for the completion of a massive mural of teenage climate-fearmonger Greta Thunberg staring down judgmentally on all those over the age of 16 who refuse to ditch their private jets, cars, and cows…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Guardian reports that the Argentinian muralist Andres Iglesias, who signs his art with the pseudonym Cobre, is expected to complete the work next week.

    “Climate change is real,” Cobre told SFGate.

    “This girl Greta is awesome and she knows what she’s doing. I hope with this mural people will realize we have to take care of the world.”

    Some have suggested some eery similarities…

    1984?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Putin?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Or ISIS Executioner?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Don’t dismiss it – you never see them in the same place at the same time…?

    *  *  *

    It’s not the first time Thunberg has been immortalized in street art. Earlier this year, the UK-based aerosol artist Jody Thomas painted a 50ft portrait of the teenager on the face of the historic Tobacco Factory in Bristol.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And, as we noted recently, a mural of Thunberg was defaced in Edmonton, Alberta, with the vandal telling Thunberg to stop lecturing him on how to live his life.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 17:00

  • Pentagon: We'll Shoot Any Syrian Official Who Tries to Access Syrian Oil
    Pentagon: We’ll Shoot Any Syrian Official Who Tries to Access Syrian Oil

    Authored by Andrea Germanos via CommonDreams.org,

    Pentagon officials asserted Thursday U.S. military authority over Syrian oil fields because U.S. forces are acting under the goal of “protecting Americans from terrorist activity” and would be within their rights to shoot a representative of the Syrian government who attempted to retake control over that country’s national resource.

    The comments came from Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman and Navy Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr. during a press briefing in which the two men were asked repeatedly about the legal basis the U.S. is claiming to control Syrian oil fields.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Syrian soldiers are seen deploying in an oil-rich area in the countryside of Qamishli, northeastern Hasakah province, in early November. Image source:  Xinhua/via Getty Images

    The briefing came less than two weeks after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, “That’s our mission, to secure the oil fields” in the Deir ez-Zor area of eastern Syria. President Donald Trump’s comments before and after that remark —”We’re going to be protecting [the oil], and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future,” and “The oil… can help us, because we should be able to take some”— were seized on by critics who claimed Trump was suggesting violating international law by plundering another country’s resources and openly saying the U.S. was pursuing war for oil.

    Hoffman, in his comments Thursday, gave a different message—that “the revenue from this is not going to the U.S. This is going to the SDF,” referring to the Kurdish-led and U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces, who are battling ISIS. Byrne claimed that the U.S. has been waging the oil field control mission alongside SDF and that the goal was to prevent ISIS from obtaining the oil revenue.

    But, as one reporter pointed out, ISIS fighters “have no armor. They have no aircraft.”

    “Do they have the capability to actually seize the oil fields?” the reporter asked. “And isn’t this really about Russia and Syria seizing those oil fields?”

    * * *

    Hoffman replied that the goal was “to prevent a resurgence” of ISIS which would be facilitated if the terrorist group had access to the oil revenue.

    When the Pentagon officials were pressed on whether “U.S. troops have the… authorization to shoot if a representative of the Syrian government comes to the.. oil fields and says, ‘I am here to take property of these oil fields,’” Byrne said, “our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.”

    The officials were reminded by a reporter that “the government of Syria is still, based on international law… [the] recognized legitimate government.” Hoffman said, “Everyone in the region knows where American forces are. We’re very clear with anyone in the region in working to deconflict where our forces are. If anyone — we work to ensure that… no one approaches or has — shows hostile intent to our forces, and if they do, our commanders maintain the right of self-defense.”

    Hoffman later said that the oil field mission couldn’t be separated from the fight to defeat ISIS. Operations in “Syria are done under the commander-in-chief’s authorities to — with regards to protecting Americans from terrorist activity.”

    Pressed again by a reporter about the “legal basis for… the United States military to take and control the natural resources inside the boundaries of another country,” Hoffman responded, “the legal basis for this comes under the commander-in-chief’s authority for us to be conducting counter-terrorism efforts against ISIS. And I — I get your point when you’re trying to decouple the ISIS issue from the Syria issue, but it is not a decoupled issue.”

    Later Hoffman was asked by a reporter if “President Trump [has] legal authority to take over these oil fields or is the United States stealing the oil?”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via AFP/DW

    Hoffman repeated his stance that the operations were a part of the effort to defeat terrorists and stopping “ISIS from obtaining the oil fields is an effort to prevent them from obtaining revenue so that they can fund their terrorist operations globally.”

    The Pentagon official also appeared to push back against the notion that the mission to control the oil fields is new. “Just to be clear, we’ve been in this area with the same mission of preventing ISIS from getting those oil fields for the last four years. This is not a new mission. Everybody seems to be — believe that that has changed. That is not —that is not the case.”

    U.S. forces may also stay with that effort for years to come, Hoffman suggested.

    “We’re committed to [the defeat of ISIS], and we’re committed to staying in the region,” he said. “We’re committed to, in this particular case, having troops in Syria in a way that helps us continue the D-ISIS mission as long as we believe it’s necessary.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 16:30

  • America's Richest 1% Now Own As Much Wealth As The Middle And Lower Classes Combined
    America’s Richest 1% Now Own As Much Wealth As The Middle And Lower Classes Combined

    Two weeks ago we pointed out that even as (or rather, because) stocks hit daily all time highs, we now have mass public unrest (on and off) in: France, Spain, Algeria; Iraq: Lebanon; Egypt; Russia; Hong Kong; Venezuela; Chile; Ecuador; and Bolivia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The is a simple reason for this social anger: an unprecedented wealth and income divide as a result of constant central bank interventions in capital markets, which have made upward social mobility virtually impossible and stagnant wage growth the norm, and nowhere more so than in the US, where as Bloomberg reports citing the latest Fed data, “one-percenters” now hold almost as much wealth as the middle- and upper-middle classes combined, as a result of the relentless ascent in stocks which added another $1 trillion in market value in just the past week, bringing the total to $82.7 trillion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here are the facts: as the NBER recently reported, in 2016 the richest one percent of households held more than half of all outstanding stock, financial securities, trust equity, and business equity, and 40 percent of non-home real estate. The top 10 percent of families as a group directly owned over 93% of all stock and mutual fund ownership.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Moreover, despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks, though less than its 93 percent share of directly owned stocks and mutual funds.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with the stock market soaring to new highs, it will hardly be a surprise that the “top 1%” of American households have enjoyed huge returns in the stock market in the past decade, ironically enough using data from the Federal Reserve, which is directly responsible for this unprecedented wealth distribution. And, as Bloomberg notes, “those fat portfolios have America’s elite gobbling up an ever-bigger piece of the pie.”

    In specific terms, this means that the very richest 1% had assets of about $35.4 trillion in the second quarter, or just shy of the $36.9 trillion held by the tens of millions of people who make up the 50th percentile to the 90th percentile of Americans — much of the middle and upper-middle classes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Commenting on this unprecedented wealth divergence that was last observed a few years before World War II, Lakeview Capital’s chief market strategist Stephen Colavito said that people can’t get much of a return on certificates of deposits and other passive investments, “so they’ve pumped money into stocks and propped up the market overall.”

    Actually, the one who is “propping up the market overall” is the Fed, which following a mini repo market crisis sparked by JPMorgan launched “NOT QE”, and injected $280 billion in fresh liquidity in just the past two months, pushing the Fed’s balance sheet above $4 trillion for the first time since February.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At this point, wealth becomes a feedback loop: “The wealthier that the wealthy get, the more opportunity they have,” Colavito said.

    It’s also why angry populist movements have become an ever more powerful force on both the left and right, demanding either wealth redistribution, higher taxation of outright punishment of those billionaires who have benefited from the Fed’s artificial levitation of the stock market. In many countries around the globe, this anger has spilled over on the streets as millions protest for social change, on many occasions with violence.

    Their anger is only set to grow, because as Bloomberg notes it may not be long before “1-percenters” surpass the middle and upper-middle classes combined. Household wealth in the upper-most bracket grew by $650 billion in the second quarter of 2019, rising to $35.5 trillion, while Americans in the 50th to 90th percentiles saw a $210 billion gain.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One step below the top 1%, those Americans in 90th to 99th percentiles, still control the biggest share of wealth, with $42.6 trillion in assets.

    What about the bottom end of US society? Well, if the super rich own almost all stocks, the “bottom 90%”, i.e., 90% of the entire US population, owns the vast majority of debt, some 72.4% of the total pile.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is one final twist: the wealthy vs poor conflict is increasingly being drawn along age groups: Baby Boomers born between the end of the Second World War and 1964 currently hold wealth that was 11 times higher than that of millennials as of the second quarter.

    So how are millennials protesting this unfair age wealth divide? Are they rioting, becoming political activists and voting in droves, unionizing or participating in mass labor strikes? None of the above: after all, even refusing to work is apparently too much work; instead America’s youth has flooded social media with the pinnacle of passive-aggressive revolt in the form of the now ubiquitous OK Boomer.”

    We doubt the Boomers are losing too much sleep over this rebellion by the avocado toast generation.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 16:00

  • Is China's Embrace Of Blockchain A Warning Shot To The West?
    Is China’s Embrace Of Blockchain A Warning Shot To The West?

    Authored by Fan Yu, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

    China has high ambitions for its state-controlled digital currency.

    I wrote two months ago that its central bank digital currency could be imminent. And since foreign adoption of the yuan has been tepid so far, the technology also represents a massive bid to accelerate the internationalization of yuan.

    In hindsight, that timing was too aggressive. Beijing likely will introduce its digital currency within 12 to 18 months. China has also doubled down on its conviction. Recently, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping further fanned the flames by extolling blockchain technology—which underpins cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin—as a “breakthrough that can facilitate China’s progress.”

    That endorsement prompted a rally in cryptocurrency prices, which was perhaps undeserved. But its effect on cryptocurrencies, the yuan’s global adoption, Facebook’s Libra project, and Western banking hegemony can’t be understated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What It Means for Central Banks

    China’s strong endorsement of a blockchain-based central bank currency and the West’s relative aversion to the technology opens an interesting new front in the growing U.S.–China technology rivalry.

    And it’s a new front on which the United States may not be prepared to fight.

    Developments in fintech, payments, and blockchain digital currencies are receiving support from the highest levels of the Chinese central government. The U.S. government—which seeded development of the internet in the 1960s via the ARPANET project—has so far shunned the technology.

    Whether blockchain can be a successful technology underpinning global payments is still an open question. Current blockchain technologies still have speed and volume limitations. But what it allows China to do is bypass the dollar-based global banking system and intermediary banks.

    There’s another application China is potentially working on. Max Keiser, the host of the Keiser Report, a financial news show on the Russian state network channel RT, recently suggested that China’s digital currency has even greater ambitions.

    “I can tell you that the cryptocurrency that China’s rolling out will be backed by gold,” Keiser told Kitco News, a gold-focused website.

    “It’s a two-pronged announcement. Number one, China’s got 20,000 (metric tons) of gold, and number two, they’re rolling out a crypto coin backed by gold, and the dollar is toast.”

    If true, that could be a game-changer, as currently, no government currency is backed by gold. The United States abandoned the last remnants of pegging the dollar to its gold reserves in 1971. The ramifications of this are beyond the scope for this article, but it’s a development that Western central banks need to pay attention to.

    What It Means for Crypto Market

    Bitcoin prices jumped almost 16 percent on Oct. 25, the day after Xi made his pro-blockchain comments at a Politburo meeting on that technology. The Politburo is a body of 25 of the Party’s most elite officials.

    But Beijing was quick to tamp down the correlation.

    “Rise of blockchain technology was accompanied by that of cryptocurrencies, but innovation in blockchain technology does not mean we should speculate in virtual currencies,” according to an Oct. 28 commentary published on the CCP mouthpiece People’s Daily.

    As of Nov. 3, bitcoin prices have declined slightly since that initial rally, and for good reason. Beijing’s affirmation of blockchain isn’t an affirmation of cryptocurrencies. Chinese authorities banned initial coin offerings and domestic cryptocurrency exchanges in 2017, and there’s speculation about a crackdown on cryptocurrency miners.

    Any cryptocurrency market reaction to recent developments should be neutral to negative, as China’s state-controlled digital currency could become a legitimate competitor to existing cryptocurrencies.

    What It Means for State Control

    China has long argued that cryptocurrencies create chaos and disorder. Cryptocurrencies’ key benefits are hugely negative for the CCP: They can’t be centrally controlled and users must sell fiat currency (e.g., the yuan) to purchase digital currencies.

    China’s state digital currency affords several benefits for the CCP regime. It’s a digital currency that it can control, the government can track where it’s going, and it’s a domestically developed technology that doesn’t rely on foreign entities.

    Beijing undoubtedly has plans to use its digital currency to exert more control and surveillance on users. Unlike paper money, state-controlled digital currency can be used to track consumer spending extremely accurately and also to enforce strict capital controls. Its potential for surveillance is far greater than existing mobile payment apps such as WeChat or Alipay, which are owned by private Chinese companies.

    Such tactics can easily be exported abroad, once foreign countries begin to adopt China’s digital currency.

    The West doesn’t seem to have many viable alternatives. Cryptocurrencies inherently bypass central banks and therefore, are unlikely to be legitimized by authorities. Absent advancements in blockchain by Western central banks, Libra is perhaps the most logical challenger to China’s proposed currency.

    Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued in his remarks in front of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Oct. 23:

    “China is moving quickly to launch a similar idea in the coming months. We can’t sit here and assume that because America is today the leader, that it will always get to be the leader if we don’t innovate.”

    But the Libra project is having trouble getting off the ground as some initial corporate backers such as eBay, Mastercard, PayPal, and Visa have withdrawn their participation. And lawmakers have so far criticized the project as an effort by Facebook to gain more influence and improve financial returns.

    During Zuckerberg’s testimony, he appeared to hedge his bet, conceding that Facebook and himself are perhaps “not the ideal messenger” given the circumstances. He described Libra as one “potential approach” to digitizing payments.

    U.S. lawmakers are right to fear Facebook’s growing ambitions, and there must be other alternative solutions. One thing is clear: Beijing isn’t slowing down.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 15:30

  • Activist Shrinks Want To Tell Impeachment Panel Trump Is Crazy
    Activist Shrinks Want To Tell Impeachment Panel Trump Is Crazy

    A group of medical professionals who claim that President Trump is mentally unfit for office want to testify during House Democrats’ impeachment probe, according to the Washington Examiner, the latest development in an ongoing effort to explore removing Trump via the 25th amendment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Led by Dr. Brandy Lee – a Yale forensic psychologist (who remains unlicensed in Connecticut), the group includes three other psychologists, a clinical neuropsychologist, a neurologist and an internist – who will announce their availability next week to members of Congress and the media.

    Notably, the group didn’t avail themselves during the closed-door impeachment hearings – so this is clearly more about influencing public opinion than genuine concern.

    Lee and those prepared to testify say there is enough information from the president’s public appearances, tweets, interviews, and also from special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report, to make the determination that, as Lee put it, “the president lacks mental capacity to fulfill the duties of his office.

    There is very little that a personal examination will add,” Lee said. –Washington Examiner

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A wide-eyed Dr. Brandy Lee explains why Trump is crazy.

    “We think that hearing about mental health aspects in the context of the impeachment hearings is critical, partly because, for the past 2.5 years we have been very deeply concerned about mental instability of the president, and pretty much all that we have said has born out to be true,” said Lee – who previously diagnosed Trump with a “mental impairment” for “going back to conspiracy theories, denying things he has admitted before,” and “his being drawn to violent videos.”

    Earlier this year Lee spearheaded a group of experts which conducted a mental health analysis of Trump using the Mueller report, concluding that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to be president and recommended he lose his war powers and access to nuclear weapons. 

    The psychiatrists who are making themselves available for consultation are Dr. James Merikangas, Dr. Jerrold Post, Dr. John Zinner, and Dr. Allen Dyer, all of whom teach at George Washington University. Sara Pascoe, a clinical neuropsychologist who is a former member of the National Academy of Medicine, is also part of the panel. Lee doesn’t yet have permission from the neurologist and internist to name them publicly.

    The experts plan to share findings from the mental health analysis if called in to testify. Post, who spent two decades at the CIA and compiled psychological profiles of world leaders, also has a book coming out called Dangerous Charisma: The Political Psychology of Donald Trump and His Followers to use as part of the testimony. Dyer, who helped author the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater Rule,” which says it’s unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion of public figures they haven’t personally examined, will help navigate ethical rules, Lee said. –Washington Examiner

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

    “We don’t believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount,” said Lee. “In other words, the more successful the impeachment proceedings become, the more dangerous the psychological factors of the president will become.”

    Lee calls her group the “Independent Expert Panel for Presidential Fitness.”

    She is also the editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a compilation of testimonials from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts weighing in on Trump’s level of “dangerousness.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 15:00

  • The Economics Behind The Fall Of The Berlin Wall
    The Economics Behind The Fall Of The Berlin Wall

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Like most historical events that are commemorated as if they took place on a single day, the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, was just one of many interrelated events that led to the end of the system of Soviet client states in Eastern Europe, and the end of the Soviet Union itself, in December of 1991.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the fall of the Berlin Wall, East Germans, who had lived under severe restrictions on travel and emigration, were able to freely travel to West Berlin, which continued a chain of events already begun earlier that year in which many anti-Soviet dissidents throughout Eastern Europe became emboldened and met with unprecedented success. Meanwhile, East Germans flooded into neighboring countries by the thousands, seeking refuge from Soviet-sponsored oppression in Austria and West Germany.

    Why It Was Different in 1989

    Throughout the mid-twentieth century, Eastern Europe was home to numerous anti-Soviet revolts and acts of civil disobedience. In Hungary in 1956, Prague in 1968, and especially in Poland throughout the 1970s and 1980s, resistance flared up, but was reliably crushed with Soviet-sponsored martial law and outright military intervention.

    But in the summer of 1989, the Poles held an election that essentially overthrew the Soviet-approved regime in Poland. This, time, however, instead of sending tanks to crush the Polish agitators, the USSR did nothing.

    By November of that year, dissidents had become emboldened by Soviet inaction. Hungary and Czechoslovakia haphazardly opened their borders, allowing East Germans to stream into Austria and on to West Germany. East Berliners began to demand free passage to the West. The “fall” of the wall, soon followed.

    Americans today, and especially American conservatives, like to claim that the end of the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union was America’s doing; that the Soviet oligarchs feared American military might, and simply decided to give up and vote themselves out of existence, as they did two years later. This tale makes for nice domestic propaganda in America, but the fact that regimes virtually never just “give up” without firing a shot when faced with a threatening foreign power makes it rather unlikely.

    We are far more likely to find an answer if we ask ourselves not why the American state was so strong in the 1980s, but why the Soviet state was so weak. If the Soviets were more than capable of maintaining “order” in Eastern Europe during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, why was it unable or unwilling to do the same in the 1980s?

    An inquiry along these lines quickly leads us to find that by the 1980s, the soviet economy, and most of the economies of Eastern Europe were economic basket cases. Housing was in disrepair. Vehicles and appliances were incredibly old-fashioned and unreliable. The standard of living was a fraction of what it was in the “West.” Basic items like soap and women’s pantyhose were often luxuries.

    In other words, the centrally-planned economies of the Soviet bloc produced little actual wealth, and as the regimes siphoned off more and more of what little wealth was being produced, the people, as well as the regimes, became poorer and poorer.

    This economic weakness meant not only that the legitimacy of the regime was imperiled, but that the Soviets no longer enjoyed a military “surplus” with which they could simply roll into every rebellious neighborhood and re-establish order.

    In other words, the USSR was too poor to pay the political bills.

    Mises and the Calculation Problem

    None of this would have surprised Ludwig von Mises. Decades before, Mises had shown that a socialist economy (by which he meant a centrally planned economy) could not possibly know what to produce, when to produce it, or for whom to produce. In explaining this, Mises proved that the Soviet Union, regardless of any victories it might have in remolding human nature, was economically impossible. Rothbard explains:

    Before Ludwig von Mises raised the calculation problem in his celebrated article in 1920, everyone, socialists and non-socialists alike, had long realized that socialism suffered from an incentive problem. If, for example, everyone under socialism were to receive an equal income, or, in another variant, everyone was supposed to produce “according to his ability” but receive “according to his needs,” then, to sum it up in the famous question: Who, under socialism, will take out the garbage? That is, what will be the incentive to do the grubby jobs, and, furthermore, to do them well? …

    But the uniqueness and the crucial importance of Mises’s challenge to socialism is that it was totally unrelated to the well-known incentive problem. Mises in effect said: All right, suppose that the socialists have been able to create a mighty army of citizens all eager to do the bidding of their masters, the socialist planners. What exactly would those planners tell this army to do? How would they know what products to order their eager slaves to produce, at what stage of production, how much of the product at each stage, what techniques or raw materials to use in that production and how much of each, and where specifically to locate all this production? How would they know their costs, or what process of production is or is not efficient?

    Mises demonstrated that, in any economy more complex than the Crusoe or primitive family level, the socialist planning board would simply not know what to do, or how to answer any of these vital questions. Developing the momentous concept of calculation, Mises pointed out that the planning board could not answer these questions because socialism would lack the indispensable tool that private entrepreneurs use to appraise and calculate: the existence of a market in the means of production, a market that brings about money prices based on genuine profit-seeking exchanges by private owners of these means of production. Since the very essence of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, the planning board would not be able to plan, or to make any sort of rational economic decisions. Its decisions would necessarily be completely arbitrary and chaotic, and therefore the existence of a socialist planned economy is literally “impossible” (to use a term long ridiculed by Mises’s critics).

    The Soviet central planners never had an answer to this critique. Indeed, their “answer” only came in 1991 when the USSR finally shut itself down. And even up to the end, American Keynesians never figured it out either, and Paul Samuelson still claiming in 1989 that a “socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

    Why Did it Take So Long?

    In response to Mises’s claim of the impossibility of central planning, some then ask “well, if central planning was impossible, why did it last so long?”

    The answer can be found in the fact that even in a centrally planned state, capital does not simply vanish overnight. The soviet planners were not starting with nothing. They had the accumulated capital of centuries of savings and investment by Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, and others under their control.

    True, it was not possible for them to correctly plan or determine non-arbitrarily what goods should be produced. But they nevertheless had large amounts of capital at their disposal, and even if the centrally planned state produced zero wealth (which was not true since even the Soviet state produced some things people wanted), the state still had plenty of wealth to redistribute until it was all gone.

    This is all the more true for regimes that are only partly centrally planned, as in the case of Venezuela, on which Nicolás Cachanosky observed:

    [I]f one of the wealthiest and developed countries in the world were to adopt Cuban or North Korean institutions overnight … [t]he wealth and capital does not vanish in 24 hours. The country would shift from capital accumulation to capital consumption and it might take years or even decades to drain the coffers of previously accumulated wealth. In the meantime, the government has the resources to … enjoy the wealth, highways, electrical infrastructure, and communication networks that were the result of the more free-market institutional realities of the past.

    Eventually, though, the “reserve fund,” as Mises called it, is used up:

    An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.

    In addition to this, the Soviets made money for the regime by selling oil (and other goods) in international markets, and high oil prices in the 1970s propped up the regime so well, that had it not been for Soviet oil sales, it’s quite possible the regime would have collapsed a decade earlier.

    Conclusion

    As the mainstream news outlets cover the anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s fall this year, they will surely spend much time discussing the role of various American politicians, and military programs, and international relations. It is quite possible that all of these things had an effect on the regimes of Eastern Europe that were non-trivial.

    Nonetheless, such analysis ignores the huge elephant in the room which is the inevitable failure of regimes that are built on central planning and wealth re-distribution. Without markets and prices, there can be no planning, and without planning, no wealth creation, and ultimately, no political durability. The rebels and demonstrators of Eastern Europe deserve immense credit for courageously standing up to the state. But in the end, those who were successful were helped immensely by good timing and bad economics.

    *  *  *

    This article was first published in 2014 to mark the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It has been slightly updated for the 30th anniversary.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/09/2019 – 14:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th November 2019

  • Exposing The Plan For A Global Dystopia
    Exposing The Plan For A Global Dystopia

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    Global policy planners intend to deliver replacements for both dollar hegemony and fossil fuels. Plans may appear uncoordinated and in their early stages, but these issues are becoming increasingly linked.

    A monetary reset incorporating state-sponsored cryptocurrencies will enable exchange controls to be introduced between nations by separating cross-border trade payments from domestic money circulation. The purpose will be to gain greater control over money and to direct its investment into green projects.

    The OECD will build on current tax disclosures to make everyone’s income and capital known to governments and therefore readily taxable, money destined to kick-start economic growth. Under the guidance of supranational organisations, governments will redirect investment into green technology. The objective, particularly for Europeans, is to neutralise Russia’s increasing dominance of the global energy market by becoming carbon neutral by 2030.

    But perhaps as Robert Burns put it, “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley”. They are based on Keynesian fallacies, but cannot be ignored.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Introduction

    There appear to be policy areas being driven by statist responses to events, encouraging global institutions to take on a coordinating role. It means deeper levels of centralised planning by unaccountable bureaucrats. Assuming their plans continue to gain credence, we could end up with a dystopian world where supranational bodies direct individual governments to conform. We are already on this road to perdition. The OECD has coordinated attempts by governments to restrict the freedom of their citizens to avoid taxes by forcing over a hundred jurisdictions to automatically supply information on the financial affairs of every citizen, irrespective of nationality and where they reside.

    By doing so, it has removed the necessity for governments to moderate their tax demands for fear that individuals will move their money out of reach. Information on private affairs are now exchanged automatically by banks, lawyers, financial advisors and accountants, without the individual’s knowledge. As a result of the introduction of the OECD’s common reporting standard, the organisation claims that over $85bn of additional tax revenue has been raised. The intention is to raise more, much more.

    This has been the OECD’s mission for some time, leading the way for other supranational organisations to carve out roles for themselves. Ones that come to mind are the IMF, which with a green agenda intends to prioritise investment funding for alternatives to fossil fuels both directly and indirectly through the World Bank and the regional development banks. Subsidiary roles are likely to be played by other UN divisions, useful for binding emerging market nations to the plans.

    Central banks acting in concert could have a new role of coordinating a monetary reset, which as we can deduce from Mark Carney’s speech at Jackson Hole in August is already being discussed. We shall start by looking at the state of current monetary policies, their failure, and the drive to replace them with something else, before addressing the energy question.

    The monetary problem

    There are two categories of folk who think everything to do with economics and money are not much to worry about; the disinterested public and the investment management community. Their livelihoods depend upon it. Another category, libertarians, Austrian economists, bitcoin fans, gold bugs and readers of and contributors to agglomerating sites such as ZeroHedge have views ranging from sceptical to downright catastrophic. Not known to many is another, the most important category, which is very worried indeed, and that is governments and their central banks.

    These are the people quietly talking about a big-picture reset, those that know the post-Breton Woods fiat dollar system is no longer fit for purpose. They see escalating debt, interest rates failing to stimulate, and economic stagnation. They see a mismatch between international trade and the use of the dollar as a global settlement medium. They don’t talk about it much, to do so would frighten us, the lowly ruminants.

    I was ruminating on this recently after Max Keiser, of the Keiser Report on RT, asked me what I thought of Mark Carney’s speech at Jackson Hole in August about a global monetary system to replace the dollar. I replied something about Carney about to retire, and presumably feeling slightly freer to express the concerns which he must share with his friends at the Bank for International Settlements, and various other monetary panjandrums who have observed the obvious: their cosy world of money-printing doesn’t work, is unlikely to ever work, and must be reformed to give them more control.

    Since then my thoughts have turned to the reset problem in a broader sense. The assumption must be that time is available for such an event to be planned, or at least pre-planned as an insurance policy against monetary failure. In either event, it is putting the cart before the horse, because when a credit crisis hits it invariably takes the authorities by surprise, and it looks increasingly close in time. The priority will not then be monetary evolution but economic and financial rescue.

    That point having been made, from the central bankers’ point of view, what is to be done? The obvious answer is to rig the game by changing the rules. As Keynes said, when the facts change, he changed. That way, they think they might dispose of the failing system and replace it with an updated one that suits their policy purposes better. With a bit of luck, declining confidence in the old will be replaced by a new paradigm, something that will allow them all, politicians and central bankers, to claim success for saving the Western world from a potential monetary crisis.

    The problem is they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t yet know what the new paradigm will be. There is no unity on the matter, because for the Fed and the US Government it involves an unacceptable loss of monetary and political power. The Chinese, in partnership with the Russians, want to do away with the dollar, while the Europeans are leading themselves to a socialist dystopia at odds with Trump’s America, while being frightened of the Russian bear in the east.

    This is why influencers like Carney can only hypothesize about a new monetary set-up involving a reduced role for the dollar. Central banks are exploring cryptocurrencies. It is reported that seven out of ten of them are researching the possibilities. That won’t save fiat currencies, but it might give central banks greater control over how their fiat currencies are used. Perhaps they think a state issued cryptocurrency can replace unadorned fiat. But then that raises two issues: if the existing fiat is failing it is likely a new state-sponsored cryptocurrency risks having a credibility problem from the outset and even if the public does accept it, its future issue will have to be strictly limited and the cycle of bank credit properly addressed.

    But get it right and markets could be tamed, the logic goes. And somehow, a global cryptocurrency-based monetary system for international trade could replace the failing post-Bretton Woods monetary system reserved on the US dollar. For policy makers, it is becoming an urgent question, as a reading of Carney’s Jackson Hole speech makes clear.

    Specifically, in his speech Carney identified the existence of a global liquidity trap nullifying interest rate policy with three elements: a global savings glut tied up in dollars, a reduction in the scale of sustainable cross border flows and “fattening of the left-hand tail and increasing the downside skew of likely economic outcomes”. This last element of gobbledegook appears to translate into an acknowledgement of the failure of current interest rate policy to stimulate economic recovery, which cannot be admitted in plain English.

    Carney’s problem, besides the veiled admission of policy failure, is he ignores the fact that America needs increasing quantities of foreign dollar ownership to fund its escalating budget deficit, without which the dollar fails, and term interest rates will soar. If he and his cohort push policies intended to redeploy funds that are otherwise destined for the dollar and US Treasuries, they will face strong opposition from the US Treasury and being based on the dollar, the likely collapse of the whole fiat edifice.

    As for a reduction in cross border flows, that is a function of falling cross-border trade, not money. The reason cross-border trade has collapsed is because of the US-Chinese trade spat and its knock-on effects. Even if we pass on the gobbledegook of his third point, it is difficult for an independent observer not to take Carney’s speech as indicative of desperation, ivory-tower economic error or both.

    Being based on Keynesian macroeconomic beliefs, we can take the evidence of economic error for granted, particularly since these beliefs have consistently failed to deliver any credible solution. It is the element of desperation we must explore further. If Carney feels a sense of desperation (and his speech reeks of it) then his fellow central bankers will as well. But instead of just abandoning failed policies, a bridge is required towards a new set of policies, a monetary reset. And it will almost certainly involve a greater suppression of the role of markets and an increase in state control over money and how it is used.

    For central bankers, there is a fear that the emergence of a competing private sector crypto-payments system, even linked to a basket of fiat currencies, will challenge national currencies. They would have to be pretty dopey not to see that Bitcoin in particular is educating the masses about the moral fraud behind the expansion of fiat money. The challenge will be to come up with a credible alternative, completely under the control of a few major central banks. But first, the purpose of a state-backed cryptocurrency must be settled.

    For every nation other than America, evolution from the failing post-Breton Woods monetary system is about reducing the role of the dollar in trade settlement and freeing up capital needlessly tied up in dollars. Before the invention of cryptocurrencies, this would presumably have been achieved through a combination of an evolutionary process and increasing use of currency swaps to enhance liquidity, particularly in euros and renminbi, to replace the dominance of dollars in reserve balances.

    The facilitation of foreign trade appears to be the role most likely to be destined for a state-issued cryptocurrency. Initial swap lines of state-sponsored cryptocurrencies would be proportionate to the trade between existing currency blocks. It could then be deployed for trade settlement, which would require it to be made available to commercial banks. We then have two currency versions: an existing fiat currency which circulates domestically and a separate blockchain based currency reserved for international use. With an onshore and offshore version, there can be two interest rates suitably set for their applications, so long as arbitrage routes are severely restricted, with the offshore version trading at a premium.

    Old hands in Britain will be familiar with the basic concept, before Margaret Thatcher removed exchange controls. To monetary planners, there are several perceived benefits from such a scheme, particularly for the Eurozone. By separating trade settlement from domestic currency circulation, de facto currency controls are introduced, permitting access to the state crypto currency to non-domestic trading entities and banks, while denying its use in the domestic economy. Importantly, the expansion of bank credit would be retained for the domestic currency only, managed through a two-tier interest rate policy.

    Any investment in foreign currencies would require the payment of the premium that applies on the crypto version of the currency. The prospects of an international run against a currency such as the euro would recede, as the existing liquidity for international trade is replaced by a centralised, highly managed, trade-related cryptocurrency.

    For policy makers at the ECB it must be a tempting solution if it can be made to work. It would give them greater monetary control overall, and they could attempt to stimulate the Eurozone economy by deploying deeper negative rates without the fear of a failing exchange rate.

    From America’s point of view these moves or anything like them will almost certainly be strongly resisted. They need foreigners to buy dollars to fund the budget deficit. And they are now experiencing the flaws of US isolationism and Trumpian trade policies, which are already leading to a contraction and potential reversal of foreign flows into US Treasuries.

    China would be an interested observer of these developments. She has been planning to issue a cryptocurrency of her own, which could allow her to internationalise a crypto version of the renminbi more rapidly than it has managed with its existing renminbi. Russia has already ditched the dollar for geopolitical reasons and is trying to gain control over the energy market from a moribund OPEC.

    To summarise, discontent with the post Bretton Woods monetary system and the disproportionate role of the dollar are likely to be the reasons why so many central banks are looking at cryptocurrency solutions. But as stated at earlier in this article, it assumes pre-planning, those best-laid schemes of mice and men, are not overtaken by events.

    Crypto and gold

    There can be little doubt that monetary policy is descending towards crisis, and a major bank failure could even occur in the next few months. If we find ourselves facing another Lehman moment, the priority will be to stabilise markets first, and then currencies as needed at a time of widespread negative interest rates and bond yields.

    As insurance against such an event, the majority of central banks retain physical gold as part of their reserves. In Europe, Germany France and Italy hold significant quantities of gold which the monetary authorities at the ECB might in theory wish to deploy as the backing for a common cryptocurrency. But this is unlikely to be a preferred option, because central banks always retain their gold reserves (leasing aside) and only use them for monetary purposes as a last resort.

    To re-introduce gold backing would deny all credibility to neo-classical macroeconomic theory, which relies on achieving an inflation target consistent with maximising employment. Given the need for a rapid expansion of global money supply as a policy response to the next credit crisis or to finance escalating government debt, the purchasing power of state-issued currencies will almost certainly decline while that of gold will rise. A currency credibly linked to gold would therefore also rise, assuming it acts as a proper gold substitute. A gold standard fixed at the current rate of $1500 would be seen as strongly deflationary if gold goes any higher.

    It is therefore probably true that no Western central bank would contemplate such a move in current economic conditions. If, in time, a credit and systemic crisis threatens the destruction of unbacked state currencies, and the event causes conventional thinking in the central banking community to discard inflationism, that would be a different matter. But that is far from the current situation.

    In any event, a far higher gold price would be required to fix fiat currencies sustainably to gold. Even China, which has been accumulating physical gold and encouraging its people to do so as well, is too hooked on monetary and credit expansion as the principal means of driving its economy to contemplate such a move for its own economy. However, the accumulation of gold reserves by many of China’s Asian trading partners suggests some sort of gold backing for a cross-border settlement medium is likely instead of delivering physical gold, and this is where China’s plans for a new state-sponsored cryptocurrency may eventually be heading.

    The conflict over energy

    As is the case with the global monetary system, global energy markets face enormous change with both the EU and supranational organisations, such as UNCTAD, the UN’s conference on trade and development, pushing a policy of dropping carbon fuels for green alternatives. Furthermore, the original agreement whereby Saudi Arabia agreed to sell its oil for dollars, giving US banks control over monetary surpluses from all OPEC’s oil sales, is no longer appropriate because the energy world has radically changed since that deal was struck in 1973.

    That agreement has been the central plank to the dollar’s role as a reserve currency. Since 1973, the Soviet Union has collapsed and under President Putin, Russia has emerged as the largest exporter of oil and gas combined. Furthermore, as America’s victories in the Middle East are proving to be only pyrrhic, Russia’s influence is spreading across the region, forming alliances with Iran, Turkey and Syria. China is the region’s most important energy customer, and with its silk road projects is also increasing its influence on the region.

    America’s response to these developments is lacking focus. It now has precious little real business in the region other than arms supplies, and under President Trump America has become isolationist. Furthermore, Trump wished to disengage militarily from the region, while the intelligence and military establishment wanted to increase their commitments. The gaps in US policy have been quietly exploited by Russia and China to great effect.

    The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east are getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China’s economic successes through non-democratic government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.

    The EU’s response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about 98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030. This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment. Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.

    These views are articulated in UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal[iii]. The authors argue that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies, while restricting international capital flows, will generate the economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below are indicative of their thinking, and are copied from Page 56 of the report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is one of several examples in the report. Here, it is argued that a combination of higher minimum wages and increasingly progressive rates of taxation to redistribute wealth to lower earners leads to greater economic growth, in this case by boosting consumption of the masses at the expense of the few. It’s pure Keynesianism.

    Similar arguments are made for increasing government spending on goods and services and increasing spending on welfare to further boost consumption. More extensive use of capital controls to restrict destabilising investment flows and to make them available for green investment instead are recommended (pp. 125-129). Central banks are encouraged to direct quantitative easing in favour of green investment, and through regulation impose higher risk margins on bank exposure to fossil fuel related investments and loans (pp. 153-156).

    It amounts to an extension and escalation of failed inflationist policies, but the underlying point is it transfers free markets to statist management on a global scale not seen before. The ambition is for a few supranational organisations, not accountable to anybody, to act as an informal world government. It also accords fully with how central banks are likely to restructure their currencies

    Welcome to Dystopia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Conclusion

    Failing monetary policies and the accelerated disposal of carbon-based in favour of carbon-neutral energy provide the foundations for a dystopian future. Together, they are excuses for yet greater inflationism and the rapid socialisation of national economies and private capital.

    Clearly, a number of supranational bodies expect to coordinate these policy areas above the heads of individual governments. A monetary reset will replace a failing dollar-based system, and failing economies will be boosted by state-directed green investment.

    Given that a significant cyclical credit and systemic crisis is overdue, its occurrence will have a major effect on how matters actually proceed. People who value individual freedom and privacy, those horrified by Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, could find themselves wishing for an even more radical outcome: the complete destruction of the fiat currency system and of the whole statist command-and-control apparatus.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 23:45

  • Pentagon Official Warns China Exporting Killer AI Drones To Middle East
    Pentagon Official Warns China Exporting Killer AI Drones To Middle East

    US Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned during a speech on artificial intelligence at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence public conference Tuesday (Nov. 05) that China is exporting a series of “next-generation drones” to countries in the Middle East, reported Flight Global.

    “Beijing has made it abundantly clear that it intends to be the world leader in AI by 2030,” Esper said. “While the US faces a mighty task in transitioning the world’s most advanced military to new AI-enabled systems, China believes it can leapfrog our current technology and go straight to the next generation.”

    Middle East countries banned from purchasing advanced US drones due to a weapons embargo are increasingly gravitating towards Chinese defense manufacturers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The drone sales are supporting China’s expansion across the Middle East, which is home to many strategic US military bases, as well as, future and current routes for Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. 

    “As we speak the Chinese government is already exporting some of the most advanced military aerial drones to the Middle East, as it prepares to export its next-generation stealth UAVs when those come online,” Esper said. “Also, Chinese weapons manufacturers are selling drones advertised as capable of autonomy, including the ability to conduct lethal, targeted strikes.”

    China’s AI killing drones are more frequently ending up in the skies above Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese drone exports to the region have risen in the last decade, cutting into the US’ market share, something that has angered the Pentagon.  

    Esper didn’t explicitly point out which AI killing drones were in question. However, the CASC Rainbow is the most popular Chinese drone that is currently being exported to the Middle East.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 23:25

    Tags

  • East Germany Remains A Powerful Example Of What Happens After We "Smash Capitalism"
    East Germany Remains A Powerful Example Of What Happens After We "Smash Capitalism"

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Decades later, the wall remains a symbol of the violence employed by socialist states, and a reminder that the egalitarian workers’ paradise of East Germany was so hated by its residents that the state had to build a wall to keep residents in.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is ironic, then, that only a generation later, Americans are becoming increasingly enamored with socialism. According to a recent Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans say socialism is a “good thing.” It’s unclear how many of those respondents can actually define socialism. Some believe socialism to simply be policies that promote equality. Others define it using the more historically orthodox view: government ownership of the means of production.

    There is no doubt, however, that a vocal and not-insignificant minority – of the sort represented by Jacobin magazine, for example – advocates for the total destruction of capitalism.

    When American democratic socialists who want to “smash capitalism” say they like “socialism,” of course, they are likely to add that they don’t want the sort of socialism they had in East Germany. They want kindly, happy, well-lit socialism. Not the gray, dour, socialism of the Eastern Bloc.

    I have no doubt this is indeed what they want, although that’s what the founders of East Germany and the Soviet Bloc thought they would get too. Many of them no doubt truly believed they were leading the way to a kinder, gentler, more equal society.

    After all, up until the 1980s, the socialists of the Eastern Bloc were still entertaining the idea that they could deliver a higher standard of living to ordinary people than could the “decadent” economies of the West.

    In 1959, of course, Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev literally debated whether the West or the Communist world could deliver the best kitchen appliances to the general public.

    Obviously, the West won that debate, although many Western socialists failed to get the memo. Right up until the end (of the Soviet Bloc) the highly influential American economist Paul Samuelson maintained that communist economies worked perfectly well. As David Henderson noted in 2009:

    Samuelson had an amazingly tin ear about communism. As early as the 1960s, economist G. Warren Nutter at the University of Virginia had done empirical work showing that the much-vaunted economic growth in the Soviet Union was a myth. Samuelson did not pay attention. In the 1989 edition of his textbook, Samuelson and William Nordhaus wrote, “the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

    As it turned out, the socialist economies — designed to deliver an easier life to consumers and workers — were really vehicles of impoverishment, not to mention environmental degradation.

    A Lasting Legacy of Poverty

    To this day — thirty years after re-unification — the standard of living is lower in the parts of Germany that were once part of East Germany. In 2014, for example, the Washington Post reported how East Germany has lower levels of disposable income, high unemployment rates, and is generally less prosperous. This in turn has led to the old East Germany having fewer young people, many of whom move west for better jobs. Fortune‘s Chris Matthews went on to observe “If you look at statistics such as per capita income or worker productivity, they also point to the large disparity in economic development between east and west.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And Claudia Bracholdt further notes: “Today, Germany’s east has many structural problems similar to those of countries like Greece and Spain, though on a much smaller scale.”

    During the Cold War, numerous opponents of Communism pointed to Germany as the perfect example of how soviet-style communism destroyed economic prosperity. But that was then. Nowadays, the East German regime is gone, and Germany is, relatively speaking, one of the most market-oriented economies on earth. Eastern Germany shares a government with western Germany. So, why is eastern Germany still poor compared to its western German neighbors?

    The answer lies in the fact that even though the legal and political systems in eastern Germany are the same as in the West, the East suffers from the fact that it lost out on decades of capital accumulation and growth in worker productivity while under the boot of the Soviets.

    The German case offers the most excellent comparison of course, because prior to World War II, western and eastern Germans enjoyed similar political systems for many decades. Moreover, the western and eastern Germans were similar both ethnically and culturally. Thus, the comparison allows us to focus on regime differences in the age of the Cold War.

    We can look beyond just the East Germans as well. We might ask ourselves, for example, why Poland, with its Western orientation and long tradition of parliamentary and decentralized governments remains so relatively poor.

    The same might be said of the Czech Republic as well, where the principal city, Prague, was once the second city of the Austrian Empire and was a center of European wealth and culture. The Czechs too, have never regained their relative place in terms of European wealth.

    Part of the explanation lies in the fact that the legacy of an abandoned political system can live on for decades even after regime change. As Nicolás Cachanosky has observed in the context of South American regimes:

    Institutional changes … define the long-run destiny of a country, not its short-run prosperity. … For example, as China opened parts of its economy to international markets, the country started to grow, and we are now seeing the effects of decades of relative economic liberalization. It is true that many areas in China continue to lack significant freedoms, but it would be a much different China today had it refused to change its institutions decades ago.

    Clearly, the fact that the old Eastern Bloc countries have moved toward liberalization has set those countries on a path toward greater economic prosperity. That by itself, however, cannot put it on a par with countries that never suffered the effects of decades of communism.

    Smash Capitalism: And Replace it With What?

    The experience of the Eastern Bloc should serve to inoculate us against the idea that a market based system can be replaced wholesale, and that a decent standard of living can still be achieved.

    It is one thing to advocate for a five-percent increase in government spending on the pension system. It’s another to advocate for the nationalization of the banking sector or — even worse — expropriating every major industry. Yet, the smash-capitalism crowd thinks they want the latter.

    But the US isn’t as far from the socialist end of the spectrum as many think. After all, the United States is itself already far down the road of the typical Western welfare state. Contrary to the persistent myth that the United States is some sort of laissez-faire free-for-all, the US welfare state in terms of social spending is already comparable to that of Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. If the Netherlands is “socialist,” then so is the United States.

    Yet we’re being told the US needs to just move a little more to left to be like its European “peers.” Except the US is already there. So how much further must it be moved in the direction of even more government control of its economy?

    The socialists give no answer beyond “we’ll let you know when we get there.”

    But it is not necessary to completely destroy capitalism to ensure a less prosperous future. That is, we need not become a clone a East Germany to share at least a share of its fate. Suffice it to say, the further a regime move in the direction of the “egalitarian” states of the old communist world, the worse the impoverishment will be.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 23:05

  • Mapping China's Global Debt-Serfdom-ification
    Mapping China's Global Debt-Serfdom-ification

    According to research recently published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, there are seven countries in the world whose external loan debt to China surpasses 25 percent of their GDP. Three (Djibouti, Niger and The Republic of the Congo) are located in Africa, while four (Kyrgyztan, Laos, Cambodia and the Maldives) are in Asia.

    Yet, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, the world map of debt to China amassed through direct loans (excluding debt holdings and short-term trade debt) shows that a majority of countries heavily in debt to China are in Africa, but that Central Asia and Latin America follow close behind.

    Infographic: The Countries Most in Debt to China | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    While China’s overseas lending is coordinated by the country’s centralized government, it is often poorly documented, which the researchers of the paper were trying to change.

    They found that debt by direct loans started to grow immensely only around 2010 and that loans by China often come at higher rates and with shorter grace periods for the receiving country than comparable loans from the OECD or the World Bank.

    The authors also caution that countries heavily in debt to China are at risk of defaulting.

    In the 1970s, a lending boom which consisted of similar contracts offered by U.S., European and Japanese banks had led to this outcome for a number of developing countries which were trying to improve their infrastructure, according to the research.

    Meanwhile, external debt to China through portfolio holdings is concentrated in developed nations and passes the threshold of 10 percent of GDP for Germany and the Netherlands. It amounts to between 5 and 10 percent of GDP in the U.S., Canada, France, the UK and Australia.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 22:45

  • Three Deep State Confessions On Syria
    Three Deep State Confessions On Syria

    Authored by Brad Hoff via The Libertarian Institute,

    First, all the way back in 2005 — more than a half decade before the war began —  CNN’s Christiane Amanpour told Assad to his face that regime change is coming. Thankfully this was in a televised and archived interview, now for posterity to behold.

    Amanpour, it must be remembered, was married to former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin (until 2018), who further advised both President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

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

    “Mr. President you know the rhetoric of regime change is headed towards you from the United States… They’re granting visas and visits to Syrian opposition politicians,” Amanpour told Assad in a 2005 CNN interview

    Next, a surprisingly blunt assessment of where Washington currently stands after eight years of the failed push to oust Assad and influence the final outcome of the war, from the very man who was among the early architects of America’s covert “arm the jihadists to topple the dictator” campaign.

    Myself and others long ago documented how former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford worked with and funded a Free Syrian Army commander who led ISIS suicide bombers into the battlefield in 2013.

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

    Amb. Ford has since admitted this much (that US proxy ‘rebels’ and ISIS worked together in the early years of the war), and now admits defeat in the below recent interview as perhaps a reborn ‘realist’.

    And finally, not everyone is as pessimistic on the continuing prospects for yet more US-led regime change future efforts as Robert Ford is above. Below is an astoundingly blunt articulation of the next disturbing phase of US efforts in Syria, from an October 31 conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

    “The panel featured the two co-chairs of the Syria Study Group, a bi-partisan working group appointed by Congress to draft a new US war plan for Syria,” The Grayzone’s Ben Norton wrote of the below clip:

    She made it a point to stress that this sovereign Syrian land “owned” by Washington also happened to be “resource-rich,” the “economic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are… as well as the agricultural powerhouse.”

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

    With images now circulating of Trump’s “secure the oil” policy in effect, which has served to at least force pro-interventionist warmongers to drop all high-minded humanitarian notions of “democracy promotion” and “freedom” and R2P doctrine as descriptive of US motives in Syria, the above blunt admissions of Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Syria Study Group, are ghastly and chilling in terms of what’s next for the suffering population of Syria.

    We are “preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria,” she stressed in her statement. 

    America is not finished, apparently, and it’s likely to get a lot uglier than merely seizing the oil.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • China Auto Sales Fall 6% In October As Global Auto Recession Shows No Signs Of Slowing
    China Auto Sales Fall 6% In October As Global Auto Recession Shows No Signs Of Slowing

    China has been spearheading the global recession in the automotive industry and, as one more month has come to pass, there are still no signs of the bleeding letting up.

    As the U.S. and China continue to grapple with solving “Phase 1” of the allegedly upcoming trade deal, pressure remains on the automobile industry globally. For October, China retail passenger vehicle sales were lower by 6% year over year to 1.87 million units, according to the Passenger Car Association. October SUV retail sales also fell 0.7% y/y to 853,130 units.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Additionally, individual OEM data for China for October has also started to trickle in. Names like Toyota, Nissan and Mazda all posted low single digit drops for the month, while Honda was able to squeeze out a positive month.

    Auto data aggregator Marklines reported:

    • Nissan announced on November 6 that it sold 139,064 units in October in China, reflecting a 2.1% y/y decrease in sales.
      • October sales of the 7th-generation Altima, Sylphy, Tiida, Qashqai and Kicks increased. Year-to-date (YTD) sales from January to October totaled 1,230,047 units, reflecting a 0.6% y/y decrease.
    • Toyota sold 131,700 units in October, reflecting a 2.9% y/y decrease.
      • YTD sales totaled 1,313,000 units, reflecting a 7.2% y/y increase.
    • Honda announced that its October sales were 147,716 units, reflecting a y/y increase of 6.5%.
      • Sales of the Accord, Crider, Vezel, Civic, CR-V and XR-V exceeded 10,000 units. The Civic topped 20,000 units in monthly sales for the fifth consecutive month from June to October. Sales of the Accord, Odyssey, CR-V, Inspire and Elysion, all of which are equipped with the SPORT HYBRID, a highly efficient double-motor hybrid power system, totaled 15,373 units. YTD sales totaled 1,271,286 units, reflecting a 15.2% y/y increase.
    • On November 6, Mazda announced that sales in October reached 19,882 units, reflecting a 9.1% y/y decrease. YTD sales totaled 181,624 units.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, China’s Passenger Car Association said on Friday that NEV deliveries fell for a fourth straight month, down 45% in October as a result of subsidy cuts occurring while the global consumer remains under pressure. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China is considering cutting back on subsidies for electric vehicles, which have been the sole silver lining (if you can even call it that) over the last 12-18 months for the industry. The country has accounted for about half of the world’s sales of EVs and the last time the government cut subsidies, it triggered the first drop in EV sales on record.

    That drop could arguably come at the most devastating time for China and the rest of the global auto industry, should it happen now. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 22:05

  • America's Endless Wars: "At West Point, Graduation Day Felt More Like A Tragedy Than A Triumph"
    America's Endless Wars: "At West Point, Graduation Day Felt More Like A Tragedy Than A Triumph"

    Authored by US Army Major Danny Sjursen (ret.) via TheNation.com,

    Patches, pins, medals, and badges are the visible signs of an exclusive military culture, a silent language by which soldiers and officers judge each other’s experiences, accomplishments, and general worth. In July 2001, when I first walked through the gate of the US Military Academy at West Point at the ripe young age of 17, the “combat patch” on one’s right shoulder – evidence of a deployment with a specific unit – had more resonance than colorful medals like Ranger badges reflecting specific skills. Back then, before the 9/11 attacks ushered in a series of revenge wars “on terror,” the vast majority of officers stationed at West Point didn’t boast a right shoulder patch. Those who did were mostly veterans of modest combat in the first Gulf War of 1990–91. Nonetheless, even those officers were regarded by the likes of me as gods. After all, they’d seen “the elephant.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We young cadets arrived then with far different expectations about Army life and our futures, ones that would prove incompatible with the realities of military service in a post-9/11 world. When my mother—as was mandatory for a 17-year-old—put her signature on my future Army career, I imagined a life of fancy uniforms; tough masculine training; and maybe, at worst, some photo opportunities during a safe, “peace-keeping” deployment in a place like Kosovo.

    Sure, the United States was then quietly starving hundreds of thousands of children with a crippling sanctions regime against autocrat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, occasionally lobbing cruise missiles at “terrorist” encampments here or there, and garrisoning much of the globe. Still, the life of a conventional Army officer in the late 1990s did fit pretty closely with my high-school fantasies.

    You won’t be surprised to learn, however, that the world of future officers at the Academy irreparably changed when those towers collapsed in my home town of New York. By the following May, it wasn’t uncommon to overhear senior cadets on the phone with girlfriends or fiancées explaining that they were heading for war upon graduation.

    As a plebe (freshman), I still had years ahead in my West Point journey during which our world changed even more. Older cadets I’d known would soon be part of the invasion of Afghanistan. Drinking excessively at a New York Irish bar on St. Patrick’s Day in 2003, I watched in wonder as, on TV, US bombs and missiles rained down on Iraq as part of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s promised “shock and awe” campaign.

    Soon enough, the names of former cadets I knew well were being announced over the mess hall loudspeaker at breakfast. They’d been killed in Afghanistan or, more commonly, in Iraq.

    My greatest fear then, I’m embarrassed to admit, was that I’d miss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It wasn’t long after my May 28, 2005, graduation that I’d serve in Baghdad. Later, I would be sent to Kandahar, Afghanistan. I buried eight young men under my direct command. Five died in combat; three took their own lives. After surviving the worst of it with my body (though not my mind) intact, I was offered a teaching position back at my alma mater.

    During my few years in the history department at West Point, I taught some 300 or more cadets. It was the best job I ever had.

    I think about them often, the ones I’m still in touch with and the majority whom I’ll never hear from or of again. Many graduated last year and are already out there carrying water for empire. The last batch will enter the regular Army next May. Recently, my mother asked me what I thought my former students were now doing or would be doing after graduation. I was taken aback and didn’t quite know how to answer.

    Wasting their time and their lives was, I suppose, what I wanted to say. But a more serious analysis, based on a survey of US Army missions in 2019 and bolstered by my communications with peers still in the service, leaves me with an even more disturbing answer. A new generation of West Point educated officers, graduating a decade and a half after me, faces potential tours of duty in… hmm, Afghanistan, Iraq, or other countries involved in the never-ending American war on terror, missions that will not make this country any safer or lead to “victory” of any sort, no matter how defined.

    A NEW GENERATION OF CADETS SERVING THE EMPIRE ABROAD

    West Point seniors (“first-class cadets”) choose their military specialties and their first duty-station locations in a manner reminiscent of the National Football League draft. This is unique to Academy grads and differs markedly from the more limited choices and options available to the 80 percent of officers commissioned through the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) or Officer Candidate School (OCS).

    Throughout the 47-month academy experience, West Pointers are ranked based on a combination of academic grades, physical fitness scores, and military-training evaluations. Then, on a booze-fueled, epic night, the cadets choose jobs in their assigned order of merit. Highly ranked seniors get to pick what are considered the most desirable jobs and duty locations (helicopter pilot, Hawaii). Bottom-feeding cadets choose from the remaining scraps (field artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma).

    In truth, though, it matters remarkably little which stateside or overseas base one first reports to. Within a year or two, most young lieutenants in today’s Army will serve in any number of diverse “contingency” deployments overseas. Some will indeed be in America’s mostly unsanctioned wars abroad, while others will straddle the line between combat and training in, say, “advise-and-assist” missions in Africa.

    Now, here’s the rub: Given the range of missions that my former students are sure to participate in, I can’t help but feel frustration. After all, it should be clear 18 years after the 9/11 attacks that almost none of those missions have a chance in hell of succeeding. Worse yet, the killing my beloved students might take part in (and the possibility of them being maimed or dying) won’t make America any safer or better. They are, in other words, doomed to repeat my own unfulfilling, damaging journey—in some cases, on the very same ground in Iraq and Afghanistan where I fought.

    Consider just a quick survey of some of the possible missions that await them. Some will head for Iraq—my first and formative war—though it’s unclear just what they’ll be expected to do there. ISIS has been attritted to a point where indigenous security forces could assumedly handle the ongoing low-intensity fight, though they will undoubtedly assist in that effort. What they can’t do is reform a corrupt, oppressive Shia-chauvinist sectarian government in Baghdad that guns down its own protesting people, repeating the very mistakes that fueled the rise of the Islamic State in the first place. Oh, and the Iraqi government, and a huge chunk of Iraqis as well, don’t want any more American troops in their country. But when has national sovereignty or popular demand stopped Washington before?

    Others are sure to join the thousands of servicemen still in Afghanistan in the 19th year of America’s longest ever war—and that’s even if you don’t count our first Afghan War (1979–89) in the mix. And keep in mind that most of the cadets-turned-officers I taught were born in 1998 or thereafter and so were all of three years old or younger when the Twin Towers crumbled.

    The first of our wars to come from that nightmare has always been unwinnable. All the Afghan metrics—the US military’s own “measures for success”—continue to trend badly, worse than ever in fact. The futility of the entire endeavor borders on the absurd. It makes me sad to think that my former officemate and fellow West Point history instructor, Mark, is once again over there. Along with just about every serving officer I’ve known, he would laugh if asked whether he could foresee—or even define—“victory” in that country. Take my word for it, after 18-plus years, whatever idealism might once have been in the Army has almost completely evaporated. Resignation is what remains among most of the officer corps. As for me, I’ll be left hoping against hope that someone I know or taught isn’t the last to die in that never-ending war from hell.

    My former cadets who ended up in armor (tanks and reconnaissance) or ventured into the Special Forces might now find themselves in Syria—the war President Trump “ended” by withdrawing American troops from that country, until, of course, almost as many of them were more or less instantly sent back in. Some of the armor officers among my students might even have the pleasure of indefinitely guarding that country’s oil fields, which—if the United States takes some of that liquid gold for itself—might just violate international law. But hey, what else is new?

    Still more—mostly intelligence officers, logisticians, and special operators—can expect to deploy to any one of the dozen or so West African or Horn of Africa countries that the US military now calls home. In the name of “advising and assisting” the local security forces of often autocratic African regimes, American troops still occasionally, if quietly, die in “non-combat” missions in places like Niger or Somalia.

    None of these combat operations have been approved, or even meaningfully debated, by Congress. But in the America of 2019 that doesn’t qualify as a problem. There are, however, problems of a more strategic variety. After all, it’s demonstrably clear that, since the founding of the US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, violence on the continent has only increased, while Islamist terror and insurgent groups have proliferated in an exponential fashion. To be fair, though, such counter-productivity has been the name of the game in the “war on terror” since it began.

    Another group of new academy graduates will spend up to a year in Poland, Romania, or the Baltic states of Eastern Europe. There, they’ll ostensibly train the paltry armies of those relatively new NATO countries—added to the alliance in foolish violation of repeated American promises not to expand eastward as the Cold War ended. In reality, though, they’ll be serving as provocative “signals” to a supposedly expansionist Russia. With the Russian threat wildly exaggerated, just as it was in the Cold War era, the very presence of my Baltic-based former cadets will only heighten tensions between the two over-armed nuclear heavyweights. Such military missions are too big not to be provocative, but too small to survive a real (if essentially unimaginable) war.

    The intelligence officers among my cadets might, on the other hand, get the “honor” of helping the Saudi Air Force through intelligence-sharing to doom some Yemeni targets—often civilian—to oblivion thanks to US manufactured munitions. In other words, these young officers could be made complicit in what’s already the worst humanitarian disaster in the world.

    Other recent cadets of mine might even have the ignominious distinction of being part of military convoys driving along interstate highways to America’s southern border to emplace what President Trump has termed “beautiful” barbed wire there, while helping detain refugees of wars and disorder that Washington often helped to fuel.

    Yet other graduates may already have found themselves in the barren deserts of Saudi Arabia, since Trump has dispatched 3,000 US troops to that country in recent months. There, those young officers can expect to go full mercenary, since the president defended his deployment of those troops (plus two jet fighter squadrons and two batteries of Patriot missiles) by noting that the Saudis would “pay” for “our help.” Setting aside for the moment the fact that basing American troops near the Islamic holy cities of the Arabian Peninsula didn’t exactly end well the last time around—you undoubtedly remember a guy named bin Laden who protested that deployment so violently—the latest troop buildup in Saudi Arabia portends a disastrous future war with Iran.

    None of these potential tasks awaiting my former students is even remotely linked to the oath (to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”) that newly commissioned officers swear on day one. They are instead all unconstitutional, ill-advised distractions that benefit mainly an entrenched national security state and the arms-makers that go with them. The tragedy is that a few of my beloved cadets with whom I once played touch football, who babysat my children, who shed tears of anxiety and fear during private lunches in my office might well sustain injuries that will last a lifetime or die in one of this country’s endless hegemonic wars.

    A NIGHTMARE COME TRUE

    This May, the last of the freshman cadets I once taught will graduate from the Academy. Commissioned that same afternoon as second lieutenants in the Army, they will head off to “serve” their country (and its imperial ambitions) across the wide expanse of the continental United States and a broader world peppered with American military bases. Given my own tortured path of dissent while in that military (and my relief on leaving it), knowing where they’re heading leaves me with a feeling of melancholy. In a sense, it represents the severing of my last tenuous connection with the institutions to which I dedicated my adult life.

    Though I was already skeptical and antiwar, I still imagined that teaching those cadets an alternative, more progressive version of our history would represent a last service to an Army I once unconditionally loved. My romantic hope was that I’d help develop future officers imbued with critical thinking and with the integrity to oppose unjust wars. It was a fantasy that helped me get up each morning, don a uniform, and do my job with competence and enthusiasm.

    Nevertheless, as my last semester as an assistant professor of history wound down, I felt a growing sense of dread. Partly it was the realization that I’d soon return to the decidedly unstimulating “real Army,” but it was more than that, too. I loved academia and “my” students, yet I also knew that I couldn’t save them. I knew that they were indeed doomed to take the same path I did.

    My last day in front of a class, I skipped the planned lesson and leveled with the young men and women seated before me. We discussed my own once bright, now troubled career and my struggles with my emotional health. We talked about the complexities, horror, and macabre humor of combat and they asked me blunt questions about what they could expect in their future as graduates. Then, in my last few minutes as a teacher, I broke down. I hadn’t planned this, nor could I control it.

    My greatest fear, I said, was that their budding young lives might closely track my own journey of disillusionment, emotional trauma, divorce, and moral injury. The thought that they would soon serve in the same pointless, horrifying wars, I told them, made me “want to puke in a trash bin.” The clock struck 1600 (4 pm), class time was up, yet not a single one of those stunned cadets—unsure undoubtedly of what to make of a superior officer’s streaming tears—moved for the door. I assured them that it was okay to leave, hugged each of them as they finally exited, and soon found myself disconcertingly alone. So I erased my chalkboards and also left.

    Three years have passed. About 130 students of mine graduated in May. My last group will pin on the gold bars of brand new army officers in late May 2020. I’m still in touch with several former cadets and, long after I did so, students of mine are now driving down the dusty lanes of Iraq or tramping the narrow footpaths of Afghanistan.

    My nightmare has come true.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 21:45

  • California's Housing Nightmare Is Only Getting Worse
    California's Housing Nightmare Is Only Getting Worse

    When historians look back on contemporary California, one thing they’ll be bound to make note of is that the state’s developers bet on the wrong model.

    Endless, suburban sprawl is coming back to haunt California in ways both major and minor. In densely populated communities across the state, traffic is horrible thanks to underdeveloped public transportation (this is especially true in LA). Most residents have accepted that deadly, devastating wildfires are just part of the deal now – bound to recur endlessly until the state’s population shrinks to the point that it no longer intermingles with the state’s vast swaths of woodland.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But it’s not just the apocalyptic images of fiery doom that have some of the state’s residents rethinking their decision to settle in California. The wildfires have had all kinds of ancillary effects: In parts of the state, PG&E is essentially shutting down large portions of the power grid in disruptive distributed blackouts intended to lower the fire risk.

    Another impact has been the impact on California’s housing market. In a state where stiff regulations have strangled efforts to build more affordable housing, the median price or a house now tops out at around $600,000, more than twice the national level. The state has four of the five most expensive residential housing markets in the US – Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Orang County and San Diego (LA comes in 7th).

    When adjusted for cost of living, California’s poverty rate is the worst in the country. The state accounts for 12% of the US population, but houses a quarter of its homeless.

    For both owners and renters, Cali requires the highest share of household spending.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Bloomberg explains, the path to this point was paved with bad local policy decisions made by the unaccountable Democrats who have ran the state for decades. They include: Outdated zoning laws and tax laws that benefit longtime homeowners at the expense of everybody else.

    Earlier this week Apple announced that it would commit $2.5 billion to combat the housing crisis in California (a sum that seemed paltry compared to the immense value of the San Francisco real-estate market). Other tech giants who have long called the state home said they would pitch in to try and boost housing.

    And in many ways, the rest of the country is becoming more like California, not less. During the longest economic expansion on record, the US built far fewer homes than in the past.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The working poor have always struggled with home ownership, but in California, it’s a problem for the working class as well. In Silicon Valley, teachers are having such a hard time affording rents that Facebook just pledged $25 million to build subsidized apartments for them.

    Another Bay Area town decided to retrofit an old firehouse into barracks for its cops after they started taking turns sleeping in their cars.

    Even the relatively wealthy are considered “cost burdened” in California.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The so-called NIMBYs who remain firmly in control of most local governments in California are often anti-development, and successfully shut down housing developments under the guise of protecting the environment or preserving “neighborhood character.”

    Back in the 1970s, parts of the state were down-zoned, reducing the allowable population density, and encouraging sprawl.

    Then there’s Proposition 13, a measure approved in the late 1970s that limits property tax increases on properties until they’re sold, meaning millions of homeowners are paying taxes on far less than their property is worth. Meanwhile, a bill seeking to allow more development in areas near employment and transport hubs is struggling for support in the California legislature.

    At this point, the same unaccountable democrats who have long been beholden to the wealthy NIMBYs who dominate state politics will decide whether California changes its ways. But how much faith can we possibly place in them?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 21:25

  • 4 Reasons Why Socialism Is Becoming More Popular
    4 Reasons Why Socialism Is Becoming More Popular

    Authored by Alexander Zubatov via The Mises Institute,

    The newfound openness of large numbers of Americans to socialism is, by now, a well-documented phenomenon. According to a Gallup poll from earlier this year, 43% of Americans now believe that some form of socialism would be good thing, in contrast to 51% who are still against it. A Harris poll found that four in ten Americans prefer socialism to capitalism. The trend is particular apparent in the young: another Gallup poll showed that as recently as 2010, 68% of people between 18 and 29 approved of capitalism, with only 51% approving of socialism, whereas in 2018, while the percentage among this age group favoring socialism was unchanged at 51%, those in favor of capitalism had dropped precipitously to 45%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The same poll showed that among Democrats, the popularity of socialism now stands at 57%, while capitalism is only at 47%, a marked departure from 2010 when the two were tried at 53%. A YouGov poll from earlier this year showed that unlike older generations, which still preferred capitalist candidates, 70% of millennials and 64% of gen-Zers would vote for a socialist.

    The question is why socialism now? At a time when the American economy under Trump seems to be chugging along at a nice clip, why are so many hankering for an alternative? I would suggest four factors contributing to the situation.

    Factor #1: Ignorance of History

    The first cause of socialism’s popularity, especially among the young, is an obvious one: having grown up at a time after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of Europe’s Eastern Bloc and China’s transition to authoritarian capitalism, “these kids today” — those 18 to 29 year-olds who were born around the last decade of the 20th century — don’t know what socialism is all about. When they think socialism, they don’t think Stalin; they think Scandinavia.

    Americans’ — and especially young Americans’ — ignorance of history is well-documented and profound. As of 2018, only one in three Americans could pass a basic citizenship test , and of test-takers under the age of 45, that number dropped to 19%. That included such lowlights as having no clue why American colonists fought the British and believing that Dwight Eisenhower led the troops during the Civil War. Speaking of the war during which he actually led the troops, many millennials don’t know much about that one either. They don’t know what Auschwitz was (66% of millennials in particular could not identify it). Twenty-two percent of them had not heard of the Holocaust itself. The Battle of the Bulge? Forget it. Go back further in time, and the cluelessness just keeps deepening. Only 29% of seniors at U.S. News and World Report’s top 50 colleges in America — the precise demographic that purports to speak with authority about America’s alleged history of white supremacy — have any idea what Reconstruction was all about. Only 23% know who wrote the Constitution. So much for any notion that this is the most educated generation ever.

    Closer to the theme — socialism — the same compilation of survey results includes the attribution of The Communist Manifesto’s “from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs” to Thomas Paine, George Washington or Barrack Obama. Moreover, among college-aged Americans, though support for socialism is pretty high, when these same young adults are asked about their support for the actual definition of socialism — a government-managed economy — 72% turn out to be for a free-market economy and only 49% for the government-managed alternative (yes, it looks from those numbers like there are a lot of confused kids who are in favor of both of the mutually exclusive alternatives). As compared to about a third of Americans over 30, only 16% of millennials were able to define socialism, according to a 2010 CBS/New York Times poll. And though I haven’t seen polling on this, I’d be willing to bet that a good bunch of these same students, if asked to say what the Soviet Union was, would have no clue or peg it as some sort of vanquished competitor of Western Union.

    Compounding the problem still further is that the history that students are being taught increasingly falls into the category of “woke” history , America’s history of oppression as imagined by the influential revisionist socialist historian Howard Zinn . When socialists are writing our history books, the end result is preordained.

    Given such ignorance and systematic distortion of history, is it any surprise that millennials who never lived through very much of the 20 th century don’t think socialism is all that bad?

    Factor #2: Government Bungling

    When we try to explain the socialist urge, we cannot lose sight of the fact that our government keeps interfering in the economy in ways that give people every reason to think the system is corrupt and needs to be trashed.

    Take the skyrocketing cost of college, for instance. On the surface, this looks like greedy capitalist universities just keep on raising tuition, and since most college kids and their parents can’t pay the sticker price, almost 70% take out loans , saddling young people trying to start their careers with a mountain of debt (almost $30,000 on average). This results in all those socialist promises of free college or loan forgiveness sounding dandy. Underneath the surface, however, a huge part of the problem is federal grants and subsidized loans. If the government stopped footing a large part of their bill, more students and parents would be forced to pony up, which would mean, in turn, that colleges would not be able to keep hiking their prices without seeing a precipitous drop in enrollment. They would, instead, be forced to price themselves at some level that applicants could realistically pay, making college more affordable for a large segment of the American middle class.

    Another simple example of the problem is Obama’s Emergency Economy Stabilization Act of 2008, colloquially known as the big bank “Bailout.” When kids grow up seeing government tossing out free lifelines to businesses that get themselves in dire straits, cause a massive financial crisis and, in the process, lose ordinary folks lots of jobs and homes, we can’t blame them for concluding that the system is rigged.

    There are many more examples where these came from — our government frittering away trillions on foreign wars that increase instability throughout the world and end up costing us even more as we scramble to clean up our own messes is one expenditure that comes readily to mind — but the point is this: the more the government interferes in the economy to help out vested interests, the more reason many of us will see to ask government to interfere in the economy to help out the rest of us. The more reason we give anyone to think that capitalism means crony capitalism, the more they’ll clamor for socialism.

    Factor #3: Universities’ Ideological Monoculture

    The supporters of socialism are not simply the young, but rather, disproportionately those among the young who are college-educated. And the more college they have, the hotter for socialism they get. According to a 2015 poll , support for socialism grows from 48% among those with a high school diploma or less to 62% among college graduates to 78% among those with post-graduate degrees. Those on the left probably stop thinking hard about now and jump immediately to the conclusion that support for socialism is just a natural outgrowth of big brains and elite educations. But there is, in fact, a less obvious but ultimately far more compelling explanation that also manages to account for the general fact that more education correlates with more leftism: something — something bad — is happening at universities themselves to pull students toward the (far) left.

    We have already seen above that what’s not happening at universities, even elite universities, today is a whole lot of education in important subjects like history. What we are getting instead is a lot of groupthink and indoctrination. Universities have always skewed a bit left. But beginning in the early to mid 1990s (for reasons I’ve explained in some detail elsewhere ), ideological diversity began to vanish entirely, as the leftward deviation turned tidal. As documented in a 2005 paper from Stanley Rothman et al., as of 1984, 39% of university faculty were left/liberal, and 34% were right/conservative. By 1999, those numbers had undergone a seismic shift: faculty was now 72% left/liberal and 15% right/conservative. Since 1999, the imbalance has become starker still. A comprehensive National Association of Scholars report from April 2018 from Prof. Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College, tracking the political registrations of 8,688 tenure-track, Ph.D.-holding professors from 51 of U.S. News & World Report’s 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges for 2017, found that “78.2 percent of the academic departments in [his] sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.” Predictably, given the composition of the professoriate, survey data also indicates that students’ political views drift further leftward between freshman and senior year.

    In light of this data, it should not be a surprise to us that students who have gone to college in this age of ideological extremism have come out radicalized and … socialized.

    Factor #4: Coddled Kids

    The young have always been more inclined to embrace pipe dreams — a lack of familiarity with the complicated way in which the world actually works, coupled with the college fix described above, will do that to most anyone — but there is a reason the mindset of today’s young’uns is particularly susceptible to the red menace. In last year’s The Coddling of the American Mind, the prominent social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff describe the species of overprotective parenting and instilling of baseless and uncritical self-esteem by parents and educators alike that came to prevail as kids were growing up in the 90s and 00s. When we are raised in the belief we are wonderful just as we are, we never learn the critical life skills of self-soothing, working through anxiety, facing obstacles and overcoming adversity. The predictable result, as Haidt and Lukianoff observe, is a demand to be safeguarded — safe spaces, free speech crackdowns and so on. The state appears to many as the appropriate institution to provide this sort of “safety.”

    If these four are the primary causes of socialism’s rapid surge in our midst, then the next logical question is what to do about it.

    There is no easy answer, of course, but I would suggest that the radicalization of academia is the lynchpin issue. If we could succeed in reversing that tsunami, many dominoes would fall: we would be addressing the university monoculture that systematically distorts research, sends students veering hard left and graduates generations of left-orthodox clones who find their way into journalism, government, education, entertainment and other influential sectors driving public opinion and shaping the other three downstream issues factoring into socialism’s rise: government policy, educational philosophy and the manner in which history is taught. Many have observed that our universities are in crisis, but that crisis also represents an opportunity to avert the much larger socialist cataclysm that threatens to engulf us all.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 21:05

    Tags

  • Visualizing Walmart's Domination Of The US Grocery Market
    Visualizing Walmart's Domination Of The US Grocery Market

    One wouldn’t expect the grocery department of a big box retailer to spark debate, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes, Walmart’s high market concentration in the grocery space is doing just that.

    By now, Walmart’s rise to the top of the retail pyramid is well documented. The Supercenters that dot the American landscape have had a dramatic ripple effect on surrounding communities, often resulting in decreased competition and reduced selection for consumers. Today, in some communities, Walmart takes in a whopping $19 for every $20 spent on groceries.

    Today’s map, based on a report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, looks at which places in America are most reliant on Walmart to put food on the table.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Weight of Walmart

    Walmart has an unprecedented amount of control over the food system, now capturing a quarter of every single dollar spent on groceries in the United States.

    Walmart isn’t just a major player — in some cases it’s become the only game in town. In a few of the communities listed in the report, Walmart commands a 90% market share and higher.

    Here’s a breakdown of the top 20 towns dominated by Walmart in America:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While it’s more likely for a small town to become dominated by a single grocer, Walmart’s clout isn’t exclusive to rural America. Even in Springfield, Missouri — with a regional population of half a million people — the big box retailer still boasts a sizable market share of 66%.

    Super Market Concentration

    Under guidelines established by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, markets in which one corporation captures more than 50% of revenue are defined as “highly concentrated.” Walmart’s market share meets or exceeds this measure in 43 metropolitan areas and 160 smaller markets around the United States.

    In some states, this trend is even more pronounced. In Oklahoma, for example, 86% of the state’s population lives in a region where Walmart has the majority market share in the grocery sector. In Arkansas — the home state of the megaretailer — half the population lives in this “highly concentrated” grocery market situation.

    This degree of market concentration means that a retailer could cut certain products or manipulate prices without fear of losing customers. Worse yet, a company could close up shop and leave thousands of people without adequate grocery access.

    An Interesting Caveat

    There is a flip side to this story, however.

    Walmart has shown a willingness to expand their grocery business to areas that were considered “food deserts” (i.e. low-income areas without easy access to a supermarket).

    In a 2011 initiative, the retailer committed to open or expand 1,500 supermarkets across America to help give more people access to fresh food.

    With the ground game clearly won, America’s largest grocer is now focused on dominating the next frontier of the grocery market – delivery. Stiff competition from companies like Amazon and Instacart will keep Walmart’s online market concentration in check for the time being.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 20:45

  • Nobel Prize Winner Suggests Blasting Nuclear Waste With Lasers
    Nobel Prize Winner Suggests Blasting Nuclear Waste With Lasers

    Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

    Many have made strong arguments for the potential of nuclear power to be the clean energy solution of the future. As the need to curb carbon emissions grows more dire, the ultra-efficient, zero-emissions energy provided by nuclear looks like a more and more obvious solution. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are some major drawbacks, however, to nuclear energy. Of course, there is the ever-present concern of a nuclear meltdown that has kept civilians and politicians alike extremely wary of widespread nuclear energy production in the wake of high-profile tragedies like those at Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. While the death toll from nuclear disasters is actually quite low, the long-term damage from these tragedies endures. In Japan, the government has been using so much water to keep the reactors at Fukushima from overheating since the 2011 disaster that they have run out of space to store it and have even considered dumping the radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. As for Chernobyl, well…you’ve all seen the miniseries.

    And then there is the major issue of nuclear waste. As efficient and carbon-free as it is, nuclear power certainly isn’t the cleanest form of energy production, thanks to its extremely hazardous byproducts that can stay radioactive for millions of years. Making matters worse, there is still no scientific consensus on how to solve this issue. In the United States, the burden of paying to store and maintain nuclear waste deposits falls on the taxpayers, and the price tag is massive. As Oilprice reported last year in a report aptly titled “The Crushing Cost Of Nuclear Waste Is Weighing On Taxpayers,” keeping us safe from our own nuclear waste is extremely costly and will only grow more expensive the more waste we create. “Now, that price tag has reached a whopping $7.5 billion,” we reported, “and that number is only going to keep growing.” 

    But now, for the first time, there may be a solution to the previously unsolvable nuclear waste issue.

    Nobel laureate Gérard Mourou has proposed a novel solution that smacks of science fiction and revolves around blasting nuclear waste with lasers.

    Morou and his research partner Donna Strickland won their Nobel Prize in 2018 for their work with Chirped Pulse Amplification (CPA), a revolutionary invention that creates extremely rapid and ultra-powerful laser pulses with lots of different potential applications.

    “The original research focused on applications like laser machining and eye surgery,” reports ExtremeTech, “but scientists could also use it to observe atomic processes that happen at almost unfathomable speeds. If we could speed it up a bit more, Mourou says CPA could have a use in processing nuclear waste, too.”

    According to Mourou’s hypothesis, CPA could turn even the most nuclear waste we have sitting in secure storage facilities around the world, where it will otherwise remain radioactive for millions of years, into a substance so safe you could hold it in the palm of your hand. Of course, the CPA process will require a bit of tweaking to get to this point of capability.

    “Currently, CPA can produce laser pulses as brief as one attosecond — that’s a billionth of a billionth of a second. To transmute nuclear waste into something safe, Mourou says you’d need to increase the pulse rate by roughly 10,000 times,” says ExtremeTech.

    “That might sound like a tall order, but CPA itself was an order of magnitude increase over previous lasers. Another innovation like CPA, and we could be in the ballpark.”

    The method would work by blasting nuclear waste with a laser pulse so strong and fast that it could knock protons out of the nuclei of dangerous substances like uranium 235 and plutonium 239, rendering them harmless. If this technology, which other experts agree makes sense in theory, could actually be invented and applied in the next couple of decades, it would be difficult to overstate the impact it would have on our energy sector and, indeed, the entire world. In order to avoid the fast-approaching tipping point for catastrophic climate change, we need to decarbonize fast and starting right now. Solving the problem of nuclear waste would make that a whole lot safer and more attainable. 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 20:25

  • Hong Kong Student Dies From Injuries In First Fatality Linked To Protests
    Hong Kong Student Dies From Injuries In First Fatality Linked To Protests

    In what appears to be the first death of a protester stemming from the aggressive police tactics, a young student has died after sustaining a serious head injury during a fall from the third floor of a car park to the second while police carried out an aggressive dispersion operation to end a protest

    According to the SCMP, Chow Tsz-lok, a second year computer science undergraduate student at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology fell from the car park in Tseung Kwan O as police fired off rounds of tear gas on Monday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After being sent to Queen Elizabeth Hospital early on Monday morning, the student had been in a coma for several days as the swelling from a head injury intensified. Two operations undertaken to save his life failed, and he died Friday morning after his condition took a turn for the worse late Thursday. A cause of death wasn’t given.

    At the time of death, sources said the pressure inside the victim’s skull had built up to five times normal levels because of the injuries.

    A statement by HKUST released on Friday urged students to “stay calm and exercise restraint during this difficult moment” and avoid “conflicts or even tragedies” – fearful that protesters might tear apart the campus after blaming police for Chow’s death. All classes will be cancelled Friday in honor of Chow.

    The university also repeated a warning for students to stay away from protests.

    Unfortunately, security camera footage released on Wednesday by Link Reit, the owner of the Sheung Tak Estate car park where Chow took his fatal spill, didn’t capture his fall, leaving the exact circumstances behind his death a mystery.

    The death occurred during the middle of end-of-semester graduation ceremonies for the university. During one graduation ceremony, some masters students wore black masks and held up their palms on stage – a gesture of support for the protest movement’s five demands.

    HKUST President Wei Shyy shed tears during a ceremony where they briefly honored Chow after his death.

    Another student who only gave his last name, Wong, told the SCMP that he was shocked by his fellow student’s death and said the graduation ceremonies should be cancelled: “It’s no longer a happy occasion for some graduates.”

    Even Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam offered her sympathies to Chow and his family, and said the case needed to be investigated.

    It’s still unclear whether the clashes between police and protesters had anything to do with Chow’s death. With no surveillance footage, it’s likely to remain a mystery.

    Still, protesters are already calling it the first fatality linked to the demonstrations (and the police response). That label looks likely to stick. And demonstrators are already calling for more rallies in retaliation for Chow’s death.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 20:05

  • Paul Craig Roberts: "A Successful Coup Against Trump Will Murder American Democracy"
    Paul Craig Roberts: "A Successful Coup Against Trump Will Murder American Democracy"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    President Trump calls it a witch hunt, but it really is a coup against American democracy. The Democrats who want Trump impeached don’t realize this. They just want Trump impeached because they don’t like him. The impeach Trump people don’t understand that if the coup against the elected president succeeds, every future president will know that if he attempts to “drain the swamp” or bring any changes not acceptable to the ruling elite, he, too, will be destroyed. Voters who want real change will also get the message and give up trying to elect a president or members of the House and Senate who will be responsive to voters. It will mean the end of democracy and accountable government. Unhindered rule by the Deep State and associated elites will take democracy’s place.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is unfortunate that progressives do not understand this. Progressives want real change and Trump impeached, but these desires are at variance with one another.

    Few, if any, of the impeach Trump crowd are paying any attention to the fabricated case against Trump that has taken the place of the Russiagate fabrication that failed. They could not care less what the case is or whether it is a fabrication. Dislike of Trump suffices.

    Nevertheless, let’s look at the fabricated case.

    First of all, the alleged whistleblower is not a legitimate whistleblower. He is Eric Ciaramella, a CIA officer with a second-hand complaint who met with House Intelligence (sic) chairman Adam Schiff a month ahead to orchestrate the event. Ciaramella served on Obama’s staff when VP Joe Biden was point man for Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked with CIA Director John Brennan, the architect of “Russiagate,” and with a Democratic National Committee operative who encouraged Ukraine officials to come up with dirt on President Trump.

    All of this and more has caused the “whistleblower” to withdraw from testifying.

    Desperate for a substitute, Democrats have come up with tainted career bureaucrats who favor military aid to Ukraine and a hard line toward Russia. Bill Taylor a US diplomat in Ukraine claims that Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, said that US military aid to Ukraine was conditional on Ukraine reopening the government’s investigation into the Ukrainian company, Burisma, an investigation that VP Joe Biden had closed down. Burisma is the company that paid as much as $1.75 million to Biden and his son.

    Taylor claims that another bureaucrat, Tim Morrison, told him that Sondland communicated the “quid pro quo” to an aide to Zelensky.

    Sondland rejects the claims by Taylor and Morrison.

    A Ukrainian born rabid anti-Russian US Army officer serving on the National Security Council, Alexander Vindman, also offers two cents of unverified quid pro quo claims. Vindman’s motive seems to be that President Trump is inclined to follow a different policy toward Ukraine than Vindman prefers.

    This is the extent of the case against Trump. Amazingly weak considering that Ukrainian president Zelensky has stated publicly that there was no quid pro quo and that the released transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation shows no quid pro quo.

    Now for the issue of the alleged quid pro quo. It seems that everyone on both sides of the argument takes for granted without a second of thought that if there was a quid pro quo, there was an offense, possibly one sufficiently offensive to warrant impeachment. This is utter ignorant nonsense.

    Quid pro quos are endemic in US foreign policy and always have been. The US government offered Ecuador president Lenin Moreno a $4.2 billion IMF loan in exchange for revoking Julian Assange’s asylum. Moreno took the deal.

    Washington offered the Venezuelan military money to overthrow President Maduro. The military refused the offer.

    Dozens of examples come readily to mind. Research would produce enough to fill a book.

    What do you think the sanctions are that the US president places on countries? They are punishments that Washington imposes for not accepting Washington’s deal.

    As for a quid pro quo deal between the US executive branch and president of Ukraine, we have VP Joe Biden’s boast that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating corruption in the firm that had purchased US protection by putting Biden’s son, Hunter, on Burisma’s board. Joe Biden brags in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that he gave the Ukrainian president 6 hours to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. 

    As Biden was US Vice President at the time and is currently the leading Democratic candidate for the US presidential nomination, he is clearly guilty of what Trump is accused. Why is only Trump subject to investigation? If an offense that is merely suspected or alleged suffices for impeaching a president, why isn’t a known and admitted and bragged about offense reason to disqualify Biden from being president?

    One would think that a question this obvious would be the topic of debate. But not a word from the presstitutes, Democrats, or Republicans.

    Finally, there is the question of the whistleblower law. If this interpretation sent to me by a reliable source is correct, there is no basis in law for the alleged whistleblower complaint.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 19:45

    Tags

  • "Clients With Guns" Are Demanding Deposits From Crisis-Stricken Lebanese Banks
    "Clients With Guns" Are Demanding Deposits From Crisis-Stricken Lebanese Banks

    Here we go as predicted: the Lebanese central bank attempts to prevent a “panic mode” scramble on the part of the public to remove all deposits, and the recently imposed (unofficial) regulations geared toward staving off capital flight are predictably failing fast, per Reuters

    Clients with guns have entered banks and security guards have been afraid to speak to them as when people are in a state like this you don’t know how people will act.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    People queue outside a bank in Sidon, Lebanon the prior Friday, Nov. 1 via Reuters/Daily Sabah

    Lebanon’s private banks reopened a week ago on Friday following a two-week closure due to massive anti-government protests which created gridlock across the country’s main cities, including closure of other public institutions such as schools. 

    The Nov. 1 bank re-openings followed Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s resignation last week, which the some one million demonstrators flooding Lebanon’s streets since early last month have touted as a ‘success’; however, the economy remains on the brink of collapse, given growing fears of a major run on the banks.

    Since reopening banks have blocked most transfers abroad and maintained tight controls over hard-currency withdrawals, policies which have led to reports of threats against bank staff. Some of these heated encounters are being filmed and posted to the internet. Likely the situation is about to become explosive into next week after the banks close for the weekend. 

    “This is our money!… We can’t get our money – you have money in the banks and you’re not giving it to the people! You’re stealing from us!” (our translation) the man in the below video shouts inside his bank. 

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

    Chaotic scenes played out from the moment the banks reopened, as Lebanon’s Daily Sabah described

    Large queues starting forming outside banks from early morning and people rushed in as soon as doors opened to cash in their salaries and make transfers.

    Tellers struggled to handle the flood of customers trying to cram inside bank branches, as queues spilt onto the streets.

    And now with the situation getting increasingly dangerous, the crisis could be compounded given bank staff are pondering a strike amid the broader protests still underway, and which have been raging for over the past month

    Bank staff are considering going on strike, he said.

    Clients are becoming very aggressive; the situation is very critical and our colleagues cannot continue under the current circumstances,” added Hajj, whose union has around 11,000 members, just under half of the total banking staff.

    “Anything that touches the liquidity of the bank is being restricted,” one Lebanese banker told Reuters.

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

    Fights and riots have been reported both inside and outside commercial banks. Tellers and managers have reported being assaulted as exasperated customers demand their money:

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

    The World Bank weighed in on Friday, urging leaders in Beirut to form new Cabinet within a week, citing risks to Lebanon’s stability as “deeply concerning,” according to the AP. 

    Given the country’s high unemployment and extreme lack of confidence in the Lebanese Lira, citizens are understandably enraged at not accessing their dollars, and are apparently now taking matters into their own hands

    Some banks have lowered the cap on maximum withdrawals from dollar accounts this week, according to customers and bank employees. At least one bank cut credit card limits from $10,000 to $1,000 this week, customers said.

    …One bank told a customer that a weekly withdrawal cap of $2,500 had been slashed to $1,500.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Vandalized ATM machine in Lebanon’s northern port city of Tripoli this week, via Middle East Online. 

    The massive anti-government protests, focused in large part on rooting out endemic corruption, comes after Lebanon has in recent years suffered a severe slowdown in capital flows, and difficulty of importers securing dollars at the pegged exchange rate, as well as periodic collapse of public services – due to frequent strikes, work stoppages, and lack of public funding.

    The tiny Middle East country currently has a crippling debt of $86 billion – roughly 150% of the gross domestic product – and some 80% of that debt is believed owed either to the central bank or to Lebanese commercial banks.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 19:32

  • Bloomberg Officially Files Paperwork For 2020 Presidential Primary
    Bloomberg Officially Files Paperwork For 2020 Presidential Primary

    As was first reported yesterday, late on Friday former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg officially filed as a candidate for the Alabama Democratic presidential primary, entering a White House run that is sure to shake up the already-crowded 2020 field.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At 4:35pm, the Alabama Democratic Party updated its website to indicate that Bloomberg had filed the necessary documents ahead of the state’s registration deadline on Friday. The southern state has the earliest deadline in the country, Nov. 8, for candidates to qualify for the primary ballot, forcing Mr. Bloomberg to put his name into contention this week if he did not want to get shut out of the ballot.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg said in March that he would not run for president but warned that the ultimate Democratic nominee should not take progressive policy positions that would “drag the party to an extreme that would diminish our chances in the general election.” Yet as the Hill notes, speculation had swirled that Bloomberg was reconsidering his decision especially after Joe Biden started trailing Liz Warren badly in the polls, and was behind Bernie Sanders in fundraising.

    With his late entry and a personal fortune of $53.4 billion according to Forbes, Bloomberg could jolt the Democratic primary race, hurting the chances of other centrist candidates such as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. While Bloomberg has not made a final decision to run, his allies say he intends to enter the race and his early moves have rippled through the rest of the Democratic field.

    Predictably, Bloomberg’s decision has raised alarm among supporters of former VP Joseph R. Biden who is presently the leading centrist in the race, and prompted accusations from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders that Bloomberg is going to try to buy the presidency.

    The former mayor would also enter the race as the top target for progressives such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two outspoken, progressive liberals who have argued the rich hold too much sway in U.S. politics and have unveiled a litany of plans hinged on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

    “The wealthy and well connected are scared,” Warren’s campaign said in an email to supporters as news broke that Bloomberg was considering a run. “They’re scared that under a Warren presidency, they would no longer have a government that caters to their every need. So they’re doing whatever they can to try to stop Elizabeth and our movement from winning in 2020 and bringing big, structural change in 2021.”

    In perhaps the strongest sign yet that his candidacy would scramble the existing race, the NYT reports that Bloomberg has decided that if he seeks the Democratic nomination, he would stake his candidacy on big, delegate-rich states like California and Texas, which vote somewhat later in the calendar, rather than trying to catch up with his rivals in the circuit of traditional early states.

    “We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeated — but Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that,” Howard Wolfson, a close adviser to Bloomberg, tweeted on Thursday. He added that “based on his record of accomplishment, leadership and his ability to bring people together to drive change, Mike would be able to take the fight to Trump and win.”

    If Bloomberg proceeds with such a campaign, he would be attempting to take a high-risk route to the Democratic nomination unprecedented in modern presidential politics — one that shuns the town hall meetings and door-to-door campaigning that characterizes states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and relies instead on a sustained and costly campaign of paid advertising and canvassing on a grand scale.

    In short, he would try to buy the presidency, and he won’t even have to promise every American a Bloomberg terminal.

    Such an approach would amount to a bet that no other candidate emerges from that early-state circuit with the kind of momentum that could overwhelm whatever operation Bloomberg has built in the Super Tuesday states that vote in early March. It would also likely enrage Democratic Party leaders in the early states, several of which are key battlegrounds in the general election, and intensify complaints from Bloomberg’s opponents about his reliance on personal wealth.

    Still, it may be just what centrist Democrats want: Bloomberg will enter the race looking to become the candidate for swaths of Democratic voters who fear that progressive policies will prove too liberal in key swing states that President Trump won in 2016.

    A New York Times/Siena College poll released Friday found that a majority of Democrats surveyed in six battleground states — Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — prefer a more centrist-minded candidate who promises to find common ground with Republicans.

    And yet despite virtually unlimited funds, and having a firm lane in which to run, Bloomberg’s path to the 2020 nomination will be far from easy.

    Bloomberg’s potential bid drew immediate criticism that he was just another wealthy businessman trying to buy an election.

    Bloomberg will face questions about his record as a three-term mayor of New York, particularly from the Democratic Party’s vocal progressive wing, and about why he is needed in a race that still has 17 candidates vying to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in November 2020. 

    “There is no constituency for Michael Bloomberg that isn’t already taken by one of the candidates who are already running,” said Charles Chamberlain, chair of the Vermont-based progressive group Democracy for America.

    He will also face criticism for New York’s implementation of “stop and frisk,” a policy that allowed police to stop and search people on the street that was decried as racist for overwhelmingly targeting black men. African-American voters are a critical Democratic voting bloc. Bloomberg has also been panned for attempting to ban sodas sold in cups larger than 16 ounces, a proposal that drew national criticism for supporting a “nanny state” that was ultimately struck down by New York courts.

    But Bloomberg is skeptical that any of the current candidates can beat Trump, according to a spokesman. It also suggests that Bloomberg is skeptical the attempt to impeach Trump will prove successful.

    Which is why Bloomberg’s entry into the race may have been the best news Trump has received in recent months.

    Meanwhile, opinion polls show three contenders battling at the top of the Democratic race: U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who lead the progressive wing, and moderate Joe Biden, the former vice president. On online betting websites, Bloomberg is also trailing, and after an initial burst on Thursday, he has stabilized in 5th place, just after Bernie Sanders.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg has been critical of Warren and her desire to institute a tax on the super-wealthy, which she would use to fund programs ranging from universal healthcare to free college tuition. Biden, meanwhile, has turned in uneven debate performances and lagged behind his top rivals in fundraising. Bloomberg would likely seek to appeal to the same moderate voters drawn to Biden.

    “It’s almost like he’s running because this billionaire wants to stop Elizabeth Warren,” Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist who advises progressive groups and labor unions, said of Bloomberg. “It’s lousy for Joe Biden but great for Elizabeth Warren.”

    And Donald Trump, of course.

    Public opinion polls show most Democrats do not share Bloomberg’s dissatisfaction with the contenders. A Monmouth University poll taken in late October and early November found three-fourths of Democrats were satisfied with their choice of candidates and just 16% wanted someone else.

    Then there is his age: Bloomberg, the CEO and founder of Bloomberg LP, would be the second-oldest candidate among the Democrats in a race where age has been an issue. Sanders, who took time off the campaign trail after a heart attack, is 78. Biden is 76, and Warren is 70. Trump is 73.

    Bloomberg also will face questions about his decision to run for New York mayor in 2001 as a Republican. He switched to independent before he ran for a third term in 2009. In 2018, while weighing whether to run for president, he switched his party registration again and became a Democrat.

    After leaving office, he emerged as one of the strongest supporters of gun-control measures, pouring millions of dollars into advocacy groups that push for measures to ban the sale of some guns and make it harder to purchase others.

    And while he is a staunch environmentalist, Bloomberg is a helicopter-flying fanatic who also owns several private jets. In October 2004, officials with the Meadowlands Sports Complex denied Mr. Bloomberg’s request to fly his helicopter to a Jets game and encouraged him to take the bus from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. In January 2002, when he was criticized for taking the controls of a police helicopter to attend Adolfo Carrión Jr.’s inauguration as borough president in the Bronx, he defended himself, saying, “I fly helicopters more sophisticated than that all the time that I happen to own.”

    Of course, having enough money to buy his own polling company, Bloomberg is aware of all these shortcomings and yet he still appears eager to run.

    Bloomberg is seen as considering skipping the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, to focus instead on Super Tuesday as he builds out his campaign infrastructure. However, Democrats in those states still hope to hear from Bloomberg.

    New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley and Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price issued a rare joint statement on Friday pushing Bloomberg to visit their states if he mounts a presidential bid.

    “We are excited that this Democratic presidential nomination contest has so many qualified candidates who all have plans to grow our economy, make quality health care more accessible, and make college more affordable, and we are certain that Granite Staters, Iowans, and other early state voters are eager to ask Michael Bloomberg about his plans to move our states and our country forward,” Buckley and Price said. “We hope that they will have that opportunity.”

    “It’s going to be difficult, but we’ve never really seen a candidate with this amount of resources at his disposal. That could perhaps make up for a lot of groundwork and a lot of time here,” said veteran Iowa Democratic operative Grant Woodard, an aide to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

    “A lot of people here haven’t made up their minds,” he added. “There could still be an opening for him.”

    Who knows, perhaps in this age of billionaires, the US presidency really does end up going to the highest bidder.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Come November 2020, will those photo showcase three US presidents?


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 19:28

    Tags

  • Harvard Wants Students To Bone Up On Oral And Anal Sex, Stop Judging Fatties
    Harvard Wants Students To Bone Up On Oral And Anal Sex, Stop Judging Fatties

    Authored by Brittany Slaughter via The College Fix blog,

    Annual, student-led Sex Week tradition returns to Ivy League institution

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Anal Sex 101,” “Oral Sex 101” and “fatphobia” workshop are among 13 different offerings students at Harvard University have the option of attending as part of its annual Sex Week.

    Harvard Sex Week launched Nov. 4 and runs through Nov. 10.

    The workshops are organized by the student organization Sexual Health Education and Advocacy Throughout Harvard. Its members did not respond to repeated requests for comment. A Harvard spokesperson also declined comment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since 2012, SHEATH has hosted Harvard Sex Week every fall, according to its website.

    “Sex Week intends to both educate and advocate, providing a platform for self-exploration and community dialogue,” it states. “We intend to promote a week of programming that is interdisciplinary, thought-provoking, scholastic, innovative, and applicable to student experiences in order to promote a more holistic understanding of sex and sexuality.”

    This year, Sex Week kicked off with “Sticky: A (Self) Love Story” and “Feel Those Good Vibrations: Sex Toys 101.” On Tuesday students were offered a sex education class as well as “What What in the Butt?: Anal Sex 101.”

    On Wednesday a “Tantric Sex 101” workshop was followed by a panel on racial preferences and dating. Thursday brought an STD panel and reproductive justice workshop to campus.

    On today’s docket are panels on BGLTQ and intimacy. This weekend will offer “Body Positivity: Fatphobia and Liberation,” “Getting A-Head in Life: Oral Sex 101” and a “sexy trivia” game, according to the schedule.

    Throughout the week, student organizers dole out various free sex toy swag to attendees, as the week is sponsored by 20 different companies involved in the sex-pleasure industry. Online, the companies sell various products, such as vibrators, anal plugs, specialized condoms, testicle stretchers, strap ons, ankle restraints and other items.

    On-campus sponsors include Queer Students and Allies, Harvard College Women’s Center, Office of BGLTQ Student Life, Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, Harvard College Reproductive Justice Action and several other campus groups.

    While organizers of Sex Week do not appear interested in discussing their programming, The College Fix reached out to renown author and cultural critic Mary Eberstadt to weigh in.

    Eberstadt is author of the recently published book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics.

    Harvard Sex Week is corporate exploitation at its sleaziest. Students should be protesting this cynical attempt to pick their pockets and degrade their romances — not lining up for instruction about practices that will land some in the emergency clinic,” she said in an email to The College Fix.

    It’s especially ironic that Sex Week gets Harvard’s imprimatur even as some of the men of #MeToo are appearing in courts. Sex Week promotes the same deformed view of the human person that led such men to harassment and assault in the first place: one dominated by pornographic narratives according to which human beings are always and everywhere available for any sexual permutation, no matter how problematic to their psyches or inimical to their health,” she said.

    “It’s past time for these travesties to be shut down — and for the corporate sponsors of this toxic worldview to be ostracized like any other companies promoting public harm.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 19:05

    Tags

  • Brazil's Leftist Icon Lula Freed From Federal Prison After Supreme Court Ruling
    Brazil's Leftist Icon Lula Freed From Federal Prison After Supreme Court Ruling

    Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, was ordered released from prison on Friday, after the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to end mandatory imprisonment for convicts who lose their first appeal. 

    Lula, a celebrated leftist icon in Latin America, was freed after a year-and-a-half behind bars due to what his supporters say was a “politically motivated” prosecution from the right-wing government. 

    He had been sentenced to a total of eight years and 10 months after being convicted of taking bribes from engineering firms as part of the sweeping anti-corruption “Car Wash” investigation. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via Lula.com.br/Ricardo Stuckert

    At the time police said they had evidence he benefited from a kick-back scheme at state oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), receiving payments and luxury real estate. A police statement had alleged, “Ex-president Lula, besides being party leader, was the one ultimately responsible for the decision on who would be the directors at Petrobras and was one of the main beneficiaries of these crimes.” 

    Lula walked out of federal police headquarters in the southern city of Curitiba after the shock announcement of his release Friday to cheers from a large crowd of supporters, who were mostly wearing and carrying signs in the characteristic Workers’ Party red. 

    “You don’t know how much you represent me,” the former Brazilian president told the jubilant crowd.

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

    Supporters claim as evidence that Lula was “set up” the fact that the very former federal judge who spearheaded the Car Wash investigations which convicted Lula has quickly advanced in Bolsonaro’s administration, as Reuters observes:

    Lula and his supporters have also criticized the fact that Sergio Moro, a former federal judge who oversaw the Car Wash probe and convicted Lula, accepted an invitation to become the justice minister of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, a longtime foe of Lula and key rival in last year’s election.

    Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, tweeted, “An extraordinary day in Brazil – for the world, given Lula’s stature.” 

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

    In his remarks upon emerging from federal prison, Lula further addressed the crowd of supporters saying,  “They did not imprison a man.” And added, “They wanted to kill an idea. And ideas are not killed.”

    * * * 

    Meanwhile, look who else was ecstatic over the news. “Truth Triumphed in Brazil!” Maduro tweeted as congratulations. 

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


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 18:45

    Tags

  • Pat Buchanan: "Will 'Sexist' White Males Derail Warren?"
    Pat Buchanan: "Will 'Sexist' White Males Derail Warren?"

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    After celebrating Tuesday’s takeover of Virginia’s legislature and the Kentucky governorship, the liberal establishment appears poised to crush its biggest threat: the surging candidacy of Elizabeth Warren.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From the tempo and tenor of the attacks, establishment fears of Warren’s success are real — and understandably so.

    Two Wednesday polls show Warren running even with Joe Biden nationally. And a new Iowa poll shows Warren in front of the field with 20%, and Biden falling into fourth place with 15%.

    [ZH: The money bets tell a different story however]

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The danger for Democrats: While Warren is now the party’s front-runner, they fear she’s a sure loser to Donald Trump in 2020.

    And, again, with reason. A recent poll of six battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, showed Trump beating or tying Warren in all of them except for Arizona.

    Nightmare scenario: Warren wins the nomination, but when her neo-Marxist agenda is exposed, Middle America recoils in horror.

    The economic elite is already sounding the alarm.

    Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase says Warren “vilifies successful people.” Microsoft founder Bill Gates says her proposals would imperil “innovation” and “capital formation.”

    Writing in The New York Times, Obama adviser Steven Rattner describes a Warren presidency as “a terrifying prospect.”

    Warren would “extend the reach and weight of the federal government far further into the economy than anything even Franklin Roosevelt dreamed of (and) … turn America’s uniquely successful public-private relationship into a dirigiste European-style system.”

    “If you want to live in France” — where half the GDP is controlled by the regime — says Rattner, “Warren should be your candidate.”

    What finally shocked anti-Warren liberals into action was her recent revelation of how she intends to pay for her “Medicare for all” plan.

    Warren’s plan would require at least $23 trillion more in federal spending over a decade. Other experts say the added costs could run to $32 trillion, raising the U.S. government’s share of the GDP by one-half and abolishing the private health insurance plans of 156 million Americans.

    “Many of America’s global champions, like banks and tech giants, would be dismembered,” writes Rattner, “Shale fracking would be banned, which would send oil and natural gas prices soaring and cost millions of Americans their jobs.”

    Beyond “Medicare for All,” Warren has other plans. Universal child care and free schooling from pre-kindergarten through college and the cancelation of student loans, plus a new look at reparations for slavery.

    How would President Warren pay for all her “plans”?

    She would raise the corporate rate to 35% from 21%, and slam a 40% tax on the profits of companies that try to flee the country.

    She would raise the capital gains tax, impose new estate taxes, raise Social Security taxes on folks with higher incomes, and confiscate 2% of the wealth of those with $50 million in assets and 3% of the wealth of those with $1 billion, every year.

    Writes Politifact:

    “All told, we counted $7 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period, and that’s without Medicare for All. On the flip side, Warren offered specific tax proposals that came to $4.55 trillion.”

    Still, Warren’s socialism is not what her main rivals, all white men, are zeroing in on. They’ve decided to play hardball.

    Thursday, under a headline, “Warren Faces Accusations that She’s ‘Angry,’ Which Supporters Say is Sexist,” The Washington Post reported:

    “Two of the leading male candidates in the Democratic presidential primary race — Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — have escalated separate lines of attack as they attempt to counter the field’s most prominent woman: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is antagonistic and angry.”

    Warren has a “my way or the highway” approach, said Buttigieg, she is “so absorbed in the fighting that it is as though fighting were the purpose.”

    Biden says Warren, who has a real shot at taking the nomination, reflects “an angry unyielding viewpoint that has crept into our politics.”

    This is “treacherous,” warns the Post, “given that many Democrats remain upset over what they view as the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton, the party’s last nominee.”

    The Democratic Party today defines itself as an inclusive party of women, gays, Hispanics, African Americans and other people of color.

    Yet three months out from the decisive early contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the party is going into the semifinals of its contest for a leader and future president without a single person of color in the final four.

    Moreover, the three white males are denigrating and piling on the woman who is the front-runner with attacks on her personality for which conservatives, if they used such tactics, would be charged with “dog-whistling” the white working class.

    When one looks at the approval-disapproval rating of the president, re-election appears problematic. When one looks at the Democrats’ agenda and field of candidates, the odds of Trump’s re-election seem a good deal better.

    This thing is by no means over.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 18:25

    Tags

  • Moodys Downgrades UK Outlook To Negative On "Brexit Paralysis"
    Moodys Downgrades UK Outlook To Negative On "Brexit Paralysis"

    Moody’s downgraded its outlook on Britain’s debt (currently rated Aa2) to negative from stable after the market close on Friday, saying Brexit had been a catalyst for an erosion in the country’s institutional strength, perceived “material deterioration” in UK governance, and that the country’s ability to set policy has weakened in the Brexit era along with its commitment to fiscal discipline.

    The outlook cut represents a catch down to its competitors: the UK is currently rated AA by S&P and AA- at Fitch Ratings, with both companies having the UK on negative watch.

    “It would be optimistic to assume that the previously cohesive, predictable approach to legislation and policymaking in the UK will return once Brexit is no longer a contentious issue, however that is achieved,” the ratings agency said adding that “the increasing inertia and, at times, paralysis that has characterized the Brexit-era policymaking process has illustrated how the capability and predictability that has traditionally distinguished the U.K.’s institutional framework has diminished.”

    “The decline in institutional strength appears to Moody’s to be structural in nature and likely to survive Brexit given the deep divisions within society and the country’s political landscape,” Moody’s added.

    The decision to put the UK on negative outlook even as Moody’s affirmed Britain’s Aa2 long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings comes one month before an election that is likely to determine the future of Brexit. While the election will have a big impact on Brexit, this week has seen both sides escalate their spending pledges, drawing election battle lines with plans to end a decade of U.K. austerity.

    As Bloomberg observes, there hasn’t been a U.K. downgrade by a major rating company since September 2017, when Moody’s downgraded the UK to Aa2, the country’s lowest ever rating .

    Upon the announcement, the pound dipped 10 pips from 1.2784 to 1.2774.

    The full Moody’s statement is below:

    Moody’s changes outlook on UK’s rating to negative from stable, affirms Aa2 rating

    Paris, November 08, 2019 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has today changed the outlook on the Government of the United Kingdom’s Aa2 ratings to negative from stable. Concurrently, Moody’s has affirmed the Aa2 long-term issuer and senior unsecured ratings.

    The outlook on the Bank of England’s Aa2 issuer and senior unsecured bond ratings and the (P)Aa2 on its senior unsecured MTN programme has also changed to negative from stable; the Aa2 and (P)Aa2 ratings have been affirmed. The short-term issuer ratings have been affirmed at Prime-1.

    The change in outlook to negative from stable is driven by two factors:

    1. UK institutions have weakened as they have struggled to cope with the magnitude of policy challenges that they currently face, including those that relate to fiscal policy.

    2. The UK’s economic and fiscal strength are likely to be weaker going forward and more susceptible to shocks than previously assumed.

    The affirmation of the UK’s Aa2 sovereign ratings balances the credit-supportive factors such as wealth, economic diversification, a sound monetary policy framework and a highly flexible labour market against constraints such as a high debt burden and weak productivity growth.

    The foreign and local currency bond ceilings and the local-currency deposit ceiling remain unchanged at Aaa. The foreign-currency long-term deposit ceiling remains Aa2, and the short-term foreign-currency bond and bank deposit country ceilings remain at P-1.

    RATINGS RATIONALE

    RATIONALE FOR NEGATIVE OUTLOOK

    FIRST DRIVER: UK INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO FISCAL DISCIPLINE HAVE WEAKENED

    The increasing inertia and, at times, paralysis that has characterized the Brexit-era policymaking process has illustrated how the capability and predictability that has traditionally distinguished the UK’s institutional framework has diminished. Events in the House of Commons in recent months have revealed legislators, policymakers and administrators to be unable to arrive at the consensus needed to achieve either a broadly acceptable approach to Brexit, or the continuation of policy in other important areas, for example to address challenges relating to education, productivity, or investment in infrastructure.

    Brexit has been the catalyst for this erosion in institutional strength, which can also be seen in, among other things, the small but significant weakening of Worldwide Governance Indicators for Government Effectiveness and Rule of Law. It is likely to remain so for some time to come given the inevitably contentious nature of the negotiations regarding a permanent set of trading arrangements with the EU. And it would be optimistic to assume that the previously cohesive, predictable approach to legislation and policymaking in the UK will return once Brexit is no longer a contentious issue, however that is achieved. The decline in institutional strength appears to Moody’s to be structural in nature and likely to survive Brexit given the deep divisions within society and the country’s political landscape.

    This broad erosion in the predictability and cohesion of policymaking is mirrored in areas of policy that are significant from a credit perspective. Most importantly, the UK’s broad fiscal framework, characterized by features such as multi-year budget plans and more detailed revenue and spending decisions announced for the outer years of the planning period, has weakened. Following the significant fiscal consolidation that took place between 2010 and 2015, more recent years have seen an increasing willingness to move the goalposts, with changes to the longer-term fiscal anchor and the definition of fiscal targets and a revealed preference to shift the fiscal tightening to outer years of a five-year horizon. Successive governments have announced large, permanent increases in public expenditures, most notably a large increase in spending on the National Health Service (NHS), outside the normal calendar for fiscal policy changes and without detailed policy plans.

    Over the longer term, institutional weakening may also impact the UK’s economic strength, through its effect on the investment climate and on the UK’s attractiveness to skilled and unskilled foreign labour. In recent years, we have already seen the negative impact this can have, and Moody’s expects this negative influence will likely endure as the exit process continues and uncertainties persist during the subsequent phase of trade negotiations with the EU and with other nations.
    This deterioration in the quality of institutions has made policy planning more opaque and unpredictable. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has noted that policy risks to the public finances are now significant and are greater than they were two years ago. Going forward, no matter what the outcome is of the general election Moody’s sees widespread political pressures for higher expenditures with no clear plan to increase revenues to finance this spending. In Moody’s view, the commitment to maintaining a predictable, prudent fiscal framework and associated policy settings that has characterized the UK’s credit profile until now is weakening in a way that will transcend electoral cycles as pressures from the electorate for improved public services continue to rise.

    SECOND DRIVER: A LIKELY DETERIORATION IN FISCAL AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH

    The weakening of the fiscal policy environment is evident in the data. Even after years of fiscal consolidation, the country remains highly indebted, with gross general government debt being only marginally below its 2015 peak of 86.9% of GDP, and unlikely to fall significantly over the medium term. In Moody’s baseline projections, the UK’s general government debt is set to stay broadly unchanged at around 85% of GDP over the next 3-4 years, absent any unexpected economic shocks. While that is a lower level than assumed when Moody’s downgraded the UK’s rating to Aa2 in September 2017, the trajectory has changed. Then, Moody’s expected a gradual decline in the debt burden over the longer term. Now, Moody’s sees little appetite or opportunity for that to happen.

    Indeed, the risks are that debt will begin to rise. In the current political climate, Moody’s sees no meaningful pressure for debt-reducing fiscal policies. In fact, there is rising pressure for spending increases with little apparent clarity as yet on how they might be financed through additional revenues and little scope for politically acceptable expenditure cuts. While greater public investment could be growth-enhancing, there is no appetite to address important areas of rigidity in public expenditure, particularly health and social care, which will be key sources of future financial pressure. In June 2018, the government pledged real annual increases on average of 3.4% for the NHS for the next five years. Even that expenditure increase may not be sufficient to achieve the longer-term objective of improving standards. In recent years, the government has consistently had to accommodate higher spending by the NHS, and the OBR projects that health spending will nearly double as a proportion of GDP over the coming decades.

    The large and sticky debt burden is a key source of fragility for the UK’s credit profile, particularly at the current juncture, when external threats to growth are rising and internal growth momentum is slowing.

    The magnitude of the fiscal challenge may well be amplified by weaker-than-expected growth. Since the EU referendum, UK business investment (which accounts for more than half of gross fixed capital formation) has contracted by more than 1% in real terms, in contrast to the growth that Moody’s has observed in other advanced economies. This shortfall does not just affect current growth rates. The persistent weakness of business investment, combined with firms’ bias towards hiring as a more flexible way to increase capacity, has resulted in limited capital deepening–a trend that will further intensify the UK’s existing productivity challenges over the longer term. The UK economy has already experienced low productivity growth since the global financial crisis, compared to previous cycles and also other advanced economies.

    This weakness in investment has taken place despite broadly favourable credit conditions and limited spare capacity. It is unlikely to reverse quickly; Brexit-related uncertainty as to future policy settings and the UK’s relationship with trading partners is unlikely to diminish much even in the event that a deal is struck, given the significant challenges it is now clear will be inherent in agreeing any sort of longer-term trade agreement with the EU. Even if the UK leaves the EU under the terms of a revised Withdrawal Agreement, the two sides will still have to go through difficult and lengthy negotiations around the terms of their future relationship. Negotiations with other key trading partners are unlikely to be any more straightforward.

    These trends leave the UK more vulnerable to shocks, and the debt burden is sensitive to both growth and fiscal shocks. A deterioration in growth and the fiscal performance as well as a rise in interest rates or inflation would cause the debt burden to rise not fall. In Moody’s view, adverse fiscal outcomes would have the most impact, followed by a reduction in growth.

    RATIONALE FOR AFFIRMATION OF Aa2 RATINGS

    The factors supporting the affirmation of the UK’s Aa2 sovereign rating include economy’s significant strength, which is a function of its large size, diversification, and flexibility. The government also enjoys very low financing risks and a very high average debt maturity. While the UK’s institutions have weakened, in part due to the serious challenges raised by Brexit, they remain strong in comparison to global peers and the monetary policy framework and central banking arrangements continue to be excellent.

    ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS

    Moody’s takes account of the impact of environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) factors when assessing sovereign issuers’ economic, institutional and fiscal strength and their susceptibility to event risk. In the case of the UK, the materiality of ESG to the credit profile is as follows.

    Environmental considerations are not currently material to the rating.

    Social factors are taken into account in determining the UK’s credit profile. The most relevant social factors relate to spending pressures on healthcare and pensions due to an ageing population. Over the longer term, demographic pressures will (as in many peers) negatively influence potential growth in the absence of increases in productivity, in participation rates or in immigration.

    Governance factors are a material driver of the rating. On a global basis, the UK’s governance institutions are strong, supporting the Aa2 rating for now. However, the deterioration observed in recent years is a key driver for the negative outlook.

    WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING UP/DOWN

    The UK’s rating would likely be downgraded if we were to conclude that policymakers’ capacity and appetite to develop a credible medium-term debt-reduction strategy was low. This would be particularly negative for the UK’s credit quality if, in our view, that reflected a continued overall erosion in the coherence and predictability of UK policymaking. Structurally weaker economic fundamentals would also undermine the UK’s credit profile. In that context, departure from the EU without a deal would be strongly negative for the rating. However, even if some form of withdrawal agreement were to be signed, indications that the UK would not be able to replace the very favourable trading arrangements embedded in EU membership with similarly advantageous agreements with key trading partners in Europe and elsewhere would also be negative for the rating.

    Given the negative outlook on the UK’s rating, an upgrade is unlikely in the short to medium term. However, indications that the apparent erosion in institutional strength is in fact reversible and that the coming years will see a reversion to the capability and predictability that has traditionally characterized the UK’s institutional framework would support the rating at its current level. Such an outcome would most likely be characterised by the development of a credible strategy to achieve medium-term fiscal objectives that put the debt burden on a downward trajectory. Passage of economic policies that could sustainably boost growth potential would also be credit positive.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 11/08/2019 – 18:09

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 8th November 2019

  • A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak Truth To Power
    A New Kind Of Tyranny: The Global State's War On Those Who Speak Truth To Power

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence. By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny. The choice is ours.”

    – John Pilger, investigative journalist

    All of us are in danger.

    In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has gone global.

    The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners, all-out assault on truth-tellers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Activists, journalists and whistleblowers alike are being terrorized, traumatized, tortured and subjected to the fear-inducing, mind-altering, soul-destroying, smash-your-face-in tactics employed by the superpowers-that-be.

    Take Julian Assange, for example.

    Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than 700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S. government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

    Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).

    The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.

    This is morally wrong.

    It shouldn’t matter which nation is responsible for these atrocities: there is no defense for such evil perpetrated in the name of profit margins and war profiteering.

    In true Orwellian fashion, however, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

    Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day—pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted, he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.

    Whatever is being done to Assange behind those prison walls—psychological torture, forced drugging, prolonged isolation, intimidation, surveillance—it’s wearing him down.

    In court appearances, the 48-year-old Assange appears disoriented, haggard and zombie-like.

    “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic States ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law,” declared Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture.

    It’s not just Assange who is being made to suffer, however.

    Manning, who was jailed for seven years from 2010 to 2017 for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, was arrested in March 2019 for refusing to testify before a grand jury about Assange, placed in solitary confinement for almost a month, and then sentenced to remain in jail either until she agrees to testify or until the grand jury’s 18-month term expires.

    Federal judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia also fined Manning $500 for every day she remained in custody after 30 days, and $1,000 for every day she remains in custody after 60 days, a chilling—and financially crippling—example of the government’s heavy-handed efforts to weaponize fines and jail terms as a means of forcing dissidents to fall in line.

    This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.

    Make no mistake: the government is waging war on journalists and whistleblowers for disclosing information relating to government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.

    Yet while this targeted campaign—aided, abetted and advanced by the Deep State’s international alliances—is unfolding during President Trump’s watch, it began with the Obama Administration’s decision to revive the antiquated, hundred-year-old Espionage Act, which was intended to punish government spies, and instead use it to prosecute government whistleblowers.

    Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has not merely continued the Obama Administration’s attack on whistleblowers. It has injected this war on truth-tellers and truth-seekers with steroids and let it loose on the First Amendment.

    In May 2019, Trump’s Justice Department issued a sweeping new “superseding” secret indictment of Assange—hinged on the Espionage Act—that empowers the government to determine what counts as legitimate journalism and criminalize the rest, not to mention giving “the government license to criminally punish journalists it does not like, based on antipathy, vague standards, and subjective judgments.”

    Noting that the indictment signaled grave dangers for freedom of the press in general, media lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., warned, “The indictment would criminalize the encouragement of leaks of newsworthy classified information, criminalize the acceptance of such information, and criminalize publication of it.”

    Boutrous continues:

    [I]t doesn’t matter whether you think Assange is a journalist, or whether WikiLeaks is a news organization. The theory that animates the indictment targets the very essence of journalistic activity: the gathering and dissemination of information that the government wants to keep secret. You don’t have to like Assange or endorse what he and WikiLeaks have done over the years to recognize that this indictment sets an ominous precedent and threatens basic First Amendment values…. With only modest tweaking, the very same theory could be invoked to prosecute journalists for the very same crimes being alleged against Assange, simply for doing their jobs of scrutinizing the government and reporting the news to the American people.

    We desperately need greater scrutiny and transparency, not less.

    Indeed, transparency is one of those things the shadow government fears the most. Why? Because it might arouse the distracted American populace to actually exercise their rights and resist the tyranny that is inexorably asphyxiating their freedoms.

    This need to shed light on government actions—to make the obscure, least transparent reaches of government accessible and accountable—was a common theme for Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously coined the phrase, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

    Writing in January 1884, Brandeis explained:

    Light is the only thing that can sweeten our political atmosphere—light thrown upon every detail of administration in the departments; light diffused through every policy; light blazed full upon every feature of legislation; light that can penetrate every recess or corner in which any intrigue might hide; light that will open up to view the innermost chambers of government, drive away all darkness from the treasury vaults; illuminate foreign correspondence; explore national dockyards; search out the obscurities of Indian affairs; display the workings of justice; exhibit the management of the army; play upon the sails of the navy; and follow the distribution of the mails.

    Of course, transparency is futile without a populace that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

    For this reason, it is vital that citizens have the right to criticize the government without fear.

    After all, we’re citizens, not subjects. For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:

    When freedom of information and transparency are stifled, then bad decisions are often made and heartbreaking tragedies occur – too often on a breathtaking scale that can leave societies wondering: how did this happen? … I believe that when the public lacks even the most fundamental access to what its governments and militaries are doing in their names, then they cease to be involved in the act of citizenship. There is a bright distinction between citizens, who have rights and privileges protected by the state, and subjects, who are under the complete control and authority of the state.

    Manning goes on to suggest that the U.S. “needs legislation to protect the public’s right to free speech and a free press, to protect it from the actions of the executive branch and to promote the integrity and transparency of the US government.”

    Technically, we’ve already got such legislation on the books: the First Amendment.

    The First Amendment gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.

    The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.

    Almost 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.

    As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

    Almost 50 years later, with Assange being cast as the poster boy for treason, we’re witnessing yet another showdown, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.

    Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.

    Following the current downward trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” is relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, must be watched all the time, and is rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

    Eventually, we will all be potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government

    Partisan politics have no place in this debate: Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

    We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

    Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

    What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

    Be warned: this quintessential freedom won’t be much good to anyone if the government makes good on its promise to make an example of Assange as a warning to other journalists intent on helping whistleblowers disclose government corruption.

    Once again, we find ourselves reliving George Orwell’s 1984, which portrayed in chilling detail how totalitarian governments employ the power of language to manipulate the masses.

    In Orwell’s dystopian vision of the future, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

    Much like today’s social media censors and pre-crime police departments, Orwell’s Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the other government agencies peddle in economic affairs (rationing and starvation), law and order (torture and brainwashing), and news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).

    Orwell’s Big Brother relies on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.

    Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

    This is the final link in the police state chain.

    Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—our backs are to the walls.

    From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and ourselves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

    As George Orwell recognized, “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • Putin Touts Laser Systems & Futuristic Arms To Be Deployed By Military
    Putin Touts Laser Systems & Futuristic Arms To Be Deployed By Military

    Perhaps trying to keep up with the Pentagon’s own developing ‘Laser Weapon System’ program, President Vladimir Putin this week touted that Russia is out front in terms of the next futuristic arms race, including “Hypersonic, laser and other state-of-the-art weapon systems”.

    At a meeting of military commanders at the Kremlin on Wednesday, Putin boasted that “Hypersonic, laser and other state-of-the-art weapon systems, which no other country possesses, will be put in service,” but also added that such advanced technology is “no excuse for Russia to threaten anybody”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image of a Lockheed Martin Laser weapon system. 

    “On the contrary, we are ready to do everything in our power to promote the disarmament process in view of our latest weapon systems, which are developed with the sole purpose of guaranteeing security in the face of growing threats we face,” Putin explained

    The comments come after multiple statements out of both Washington and Moscow over the past two years hyping each’s ‘hypersonic weapons’ research and capabilities. 

    However, as US state-funded Voice of America noted mockingly, “Hardly a day goes by now without some announcement from the Kremlin of a test firing of this or that new missile, a military exercise here or there or the launching of a new warship or development of a fresh weapon system.”

    The US Marine Corps has of late reportedly been field testing a new laser weapon system designed to blast enemy drones out of the sky. Silent, invisible and precise  the new Compact Laser Weapons System (CLaWS) is said to be a directed energy weapon approved by the Pentagon for use by combat personnel.

    Within the past half-decade the Pentagon has developed a powerful ship-mounted Laser weapon system capable of downing projectiles flying nearby. 

    Both the US and Russian navies are already in possession of ship-mounted laser devices believed capable of shooting drones or other small aircraft from the sky

    However, some defense tech analysis reports have questioned the ultimate power and effectiveness of experimental laser weapons, which require an immense amount of energy to power. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 23:25

  • Deep State On The National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is An "Expert" With An Agenda
    Deep State On The National Security Council: Colonel Vindman Is An "Expert" With An Agenda

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The current frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government. Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what will inevitably be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.

    Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government’s sole genuine Ukrainian expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow’s involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.

    Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman’s written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: “”When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration’s policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.”

    Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth’s three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by “mavericks” like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the “wetwork” was done, with his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.

    Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on Russian President Vladimir Putin and the established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security. The preferred solution is to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the Russians.

    Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We’ll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.

    Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman’s prepared statement: “….I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine…. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

    Vindman’s concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that “Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.”

    The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.

    It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement’s praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes “In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The US government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community.”

    Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about “integrating with the West” and the “Euro-Atlantic community” clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • Retailers Scramble For Promotions To Combat Shorter Holiday Selling Season
    Retailers Scramble For Promotions To Combat Shorter Holiday Selling Season

    Not unlike how the Fed runs monetary policy, retailers this holiday season are trying to “move the goalposts” in order to cram more sales into what is technically a shorter holiday selling season. 

    The fourth quarter is make or break for many retailers and, this year, Thanksgiving – traditionally the mark of the beginning of the holiday shopping season – falls on the 28th of November. This is about a week later than the 22nd of November, when it fell last year, according to Reuters.

    The result? Retailers have 6 less days to drive sales between Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

    The last time a shortened holiday season happened was in 2013, when retail chains and delivery companies “scrambled” to get packages to shoppers in time for Christmas. Retailers are looking to avoid the rush of 2013 again, while at the same time gearing up to compete head on with Amazon, which has been offering free one-day shipping on over 10 million products since June. 

    The holiday season for retail companies can sometimes account for as much as 40% of annual sales.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Target Corp’s chief executive, Brian Cornell, said: “It’s a very compressed holiday season…every day counts.”

    Target will be offering a “Drive Up” service where it lets customers order online or on the app and then pick up their items at the store without ever leaving their car. The service will be available in all 50 states. Target says most orders will be available within an hour and brought out in “less than 2 minutes” upon arrival.

    They are offering this service in addition to free shipping with no minimum purchase and same day delivery services. 

    Best Buy is also promising free next-day delivery on thousands of items and Walmart is offering free next-day delivery on orders over $35 without a membership fee.

    Steve Sadove, senior adviser for Mastercard and a former CEO and chairman of department store operator Saks Inc. said: “A shorter holiday season puts more importance on each shopping day. The sales outlook for the season remains positive despite the fewer days between Thanksgiving and Christmas.”

    Mastercard is expecting retail sales ex-automobiles to grow 3.1% over last year between November 1 and December 24.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The holiday shopping season has been pushed back by retailers every year, however, regardless of when Thanksgiving falls. The season used to start on Black Friday, but has now been pushed back into late October by companies like Walmart, who seek to get an earlier jump every year. 

    For instance, Wayfair is already offering up to 70% off top selling items while companies like Amazon, Target and Kohls are already offering Black Friday deals, weeks before Black Friday.

    Carol Spieckerman, president at consultancy Spieckerman Retail said: “Retailers will need to plant a sense of urgency early-on, then reinforce it after Thanksgiving, when the rubber meets the road.”

    Another headwind for holiday sales remains the trade war with China, however. Tariffs imposed by President Trump continue to “weigh on sentiment” heading into the holiday season. 

    79% of Americans worry that tariffs will make their holiday shopping trips more expensive this year, according to the National Retail Federation, a leading industry trade body. Another round of U.S. tariffs on Chinese consumer goods is set for December 15. 

    Recall, we recently noted that a slowdown in trucking ahead of the holiday season could be an ominous sign. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The slowdown in the domestic trucking industry suggests the consumer is likely to disappoint this holiday season, we said in late October.  

    And for more color on consumer trends, not just in the US but perhaps on a global view, the global shipping container industry is sounding an alarm. 

    Shipping rates for 40′ containers have taken another leg lower in the last several months. This means retailers are ordering fewer consumer goods from China and other emerging markets, a clear indication the consumer is weakening.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last month, Amazon guided its forecast for the holiday season lower. Analysts were absolutely shocked, but it marks the beginning of a new trend where the consumer is expected to come under financial stress, pull back on spending, and could start saving as the next recession nears.

    Tracking freight rates and volumes of various forms of transportation in domestic and global supply chains have given us perhaps an idea of what’s to come, that is, an underwhelming holiday season for retailers. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 22:45

  • 35 Reasons To Leave California
    35 Reasons To Leave California

    Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a “reboot” button for an entire state? Because the truth is that if an entire state ever needed to completely start over it is the state of California. At this point it has become the epicenter for just about everything that is wrong with America, and each year it just keeps coming up with new ways to become an even worse cesspool of social decay and depravity.

    Millions of people have already left the state, and millions more are thinking of leaving. One recent survey found that 47 percent of all Californians are thinking about moving out of the state in the next five years, and a different survey discovered that 53 percent of those currently living in the state would like to leave. If about half the people in your state are seriously considering leaving, it is safe to say that things have gone horribly wrong. But instead of changing course, those running California continue taking the state down a very self-destructive path.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is such a shame, because California should be one of the greatest places in the world to live. The weather is wonderful most of the year, the state still possesses extraordinary natural beauty, and the tech industry provides plenty of high paying jobs.

    When I was growing up, millions of young Americans dreamed of moving there and living “the California dream”, and when I was a young man I seriously explored the possibility of moving there myself.

    And the truth is that a lot of great things have come out of the state. The following comes from a recent article by Ann Coulter

    In the last century, every great thing started in California: surfing, jeans, Disneyland, tax revolts, McDonald’s, movies, car culture, the Grateful Dead, right on red turns, Merle Haggard, skateboarding, Apple computer, and the last two elected Republican presidents not named “Bush.”

    But now I don’t know why anyone would want to live there.

    If you currently live in California, I am about to tell you a whole bunch of reasons why you should leave. In fact, if I could get everybody to leave the state, I would.

    However, if you feel specifically called to stay, then that is what you should do. Without a doubt, light is needed the most where things are the darkest, and California needs as much light as it can get right now.

    Unfortunately, I believe that it is too late for the state as a whole. It is headed for a date with destiny, and most of the nearly 40 million people that live there have absolutely no idea what is coming.

    If you live in the state and you do not know what you should do, I would get out while you still can. The following are 35 reasons why you should move away from California…

    1. Incredibly high taxes. At this point, California has the highest marginal tax rate in the entire country.

    2. Absurd housing costs.

    3. The median home value in the state is now more than half a million dollars, and that is about twice as high as the national average.

    4. It has been estimated that it now takes approximately $350,000 a year to live a middle class lifestyle in the city of San Francisco.

    5. Endless wildfires.

    6. Epic mudslides.

    7. Horrific traffic jams.

    8. Los Angeles has the worst traffic congestion in the entire world.

    9. The education system is awful.

    10. Medical tyranny.

    11. One of the highest poverty levels in the United States.

    12. Thousands of drug addicts are literally pooping in the streets.

    13. Almost half of all the homeless people in the entire nation live in California.

    14. The state is literally being overrun by millions of rats.

    15. Los Angeles has been ranked as the second most rat-infested city in the country.

    16. At this point things are so bad that even Los Angeles City Hall is being overrun by rats.

    17. Illegal immigration is out of control, and the sanctuary cities in California are making things even worse.

    18. Rising gang activity.

    19. High crime rates.

    20. There is now a law in California that protects shoplifters. So for those that enjoy shoplifting, this might actually be a reason to move into the state.

    21. The drug war that has been raging in Mexico is increasingly spilling across the border.

    22. California has been ranked as the worst state in the nation to do business year after year.

    23. California is also one of the most litigious states in the entire country.

    24. The once pristine beaches in the state are now being “completely overrun with fecal bacteria”.

    25. Nancy Pelosi.

    26. Kamala Harris.

    27. Governor Gavin Newsom.

    28. The lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state and the state treasurer are all Democrats.

    29. Democrats make up nearly two-thirds of the California State Senate.

    30. Democrats make up more than two-thirds of the California State Assembly.

    31. Both of the U.S. senators and 46 out of the 53 members of the House of Representatives that California sends to Washington are Democrats.

    32. Much of the population is openly hostile to those that identify as conservatives.

    33. California has been on the cutting edge of America’s moral decay for decades.

    34. There have been more than 100,000 earthquakes in the state so far this year.

    35. One day the “Big One” will hit California, and the geography of the state will be dramatically altered. The devastation will be unlike anything we have ever witnessed, and the death toll will be unimaginable.

    If Donald Trump wins the next presidential election, there is a group of activists in California that plan to get a “Calexit” referendum on the ballot for the following election.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Those activists don’t want to be part of a country that would elect Trump two times, because they consider their values to be completely and utterly incompatible with Trump’s values.

    But what is happening in this nation is far bigger than just Trump.

    To me, it would be wonderful if the rest of the nation decided that their values were completely and utterly incompatible with California’s values. We desperately need to turn America around, and the way to do that is to head in a completely opposite direction from the way that California is going.

    Sadly, it does not appear that is going to happen. California may be racing ahead of most of the rest of the country, but our final destination will be the same.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 22:25

  • Taiwan Warns Of Possible Invasion If China's Economy Continues To Deteriorate
    Taiwan Warns Of Possible Invasion If China's Economy Continues To Deteriorate

    As the global synchronized slowdown intensifies, Taiwan is now warning if Beijing can’t create a soft landing in its economy, the threat of a Chinese invasion would be on the horizon. 

    Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu sounded the alarm in a Reuters interview on Wednesday, when he said, Chinese officials would likely invade self-ruled Taiwan to divert domestic economic pressures if a soft landing cannot be achieved. 

    “If the internal stability is a very serious issue, or economic slowdown has become a very serious issue for the top leaders to deal with, that is the occasion that we need to be very careful,” Wu said. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We need to prepare ourselves for the worst situation to come…military conflict,” he warned. 

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

    China’s untenable debt load and Beijing’s resulting inability to boost the credit impulse has certainly frightened Wu, who knows that if China’s economy, already near a 30-year low, continues to implode, that military conflict with mainland China would be nearing. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Wu noted that China’s economy is on shaky grounds at the moment, but nothing that would suggest a conflict to be imminent. 

    “Perhaps Xi Jinping himself is called into question of his legitimacy, by not being able to keep the Chinese economy growing,” Wu said, referring to Chinese President Xi.

    “This is a factor that might cause the Chinese leaders to decide to take external action to divert domestic attention.”

    China’s growing military presence in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Philippine Sea has become “very serious,” Wu said.

    “We certainly hope that Taiwan and China could live peacefully together, but we also see there are problems caused by China, and we will try to deal with it,” he said.

    And to make things more complicated, the US House of Representatives foreign affairs committee recently voted unanimously to approve a new bill that would strengthen ties between Washington and Taipei. 

    The bill is called the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative would allow the US to defend Taiwan from Chinese diplomatic pressures.

    The Trump administration has been selling Taiwan billions of dollars in fighter jets, tanks, and other military weapons, to beef up defenses if Beijing attempts to invade.

    And with macroeconomic headwinds that continue to flourish across the world, this means China will likely slow into 2020. Every downtick in China’s GDP should be correlated to the increasing probability of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 22:05

    Tags

  • Nevins: Where Is That Confounded Recession?
    Nevins: Where Is That Confounded Recession?

    Authored by Daniel Nevins via FFWiley.com,

    “Ah, excuse me. Oh, will ya excuse me. I’m just trying to find the recession. Has anybody seen the recession?”

    Ask that question in a roomful of forecasters, and you’ll hear plenty of reasons why the next recession is dead ahead: the inverted yield curve, the tariff war, weak PMIs, the global manufacturing downturn.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Events might eventually prove those recession forecasts to be correct, although I would say not until mid-2020 at the earliest, and a recession at that time remains just a possibility. I say that because we haven’t yet seen enough cause for alarm in the three areas that most reliably predict recessions. Before every recession, we see at least one, usually two and often every one of the following three precursors:

    • Deterioration in the housing sector

    • Restrictive public policies

    • Significant damage to the real spending capacity of households, businesses or both

    In other words, when trouble emerges across some combination of housing activity, public policies and real spending capacity, we’ll know to expect a recession. Trouble in one of those areas should put us on alert, whereas two or three would mean we should bank on it. So what’s missing from today’s popular recession narratives is adequate support from the “Big-3” precursors, and without that support, it’s probably too soon to bet on a recession. The U.S. economy always expands when the housing sector is stable, public policies are growth-supportive and real spending capacity is increasing. Simply put, no sign of the Big-3 means no recession.

    But isn’t there a first time for everything? Can it really be so simple?

    There is, and I don’t expect to convince anyone the economy is that simple without first providing some evidence, so I’ll continue. I’ll focus mostly on spending capacity, which is where I stray furthest from traditional, mainstream methods.

    Why spending capacity?

    Behavioral research, empirical data and casual observation all point towards households and businesses increasing their spending for as long as they have the capacity to do so. Changes in spending capacity predict changes in spending with remarkable accuracy, notwithstanding the Keynesian idea that spending follows the mysterious ebbs and flows of “animal spirits.” In fact, the spirits described by Keynesians might not be all that mysterious—they’re always present in some degree, they just happen to flow in proportion to spending capacity. They don’t disappear for no particular reason and then later reappear.

    So I suggest closing your Keynesian textbook and looking instead to natural human behavior for clues about spending. Behavioral research tells us we’re naturally overconfident, believing our ventures will succeed with a certainty that defies the true probability of success. It also tells us we’re at least partially blind to certain obstacles to success, such as basic randomness. We’re naturally wired to have an illusion of control and an optimism bias alongside hindsight and confirmation biases, all of which encourage us to spend for as long as we have the capacity to do so.

    But that’s not all. We’re also prone to a lack of self control that researchers have termed present bias and a tendency to spend like drunken sailors whenever in the company of other free-spending drunken sailors, thanks to our natural herding bias. I could go on, but you get the idea—once we consider human nature, it’s easier to appreciate why spending capacity is the economy’s driving force.

    What Exactly Is Spending Capacity?

    All that being said, I still need to define spending capacity, and my definition is broader than you might think. It starts with earnings—both household and business earnings—which of course help determine the resources available to be spent. It also includes risky asset prices, because spending depends partly on house price cycles and investment portfolio values. In fact, spending is more exposed to asset price volatility than ever before, with assets owned by households and nonprofits currently valued at 608% of annual GDP, compared to averages of 385% in the 1970s, 407% in the 1980s, 454% in the 1990s and 537% in the first decade of the 2000s.

    Finally, there’s a third piece that’s usually overlooked, and I blame the economics profession for that. Spending depends not only on what households and businesses earn and own, as noted, but also on what they can borrow. And it depends not just on what they can borrow, but on what they can borrow from banks, in particular.

    Why banks as opposed to other types of lenders?

    Because banks are the only lenders that create spending power from “thin-air.” That’s not something you’ll learn in mainstream economics, which mangles the mechanics of money and banking, but if you’re trying to understand business cycles, it’s an essential fact. The key insight is that new bank credit expands the circular flow of income and spending (see the chart below), whereas other types of credit mostly sustain the existing flow by passing spending power from one party to another. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In other words, only banks increase spending power on a net basis, because they can make loans without requiring prior savings from past income. Apart from a small allocation of bank capital, banks conjure loan proceeds from thin air—that’s the crux of what their charters allow them to do. The monetary expansion authorized by bank charters explains why new bank credit is 69% correlated with spending in the same period and 58% correlated with spending in the next period, whereas corresponding figures for credit financed by prior domestic savings (not banks) are negligible (see the chart below).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (As obvious as the charts above might be to those who’ve either worked as bankers or studied banking from up close, mainstream economists tell a different story, teaching that banks are mere intermediaries and only central banks determine the money supply. Those mainstream claims have been called out repeatedly by practitioners, heterodox economists and even central bankers—the Fed, Bank of England and Bank for International Settlements have all provided information refuting textbook money and banking theory—but to no avail. Schools continue to teach money and banking incorrectly at both undergraduate and graduate levels.)

    What Do the Big-3 Say about the Next Recession?

    So spending capacity depends on real earnings, asset prices and the availability of new bank credit. Getting back to the Big-3 precursors that always materialize in some combination (again, not necessarily all three at once) before recessions, we can expand the third precursor using the determinants of spending capacity. Here’s the expanded list:

    • Deterioration in the housing sector

    • Restrictive public policies

    • Significant damage to the real spending capacity of households, businesses or both, which could mean any of the following:

      • Earnings that fail to keep pace with inflation

      • Falling real asset prices

      • Restrictive bank credit

    We can then expand the list further with more subcategories and by adding the foreign sector, which I include as a less influential input but one that could contribute to a recessionary process. The expanded list includes separate readings for:

    • fiscal and monetary policies

    • household and business earnings

    • house and stock prices, and

    • bank credit conditions for households and businesses

    Below are my assessments for each item, with comments on at least one of the indicators that support each assessment. (My email subscribers know that this is the same list that drops out of the 6-cycle forecasting approach described in my book, I’ve just tweaked the terminology to match the language used here.)

    Housing sector: Not recessionary. Indicators such as new home sales and the NAHB housing market index show housing activity recovering nicely from a period of weakness in 2018.

    Fiscal policy: Not recessionary. Government spending is growing at a decent clip in 2019, while taxes and net transfer receipts dropped to a new six-year low as a percentage of GDP in the first half of the year, which can only help household and business spending capacity. Also, July’s debt ceiling deal freed up more federal spending in the 2020 fiscal year.

    Monetary policy: Not recessionary. I often use the yield curve slope as a guide to monetary policy, and today’s inverted curve might suggest that monetary policy is recessionary, but I’ve overridden that for three reasons: 1) the Fed barely lifted the inflation-adjusted fed funds rate in the 2015–18 tightening cycle, and therefore, fell far short of the typical recessionary tightening, 2) we’re now 11 months removed from the last rate hike, and 3) we’re three rate hikes into an easing cycle.

    Business earnings: Slightly recessionary. With the Q3 earnings season over 70% complete, S&P projects GAAP earnings for the S&P 500 to be 2% lower than the matching year-ago figure, compared to increases of 3% in Q2 and 6% in Q1. S&P 500 operating earnings by I/B/E/S from Refinitiv tell approximately the same story—lower by 0.8% in Q3 (as of Nov. 5) after increasing by 1% in Q2 and 3% in Q1. Factset, by comparison, shows three consecutive year-over-year declines, but the changes are small (-0.3% in Q1, -0.4% in Q2 and likely to be somewhere between -1% and -3% in Q3). So however you look at it, the Q3 earnings dip is shallow. It’s significantly less severe than the 2015–16 earnings recession, although not as easily explained away as being a reflection of oil price volatility—this time the global manufacturing downturn is also part of the story. Factset expects the dip to continue in Q4, whereas projections from S&P and Refinitiv show positive year-over-year growth. All things considered, I have to call business earnings slightly recessionary, but the numbers aren’t yet convincing. Stay tuned.

    Household earnings: Not recessionary. Using average hourly earnings as a guide, household earnings growth outpaced inflation by 1.2% over the past 12 months, while real disposable income increased by 3.2% over the same period. By either measure, household earnings are growing strongly enough to support continued gains in consumer spending.

    Business credit conditions: Not recessionary. Although demand for C&I loans has stalled of late, ample credit remains available. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOS) shows that business lending standards haven’t significantly changed in either direction.

    Household credit conditions: Not recessionary. Again, lending standards haven’t significantly changed in either direction. Also, bank balance sheets are expanding at a healthy pace—recent data shows banks adding enough real estate loans and mortgage bonds to grow thin-air spending power despite the dip in C&I loan demand.

    Stock prices: Not recessionary. Record stock prices have boosted investment portfolio values and should help to support spending.

    House prices: Not recessionary but on watch for a possible downgrade. House price growth is decelerating but remains slightly above the CPI inflation rate according to the S&P Case-Shiller 20-city index. It would have to drop another 2% or 3%, depending on changes in consumer inflation, before I would call it a recessionary reading.

    Foreign sector: Not recessionary. Although slowing exports have weighed slightly on GDP, imports have dropped as a percentage of GDP (a measure of import penetration) in the first three quarters of 2019. On balance, data fail to support a “recessionary” assessment, although that could change in 2020 with either a steeper drop in exports or a rising propensity to import.

    As reminder to regular readers and a heads-up to new readers, I’ve documented the predictive value of indicators discussed above in my 6-cycle forecast articles, my TSP (thin-air spending power) articles and my book Economics for Independent Thinkers.

    Conclusions

    All Big-3 precursors considered, the near-term outlook is weaker than normal but not yet recessionary—the expansion appears to have enough policy support, spending capacity growth and overall momentum to continue through at least the first quarter or two of 2020.

    Deeper into the year, the outlook could darken as many forecasters predict, especially if corporate earnings continue to slide. But we could just as easily see more of the same—an economy that grinds slowly higher as real incomes grow, asset prices trend upwards and bank balance sheets expand. To gauge which of the scenarios is becoming more likely, I suggest watching the Big-3 and tuning out most everything else.

    “Have you seen the recession? I ain’t (yet) seen the recession!”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 21:45

  • Fed Warns Climate Change Is A Major Threat To The Economy
    Fed Warns Climate Change Is A Major Threat To The Economy

    What is a good way for the Fed to deflect attention from the fact that after a decade of liquidity injections it has created the world’s largest asset bubble? Why point to another, even bigger – in its view – threat. And with green bonds, unlimited fiscal deficits and MMT all the rage (if not today, then soon), what better bogeyman for the Fed to wave in front of the public than the hottest topic, so to speak, of the day: climate change.

    Speaking at the GARP Global Risk Forum, NY Fed executive vice president Kevin Stiroh warned in his prepared remarks, that climate change – not, say, asset bubbles created by his employer – is a major threat that risk managers can’t ignore.

    “The U.S. economy has experienced more than $500 billion in direct losses over the last five years due to climate and weather-related events. In addition, climate change has significant consequences for the U.S. economy and financial sector through slowing productivity growth, asset revaluations and sectoral reallocations of business activity” he

    That was how Stiroh framed the one danger that, according to the Fed, is emerging as the biggest threat to the US economy.

    But why is the Fed, whose only concern should be the cost of money, suddenly preoccupied with the weather? Because as the EVP says in his speech, “as supervisors, we can consider climate-related risks in terms of both microprudential and macroprudential objectives.”

    In other words, it’s only a matter of time before the Fed blames the weather for the next great, “unexpected” crisis… which like the bubbles of 2001 and 2008 was entirely the Fed’s doing.

    Lulckily, the Fed apparatchik did stop before providing advice on how to combat climate change – of which it is the primary enabler, as its loose money policy allows zombie corprorations with outdated emissions standards to stay in business – and said that “supervisors should take a risk management perspective, not a social engineering one. It is beyond our mandate to advocate or provide incentives for a particular transition path.”

    Rather, Stiroh said, “supervisors should focus on the risks that emerge along the path decided by the public at large and their elected governments. Supervisors can use our tools to ensure financial institutions are prepared for and resilient to all types of relevant risks, including climate-related events.”

    It wasn’t clear what tools he was referring to (the Fed certainly has plenty of those), but he did break down the climate change risk into two main categories for risk managers:

    • Physical risk is the potential for losses as climate-related changes disrupt business operations, destroy capital and interrupt economic activity.
    • Transition risk is the potential for losses resulting from a shift toward a lower-carbon economy as policy, consumer sentiment and technological innovations impact the value of certain assets and liabilities. These effects will be felt across business sectors and asset classes, and on the strategies, operations and balance sheets of financial firms.

    But wait, in a world in which asset managers only care about their year-end bonus and anything that happens on Jan 1 of next year is someone else’s problem, why should anyone on Wall Street give a rat’s ass about the weather, unless of course it is to capitalize on it? The Fed’s response: “climate change is a long-term issue where actions today are likely to have an impact over many decades. This exceeds the typical life span of a bank exposure, as well as the typical control and planning horizon of a financial institution. Risk management tools, models and scenarios are not designed to capture the long-term nature of climate-related risks. Nonetheless, real impacts are already being felt and we must develop the tools to assess and manage them.”

    Impacts… like a 16-year-old girl with Asperger’s syndrome dictating monetary, fiscal and social policy?

    One more thing: the Fed vice president’s remarks did not venture into a discussion on another hot topic: green QE, or central banks boosting bond issuance by refocusing their asset purchase programs toward “green bonds”, as the new ECB President Christine Lagarde suggested recently, when she hinted that the ECB might be open to the idea once she had more information.

    It was not clear just how monetizing a “green” bond is any different than monetizing any other bonds. In fact, with the Fed already doing so to the tune of $60 billion in monthly Bill purchases as part of its “Not QE”, the only question is how will the Treasury rebrand 10 or 30Y bonds as “green”, in the process greenlighting even more debt and deficit monetization by the Fed, whose ultimate goal is clear to most by now: using “climate change” and “green bonds” as scapegoats behind a “Green New Deal” type of arrangement, in which the Fed basically adopts helicopter money, and becomes a de facto agent of the Treasury, monetizing almost every piece of debt sold by the US, making the Japanification of the US complete just as the final fiat currency devaluation experiment gets going.

    At least Greta Thunberg will be happy for a few years before the social catalysm that results from the Fed’s final act of idiocy means that eating the rich – and just about anyone else – will be more than just a figure of speech.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 21:25

  • Glenn Greenwald Assaulted By Pro-Bolsonaro Goon During Live Broadcast
    Glenn Greenwald Assaulted By Pro-Bolsonaro Goon During Live Broadcast

    Authored by Jake Johnson via CommonDreams.org,

    The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald was assaulted during a live broadcast Thursday by a right-wing Brazilian journalist and defender of the country’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Greenwald, whose reporting this year has exposed unethical and possibly criminal behavior by Bolsonaro and his government, repeatedly called journalist and columnist Augusto Nunes a “coward” during a segment on Jovem Pan News, one of Brazil’s largest right-wing radio and Youtube outlets.

    In a tweet ahead of his appearance, Greenwald said he had “many questions” for Nunes, who suggested in September that a juvenile judge should investigate Greenwald and his husband, Brazilian lawmaker David Miranda, for neglecting their adopted children.

    “We have a lot of political differences, I have no problem being criticized for my work, I criticize him too, but what he did was the ugliest and dirtiest thing I’ve ever seen in my career as a journalist,” Greenwald said of Nunes’ comments during Thursday’s show.

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

    Watch the full incident:


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 21:05

  • Not Just Billionaires: Now Democrats Want To Hit Millionaires With 10% Surtax
    Not Just Billionaires: Now Democrats Want To Hit Millionaires With 10% Surtax

    With 2020 Democratic candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders threatening to separate billionaires from their money, two other Democrats have proposed tax hikes that would hit the wealthy with a 10% surtax on income above $2 million according to Bloomberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Introduced by Maryland Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, the new plan would raise the effective top rate on wages to 47%, while capital gains would taxes would top out at 33.8%. The proposal “could raise $635 billion over 10 years,” according to surtax.org.

    Van Hollen calls it “a simple system to ensure the wealthy are doing their part to invest in strengthening America’s future for everyone.”

    The idea is the latest in a long string of Democratic plans to make wealthy Americans pay more. But with 2020 presidential candidates and members of Congress envisioning expensive programs to reshape U.S. health care, confront climate change, and offer free college educations there has been a greater urgency to find ways to finance these ambitions — and that involves higher taxes on the rich.

    The arsenal of proposals includes wealth taxes, financial transaction levies and capital gains changes.

    The Van Hollen-Beyer surtax would raise about $635 billion over a decade, according to projections from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. By comparison, Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the party’s leading presidential candidates, estimates that her wealth tax would raise $3.75 trillion over 10 years. –Bloomberg

    The surtax is being framed as a more moderate approach of raising taxes on the top 0.2% of taxpayers, or around 329,000 Americans, and could be legislatively piggybacked on top of the existing tax code – which would make it easier for a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass under the next Democratic president.

    “This is something moderates can support,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “I don’t think we are going to see a wealth tax anytime soon.”

    Warren’s plan would impose a 2% levy on fortunes over $50 million and 6% on those above $1 billion, while Sanders’ plan would kick in a $32 million in assets and would top out at 8%.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 20:45

  • Rigged Again? Dems, Russia, & The Delegitimization Of America's Democratic Process
    Rigged Again? Dems, Russia, & The Delegitimization Of America's Democratic Process

    Authored by Elizabeth Vos via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project blame for the public’s doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party’s subversion of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment’s willingness to address even one of these critical failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Democratic Party’s bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel doubling down on its right to rig the race during the fraud lawsuit brought against the DNC, as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova, indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also likely impact outcomes in 2020.

    The content of the DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred “pied-piper candidate.” One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a 2016 Democratic primary debate. (YouTube/Screen shot)

    Social Media Meddling

    Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable “pro-Hillary Clinton bias” in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.

    On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as “dark strategy.” CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that SCL, Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations “worldwide,” specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.

    The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding for the creation of an online “troll army” under the name Shareblue. The LA Times described the project as meant to “to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical.” In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.

    In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found broke federal law. Despite this, no prosecution for the breach was ever attempted.

    Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic primary showed evidence of fraud.

    DNC Fraud Lawsuit

    The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party’s right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying any “fiduciary duty” to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Bernie or Bust” protesters at the Wells Fargo Center during Democrats’ roll call vote to nominate Hillary Clinton. (Becker1999, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC’s defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders’ supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders’ supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC’s lawyers argued that it was the party’s right to select candidates.

    The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:

    …“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee —nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white.”

    The DNC defense counsel’s argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party’s right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was protected by the First Amendment. The DNC’s lawyers wrote:

    “To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party’s nominee for public office.” [Emphasis added]

    The DNC’s shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic.  This no indication that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,

    Tim Canova’s Allegations

    If Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn’t enough, serious interference was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida’s 23rd congressional district. Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election in which Canova ran as an independent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tim Canova with supporters, April 2016. (CanovaForCongress, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal ballot destruction, improper transportation of ballots, and generally shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:

    “[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months later when her office hadn’t fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending.”

    Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies. Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.

    Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate blocked a bill this week that would have “mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions.”

    Study of Corporate Power

    A 2014 study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: “Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

    In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We’ve noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.

    Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.

    Hillary Clinton’s recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being “groomed” by Russia, and that the former Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a “Russian asset”, were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments externalize what Gabbard called the “rot” in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.

    Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled: Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent,” Jamali argued:

    “Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.” [Emphasis added]

    Jamali surmises that Russia intends to “attack” our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines: “They want to see a retreat of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our elections.” [Emphasis added]

    The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.

    Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary — or even the general election – to be any fairer or transparent than 2016?

    *  *  *

    Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. 

    If you value this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 20:25

    Tags

  • "CBS Sided With A Pedophile": Network Fires Staffer Who Had Access To Robach-Epstein Rant
    "CBS Sided With A Pedophile": Network Fires Staffer Who Had Access To Robach-Epstein Rant

    CBS has fired a female staffer believed to have had access to a candid tape of ABC host Amy Robach complaining that in 2016, the network shelved her scoop on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex crimes, according to Page Six.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I’ve had the story for three years… we would not put it on the air,” Robach said on a hot mic moment leaked to Project Veritas. “It was unbelievable what we had, Clinton, we had everything.”

    It hasn’t gone unnoticed that exposing Epstein would have hurt Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US election.

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

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

    Watch the Robach video here:

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


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 17:15

  • NASA Gas Detector Plane Identifies "Super-Emitters" Across California
    NASA Gas Detector Plane Identifies "Super-Emitters" Across California

    NASA has made a surprising discovery in California after it flew a plane across the state outfitted with specialized gas-imaging sensors. The new data, published this week in the scientific journal Nature, found that a third of California’s methane emissions can be traced to several “super-emitters.” 

    In the last several years, NASA teamed up with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Energy Commission, discovered most methane emissions in California are from industrial facilities, such as landfills, large dairy farms, and oil and gas fields. 

    NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, flew a plane with the Airborne Visible InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) over 300,000 facilities across California. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The team found 550 sources emitting highly concentrated methane into the atmosphere. At least 55 of these sources were considered “super-emitters” because of the high-volume of methane that was detected. 

    The study said the 55 “super-emitters” were responsible for at least a third of California’s total methane emission. 

    Of the 270 surveyed landfills, about 30 were observed to emit high amounts of methane and responsible for 40% of all emissions detected during the survey. 

    “These findings illustrate the importance of monitoring point sources across multiple sectors [of the economy] and broad regions, both for improved understanding of methane budgets and to support emission mitigation efforts,” said the lead scientist on the study, Riley Duren, a research scientist at the University of Arizona and an Engineering Fellow at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    In total, landfills accounted for 41% of the methane emissions, dairy and manure farms were 26%, and oil and gas operations 26%.

    The survey marks the first time the federal government has flown a surveillance aircraft over any state to monitor methane emissions of facilities. 

    The release of this report could induce lawmakers to slap businesses that are considered “super-emitters” with methane taxes. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 20:05

  • Gordon Chang: Do Not Support China's Huawei, Cripple It Instead
    Gordon Chang: Do Not Support China's Huawei, Cripple It Instead

    Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

    “A prominent Republican who advises President Donald Trump called America’s 5G strategy ‘the biggest strategic disaster in U.S. history,'” wrote China-watcher David Goldman recently.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Many people will regard that as an exaggeration, but America’s failure to have a 5G strategy will almost certainly prove to have historic consequences.

    “5G” is shorthand for the fifth generation of wireless communication.

    “In the very near future, dominating the wireless world will be tantamount to dominating the world,” wrote Newt Gingrich in Newsweek in February. That is not an exaggeration.

    Why not? With speeds 2,000 times faster than existing 4G networks, 5G will permit near-universal connectivity to homes, vehicles, machines, robots, and everything plugged into the Internet of Things (IoT).

    Moreover, with just about everything connected to everything else China will filch the world’s information. That is not a theoretical concern. For instance, nightly from 2012 to 2017, China surreptitiously downloaded data from the Chinese-built-and-donated headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa.

    Chinese parties have already been criminally taking American information, intellectual property and data for decades, worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year. This continuing crime is essential to China’s implementation of numerous industrial policies, especially the controversial “Made in China 2025” initiative, a decade-long program to achieve dominance in technology sectors, including 5G.

    Theft is by no means the full extent of the harm. China, with control of 5G, will be in a position to remotely manipulate the world’s devices. In peacetime, Beijing could have the ability to drive cars off cliffs, unlock front doors, and turn off pacemakers. In war, Beijing could paralyze critical infrastructure.

    “China’s game,” Goldman wrote in an e-mail, “is to control the broadband, and then the e-commerce, and then the e-finance, and then all the tech startups servicing the ‘ecosystem,’ and then the logistics.”

    As he told me this year, “The world will become a Chinese company store.”

    There is no mystery to how Beijing thinks it will grab control of the store. The Chinese will use Huawei Technologies.

    Huawei, built on stolen U.S. technology, is the world’s leading telecom-equipment manufacturer and is fast becoming the world’s 5G provider. As Goldman writes, “Huawei has signed equipment agreements with every telecom provider on the Eurasian continent.”

    Beijing, since Huawei’s founding in 1987, has been subsidizing sales of the company’s equipment and otherwise promoting its wares. No prizes for guessing why. As Senator Marsha Blackburn told Fox News in July, Huawei is Beijing’s “mechanism for spying.” For instance, Beijing pilfered data from the African Union through Huawei servers located in the building the Chinese donated.

    So, Huawei is a dagger aimed at the heart of America, and as the unnamed adviser quoted by Goldman suggests, the threat is a mortal one.

    There are various strategies for meeting China’s 5G challenge, but the most direct one is crippling Huawei. The Trump administration has taken steps to do so, but now that effort is on the verge of collapse.

    In fact, the Commerce Department looks set to support that dangerous Chinese firm. On Sunday, in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Bangkok, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said his department will “very shortly” grant exemptions from its Entity List designation to allow sales to Huawei.

    “We’re in good shape, we’re making good progress, and there’s no natural reason why it couldn’t be,” Ross told the business channel.

    In May, Ross’s Commerce Department added the Chinese telecom-equipment provider to its Entity List, so that American businesses needed prior approval to sell or license to Huawei the products and technology covered by U.S. export regulations. Since then, Commerce has granted two 90-day waivers from these prohibitions. The second waiver will expire November 19.

    Commerce, it appears, will not issue another across-the-board waiver but will instead grant exemptions to specific companies. Ross said he has received 260 waiver requests.

    Granting waivers would be a grave mistake. “The United States,” Brandon Weichert of The Weichert Report told me, “is letting China off the hook.”

    Ross and others argue that the individual exemptions are justified because Huawei can obtain items either from China itself — Huawei has developed its Kirin chipset, said to be comparable to Qualcomm products — or from other countries. He argues that U.S. companies might as well be the ones making the sales. At issue are semiconductors from principally Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

    Ross is thinking too small. The United States, instead of trying to make sales, should be stopping everyone from selling to Huawei.

    America has the power to cut off all sales. Japan and South Korea are formal military allies of the United States, and Taiwan, although no longer a treaty partner, is even more dependent on Washington for its security. Because Huawei poses a critical threat to everyone, it is not clear why Washington should not pull out all the stops to get Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese suppliers to cut off the Chinese company.

    Taipei says Washington has not asked Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the giant chip supplier, to end sales to Huawei. The issue, therefore, is why has the United States not even made a request.

    Up to now, the Trump administration has been trying to persuade, sometimes nudging friends and partners. American officials have, for instance, said they might reduce intelligence sharing with countries maintaining Huawei gear in their 5G networks.

    That is too mild. Given the importance of the issue, the Trump administration should be forcing others — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan — to make a choice: sell to Huawei or sell to the world’s largest market, America’s. Last year, America’s merchandise trade deficit with Japan was $67.2 billion. The comparable figures were $17.8 billion for South Korea, and $15.2 billion for Taiwan.

    U.S. officials have been telling other countries not to buy Huawei 5G gear, but if they should not be buying Huawei, then Americans should not be supplying that Chinese company either.

    Let’s put Huawei out of business, not support its efforts to harm us.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 19:45

  • Self-Driving Uber That Killed Pedestrian In 2018 Couldn't Detect Jaywalkers, NTSB Says
    Self-Driving Uber That Killed Pedestrian In 2018 Couldn't Detect Jaywalkers, NTSB Says

    An Uber vehicle that struck and killed a pedestrian in March 2018 had what are being called “serious software flaws” that led to the tragic incident.

    The vehicle reportedly didn’t have the ability to recognize jaywalkers, according to a new report from engadget, who cited a report prepared by the NTSB. The safety agency blamed Uber’s software for not being able to recognize the victim of the accident as a pedestrian crossing the street. The vehicle didn’t calculate that it could potentially collide with the woman until just 1.2 seconds before impact, at which point it was too late to brake.  

    The NTSB said that Uber’s system “did not include a consideration for jaywalking pedestrians.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In fact, the report says that the system detected her about 6 seconds before impact, but didn’t classify her as a pedestrian:

    Although the [system] detected the pedestrian nearly six seconds before impact … it never classified her as a pedestrian, because she was crossing at a location without a crosswalk [and] the system design did not include a consideration for jaywalking pedestrians.

    After recognizing the pedestrian (too late) the vehicle then wasted a second trying to calculate an alternative path or allowing the driver to take control. Uber has since eliminated this function in a software update. 

    Uber vehicles have failed to identify roadway hazards in at least two other cases, the report notes. In one, a vehicle struck a bicycle lane post that had bent into a roadway. In another, a driver was forced to take control of the vehicle to avoid an oncoming vehicle. The driver still wound up striking a parked car. 

    In the 7 months leading up to the pedestrian accident, Uber vehicles had been involved in 37 accidents, 33 of which involved other vehicles striking Uber test cars.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Uber began using “significantly revised software” in December 2018 when it began testing again. Simulating the Arizona incident with the new software, Uber said it would have now detected the pedestrian 289 feet before impact and would have had four seconds to brake before impact at a speed of 43.2 mph. 

    “The average stopping distance for a human is about 130 feet at that speed, including reaction time,” the report notes. This means that the vehicle would have likely been able to stop and avoid the accident.

    Meanwhile, the NTSB plans on meeting on November 19 to determine the cause of the accident. Prosecutors have absolved Uber of liability but are still weighing the idea of criminal charges against the driver. 

    You can read the full NTSB report on the incident here


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 19:25

  • Breaking Open A Black Hole: The World's Most Dangerous Experiment
    Breaking Open A Black Hole: The World's Most Dangerous Experiment

    Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

    2012 was a big year for black holes. Or, rather, for our understanding of them. First, Scientific American published a moderately terrifying paper titled “Black Holes are Everywhere” and then a team of researchers at Princeton University numerically solved the Einstein-hydrodynamic equations in order to determine that black holes are, in fact, way easier to create than previously thought. Their findings showed that the formation of a black hole requires considerably less energy than previous calculations suggested. Meanwhile, perhaps at least partly because of these revelations, concern over the world-destroying possibility–no matter how unlikely–of a man-made particle collider opening up an Earth-swallowing black hole has remained omnipresent in the larger conversation around atomic research.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The “Ultrarelativistic Black Hole Formation” study from Princeton University, published in 2013, developed new computer models which they utilized to show that the formation of a black hole would actually require less than half the energy — 2.4 times less, to be precise — than previous research had determined. The study reports that the researchers found that “the threshold for black hole formation is lower (by a factor of a few) than simple hoop conjecture estimates, and, moreover, near this threshold two distinct apparent horizons first form postcollision and then merge.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (Click to enlarge)

    Credit: W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013)

    As a report at Phys.org explains, “Researchers know that it is theoretically possible to create black holes because of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity—particularly the part describing the relationship between energy and mass—increasing the speed of a particle causes its mass to increase as well.” This is what drove the Princeton researchers to form a computer model based on Einstein’s original hydrodynamic equations. The model “provides a virtual window for viewing what happens when two particles collide—they focus their energies on each other and together create a combined mass that pushes gravity to its limit and as a result spawns a very tiny black hole. That result was expected—what was surprising was that the team found that their model showed that such a collision and result would require 2.4 times less energy than has been previously calculated to produce such a tiny black hole.”

    And our galaxy is positively chock-full of them. It’s not just the famous supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, but scores of smaller black holes as well. Scientific American’s Black Holes are Everywhere tells readers that “most of the holes in our galaxy are perhaps 4 or 5 solar masses, and they’re teeny, with horizons of only about 12 km in radius. But there have to be tens of thousands of them, the inevitable remnants of the short lives of huge stars.”

    This news fed into fears that “Mad Scientists Performing Universe-Breaking Experiments” were flying a bit too close to the sun (so to speak) by conducting experiments at the European Organization for Nuclear Research’s (CERN) Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with the potential to open up microscopic black holes with potentially disastrous consequences. These concerns surfaced before the LHC — an underground accelerator which forms a ring with a diameter of 5 miles near Geneva, Switzerland — was ever switched on. A 2008 report from NASA succinctly titled “The Day the World Didn’t End” tells readers that bringing the accelerator online “did not trigger the creation of a microscopic black hole. And that black hole did not start rapidly sucking in surrounding matter faster and faster until it devoured the Earth, as sensationalist news reports had suggested it might.”

    The fear around these larger-than-life experiments was so potent and widespread that CERN has an entire page on their website dedicated to the Frequently Asked Question “Will CERN generate a black hole?and even the Princeton scientists addressed it in their academic report, noting that even with the new calculations finding that black holes require much less energy to open up than previously thought, opening up a black hole big enough to collapse the earth would still require billions of times more energy than the LHC is capable of generating. What’s more, even if and when a black hole did open up in the collider, it would disappear just as quickly thanks to an effect called Hawking radiation. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (Click to enlarge)

    Source: https://science.nasa.gov/&nbsp;

    While fears of the Armageddon-causing potential of these microscopic black holes may have been overblown, however, the fact that the particle can open up these tiny black holes was then and remains now an absolute truth. Even CERN’s FAQ page concedes that “The LHC will not generate black holes in the cosmological sense. However, some theories suggest that the formation of tiny ‘quantum’ black holes may be possible.” Of course, the page goes on to reassure concerned readers that “the observation of such an event would be thrilling in terms of our understanding of the Universe; and would be perfectly safe.”

    Nevertheless, there are still some scientists who think we are right to be worried about these experiments that are probing the boundaries of physics. Just last year the well-respected (not to mention knighted) British scientist Sir Martin Rees published a warning to take fears around the LHC seriously in his book “On the Future.” As paraphrased by NBC’s science news site MACH,the particles crashing about inside an accelerator could unleash bits of ‘strange matter’ that shrink Earth into a ball 300 feet across. In another [scenario], the experiments could create a microscopic black hole that would inexorably gnaw away at our planet from the inside. In the most extreme scenario Rees describes, a physics mishap could cause space itself to decay into a new form that wipes out everything from here to the farthest star.” Rees himself recognizes that these scenarios are extremely unlikely, but in the author’s own words, “given the stakes, they should not be ignored.”

    And now that the Event Horizon Telescope has successfully captured the first-ever image of a black hole, scientists are dreaming up ever more radical future experiments. Let’s just hope that as scientists continue to push against the limitations of human knowledge and ability the headlines continue to read “The Day the World Didn’t End.” Or that we continue to have headlines at all. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 19:05

  • In Latest Saudi Shakedown, Aramco "Taps" Prince Al-Waleed For IPO Money
    In Latest Saudi Shakedown, Aramco "Taps" Prince Al-Waleed For IPO Money

    Back in November 2017, a number of prominent Saudi Arabian princes, government ministers, and business people were arrested in Saudi Arabia a few weeks after the creation of an anti-corruption committee led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Among them was one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest men, billionaire Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who along with the other arrested individuals was confined in the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton and was only released months later after he pledged an unknown amount of money to the Saudi treasury. While the Crown Prince dubbed the arrests an anti-corruption exercise, it was plain that Saudi Arabia, then facing a gaping budget deficit had engaged in nothing short of a massive extortive shakedown. 

    Two years later Saudi Arabia is engaging in a similar shakedown, only this time instead of very broad “uses of funds”, it hopes to narrow down the extorted money solely for one purpose – to get more “willing” Aramco anchor investors.

    And just like in 2017, Prince Al-Waleed – one of the largest investors in Twitter – is once again in the crosshairs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Bloomberg reports, one day after China tentatively agreed to invest $5 to $10 billion in the Aramco mega IPO which has so far found precisely zero anchor investors, Saudi Arabia was “negotiating commitments” from its wealthiest citizens to buy stock in the Aramco initial public offering. Translation: MbS gave his oligarchs a choice – invest in Aramco, or spend some more time in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton. Among those Riyadh has reportedly approached include the Olayan family and Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal to low-profile tycoons in the oil producer’s backyard.

    Following polite but stern and “convincing” discussions with MbS and his goon squad, the billionaire Olayans, who own a major stake in Credit Suisse, are said to be considering buying several hundred million U.S. dollars worth of Aramco shares, according to the people. Prince Alwaleed – who knows too well what happens if he disagrees with the Crown Prince – has also “held talks” to commit a significant amount to the IPO.

    Many others have also been ordered to “volunteer” their funds for the upcoming IPO according to Bloomberg: Aramco representatives have been seeking an investment from the Almajdouie family, whose businesses range from distributing Hyundai cars in the kingdom to a large logistics operation. They have also approached members of the Al-Turki clan, who are involved in fields from real estate to general trading, food distribution and ports.

    Even though Bloomberg claims that so far there’s no certainty the wealthy investors will place orders, we beg to differ and suggest that when told by the government to buy, they will buy… and will do so at any valuation, even an insane one. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has long insisted the state oil company is worth $2 trillion, a figure that many Western fund managers have balked at, with some proposing a valuation as low as $1 trillion (or less, depending on the price of oil).


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 18:45

  • When Is A Whistleblower, Not A Whistleblower?
    When Is A Whistleblower, Not A Whistleblower?

    Authored by Renee Parsons via Off-Guardian.org,

    For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama’s legacy or the Republican/Democrat parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant Wake up Call.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the result of an anonymous “whistleblower” Complaint filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that violated Sixth Amendment protections while relying on an anonymous WB. 

    Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle not to be taken seriously – except they were.

    There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014.

    Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:

    I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike.  The server they say, Ukraine has it<.”

    In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy’s role in initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation of the country.

    On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on  still mysterious Whistleblower’s allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or whether a Whistleblower even existed.

    It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression proudly forward into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.  At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the public trust and deserves to be made public.

    This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their employment.

    This WB’s identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if fearful of public scrutiny or that his ‘truth’ would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.  What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as ‘hear say’ evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should ‘hear say’ be allowed when the subject is as profound as impeachment of a President?

    Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison, suggested this “whistleblower is not a whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff.”  When was the last time a real whistleblower was ‘protected’ by the government from public exposure.

    There has been no explanation as to why this informant’s identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him. 

    There has been no further information regarding a second “Whistleblower” who allegedly came forward to corroborate the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains questionable.

    In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion,  it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is not such a secret after all. 

    Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity; presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was organized.  And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB’s identity under wraps.

    His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took Real Clear Investigations, an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within the DC bubble for some weeks. 

    The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very well connected partisan lackey and CIA operative.

    The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old CIA analyst by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council until mid 2017. 

    Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment.  And here’s where it get especially interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the Obama NSC and had close association with  Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.

    Ciaramella’s bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when  $3 billion USAID funding was being embezzled.  

    Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden Quid pro Quo scandal which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.

    With Ciaramella’s identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th conversation testified that he saw nothing illegal in the talk.  Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and released by the White House  “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.” 

    As a result, Ciaramella is now refusing to publicly testify before the House or Senate Intel Committees.

    More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client “wants to be as bipartisan as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous.”  

    Seriously?  He’s got to be kidding.

    Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world?  Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth Amendment that he believes a Defendant’s right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential impeachment inquiry?

    Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans?  Who did he think would protect him from public scrutiny?

    Given Ciaramella’s extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants and whether Ciaramella’s name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 18:25

    Tags

  • US Massacre In Mexico Requires Washington To Act, Here's What Could Happen Next 
    US Massacre In Mexico Requires Washington To Act, Here's What Could Happen Next 

    On Tuesday, nine Americans – a large family of what appear to be associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – were killed during a highway ambush by drug cartel members. 

    The story sent shockwaves across the American press, President Trump, in a series of tweets, offered US assistance in bringing the criminals to justice. “If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing & able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively.”

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

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

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

    The slaughter of innocent Americans this week is a clear understanding that cartel wars in Mexico are evolving into a dangerous phase where foreigners, women, and children won’t be spared by cartels. 

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

    President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has so far been more than willing to work with the Trump administration on border security but might have to readjust his approach in fighting cartels after the deaths of the Americans. 

    AMLO’s strategy in creating work programs and opportunities for Mexican youth isn’t working as cartel wars devastate many parts of the country. 

    Former anti-drug prosecutor Samuel Gonzalez told AP that “sooner or later, the government is going to have to adjust its strategy.”

    Perhaps, the deaths of Americans this week is a serious wake-up call for AMLO and his administration to change the script or face tremendous backlash from the Trump administration. 

    “It is not that the government would have to declare war on the drug cartels, it is rather that the drug traffickers have declared war on the government,” Gonzalez said, “and in that situation the government has to respond in legitimate self-defense and with proportional force.”

    Jacob Hornberger, the president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, said Washington officials have been contemplating three strategies over how to respond to the massacre in Mexico: 

    • Option 1: Have the Mexican military crackdown even more fiercely than it already has during the past 10 years of fierce military drug warfare.
    • Option 2: Send in the US military and the CIA into Mexico.
    • Option 3. Capture the head of the Sinaloa drug cartel, extradite him to the United States, and jail him for the rest of his life.

    Hornberger finds it hard to believe that Option 1, 2, and 3 would solve the crisis, instead, he says there’s a straightforward solution that could end all of this madness: end the war on drugs. 

    “As we have been saying here at The Future of Freedom Foundation for 30 years, there is one — and only one — way to get rid of drug cartels, drug gangs, and drug lords. That way is through drug legalization, complete drug legalization. Not just marijuana. All drugs, including cocaine, heroin, meth, and opioids. Ditch them all.

    With drug legalization, the drug cartels, drug gangs, and drug lords are out out business overnight. Gone. Isn’t that what drug-war proponents say they would like to see? Well, that’s the only way to see it.

    That’s what happened, of course, when statists decided to re-legalize booze. They finally realized that they were never going to put the booze cartels, booze gangs, and booze lords out of business by cracking down on them ever more fiercely. They finally realized that the only way to achieve that goal was through legalization. And sure enough, the re-legalization of booze put them all out of business,” Hornberger wrote. 

    And the probability of the US government ending the war on drugs is very low. So it’s likely that AMLO and Washington will start increasing joint military operations against cartels in the not too distant future. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 11/07/2019 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 7th November 2019

  • Brandon Smith: There Are Things Worth Fighting For, And Fates Far Worse Than Death
    Brandon Smith: There Are Things Worth Fighting For, And Fates Far Worse Than Death

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Activism in the liberty movement often requires a painful examination of details. We look at political and economic trends, identify inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative, point out inevitable outcomes of disaster or attempts at collectivist power, and ask – “Who benefits?” Ultimately, the analysts and activists with any sense of observation come to the same conclusion: There is a contingent of financial elites embedded within the political world and the corporate world that have a specific ideology and malicious goals. They create most geopolitical and economic crisis events using puppets in government as well as influence in central banking. They then turn the consequences of these events to their advantage.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This group is identified by their intent as well as their associations. Their intent is utter dominance through globalism to the point that national borders are erased and all trade and governance flows through a single one-world edifice that they seek to control. As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled ‘The Hard Road To World Order’:

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

    They want to reinvent civilization and mold it into a homogenized and highly micromanaged global hive. Within this collective, they see themselves as not only the future masters of social evolution, but also as demigods that are worshiped by the masses. And, they are willing to do almost ANYTHING to achieve this endgame.

    In an article I wrote last year titled ‘Global Elitists Are Not Human’, I outlined the connection between globalist ideology, globalist actions and the psychology of narcissistic sociopaths (narcopaths or pyschopaths). I theorized that the globalists are in fact a stark example of tightly organized psychopathy. In other words, like a criminal cartel or cult, they are a group of psychopaths that have unified their efforts to become more efficient predators. And like many psychopaths, they have conjured elaborate philosophical explanations for their abhorrent activities to the point that they seem to have developed their own disturbing brand of religion.

    There comes a moment in the life of many liberty movement activists or analysts when they are confronted with this reality: The reality that we are not fighting a faceless “system” that was built passively by mistake, or built in the name of mere random greed. No, the system is only an extension of a greater agenda and the weapon of a conspiratorial army. What we are really fighting are very evil people with psychopathic desires to dominate and destroy. Attempt to change the system without removing the cabal behind it, and you will fail every time.

    This is where we hit a wall of indecision and find ourselves at an impasse on solutions within the movement. There are even some people who argue that “nothing can be done”.

    This is, of course, a lie. Something can indeed be done. We can fight and remove the elites from the equation entirely. In fact, we have no choice but to fight if we hope to retain any semblance of our sovereignty or foundational principles. But sadly, there are people in the movement with some influence who do not seem to understand the difference between fighting to survive, and fighting to succeed.

    Let me break it down a little further…

    The liberty movement is obsessed with the concept of “survival”. We see the globalist efforts leading to the ruin of the common man’s future and we know that the threat is very real. So, we prepare; we prepare to survive, but not necessarily to prevail.

    Survival in itself is meaningless. There are many ways to stay alive. A person could just as easily sell out to the globalists and help them, and that person would probably have better “odds” of survival than I will farming my homestead as a producer and living off my preps in defiance of them. If survival alone is your goal, then you are NOT a liberty activist and you have missed the bigger picture.

    Even in the event that you can weather the storm of economic chaos or political civil war safely in an isolated retreat somewhere on a far off mountaintop, what kind of world will you be coming back to when you finally have to leave that idyllic castle? What kind of world will your children be coming back to? And their children…?

    I’m certainly not dismissing the usefulness of survival culture. I’m a big proponent of it. But there are self proclaimed survival “gurus” out there that are misleading the movement into thinking that survival is the final goal. And to this end, they have criticized people for organizing or preparing to fight the establishment. They claim it can’t be done. We’ll be “wiped off the face of the Earth”. The enemy is far too strong and what can a mere rifle do against a tank? But if survivalism requires running away and hiding like a coward from a known evil or refusing to take action for the sake of future generations, then I don’t want to be a survivalist…

    Freedom cannot be boiled down to a dream or a wish; something that might happen someday if we are able to stay alive long enough. Freedom is a responsibility that is already born into most human beings. It’s not a cheesy or childish ideal, it’s a timeless ideal. Freedom and the fight for peace and balance in the face of would-be emperors is an infinite battle. It never ends. The fight IS freedom. Without the fight, freedom disappears.

    For each person that defies collectivists and totalitarians, even at the risk of their own life, the shadow is held back another day. This is what matters, and this is what the survival purists don’t get. You have to make yourself WORTHY of surviving, by standing for principles and values that are bigger than you are. Otherwise you’re not worth a damn to anyone, even yourself.

    As for the notion of the impossible mountain; the lone rebel taking on a vast globalist army…this is not a delusional fantasy and these people are not alone. There are millions of us out there, getting ready and forming pockets of resistance. In the meantime we fight the information war, because the globalist’s most powerful weapon is not a tank or even a nuclear bomb, it’s propaganda. The ability to turn a population in on itself and cause it to self destruct is far more dangerous than any technological advancement or military marvel.

    As a long time mixed martial artist, I have seen the biggest and most intimidating opponents toppled by clever strategy and willpower. There is no such thing as an unbeatable man, nor an unbeatable army. There is always a way to prevail.

    Finally, when I consider the claim made by some people that beating the elites in a direct confrontation is a “pipe dream”, I have to ask a fundamental question: Why do these people assume we have a choice? I’ve witnessed some pretty desperate attempts at silver bullet solutions to globalism in my years in the movement, from presidential election campaigns to change a system that cannot be changed from within, to “revolutionary” cryptocurrencies that the banking elites happily invest in and co-opt.

    People misplace their faith in corrupt politicians and the rigged political process, even though they should know better by now. In the final analysis, politics is designed to keep society in stasis, frozen with inaction or fighting in the name of a false leader. Always, when the dust settles the elites escape blame and scrutiny while the public picks up the pieces and tries to understand just what happened. The current chaos surrounding Donald Trump is no different; it is only different in that Trump is a puppet whose job is to appeal directly to liberty activists. For once we’re getting recognition, but it’s not the good kind…

    And while building alternatives to the mainstream system and removing yourself from the grid is a step in the right direction, this alone is only a stop-gap. One day, the establishment will come to take what you have. There is no way around this. Narcopaths are like ravenous parasites feeding on every last morsel of humanity. They take whatever can be taken.

    The question is, when they come to digest that which you hold precious, how will you respond? Is fighting back impossible, or is it preferable to slavery? Is dying for a better tomorrow a fool’s errand, or the only errand we are put on this Earth for? These are questions that need to be answered and answered soon. The time left to ponder them is running out.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/07/2019 – 00:00

  • Soaring Homelessness Forces San Fran To Issue Record Housing Debt
    Soaring Homelessness Forces San Fran To Issue Record Housing Debt

    In response to a housing affordability crisis in the Bay Area, one where wages haven’t kept up with soaring home prices in the last decade, voters on Tuesday have likely given the government of the City and County of San Francisco permission to issue a $600 million affordable housing bond, the largest in the city’s history, reported KQED News.

    Preliminary results from Tuesday night’s vote showed 69% of voters supported the measure while 31% opposed it. The bill needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

    Proposition A, a project to build 2,800 units of low-income and middle-income housing to clean up the homelessness crisis on the streets of the Bay Area, could become a reality once the measure is passed.

    “It’s a big bond. It’s a lot of money and some people may have been asking themselves is this going to be meaningful to me,” said Matthias Mormino, policy analyst for Chinatown Community Development Center, an affordable housing development group in San Francisco. 

    “But being able to expand these affordable housing projects geographically in other neighborhoods is exciting,” said Mormino.

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

    The possible passage of the largest-ever affordable housing bond is in response to the Bay Area’s homelessness crisis.

    Based on a 2017 point-in-time (PIT) estimate, 28,000 people were homeless across the area. An approximated 70% of these people were living on the streets in Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Alameda Counties. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Preliminary PIT estimates show in 2019 a 43% jump in the homeless population in Alameda Counties, 31% in Santa Clara, and 17% in San Francisco from 2017 to 2019.

    Total homeless populations in the Bay Area will likely increase through the early 2020s as wealth inequality expands. If the bill is approved, the build time for these new structures could take several years. 

    Under Proposition A, funds will be allocated to these five areas (list provided by Bloomberg): 

    • $220 million for extremely low- and low-income people
    • $150 million to repair and rebuild public housing developments
    • $150 million to acquire and construct housing for seniors
    • $60 million to acquire and rehabilitate affordable rental housing to prevent the loss of such housing and to assist middle-income city residents and workers to secure permanent housing
    • $20 million to support affordable housing for educators and employees of the San Francisco Unified School District and City College of San Francisco


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 23:40

  • CJ Hopkins Exposes The Ministry Of Wiki-Truth
    CJ Hopkins Exposes The Ministry Of Wiki-Truth

    Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Unz Review,

    OK, here’s a silly one for you.

    Have you ever wondered how all those Wikipedia articles get produced… you know, the ones you pull up on your phone to look up an actor, an author, or a recipe, or a historical or scientific fact?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Unfortunately, one of the Consent Factory staff had an opportunity to find out recently.

    Apparently, what happened was, someone (presumably one of my readers) tried to add a reference to one of my essays to Wikipedia’s Identity Politics page. The Ministry of Wiki-Truth objected, adamantly. A low-level edit war ensued. Once the Ministers had quashed the rebellion, one of them, “Grayfell,” immediately went to the CJ Hopkins Wikipedia article and started punitively “editing” its contents for “neutrality.”

    Other Ministers soon joined in the fun. The list of my awards was summarily deleted. My debut novel, Zone 23, which I published under the Consent Factory’s literary imprint, Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks, was “edited” into a vanity publication that I “self-published,” probably in my mother’s basement. The “Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant” imprint (which every bookseller, library, and professional catalog recognizes) was disappeared so that my potential readers will be warned that I’m trying to trick them into buying a book that wasn’t published by a “real” (i.e., corporate) publisher, like the Penguin Group, or one of its … uh, imprints. References to my “political satire and commentary,” and to many of the alternative outlets that regularly repost my essays (like the outlet you’re probably reading this in) were also zapped, because they’re all “fake news” sites operated by Putin-Nazi agents.

    Also, given my attempted book fraud, the Wikipedia Ministers immediately launched an investigation into whether I had possibly made up my entire career. Perhaps I had invented all the productions of my plays, and my awards, and even my existence itself. I assume they have contacted my “legitimate” publishers, Bloomsbury Publishingand Broadway Play Publishing, to verify that I haven’t somehow hacked their websites and faked my other books. If they haven’t … well, they should probably get on that.

    This “editing” and pursuant investigation was overseen and approved by a senior member of the Ministry’s Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller, who is apparently a “Grandmaster Editor” or a “Lord High Togneme Vicarus” in Wiki-speak. (I kid you not … click the link.) Given Lord Weller’s supervision of the process, I think it’s probably safe to say that this was not just the work of a bunch of kids attempting to negatively impact my book sales because someone on the Internet pissed them off.

    This brouhaha was brought to my attention by the Consent Factory’s in-house Wikipedia Liaison, King Ubu (or König Ubu in German). As his job title suggests, King Ubu’s duty is to periodically check my Wikipedia article and make sure that no one has posted anything false, defamatory, or just plain weird. Naturally, when he saw how the Ministers of Wiki-Truth were punitively “editing” my page for “neutrality,” he attempted to engage them. This did not go well. I won’t go through all the gory details, but, if you’re curious, they’re here on the CJ Hopkins “talk” page (which King Ubu reports that he has copied and archived, which I find a bit paranoid, but then, I’m not an IT guy).

    Look, normally, I wouldn’t bore you with my personal affairs, but my case is just another example of how “reality” is manufactured these days. In the anti-establishment circles I move in, Wikipedia is notorious for this kind of stuff, which is unsurprising when you think about it. It’s a perfect platform for manufacturing reality, disseminating pro-establishment propaganda, and damaging people’s reputations, which is a rather popular tactic these days. The simple fact is, when you google anything, Wikipedia is usually the first link that comes up. Most people assume that what they read on the platform is basically factual and at least trying to be “objective” … which a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn’t.

    If the name Philip Cross doesn’t ring any bells, you might want to have a look into his story before you go back to uncritically surfing Wikipedia. As of May 14, 2018 (when Five Filters published this article about him and his service at the Ministry of Wiki-Truth), he had been editing Wikipedia for five years straight, every day of the week, including Christmas. He (if Cross is an actual person, and not an intelligence agency PSYOP) specializes in maliciously “editing” articles regarding anti-war activists and other anti-establishment persons. The story is too long to recount here, but have a look at this other Five Filters article. If you’re interested, that’s a good place to start.

    Or, if you don’t have time to do that, go ahead and use my case as an example. See, according to Ubu, the Ministry’s punitive “editing” of my article to make it more “neutral” began when this specific Minister (“Grayfell”) discovered (a) that I existed, and (b) that I am a leftist heretic. “Grayfell,” as it turns out, is extremely invested in maintaining a positive image of Antifa, whose Wikipedia article he actively edits, and whose honor and integrity he valiantly defends, not only from conservatives and neo-fascist bozos, but apparently also from nefarious leftist authors and political satirists like myself.

    Which … OK, I probably deserve it, right? I have satirized identity politics. I have satirized Antifa. I have satirized liberals. I don’t forbid controversial outlets (or any other outlets for that matter) from republishing my political satire and commentary, even after I was instructed to do so by the Leftism Police at CounterPunch. Jesus, I even included a link to a Breitbart article in the preceding paragraph … don’t read it, of course, it’s all a bunch of lies, notwithstanding all the supporting evidence.

    Chief among my leftist heresies, I haven’t insulted Trump nearly enough. I don’t believe he’s a “Russian asset” or the resurrection of Adolf Hitler. I believe he is the same narcissistic ass clown and self-absorbed con man he has always been. Much as I dislike the man, I’m not on board with the deep-state coup the Intelligence Community, the Democrats, and the rest of the neoliberal Resistance have been trying to stage since he won the election.

    I’m not a big fan of Intelligence agencies, generally. I don’t care much for imperialism, not even when it’s global capitalist imperialism. I do not support the global capitalist ruling classes’ War on Populism, or believe in the official Putin-Nazi narrativethat they and their servants in the corporate media have been disseminating for the last three years. I do not sing hymns to former FBI directors. I don’t believe that all conservatives are fascists, or that the working classes are all a bunch of racists, or that “America is under attack.

    Let’s face it, I’m a terrible leftist.

    So it’s probably good that “Grayfell” and his pals discovered me and are feverishly “correcting” my article, and God knows how many other articles that don’t conform to Wikipedia “policy,” or Philip Cross’ political preferences, or Antifa’s theory of “preemptive self-defense,” or whatever other non-ideological, totally objective editorial standards the “volunteer editors” at the Ministry of Wiki-Truth (who have nothing to do with the Intelligence Community, or Antifa, or any other entities like that) consensually decide to robotically adhere to.

    How else are they going to keep their content “neutral,” “unbiased,” and “reliably sourced,” so that people can pull up Wikipedia on their phones and verify historical events (which really happened, exactly as they say they did), or scientific “facts” (which are indisputable) … or whether Oceania is at War with EastAsia, or Eurasia, or the Terrorists, or Russia?

    Oh, and please don’t worry about my Wikipedia article. König Ubu assures me he has done all he could to restore it some semblance of accuracy, and that the Ministers have moved on to bigger fish. Of course, who knows what additional “edits” might suddenly become a top priority once “Grayfell” or Antifa gets wind of this piece.

    *  *  *

    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

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 23:20

  • White Men's Lives Matter – How Many People Are Killed By Police In The US?
    White Men's Lives Matter – How Many People Are Killed By Police In The US?

    Almost 1000 people in the U.S. have been shot and killed by police in 2018. In 2017 and 2016, about an equal amount of people died this way, according to the Washington Post. As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the below infographic, most of those killed by police are male and white.

    While around 450 of the deceased were white, 229 were Black. This is a relatively high share, keeping in mind that close to 13 percent of Americans belong to that race group.

    Infographic: How Many People Are Killed by Police in the U.S.? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Around half of those shot and killed by police carried a gun themselves. But in the case of more than a hundred people, they were either unarmed or it is unknown if they carried a weapon. In 35 cases, the deceased had been seen with a toy weapon that was mistaken for the real thing.

    Out of the nearly 1000 killed, more than 200 were listed as having shown signs of mental illness.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 23:00

  • Sidewalk Labs' Smart-Cities Will Create A For-Profit Social Credit System
    Sidewalk Labs' Smart-Cities Will Create A For-Profit Social Credit System

    Via MassPrivateI blog,

    Smart city surveillance, is much worse than anyone could have imagined.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Two years ago, I revealed how a CIA “signature school” was installing thousands of CCTV cameras and microphones in smart cities, but Sidewalk Labs wants to take public surveillance to a whole new level.

    The Globe And Mail revealed that Sidewalk Labs “Yellow Book,” a guidebook designed to help Google employees build a smart city from the ground up, would give their employees control of public services.

    Yellow Book describes how Google plans to turn at least four major cities in North America into Sidewalk Labs smart cities.  

    “The book proposed a community that could house 100,000 people on a site of up to 1,000 acres, and contains case studies for three potential sites in the United States: Detroit, Denver, and Alameda, Calif. It also includes a map with dots detailing many other potential sites for Sidewalk’s first project, including a dot placed on the shores of Lake Athabasca in northern Saskatchewan.”

    The fourth area, Toronto’s waterfront, has received lots of criticism from privacy experts. With some going so far as to call it “surveillance capitalism.”

    “The smart city project on the Toronto waterfront is the most highly evolved version to date of … surveillance capitalism” US venture capitalist Roger McNamee wrote to the city council, suggesting Google will use “algorithms to nudge human behavior” in ways to “favor its business.” (To join the campaign against Sidewalk Toronto click here.) 

    The Yellow Book allegedly reveals how Google wants to control city services like Disney World does in Florida.

    “Sidewalk will require tax and financing authority to finance and provide services, including the ability to impose, capture and reinvest property taxes,” the book said. The company would also create and control its own public services, including charter schools, special transit systems and a private road infrastructure.”

    Sidewalk Labs wants to control the police and justice system

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    credit: UK Reuters

    The Globe and Mail also revealed that Sidewalk Labs wants to control a cities’ police department and justice system.

    “(Sidewalk notes it would ask for local policing powers similar to those granted to universities) and the possibility of an alternative approach to jail, using data from so-called root-cause assessment tools. This would guide officials in determining a response when someone is arrested, such as sending someone to a substance abuse center.”

    People could literally be arrested by Sidewalk Lab’s police and and sentenced by their judges.

    Sidewalk Lab’s police could use “unique data identifiers” to track anyone they want.

    Early on, the company notes that a Sidewalk neighborhood would collect real-time position data for all entities – including people. The company would also collect a historical record of where things have been and “about where they are going. Furthermore, unique data identifiers would be generated for every person, business or object registered in the district, helping devices communicate with each other.”

    Google’s “SensorVault” already gives police a disturbing amount of personal information about a person’s cellphone.

    The data Google is turning over to law enforcement is so precise that one deputy police chief said it “shows the whole pattern of life.”

    The Globe and Mail also revealed that Sidewalk Labs’ smart cities could use a tiered (social credit) level of services system that rewards certain people while punishing those who wish to remain anonymous.

    “People choosing to share in-home fire safety sensor data could receive advice on health and safety related to air quality, or provide additional information to first responders in case of an emergency. Those choosing to remain anonymous would not be able to access all of the area’s services: Automated taxi services would not be available to anonymous users, and some merchants might be unable to accept cash, the book warns.”

    Forcing people to give up their privacy to receive health and safety advice, emergency services and forcing them to use credit cards is just one more example of smart city “comply or deny” mentality that wants to know everything about everyone.

    Google’s Sidewalk Labs turns smart cities into a for-profit social credit system.

    Harvard University professor Shoshana Zuboff said,

    “Sidewalk Labs was like a for-profit China that would use digital infrastructure to modify and direct social and political behavior.”

    If you combine a corporate run police department and justice system with real-time position data, CCTV cameras, social media monitoring, Stingray devices, SensorVault and a tiered social credit system it doesn’t take a privacy expert to see just how dangerous smart city surveillance really is.

    Smart cities should really be called “comply or deny cities” because corporations will force people to modify their social and political behavior or they will be denied public services, just like China does.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 22:40

  • The Art Of The Deal – China Approves Brazil For Shipments Of Swine-Offal
    The Art Of The Deal – China Approves Brazil For Shipments Of Swine-Offal

    The Art of the Deal is alive and well in how China is acquiring foreign pig products. 

    China’s recent move to smash pig prices in the Western Hemisphere by blocking shipments from the US, let their cold storage facilities swell, then go to surrounding countries and make heavily discounted deals.

    This is precisely what happened in Brazil, where China signed the first-ever trade deal with Brazil to start receiving shipments of swine offal, or organ meats (hearts, tongues, stomachs, and entrails).

    Brazil Agriculture Minister Tereza Cristina told reporters Monday that it didn’t previously have access to China’s swine-offal market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now it does, and JBS SA and BRF SA are the Brazilian meat companies that will immediately start sending pig byproducts to China. 

    The US had a significant influence on China’s swine offal market, but since China slapped 50% tariffs last year on US pork — trade between both countries has sagged. 

    Brazil’s swine offal sales to China are expected to soar in the coming months. The Asian nation has been desperately searching for pig products around the world as its domestic herd has been halved this year thanks to African swine fever. 

    The trade deal with Brazil comes at a time when the US and China are attempting to agree on a “Phase 1” trade deal of their own. 

    It’s not really a comprehensive trade deal, it’s just China buying a lot of agriculture products from the US — but has been packaged up by the Trump administration as the “greatest” deal ever to pump stocks. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 22:20

  • Are You A Moral Grandstander?
    Are You A Moral Grandstander?

    Authored by Scott Barry Kaufman via Scientific American,

    Do you strongly agree with the following statements?

    • When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them.

    • I share my moral/political beliefs to make people who disagree with me feel bad.

    • When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so in the hopes that people different than me will feel ashamed of their beliefs.

    If so, then you may be a card-carrying moral grandstander. Of course it’s wonderful to have a social cause that you believe in genuinely, and which you want to share with the world to make it a better place. But moral grandstanding comes from a different place.

    First defined and delineated in the moral philosophy literature, moral grandstanding can be defined as “the use and abuse of moral talk to seek status, to promote oneself, or to boost your own brand.”

    A moral grandstander is therefore a person who frequently uses public discussion of morality and politics to impress others with their moral qualities. Crucially, these individuals are primarily motivated by the desire to enhance their own status or ranking among their peers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let’s face it: Moral grandstanding seems to be everywhere these days. As clinical psychologist Joshua Grubbs notes, “Perhaps, just perhaps, part of the reason so many of us are so awful to each other so much of the time on here is related to a desire to show off to likeminded others. In essence, sometimes we behave poorly in an effort to gain the respect and esteem of folks like us.”

    Interested in scientifically investigating this phenomenon, Grubbs teamed up with the philosophers who first defined moral grandstanding– Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke– as well as the psychologists A. Shanti James and W. Keith Campbell. Across 6 studies (involving 2 pre-registrations involving nationally representative samples), 2 longitudinal designs, and over 6,000 participants, these are their core findings:

    1. Moral grandstanders (those scoring high on the moral grandstanding survey) tend to also score high in narcissistic characteristics and also tend to report status-seeking as their fundamental social motive.

    2. There is no relationship between moral grandstanding and political affiliation. However there is a link between moral grandstanding and political polarization: people on the far left and far right are both more likely to score higher in moral grandstanding characteristics than those who are more moderate democrats and republicans.

    3. Moral grandstanders are more likely to report greater moral and political conflict in their daily lives (e.g., “I lost friends because of my political/moral beliefs”) and they report getting into more fights with others on social media because of their political or moral beliefs. This correlation was found even after controlling for other personality traits, and continued over the course of a one-month longitudinal study.

    4. Grandstanders were more likely to report antagonistic behavior over time, such as attacking others online, or trying to publicly shame someone online because they held a different moral or political belief.

    Of course, moral grandstanding is not the only factor predicting public conflict, and not every instance of public moral or political sharing is motivated by narcissistic motives. As Grubbs notes, a real difficulty in understanding socially toxic behaviors “is that oftentimes, the same behavior (by appearance) may be driven by vastly different motives, and intent matters quite a bit in interpreting those behaviors.”

    Nevertheless, since we are such a social species, the human need for social status is very pervasive, and often our attempts at sharing our moral and political beliefs on public social media platforms involve a mix of genuine motives with social status motives. As one team of psychologists put it, yes, you probably are “virtue signaling” (a closely related concept to moral grandstanding), but that doesn’t mean that your outrage is necessarily inauthentic. It just means that we often have a subconscious desire to signal our virtue, which when not checked, can spiral out of control and cause us to denigrate or be mean to others in order to satisfy that desire. When the need for status predominates, we may even lose touch with what we truly believe, or even what is actually the truth.

    To be sure, the human drive for social status can be a great driver of growth and goodness in the world. It really depends on whether one has a healthy regulation of this fundamental human need. Interestingly enough, Grubbs and his colleagues found that moral grandstanding motivations are reminiscent of the two different routes to social status found in the psychological literature: dominance and prestige. The dominance pathway to status is paved with hubris, deceit, and aggression, whereas the prestigious pathway to status is paved with pride for one’s authentic accomplishments, and the desire for personal growth and connection with others.

    Likewise, moral grandstanding can be fueled by either:

    • The need to seek social status by dominating others (“When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them”) 

    • The need to seek status through being a knowledgeable and virtuous example (“I want to be on the right side of history about moral/political issues”, “If I don’t share my views, others will be less likely to learn the truth about moral/political matters”, “I often share my moral/political beliefs in the hope of inspiring people to be more passionate about their beliefs.”)

    The researchers found that the dominance path to social status was much more strongly linked to antagonistic behaviors and conflict in everyday life compared to the more authentic/prestigious route to social status. Maybe so much of the strife seen on social media could be prevented if before hitting “Tweet”, we asked ourselves: “Do I truly believe in the importance of this cause/idea/belief or am I mainly just saying this to gain status from my peers and take down those who disagree?”

    Of course, gaining social status from saying what one truly believes is a rewarding outcome, but when advancing your brand becomes the sole motivating force behind all of your political and moral pronouncements, that might not be the best route to getting at the real truth about what will actually help advance an important cause, not to mention your own well-being and happiness.

    Hopefully more research along these lines will help advance our understanding of this important individual differences variable and how this factor is currently playing out in this divided moral and political landscape.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 22:00

  • As US Moves To Ban Huawei 5G, CEO Says Good Riddance Ahead Of Great Decoupling 
    As US Moves To Ban Huawei 5G, CEO Says Good Riddance Ahead Of Great Decoupling 

    The great economic decoupling has started, this is something that we’ve warned about since the trade war began. Years of elevated financial market volatility will follow as the world is sliced in half, with one side being controlled by the US, and the other side controlled by China.

    The latest evidence of decoupling comes from Huawei Technologies CEO Ren Zhengfei, who spoke with The Wall Street Journal and said: “We can survive very well without the US. The China-U.S. trade talks are not something I’m concerned with.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In May, the Commerce Department blacklisted Huawei, the world’s largest 5G equipment and smartphone producer, from doing business US firms.

    Zhengfei said, “we have virtually no business dealings in the US” since the blacklisting.

    Huawei was a major buyer of US semiconductors before it was blacklisted. Sales figures showed the company bought $11 billion of technology from US suppliers in 2018. The blacklisting has forced Huawei to find alternative sourcing.

    Zhengfei said the company is rapidly expanding its 5G network products across the world without US chips. He said 5,000 5G base stations are being constructed every month.

    Despite the blacklisting, Huawei is still purchasing some chips from US firms that produce offshore, where US restrictions don’t apply.

    Will Zhang, Huawei’s president of corporate strategy, told The Journal that purchasing levels of US chips are at 70% to 80% of its previous level.

    The Trump administration has spent at least 15 months creating Sinophobia across the world, by warning countries not to use Huawei 5G equipment because of spying concerns.

    Zhengfei has denied the allegations that it spies on its customers or any government, though the Trump administration has labeled Huawei a national security threat.

    Beijing views Huawei as a centerpiece of its economic success and is considered an essential piece of any future trade deal between the US.

    The next several quarters will be critical for Huawei. That is if it can continue sourcing most of its chips from alternative producers and continue dominating the global smartphone space and the build-out of 5G networks across the world, then that will indicate the great decoupling from West to East is well underway.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 21:40

  • When They Can Take Your Children Away… How Free Are You?
    When They Can Take Your Children Away… How Free Are You?

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    George Reby was driving from New Jersey to Tennessee to pick up a car he had purchased on eBay when he was stopped for speeding.

    Like many Americans, George felt he had nothing to hide from the police. So when the officer asked him if he was carrying any large amounts of cash, he admitted he had $22,000 on him because he was buying a car.

    George was able to show the officer his eBay bids, and that the sale was legitimate. He was able to demonstrate that he has income from his job as an insurance adjuster.

    But none of that mattered. The cop seized George’s money on the spot.

    Later, in a court hearing that George was not allowed to participate in, the judge allowed the police to keep the money even though George was never charged with a crime.

    There was no proof of wrongdoing. Even more, George had proof that there was NO wrongdoing.

    “You live in the United States, you think you have rights — and apparently you don’t,” George commented later.

    He was forced to hire an attorney and jump through a ton of bureaucratic hoops over a period of several months before the state of Tennessee finally returned his money.

    But not everyone is so lucky.

    Numerous victims of the Tenaha police department in East Texas (population ~1,300 people) never got their money back.

    One victim had his baby taken by child services because he chose to fight the town when they seized his assets without cause.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another family was threatened with the same because they were carrying $6,000 in cash to buy a car. Police said the children were possibly decoys.

    Threatening parents with child services was just one of the tactics Tenaha police used to try to make sure no one fought their absurd abuse of civil asset forfeiture.

    Yet none of these people was ever charged with a crime. And that’s because there was no evidence of crimes. They were just carrying a few thousand dollars in cash.

    (By the way, carrying cash is completely LEGAL.)

    But it’s legal for police to do this in the Land of the Free.

    It’s called Civil Asset Forfeiture; and the rules allow police to take money, cars, houses, and other property without ever charging you with a crime.

    The government also has the legal authority to take children away from their parents; these laws are supposed to exist to safeguard children who are in abusive and dangerous environments.

    Yet there’s an appalling number of incidents where local officials weaponize this authority to harass, intimidate, and extort people out of money.

    Last week I told you about how moving abroad could save you tens of thousands of dollars in taxes through the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.

    (Under the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, you and your spouse can EACH earn more than $105,000 annually, tax free, plus even more tax benefits for housing and other expenses.)

    And in addition to the taxes, the lifestyle benefits of being abroad are also substantial. The cost of living is often much cheaper abroad. High quality medical care can be very inexpensive.

    You can become proficient in another language; and for younger children in particular, they can learn the local language to an almost native level.

    But even above all of those reasons, I still find one of the most compelling benefits of living overseas is that I feel more free.

    For many people this is a conundrum– they cannot possibly envisage a lesser developed country being more free than ‘Murica.

    And certainly there are tradeoffs. I don’t want to butter your buns with wild tales of exotic women feeding you grapes all day just because you move overseas. (Unless you go to the Philippines, in which case, I hope you like grapes.)

    But one thing that’s been consistent for me having lived in half a dozen countries (including places that are fairly underdeveloped) is that you and your family are generally just left alone to live your lives.

    And even in places that still struggle with corruption, locals would be absolutely shocked to hear about the government threatening to take someone’s children away.

    That stuff doesn’t even fly in banana republics.

    It might seem radical at first. But, if you find yourself agitated at the steady erosion of freedom in your home country and the never-ending howls of the Bolsheviks, consider taking a trip abroad… and see if you breathe free again.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 21:20

  • US "Stoking Confrontation" With "Dangerous" Resumption Of Joint Aerial Drills: N.Korea
    US "Stoking Confrontation" With "Dangerous" Resumption Of Joint Aerial Drills: N.Korea

    Just days after North Korea confirmed a provocative test a new “super-large” rocket launcher which sent two projectiles 200 miles where they crashed into the sea, Pyongyang has blasted US plans to resume combined aerial exercises with South Korea. 

    In a charged statement, Kwon Jong Gun, the DPRK’s permanent roving ambassador, said such a resumption would destroy any good will built up with the US administration after the recent series of talks between Trump and Kim Jong Un.

    He said, according to an official press release: “The U.S. reckless military frenzy is an extremely provocative and dangerous act of throwing a wet blanket over the spark of the DPRK-U.S. dialogue on the verge of extinction and stoking the atmosphere of confrontation on the Korean peninsula and the region.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Reuters/SCMP

    This after “the U.S. Defense Department officially announced that it is pushing ahead with the procedure for resuming the combined aerial exercise with the south Korean army in December,” according to the statement. 

    The North Korean ambassador said resumption of military exercises aimed at the DPRK marks a violation of the June 2018 US-North Korea summit in Singapore, which he characterized as “reckless military frenzy” and an “extremely provocative and dangerous act”.

    “The U.S. intention to openly hold war exercise against the DPRK at a sensitive time when the whole world is concerned about the prospect of the DPRK-U.S. relations clearly proves again its nature as the chieftain harassing world peace and security and the hegemonic state regarding the recourse to military strength as a cure-for-all in settling issues,” the statement continued“Our patience is nearing limitations,” the statement concluded.

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

    The ambassador’s angry condemnation comes after earlier in the day military magazine Stars and Stripes confirmed the joint drills would move forward as planned, citing US military officials.

    According to the report:

    The United States and South Korea will hold a combined air exercise next month to replace the former annual drills known as Vigilant Ace, officials said.

    The allies canceled Vigilant Ace and several other joint drills last year to facilitate nuclear talks with North Korea, which considers them a rehearsal for an invasion.

    “There are no plans to skip upcoming combined exercises,” Army Lt. Col. Dave Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday in Washington, giving it a generic name. “We are proceeding with the Combined Flying Training Event as planned.”

    Crucially, working talks between Kim and Trump are rumored to continue as early as December. If so, we could be witnessing early jockeying for leverage ahead of such a potential summit. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 21:00

    Tags

  • Crashing The Financial System For Fun And Profit
    Crashing The Financial System For Fun And Profit

    Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

    It would be wise to remember we are in uncharted waters and this market could reverse on a dime. The stories flowing out of companies such as WeWork that are burning through cash screams danger ahead! This means we should not discount the idea that those in charge might reach a tipping point where they crash the financial system for fun and profit. While this may seem outlandish the possibility is real. This doesn’t mean that every rich guy and gal would sign on to this plan, just enough to push things over the edge. When things have gone too far in one direction history shows that a correction always takes place. It could be argued we have reached that point and true price discovery has been lost.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A huge amount of money can be made during a market crash for those properly positioned. As long as the Fed and the big banks survive those who control these institutions couldn’t care less about how the 99.5% at the bottom fair. In fact, the Dodd-Frank Act which is over 2,300 pages allows this under Title II what is viewed by many as a “bank bail-in”. This is done by imposing the losses of insolvent financial companies on their common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors including depositors.

    The whole event of a “bank bail-in” can be viewed as another way to disguise a massive default and it can happen here in AmericaAn example of just how delusional we have become as to the fragility of our financial system is that many people have taken comfort in the efforts to control the banking sector through the Dodd-Frank act following the 2008 crisis. This legislation is over 2,300 pages and still growing. Under Title II it allows the government to impose the losses of insolvent financial companies on their common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors including depositors.

    Crashing the financial system would result in wiping out the pension funds, the hedge funds, the mutual funds, and more. Of course, if such a scenario were to unfold there would be no smoking gun it would be something that “just happened.” Sure there would be a great deal of finger-pointing and experts would opine as to what went wrong and how to fix the system but things would go on. Rest assured that with so much blood in the streets little effort would be made to determine who instigated the trauma. Most likely as in the 2008 crisis, nobody would be held accountable or go to jail.

    While this may seem unfathomable to many people it could happen. It also would be extremely profitable to those on the right side of a collapse. If you find this hard to stomach then imagine just how fast this could occur. Most investors think that even if things go downhill fast that they will be smart enough to get out of the markets. But what if it hits like the flash crash on steroids? Imagine a scenario where the market falls like a flash crash on steroids and investors are trapped.

    Investors have been assured that can’t happen because circuit breakers have been put in place to arrest panic style moves but, if trade is halted, and the market simply does not reopen for days or even weeks suddenly it is a new game. As remote as this might seem, if it were to happen it would have far-reaching ramifications. While you are imagining this scenario realize that America’s stock market is the gold standard and consider how less stable global markets would react in countries like China and Brazil.

    As for a catalyst, many exist and not all as sinister as what is being predicted by award-winning journalist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.  The former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration, who has a PhD in Economics, predicts the oligarchs of the New World Order (NWO) will do anything to boot President Trump out of office. This includes taking down and crashing the financial system as a last resort if all else fails. “They will wipe us out in order to get rid of Trump.”Dr. Roberts says forget about the Left/Right Democrat and Republican paradigm. Dr. Roberts explains, “This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican thing…”

    Adding to questions about where we are heading is just how little most people know about the economy. Years ago, Fed watchers were surprised when Ben Bernanke’s former special advisor, Andrew Levin, said that “a lot of people would be stunned to know” the extent to which the Federal Reserve is privately owned, stating next that the Fed “should be a fully public institution.” A recent post from the BOE’s Banker Underground blog looked at the question of who really owns central banks. It found that around the world, central banks have a number of different ownership structures this means who they must be accountable to varies a great deal.

    Central banks, like the Bank of England, are wholly owned by the public sector. Shareholders of central banks, like the Banca d’Italia are wholly private sector entities. Other central banks, like that of Japan, are a mix of the two. The problem is that more than half of the banks the world’s central banks oversee are at risk of collapse in the next global downturn if they don’t start preparing for tough times ahead. McKinsey & Company warned in a 55-page report titled The last pit stop? Time for bold late-cycle moves, that 35% of banks globally will have to merge or sell to larger firms if they want to survive the next crisis. This adds to the notion the masses will be thrown under the bus when push comes to shove.

    Returning to the crux of this article, there is a great deal of money to be made during a market collapse. Those with money can swoop in and pick up bargains when the market is not liquid and fear runs wild. This market is ripe for such a scenario and there is a great deal of money waiting in the wings for such an event. With nothing notable to invest in as of late, it is reported that Berkshire has surpassed Apple and Google as the world’s biggest corporate cash holder. In Q3 Berkshire reported a record cash pile of $128 billion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Many economy watchers concede the decade long “great manipulation” we have witnessed will not work indefinitely, and eventually markets will come crashing down around those in charge. With this in mind, it is easy to understand the allure of being one of those that will reap a fortune when it unravels. Years ago President Eisenhower warned the American people about the Industrial Military Complex but nobody warned us an even more evil alliance that of the “Financial-Political Complex.” It would be wise to remember those at the top control the game and make the rules. In doing so, generous they are not.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 20:40

  • US Healthcare Costs Are Exploding: Here's Why
    US Healthcare Costs Are Exploding: Here's Why

    We have previously written extensively on America’s soaring healthcare and health insurance costs (here, here, here and here), so instead of boring readers with even more words, here are some charts courtesy of Deutsche Bank that make a most persuasive case. Now if only the Fed, which is still convinced inflation is well below 2% and should keep easing, were to notice these.

    We start with a very painful for many observation: after a period of modest quiet, healthcare inflation is soaring, with insurance inflation now the highest since before the financial crisis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s just the beginning though: it’s only downhill from here for healthcare inflation. Or, rather, uphill.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s not just healthcare of course: as the next chart shows, there is plenty of inflation in the price of healthcare, education, and housing:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After the number of Americans without health insurance tumbled into Obama’s second term, this number has started to rise again, perhaps as a result of the surge in insurance costs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Those who do have insurance are probably not all that happy: in the past decade, total annual healthcare premiums increased more than 50%!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The average annual premium for US families has risen to $20k in 2019.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet while a near record number of Americans have health insurance, ironically out-of-pocket healthcare spending has soared in recent years:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As a result, the total annual healthcare spending per family is now a record $23,000.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What is the reason for this divergence: one words – deductible. As the chart below shows, the annual deductible across all health insurance plans has tripled since 2006.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even more ironically, the US should have the world’s best healthcare system, if only based on how much money is spent on it as a share of GDP:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As a reminder, Medicare and Medicaid spending make up more than 25% of total federal outlays.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One reason behind America’s woeful healthcare situation: 27% of the population have pre-existing conditions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So where do Americans spend the most money? Why at hospitals of course, followed by clinics, dental, home healthcare, and prescription drugs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, if it wasn’t for insurance, prescription drugs would be in first place by a huge margin. Here’s why:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Then again, it’s not like hospital costs will drop any time soon:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One final point: just in case there is any confusion at the Fed, this is how much faster than CPI and wage inflation healthcare premiums have risen in the past two decades:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And one bonus chart: here is a map showing the share of US population spending more than 10% of their income on premium contributions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Deutsche Bank

     


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 20:20

  • Human Batteries? Debunking Matrix 'Science'
    Human Batteries? Debunking Matrix 'Science'

    Authored by Julianne Geiger via OilPrice.com,

    It’s wonderfully exciting to think about the potential for harvesting humans for their energy–an idea made famous by the movie The Matrix. But leave it to science to ruin a perfectly good movie. As it turns out, humans are one of the most inefficient power sources available, and our vital energy isn’t going to be powering the world–or the evil machines–any time soon.  

    But we understand the fascination with this human battery concept.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The search for cleaner energy, limitless energy, and cheaper energy has reached a fever pitch, and the great minds of science are exploring all avenues of how to generate this premium energy. In their quest to discover new ways of supplying energy to the world, we stumble on some pretty far out ideas–and Hollywood has given us some of the more colorful ideas. 

    Some of these theoretical ideas have even inspired real-life developments, which has given rise to the sensible question, is this even possible?

    In the Matrix, machines have successfully overthrown their masters, and have harnessed the energy of humans to power their world. Rows and rows of humans are seen in tanks, connected to hoses to siphon off whatever energy a human body could create. The humans, unaware of their situation, are in a dream state, living their life solely through their imagination. 

    Morpheus, Laurence Fishburne’s character in the movie, explains it thusly:

    “The human body generates more bio electricity than a 120-volt battery and over 25000 BTUs of body heat. Combined with a form of fusion the machines had found all the energy they would ever need.”

    And that sounds great! The part about the battery output, not the part about the evil robots using you as a power source. The preoccupation with battery advancements is understandable. 

    Science continues to work on coming up with a better battery. All types of batteries today–including both ones that we use today and ones that are in development–have at least one major drawback, creating a kind of Goldilocks scenario. The material is expensive to mine. The material is expensive to recycle. The battery doesn’t work in the cold. The battery doesn’t last very long in between charges. The battery can spontaneously explode. The battery takes too long to charge. The battery is too big. The list is seemingly endless–unfortunately so for the transportation sector, which has been desperately waiting for a mass adoption of electric cars, busses, vans, semis, and planes. 

    It’s no wonder why the possibility of the Matrix proposition holds the interest of many, robot masters aside.

    But no worries. As it turns out, those evil machines can’t take over the world using yourself against you. And here’s why some have called this particular battery idea utter nonsense.

    As it turns out, humans suck at being batteries, even while we are in a evil-machine-induced coma and have nothing else to do except for imagining our way through life. Go ahead and add that to your list of things you suck at. 

    I guess we don’t put out nearly as much power as Morpheus suggested. Lies, all lies! 

    Morpheus said the net energy output of a human is 315 W of power. At 7.7 billion people on the planet, that would be a total energy output of 2,425,500,000,000 W. Or 2.4255 terawatts. But that’s just not true. Humans are lousy energy converters, and estimates are that humans can convert fuel (food) into energy at a 25% efficiency rate. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That ranks us somewhere above the fluorescent lamp and under the engine of a car. Frankly, we expected better.

    Real science–as opposed to Hollywood science–suggests that all the people on the planet–combined–would generate far less, no more than 0.6 terawatts on a best-case scenario. We’re not sure whether we should be relieved that this means the motive for using us as batteries is unremarkable, or whether we should be concerned that someone has already investigated how much power humans could generate.

    The problem with the conversion and why we’re not so good at it is because human bodies need energy too. We need food. Energy in, energy out. But while we consume a significant amount of food even in our resting state, only 25% of this is converted into energy, in the form of heat. And that’s assuming these machines have found a way to capture that heat and use it as energy. 

    Even so, work on the human battery idea is moving forward, in an attempt to get around the battery bottleneck that is holding up electronic advancements.  We’d like to think these experiments will not involve evil machine overlords. 

    The Matrix 4 has just been announced, and science aside, we are expecting even more crazy energy ideas this go around. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 20:00

  • Profits, Trading Plunge At World's 3rd Largest Exchange As Hong Kong Chaos Spreads
    Profits, Trading Plunge At World's 3rd Largest Exchange As Hong Kong Chaos Spreads

    The social-economic turmoil in Hong Kong is certainly unprecedented. 

    Retail sales have crashed, housing prices are rolling over, monetary policy via the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is failing to stabilize the economy, and now, new evidence suggests the financial industry is starting to crack.

    Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd., the world’s third-largest stock exchange (in terms of average daily trading volume), recorded its worst profit in three years as investors fled regional stocks.

    Net income of the exchange plunged 10% to $282 million in Q3 YoY, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. This was one of the most significant drops since the global slowdown in 2016.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last week, Hong Kong crashed into a technical recession, the first time since the 2008/09 financial crisis. Hong Kong’s economy plunged 3.2% in Q3, government data showed last week, exceeding economists’ lowest estimates and confirming a technical recession has begun.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan warned after more than half a year of violent anti-government demonstrations, the end of October marked the start of the recession. 

    “After seeing negative growth in the second quarter, the situation continued in the third quarter, meaning our economy has entered technical recession,” Chan wrote in a blog post.

    “It seems it will be extremely difficult for us to reach full-year economic growth of 0 to 1%. I would not rule out the possibility that the full-year economic growth will be negative.”

    With two consecutive quarters of negative growth and no end to the protests in sight, Bloomberg has noted in a series of graphs that a full-year economic contraction is likely for 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since the protests became violent in early summer, Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing shares have slipped 12%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As the crisis deepens in Hong Kong, it’s likely the Hang Seng is setting up for another leg lower. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 19:40

  • Almost 80,000 California Retirees Receive Over $100,000 In Pension Pay
    Almost 80,000 California Retirees Receive Over $100,000 In Pension Pay

    Via Transparent California blog,

    The number of California retirees collecting a public pension of $100,000 or more hit an all-time high of 79,235 last year, up 85 percent since 2013.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s according to an analysis of 2018 pension payout data posted on Transparent California — the state’s largest public pay and pension database.

    Those receiving pension payouts of at least $100,000 accounted for nearly 20 percent of the $51.7 billion total payments made last year, which is also an all-time high, according to the data.

    “The only reason public pensions are an issue of public concern is because of the costs they impose on taxpayers,” explained Transparent California Executive Director Robert Fellner.

    “The data show that one out of every five dollars paid out by California’s public pension funds last year went to someone who is drawing an annual pension of at least $100,000,” Fellner said.

    Data from the US Census Bureau reveals a similar explosion in taxpayer costs, which hit an all-time high of $39.3 billion last year, more than double the amount spent in 2013.

    “Guaranteed, lifetime annual pensions of over $100,000 are quite expensive, as the soaring cost to taxpayers in recent years makes quite clear,” Fellner concluded.

    The number of retirees receiving annualized pensions of at least $100,000 at the Kern County pension fund increased 21 percent from 2017 to 2018, the biggest year-over-year increase of any pension fund statewide, as shown in the below table:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nearly half of all California cities face a “high risk” of fiscal distress due to rising pension costs, according to a recent analysis from the California State Auditor.

    “Rising pension costs will force working class Californians to pay higher taxes, while receiving fewer public services,” Fellner explained.

    To see a complete list of the more than 1.2 million pension checks issued last year, please click here. To view the data by individual pension fund, please click here.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 19:20

  • Nuclear Superpowers Unleashed: New START & Open Skies Pacts With Russia Fast Collapsing
    Nuclear Superpowers Unleashed: New START & Open Skies Pacts With Russia Fast Collapsing

    It’s not just the ‘Open Skies’ treaty with Russia that’s on the chopping block, but more significantly the two Cold War rivals’ last major arms control treaty, New START, which is the landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty signed by the two superpowers in 1991 and took effect in 1994. It is set to expire in February 2021.

    That would be a mere weeks after the next presidential inauguration. As NPR alarmingly put it this week: “The world’s two nuclear superpowers have never unleashed their atomic arsenals against one another, but two longstanding agreements that have helped keep the United States and Russia from doing so now appear to be on the verge of collapse.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image: Tu-95 bombers over the Kremlin, via AFP/Getty.

    By all appearances President Trump is ready to let it die:

    President Trump and his aides have signaled repeatedly that he intends to let it expire unless it can be broadened to include other nations with strategic weapons, chiefly China.

    But the Chinese are not interested – their arsenal is far smaller and they have shown no interest in negotiating a nuclear weapons deal. Mr. Trump’s insistence on including other nations, including China, in a renegotiation has largely been seen as a move to kill the treaty, which was negotiated by President Obama.

    President Vladimir V. Putin’s government has said that Russia hopes to renew or revise the treaty – but that the negotiations to revise it would have to begin immediately.

    Moscow has recently signaled its position that it’s already too late to work out a new accord, or extension of New START, also given Russia says it’s unsure who on the Washington side will be tapped to continue any potential negotiations. 

    “The ball is now in the Americans’ court,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Leontyev told reporters late last week. “We are looking forward to their decision and to them saying who will represent them and when we can resume our discussions on strategic stability issues.”

    And as we reported early last month, the White House is expected to also ditch ‘Open Skies’ agreement, which Trump has signaled he considers obsolete. This also after the US pullout of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

    The ‘Open Skies’ treaty which the US signed in 1992 and went into effect in 2002 is the agreement which allows Russian surveillance planes to occasionally fly over the heart of North America. The post Cold War treaty allows its 34 member states to conduct short-notice, unarmed observation flights to monitor other countries’ military operations in mutual verification of arms-control agreements. 

    Pressure is building for Trump to pull the plug, as NPR notes further: “Last week two of the Open Skies pact’s harshest congressional critics, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced a Senate resolution demanding the U.S. ditch the treaty.”

    These treaties are designed to prevent the kind of Cold War arms race which nearly took the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation, thus many analysts fear once removed there’s no putting the lid of a major arms race back on. 

    As The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison recently observed, “Refusing to renew the treaty is the same as killing it, and the US will be to blame for the collapse of the last limits on the biggest nuclear arsenals on earth.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 19:00

    Tags

  • Brazil's Overhyped Oil Auction Ends In "Total Disaster"
    Brazil's Overhyped Oil Auction Ends In "Total Disaster"

    Authored by Julianne Geiger via OilPrice.com,

    What would have been Brazil’s biggest oil auction ever has ended in what Bloomberg called a “total disaster”, as oil majors steered clear of the pricey oil areas up for grabs. Brazil was hoping to rake in more than $25 billion from the auction to offset a portion of its budget deficit and change its nationalistic oil industry ways by offering foreign players at seat at the table.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another $25 billion was set to go to Petrobras in exchange for work Petrobras had already done in exploring the areas up for grabs.

    But Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), and a consortium that involved Petrobras, were the only winning bidders, according to the Associated Press, picking up two of the four blocks. The other two blocks, however, went unsold in what was a major disappointment for Brazil—and Petrobras.

    A Petrobras (90%) consortium that involved CNOOC and CNODC managed to take home the mega Buzios field, as expected, after Petrobras admitted it would bid to win for Buzios. Petrobras also secured the rights to the Itapu block, for which it was the only bidder.

    But Petrobras will be stretched mighty thin in developing Buzios, as attractive as that block may be. And with just a tiny amount of the $25 billion it was expecting in fees from other winning bidders in the auction, it will be stretched even thinner.

    Still, Brazil took in $17 billion in licensing fees from the two blocks that were awarded, and Brazil is calling it a success. Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque said it would offer the unsold blocks again next year.

    “We’ll need to evaluate why oil majors didn’t participate,” Albuquerque told reporters.

    But everyone else – including oil titan ExxonMobil, seems to know exactly why the oil majors didn’t participate: it was just too expensive.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 18:40

  • Arizona County Declares Itself A "Second Amendment Sanctuary"
    Arizona County Declares Itself A "Second Amendment Sanctuary"

    An Arizona county which borders Nevada, California and Utah has declared itself a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary County’ in a largely symbolic move.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Photo via The Organic Prepper

    “The Board affirms its support of the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and declares Mohave County a Second Amendment Sanctuary County,” reads a resolution approved unanimously on November 4 by the Mohave County Board of Supervisors.

    “We have the support of the sheriff, and if it ever gets to the point where the courts would have to get involved because of gun laws implemented by the feds or the state, we would step up and fight them,” said Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Hildy Angius.

    Those opposed to the new declaration say it’s illegal.

    Mohave County’s new resolution doesn’t appear to elicit any actual changes in law. If it did, that could be illegal, according to Gerry Hills, the founder of Arizonans for Gun Safety, who pointed out that state preemption law blocks cities or counties from making gun policies that are different from state law.

    Either they’re going to enforce gun laws, or they’re not going to enforce gun laws,” Hills said. “And if it’s their policy not to enforce gun laws, then that’s a violation of the preemption law. Municipalities don’t get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow.”

    That law, ARS 13-3108, bans local firearms laws that are “inconsistent with or more restrictive than state law.” –Phoenix New Times

    “Although this is symbolic in nature, this reaffirms the county’s commitment, as well as mine, to support and defend the U.S. and Arizona constitutions,” said State Senator Sonny Borrelli.

    According to the Phoenix New Times, the move follows a recent trend across the southern and western United States for rural municipalities to reaffirm their support for gun rights by calling themselves “sanctuaries.”

    Last week, Parker County, Texas similarly declared its 2A Sanctuary status – while on October 9, Hood County, Texas did the same according to Breitbart.

    In early July, the California town of Needles – which borders Mohave County, also declared itself a “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City,” which was more or less a symbolic affirmation of support for gun owners. The move had no immediate impact on the city’s 5,000 or so residents, and instead resulted in the authorization of a request to California legislators to allow licensed gun owners from other states to carry their firearms in town.

    Meanwhile, on the other side of Arizona, voters in the liberal city of Tucson overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan to become a sanctuary city.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 18:20

    Tags

  • Why Illinois' Government Has Become Predatory And Unjust
    Why Illinois' Government Has Become Predatory And Unjust

    Authored by Richard Porter, op-ed via RealClearPolitics.com,

    While taxes imposed by municipalities and states are often debated on economic, efficiency or equitable grounds, the justice of taxation is rarely a subject for discussion. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But we need to have that debate in Illinois, where our government has become predatory, perverse and unjust. 

    We believe government may justly compel a range of things, including taxation. The premise behind government of, by and for the people is that everyone is created equal and free, and that therefore just government does not rule, it serves; just government does not impoverish, it enriches. 

    So, taxation is just, even though compulsory, when imposed by an elected government pursuing common welfare.  For example, we generally agree that taxes imposed for our common defense, to alleviate poverty or to enhance opportunities in the community are just because they create a better, stronger community for us all.

    When is government unjust?  When a strong few — such as a king and his knights — tax to enrich themselves, or when a government does the opposite of what it should do, such as taking something from the community, piling up what has been taken and burning it.

    Predatory governments serve themselves, not the community as a whole, and perverse governments impoverish the community instead of enriching it. 

    Which brings us to Illinois.

    Illinois is the least tax-friendly state in the nation, according to both Kiplinger’s and WalletHub, and so Illinois’ population shrinks while population in neighboring states grows.  As people leave or decide not to come, property values fall; WirePoints estimates that Chicagoland homeowners lost more than $250 billion in recent years. This massive loss in property values not only dwarfs the revenue Illinois and its municipalities collect each year, it’s greater than some measures of our unfunded pension debt. However, no one benefits from this property loss — it’s as if the government took a portion of each resident’s wealth, piled it up and burned it.  

    Residents of Illinois do not receive better government services for their higher taxes; they receive less and less because an extraordinary growing share of all government revenues are devoted to paying past promises to Illinois’ valuable government workers.

    Government must offer competitive compensation to attract people who will provide excellent services to its communities.  Taking care of government employees is necessary for any government to function. However, generations of politicians didn’t actually put up the money to pay for their generous promises. As a result, funding those pension promises is becoming a core purpose of Illinois’ government and the obsession of its leadership, making our government both predatory and perverse.

    As Illinois keeps increasing taxes on middle-income Anne (who has no pension) to pay ever greater pension benefits to government worker Jay, not only is Anne paying more for the same or less service, but the value of Anne’s house and nest egg for her own retirement falls too.  When government knowingly causes Anne, with no pension, to lose money for her retirement to pay Jay’s pension, government is serving Jay, not Anne.

    Our government’s focus on funding Jay’s increasing pension is becoming futile as tax hikes raising money for him hurt Jay too — because a shrinking tax base leaves less to fund his increasing lifetime pay.

    Nor is increasing taxes on the rich a practical alternative: Illinois’ liabilities are too vast and the rich are too few — and they can leave too, which means more taxes for Anne and more uncertainty for Jay. Scaring rich or ambitious people away is unfair to everyone.

    This is Illinois today: a place where government causes everyone to lose — and that’s perverse.  The state has entered a self-reinforcing spiral of failure, with shrinking wealth, a shrinking population and shrinking pension funds too, despite the ever higher taxes to save them.

    Illinois leaders need to face and fix the structural problem making our government unjust; government needs to restructure in order to refocus on serving and building communities. The only way out of this death spiral is lower taxes, which means we must reduce liabilities driving taxes higher — which means pensions must be reset to be fair to workers and sustainable for taxpayers.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 6th November 2019

  • Is The Global Dollar In Jeopardy?
    Is The Global Dollar In Jeopardy?

    Authored by Simon Johnson via Project Syndicate,

    Since the end of World War II, the United States dollar has been at the heart of international finance and trade. Over the decades, and despite the many ups and downs of the global economy, the dollar retained its role as the world’s favorite reserve asset. When times are tough or uncertainty reigns, investors flock to dollar-denominated assets, particularly US Treasury debt – ironically, even when there is a financial crisis in the US. As a result, the Federal Reserve – which sets US dollar interest rates – has enormous sway over economic conditions around the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For all the associated innovation evident since the launch of the decentralized blockchain-based currency Bitcoin in 2009, the arrival of modern cryptocurrencies has had essentially zero impact on the global taste for dollars. Promoters of these new forms of money still have their hopes, of course, that they can challenge the existing financial system, but the impact on global portfolios has proved minimal. The most powerful central banks (the Fed, the European Central Bank, and a few others) are still running the global money show.

    Suddenly, however, there is a new, potentially serious player in town: Facebook’s Libra initiative. Facebook and a currently shifting coalition of firms are planning to launch their own private form of money that would, in some sense, be secured by holdings of major currencies.

    Without question, Libra could become a widely used form of payment – partly because Facebook has over two billion monthly active users, but also because the existing financial system is full of inefficiencies. If private money could make it cheaper, easier, and safer to make payments, then consumers would be happy to use it. Few people care what is under the hood of the monetary engine; most just want crash-proof transactions.

    The unfortunate truth is that our current payment system is expensive to run, including for sending money overseas in the form of remittances sent by workers back to their home countries. If Libra could allow people to send money as easily (and as cheaply!) as they post updates to Facebook, the currency would get a lot of likes.

    We have repeatedly experienced how quickly a disruptive new digital technology can transform the economic landscape. Think of how fast taxis came under pressure from Uber and Lyft.

    Bitcoin and its fellow crypto-travelers were designed to supersede financial intermediaries, such as banks. And, in theory, it would be possible to organize much of finance without the kind of banks and other intermediaries that currently exist. But as a matter of inconvenient reality, the crypto-market infrastructure that has developed can hardly be described as consumer-friendly. It’s too easy to lose your money or to have it stolen in myriad ways.

    In contrast, Facebook represents a digital technology company that knows how to keep customers happy. Sure, people increasingly complain about its privacy policies or attitudes toward political speech, but they continue to use the service. There is a potentially potent combination lurking here: the rapid scale-up of digital technology, a focus on cheaper safe financial transactions, and a lack of concern for legacy systems.

    Of course, Libra has some obvious disadvantages, including Facebook’s current reputation for not acting in the public interest. As a case study in public relations, it’s hard to imagine how the past year could have been worse for Libra’s prospects. And it is always possible for leading countries to block a private form of money by determining that it does not comply with regulations, such as anti-money laundering and Know Your Customer requirements.

    But if Libra does not make progress, that just opens more space for some other, more careful corporate-backed entity. Or perhaps the challenge will come from a currency issued by a sovereign state, any of which is entitled to design and circulate its own form of money.

    For some time now, there has been speculation that the Chinese renminbi could challenge or even one day displace the US dollar as the world’s main reserve currency. Perhaps, but it is not clear that we are moving closer to that day, because it is not clear that foreign investors will trust the Chinese political system with their rainy-day funds.

    Still, the Fed is right to be concerned, if not worried. Growing potential competitive pressure – the Libra effect – creates an incentive to make the existing system work better, including through the new FedNow system, which will speed up payments.

    In a recent speech, Fed Governor Lael Brainard argued that the Fed will innovate, to a moderate degree, and the dollar will be fine. She may be right. But for the first time in a long while, competition is coming to central banks. With a bit of luck, consumers may end up with a better deal.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 11/06/2019 – 00:05

  • US Navy Secretary Warns Of "Fragile" Supply Chain And "Great Power Competition"
    US Navy Secretary Warns Of "Fragile" Supply Chain And "Great Power Competition"

    The U.S. is attempting to not just decouple its economy from the rest of the world, which won’t happen until wartime, but now there’s new evidence that supply chains for military warships could soon be recognized after it was found Russia and China supply critical components.

    U.S. Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer told the Financial Times (FT) in an exclusive interview that a top-level report found many contractors building warships used “high-tech and high-precision parts” from foreign countries, some of those countries were Russia and China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Spencer said the U.S. is in a “great power competition” with both countries, and it’s vital that critical components made in those countries aren’t used in U.S. warships. This means some of those supply chains of how contractors procure crucial components need to be reworked into allied countries and or produced domestically.

    Spencer then warned about how Beijing is “weaponizing capital” across 152 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). He accused China of forcing countries into a ‘debt trap’ to gain access and control over natural resources.

    “You go to a country in need, you fill that need which they are grateful for, but at some point do they turn around and go: ‘You know what, everybody out, we’re going to use this now . . . the keys are mine’?” Spencer said. “There’s nothing that prevents that.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China recently began BRI projects in Italy, near the site of Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri, a top finalist to develop the Navy’s new frigate. Spencer said he had a long talk with Fincantieri management about the need to protect internal networks from Chinese hackers.

    Spencer said there has been a tremendous effort to restore domestic supply chains and invest in factories to build out manufacturing capabilities.

    But he added one of the most challenging parts of restoring the U.S. industrial base is convincing investment banks to fund weapon manufacturing facilities.

    Spencer launched a “trusted capital” program where private equity funds can obtain more access to funding military projects.

    As we heard on Monday, the U.S. and its Asian allies have launched a global infrastructure program, called the Blue Dot Network, that will directly compete with BRI.

    The U.S.’ attempt to decouple its economy from the world, reorganize military supply chains away from Russia and China, and launch an alternative BRI program is a clear indication that the “great power competition” is only in the beginning innings.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 23:45

  • 'Omniviolence' Is Coming And The World Isn't Ready
    'Omniviolence' Is Coming And The World Isn't Ready

    Authored by Phil Torres via Nautil.us,

    In The Future of Violence, Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum discuss a disturbing hypothetical scenario. A lone actor in Nigeria, “home to a great deal of spamming and online fraud activity,” tricks women and teenage girls into downloading malware that enables him to monitor and record their activity, for the purposes of blackmail. The real story involved a California man who the FBI eventually caught and sent to prison for six years, but if he had been elsewhere in the world he might have gotten away with it. Many countries, as Wittes and Blum note, “have neither the will nor the means to monitor cybercrime, prosecute offenders, or extradite suspects to the United States.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Technology is, in other words, enabling criminals to target anyone anywhere and, due to democratization, increasingly at scale.

    Emerging bio-, nano-, and cyber-technologies are becoming more and more accessible. The political scientist Daniel Deudney has a word for what can result: “omniviolence.” The ratio of killers to killed, or “K/K ratio,” is falling.

    For example, computer scientist Stuart Russell has vividly described how a small group of malicious agents might engage in omniviolence:

    “A very, very small quadcopter, one inch in diameter can carry a one-or two-gram shaped charge,” he says.

    “You can order them from a drone manufacturer in China. You can program the code to say: ‘Here are thousands of photographs of the kinds of things I want to target.’ A one-gram shaped charge can punch a hole in nine millimeters of steel, so presumably you can also punch a hole in someone’s head. You can fit about three million of those in a semi-tractor-trailer. You can drive up I-95 with three trucks and have 10 million weapons attacking New York City. They don’t have to be very effective, only 5 or 10% of them have to find the target.”

    Manufacturers will be producing millions of these drones, available for purchase just as with guns now, Russell points out, “except millions of guns don’t matter unless you have a million soldiers. You need only three guys to write the program and launch.”

    In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone.

    That’s completely—and horrifyingly—unprecedented. The terrorist or psychopath of the future, however, will have not just the Internet or drones—called “slaughterbots” in this video from the Future of Life Institute—but also synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and advanced AI systems at their disposal. These tools make wreaking havoc across international borders trivial, which raises the question: Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not.

    What justifies the existence of the state, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued, is a “social contract.”

    People give up certain freedoms in exchange for state-provided security, whereby the state acts as a neutral “referee” that can intervene when people get into disputes, punish people who steal and murder, and enforce contracts signed by parties with competing interests. 

    The trouble is that if anyone anywhere can attack anyone anywhere else, then states will become – and are becoming – unable to satisfy their primary duty as referee. It’s a trend toward anarchy, “the war of all against all,” as Hobbes put it – in other words a condition of everyone living in constant fear of being harmed by their neighbors.

    Indeed, in a recent paper, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis,” published in Global Policy, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that the only way to defend against a global catastrophe is to employ a universal and invasive surveillance system, what he calls a “High-tech Panopticon.” Sound dystopian? It sure does to me.

    “Creating and operating the High-tech Panopticon would require substantial investment,” Bostrom writes, “but thanks to the falling price of cameras, data transmission, storage, and computing, and the rapid advances in AI-enabled content analysis, it may soon become both technologically feasible and affordable.”

    Bostrom is well-aware of the downsides—corrupt actors in a state could exploit this surveillance for totalitarian ends, or hackers could blackmail unsuspecting victims. Yet the fact is that it may still be a better option than suffering one global catastrophe after another. 

    How can societies counterattack omniviolence? One strategy could be a superintelligent machine—essentially, an extremely powerful algorithm—that’s specifically designed to govern fairly. We could then put the algorithm in political charge and, insofar as it governs as something like a “Philosopher King,” not worry constantly about the data collected being misused or abused. Of course, this is a fantastical proposal. Even the real-world use of AI in the justice system is fraught with problems. But at this point, do we have a better idea for preventing the collapse of the state system under the weight of widespread technological empowerment?

    Perhaps a completely new idea will emerge that can preserve the current system—if we even want it preserved. Or perhaps emerging technologies won’t empower people as much as I and others anticipate. It could be that offensive technologies will actually lag behind defensive technologies, making it very difficult to execute a successful attack. It could also be that before omniviolence and democratization undercut the state, civilization collapses because of climate change-linked stressors like lethal heatwaves, megadroughts, coastal flooding, rising sea-levels, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, desertification, food supply disruptions, disease outbreaks, biodiversity loss, species extinctions, and mass migrations. If we ended up living as hunter-gatherers again, the main worry would be sticks and stones, not designer pathogens and artificial intelligence.

    Civilization is an experiment. We may not get the results we’re expecting. So humanity would do well to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

    *  *  *

    Phil Torres is a scholar of global catastrophic risks, and author of several books. His essay, “Superintelligence and the Future of Governance: On Prioritizing the Control Problem at the End of History,” appears in the 2018 anthology, Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 23:25

  • China Launches High-Res Satellite To Monitor Belt And Road Projects
    China Launches High-Res Satellite To Monitor Belt And Road Projects

    China on Sunday launched a new high-resolution remote sensing satellite, called the Gaofen-7, which will be used to monitor Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure projects, reported Xinhua.

    The Gaofen-7 was launched on top of a Long March-4B rocket on Sunday at the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Centre in northern China.

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

    China Central Television (CCTV), citing China National Space Administration (CNSA), said the optical surveying and mapping satellite would mostly be used for urban planning and statistical research, which will allow China to reduce its dependence on foreign satellites.

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

    The Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Housing, and Urban-Rural Development and the National Bureau of Statistics will be the three most active users of Gaofen-7.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to CNSA, the Gaofen series of satellites will support a surveillance network above Earth that will monitor the atmosphere, the ground, and oceans on a 24-hour basis. 

    The Gaofen project began in 2010. The first satellite was launched in 2013, and five more have been launched since (Gaofen satellite list via Xinhua): 

    • Gaofen-1, launched into space in April 2013, is a high-resolution observation satellite.
    • Gaofen-2, sent into space in August 2014, is accurate to 0.8 meters in full color and can collect multispectral images of objects greater than 3.2 meters in length.
    • Gaofen-4, launched in late 2015, is China’s first geosynchronous orbit high-definition optical imaging satellite.
    • Gaofen-3, launched in August 2016, is China’s first synthetic aperture radar imaging satellite.
    • Gaofen-5, launched in May 2018, has the highest spectral resolution of China’s remote sensing satellites.
    • Gaofen-6, launched in June 2018, has a similar function to that of Gaofen-1, but with better cameras, and its high-resolution images can cover a large area of the earth.

    The launch of Gaofen-1 coincides with the start date of BRI infrastructure development and investment projects. 

    In the last six years, China has expanded BRI projects in 152 countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.

    It seems like China has just built a giant surveillance network of satellites that will monitor its global infrastructure projects. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 23:05

  • Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality
    Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality

    Authored by Aaron Maté via TheNation.com,

    The hawkish mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political fortunes but also global peace…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last week’s vote by House Democrats to formally open an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump followed testimony that appeared to boost their case. Several US officials told Congress that the Trump administration sought to leverage US military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening politically tainted investigations. But liberals cheering on these developments should be mindful of their limitations—and their potential consequences. The available testimony does not strike me as being as damning for Trump as it is being portrayed. More importantly, even if that proves to be a faulty interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a dangerous Cold War mentality that could threaten their own election chances in 2020.

    The Democrats’ theory of the case is plausible: At the same time as Trump’s chosen point man, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, pressured Ukraine to launch politically beneficial investigations, the president froze military aid as a tool of added leverage. But although the available testimony helps the impeachment case so far, we have not uncovered a smoking gun.

    Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, says that Sondland told him that the military assistance was conditioned on a Ukrainian pledge to open investigations into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden got his lucrative board seat, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election. Taylor also offered the first known testimony that this demand was made explicit to the Ukrainian side: According to Taylor, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison told him that Sondland directly communicated the quid pro quo to Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine’s prime minister, Volodymyr Zelensky, at a meeting in Warsaw in September 1.

    Morrison corroborated Taylor’s testimony in his appearance last week. But we do not yet know whether Morrison witnessed the Sondland-Yermak conversation that he told Taylor about, or is relying on his recollection of what Sondland told him. This would allow Sondland to claim that Morrison misinterpreted him.

    What is certain is that Morrison left some wiggle room for Trump. His opening statement says that he and Taylor “had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation” until he spoke to Sondland in Warsaw on September 1. “Even then,” he added, “I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own,” and not Trump’s. According to CNN, Morrison testified that he tried to find out whether Sondland was relaying demands to the Ukrainian side on Trump’s behalf, or was “going rogue” as a “free radical.” The fact that Morrison suspected that Sondland’s “strategy was exclusively his own” means that his testimony did not directly implicate Trump. And it leaves Trump with the leeway to claim that Sondland, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani, were indeed “going rogue.”

    It is perfectly reasonable to deduce from all of this that what Sondland relayed—if that is what he did—is exactly what Trump intended. Or indeed that Sondland was acting on Trump’s orders. But a case that can only be made from inference may have limited impact beyond those who have already made up their mind. Even if Trump knew exactly what Sondland was doing, Morrison’s testimony leaves him with the opportunity to throw Sondland under the bus. For his part, Sondland has said through his attorney that he rejects Taylor’s characterizations and does not recall the Warsaw conversation that Taylor (and now Morrison) claim to have heard about.

    For Taylor and Morrison’s testimony to prove dispositive—and to make a convincing case to the broader US public and the Senate Republicans who will decide Trump’s fate—corroborating testimony or evidence will have to emerge that Trump explicitly linked the military aid to investigations of Biden and that this demand was explicitly communicated to the Ukrainian side.

    That corroboration has yet to come from Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said that it did not feel pressured. The New York Times reported that Ukrainian officials were made aware that US military aid was on hold by the first week in August, earlier than previously known. Yet communications between US and Ukrainian officials, the Times writes, “did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the investigations.” Nor was the aid freeze mentioned in Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

    Yermak, reached via WhatsApp, did not respond to The Nation’s request for comment. His testimony will now be critical. As will follow-up testimony by Sondland. Perhaps Taylor and Morrison are accurately recounting Sondland’s words. Or perhaps Sondland will contradict them, or claim that they are conflating the investigations that Trump sought from Ukraine. As I’ve argued previously, demanding an investigation of documented (and openly acknowledgedUkrainian meddling in the 2016 elections is different from demanding one of a political rival.

    All of this positions us for a “he said, he said” impeachment scandal: The question of whether or not Trump is guilty of attempting to extort Ukraine could come down to which US bureaucrat, one chooses to believe.

    There is no reason to put faith in Sondland, who, in line with a longstanding tradition in US diplomacy, owes his plush diplomatic posting to a lucrative campaign donation to the winning presidential candidate. But before we embrace bureaucrats Taylor, Morrison, and another key witness, NSC official Alexander Vindman, as liberal heroes, it is worth taking stock of their impartiality and espoused views. Despite efforts to portray them as nonpartisan civil servants, the trio’s opening statements show them to be Cold Warriors devoted to continuing the US-Russia proxy war in Ukraine. As their testimony makes clear, that proxy war was imperiled by the very action that Trump took—briefly freezing the military aid that they all unabashedly support.

    In the case of Taylor, arming Ukraine was a condition of his willingness to serve in the job. When the Trump administration asked him to take the position in Kiev, Taylor recalls thinking, “I could be effective only if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine… were to continue.” Taylor even told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “If US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and I could not stay.” No wonder then, that Taylor was upset when he began to hear rumblings that US military assistance to Ukraine was in jeopardy.

    Another star witness, Vindman, offers a similar outlook. Russia, he says, “has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy” necessitating “a deterrent.” To Vindman, that deterrent is “a strong and independent Ukraine,” which, he believes, is “critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.” Morrison concurs, declaring that the administration’s policy “was to make sure the United States’ longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine’s security remained unaltered.” In his view, “security sector assistance… is, therefore, essential to Ukraine.”

    Given their open dedication to ensuring the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine, it is reasonable to question if the trio’s interpretations of decisions and conversations about freezing military aid were colored by their own policy preferences. As The Washington Post put it, Vindman “told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy.” While undoubtedly many Democrats and Republicans share Vindman’s foreign policy views, it should be up to the president, not unelected bureaucrats, to decide US foreign policy.

    Even if their recollections are accurate, the consequence of embracing their collective worldview is worth considering. We do not need wade far into the intricacies of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to know that the position of Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison—and by extension, the entire liberal political and media establishment now cheering them—is well to the right of what the Democratic Party embodied just one administration ago.

    The very US military assistance that Trump froze is the same that President Barack Obama refused to provide during his last years in office. Obama feared, as The New York Times noted in 2015, that US weapons sent to Ukraine “would only escalate the bloodshed” in the Donbass and possibly “[end] up in the hands of thugs” (a likely reference to far-right Ukrainians, which proved prescient).

    In refusing to send that US military aid, Obama rejected intense pressure from the bipartisan DC foreign policy establishment. This includes Taylor himself, who, as he notes in his opening statement, unsuccessfully lobbied Obama to arm Ukraine. Taylor’s contemporaneous view is captured in a December 2014 letter he wrote to The Washington Post. Taylor denounced an opinion article, co-authored by a former Obama State Department official, that had opposed sending US arms to Ukraine and advocated an agreement between NATO and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Backers of such steps, Taylor wrote, are “advocating that the West appease Russia.… Now is not the time for appeasement.”

    The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on which to pin removing a president from office. Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all, campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton may become the Democrats’ next star witness might also hasten some reflection.

    The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political fortunes but also global peace. Lost in the outrage over Trump’s potential—and ultimately unrealized—interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky, the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on ending the war with Russia that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now under heavy pressure from Ukraine’s far right to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does not bode well for Zelensky’s chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively joining hands with his country’s own right-wing forces to continue the war.

    The dangers extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. The day after the House impeachment vote, Russia warned that there is not enough time left to renegotiate the New START Treaty, the last remaining accord limiting the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, before it expires in 2021. The treaty’s demise, The New York Times notes, would leave the world’s top two nuclear powers “free to expand their arsenals without limits” on “the most powerful weapons both sides can launch.” According to Vladimir Leontyev, Russia’s top arms control official, the Kremlin hopes to renew or revise the accord, but “the US administration is silent about it.” The Russians’ impression, Leontyev added, is that the Trump White House “is organically against any restrictions being imposed on the United States.”

    The Russian warning, the Times adds, is “the latest in a sobering list of signals that the great powers appear headed for a new arms race,” following Trump’s earlier withdrawal from another critical nuclear accord, the INF Treaty. It is also the latest in a long list of Trump administration policies that have escalated tensions with nuclear-armed Russia—including authorizing the US military assistance to Ukraine that Obama once opposed and that Democrats now seek to impeach him over. The fact that this list includes increasing the threat of nuclear conflict should be sobering to any liberal who continues to push the falsehood that Trump does Russia’s bidding—all the more so given that the propagation of this falsehood helps worsen, rather than reduce, those tensions.

    There is another list worth being mindful of: The many Trump administration scandals that Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, overshadows. The day after the House impeachment vote also coincided with the end of the comment period for a Trump administration plan to cut food programs for low-income Americans. According to government estimates, around 3 million recipients face the loss of food stamp benefits and close to 1 million children are at risk of losing automatic placement in federal school lunch programs.

    “Instead of declaring a war on poverty, this president has declared war on our most vulnerable citizens,” Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on nutrition, said last month. That is undoubtedly correct, which makes it all the more puzzling that Democrats are preoccupied with an impeachment scandal that overshadows Trump’s attacks on the vulnerable and encourages him to escalate wars abroad. The same goes for their stance on Syria, which saw bipartisan opposition to an announced US withdrawal but next to no opposition to Trump’s sudden reversal with the explicit aim of stealing Syria’s oil.

    It is true that polls currently show that a majority of Americans support impeachment. It is also encouraging that Democratic presidential candidates are sidelining the impeachment drama to focus on serious policy issues on the campaign trail. At the same time, it appears that Democrats are not moving the needle in the battleground states that will decide the next election. A new New York Times/Siena College poll of the six closest swing states that went Republican in 2016 finds that Trump’s “advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016.”

    With 2020 on the horizon, the dangers of the Democratic establishment’s priorities cannot be emphasized enough.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • China Exports African Swine Fever To Russia
    China Exports African Swine Fever To Russia

    A new report from Bloomberg details how African swine fever has likely been exported to Russia. This could be problematic for Russia, due in part that if the hog-killing disease spreads, it could start wiping out large swaths of herds, as it has already done in China. 

    In the last several months, about 60 cases of African swine fever have been reported to Russian authorities in the Amur Oblast region in Russia, a federal district that borders China in the Russian Far East.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dirk Pfeiffer, a professor of veterinary medicine and life sciences at the City University of Hong Kong, told Bloomberg that a cross-border spread between the two countries is likely underway. “Wild boar are very likely to now also be infected in northern China,” Pfeiffer said.

    China has so far observed at least 50% of its herd this year wiped out from the fast-spreading disease. 

    Russia’s hog population in the Far East accounts for barely 2% of the country’s total hog population, which for now, could be contained.

    Rosselkhoznadzor, Russia’s biosecurity watchdog, has been on guard for a cross-border spread since summer, there have been several reports of Chinse citizens attempting to sneak infected meat across checkpoints into Russia.

    Andriy Rozstalnyy, an animal health officer with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, told Bloomberg that once the wild pig population is infected with African swine fever, then the spread of the disease is virtually uncontrollable. 

    In the last month, 275 pigs have died, and 2,473 have been killed in the Amur Oblast region, a move spurred by authorities to limit the outbreak.

    The cross-border spread of African swine fever, from China to Russia, is undoubtedly a significant cause for concern because now countries bordering China are being affected.

    Meanwhile, the US is sitting on record cold storage of pork bellies, something that China and Russia might be interested in… 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 22:25

  • Ron Paul Pans Law Enforcement's New Mass Surveillance Plan: Sentence First, Crime Later?
    Ron Paul Pans Law Enforcement's New Mass Surveillance Plan: Sentence First, Crime Later?

    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    Attorney General William Barr recently sent a memo to law enforcement officials announcing a new federal initiative that would use techniques and tools developed in the war on terror, such as mass surveillance, to identify potential mass shooters. Those so identified would be targets of early interventions, which would include the disregarding of Second Amendment rights, as well as the imposing of mandatory counseling and involuntary commitment.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The program would likely match data collected via mass surveillance with algorithms designed to identify those with mental problems that would lead them to commit violent crimes. So, this program would deprive Americans of respect for their rights not because they committed, or even threaten to commit, a violent act but because their tweets, texts, or Facebook posts trigger a government algorithm.

    In order to enhance the government’s ability to conduct mass surveillance, Barr has been trying to force tech companies to allow the government to have a “backdoor” for accessing electronic information. This would allow the government to read all messages — even those that are encrypted, making it all but impossible to escape the government’s watchful eye.

    Many mental health professionals admit that diagnosing mental health issues involves a degree of subjectivity. So how can we trust a government-designed computer algorithm to accurately identify those with mental health problems? The answer is we can’t. Barr’s program will no doubt result in many individuals who are not a threat to anyone being deprived of respect for their rights. The program will also fail in detecting future mass shooters.

    Some mental health professionals argue that holding certain political beliefs is a sign of mental illness. Not surprisingly, federal agencies like the FBI agree that those expressing “anti-government extremism”— like supporting a constitutional republic instead of a welfare-warfare state — are potential threats.

    A recent internal FBI memo warned that a belief in “conspiracy theories” is a sign that someone could be a domestic terrorist. “Conspiracy theorist” is an all-purpose smear used against anyone who questions the government’s official narrative on an event or issue. Tying a belief in “conspiracy theory” to terrorism is an effort to not just stigmatize but actually criminalize dissenting thoughts on matters such as foreign policy, climate change, gun control, and the Federal Reserve.

    Some people support using political beliefs as a basis for labeling someone as “mentally disturbed” because they think it will mainly affect “right-wing extremists.” These people are ignoring the FBI’s history of harassing civil rights and antiwar activists, as well as the recent controversy over the FBI labeling “black identity extremists” as a threat.

    A government program to monitor electronic communications to identify potential mass shooters puts all Americans at risk of losing their liberty due to their political views or a few social media posts. All those who value liberty must oppose this dangerous program.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 22:05

  • Adobe Is Leading The Charge Against The Growing Epidemic Of Deepfake Videos
    Adobe Is Leading The Charge Against The Growing Epidemic Of Deepfake Videos

    The reality of deepfakes – or human image synthesis based on artificial intelligence to fake human participation in videos – is becoming so widespread and alarming that some of the biggest names in technology are teaming up with the New York Times to combat the problem.

    With advances in editing tools and AI, fake videos – used for purposes spanning political motives to good old revenge porn – are becoming more prominent and certainly more convincing. “It will soon be possible to make convincing videos showing anyone saying anything and photos of things that never happened,” according to Axios

    As a result, Twitter, Adobe and the New York Times are now proposing a collaborative effort to make clear who makes photos or videos, and what changes have been made to them along the way.

    Adobe is hoping to implement a system that allows publishers to append secure distribution data to content. The company could include the technology in its own tools, but it seeks for the technology to be an “open standard” that others would also use. The company showed a prototype of this tool earlier this week at its MAX conference in Los Angeles. 

    The companies are joined by a startup called Truepic, which also aims to create a “secure path” from the moment a photo or video is captured that can then be used to verify its authenticity. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Axios’ Kaveh Waddell said that the idea: “…solves a small but important layer of the online trust crisis. This would allow a reader to verify that something came from Axios — but if they are skeptical of Axios to begin with, that won’t matter. Verification that isn’t easily accessible threatens to bifurcate online information into ‘trusted content’ from those who have the resources to verify it and an easily dismissed information underclass.”

    Many companies are looking to prove authenticity via means of blockchain or decentralized lists of transactions that can’t be altered. An alternative idea involves a database held by a single company. Adobe has commented that it has not yet finalized what type of mechanism it will use. 

    Adobe general counsel Dana Rao said: “When it comes to the problem of deepfakes, we think the answer really is around ‘knowledge is power’ and transparency. We feel if we give people information about who and what to trust, we think they will have the ability to make good choices.”

    New York Times’ head of R&D Marc Lavallee commented: “Discerning trusted news on the internet is one of the biggest challenges news consumers face today. Combating misinformation will require the entire ecosystem — creators, publishers and platforms — to work together.”

    Finally, Twitter trust and safety head Del Harvey said“Serving and enhancing global public conversation is our core mission at Twitter. Everyone has a role to play in information quality and media literacy.”

    Adobe will be hosting a summit at its headquarters next month to continue the discussion. “We do look at this as a shared responsibility,” Rao concluded.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 21:45

  • Chinese State-Sponsored Hackers Intercept Text Messages Worldwide: Cyber Report
    Chinese State-Sponsored Hackers Intercept Text Messages Worldwide: Cyber Report

    Authored by Nicole Hao via The Epoch Times,

    U.S.-based cybersecurity firm FireEye revealed that a state-backed Chinese hacker group APT41 has compromised several major telecom firms and retrieved call records from the carriers’ customers whom they deemed as targets, intercepting text messages as well as call records worldwide.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The report did not name the telecom companies. The hackers searched call and text records for specific keywords, including the names of “high-value” targets such as the names of politicians, intelligence organizations, and political movements “at odds with the Chinese government,” according to the report.

    This is not the first time that Chinese state-sponsored hackers were reported to have intercepted international cell phone text messages. U.S.-based cybersecurity firm Cybereason released a report on Jun. 25, discussing how hacker group APT10 conducted persistent attacks since 2017 on global telecommunications providers. Cybereason concluded that APT10 operates “on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of State Security,” China’s chief intelligence agency. They were to obtain call detail records (CDR), which includes call time, duration, the involved phone numbers, and geolocation.

    MESSAGETAP

    FireEye published its study on text message security on Oct. 31, focusing on a new tool that APT41 is using: a malware named MESSAGETAP, to intercept people’s text messages worldwide.

    Text messages are also called short message service (SMS) messages, referring to the plain word messages that are sent and received by cellphones.

    The report explained that APT41 hackers installed MESSAGETAP on the Short Message Service Center (SMSC) servers of the targeted telecom carriers. The malware can then monitor all network connections to and from the server.

    MESSAGETAP can intercept all SMS messaging traffic, which includes the content of the messages; their cellphones’ unique identifiers, known as international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) number; and the source and destination phone numbers.

    Furthermore, the hackers can set up keywords in MESSAGETAP, allowing the malware to filter the content that the hackers are looking for.

    During the investigation, FireEye found out that hackers searched keywords such as the names of “foreign high-ranking individuals of interest to the Chinese intelligence services,” as well as political leaders, military and intelligence organizations, and political movements.

    FireEye said they observed four telecommunication organizations being targeted by APT41 in 2019.

    APT41’s Targets

    FireEye previously released a full report on APT41 in August, titled “Double Dragon: APT41, a dual espionage and cyber crime operation.”

    “Double” refers to the fact that “APT41 is a Chinese state-sponsored espionage group that is also conducting financially motivated activity for personal gain,” since 2012. It did not provide further details about who has hired APT41’s services.

    One particular pattern emerged: “APT41 targets industries in a manner generally aligned with China’s Five-Year economic development plans” and Beijing’s ten-year’s plan “Made in China 2025,” according to the report.

    The hacker group also gathers intelligence ahead of important events, such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and political events.

    Made in China 2025,” first launched in 2015, is an economic blueprint for China to become the dominant manufacturing nation in the world in 10 key high-technology verticals, such as pharmaceuticals, artificial intelligence, and robotics.

    APT41 targets healthcare (including medical devices and diagnostics), pharmaceuticals, retail, software companies, telecoms, travel services, education, video games, and virtual currencies, according to the report.

    APT41 has targeted firms in those sectors located in the United States, UK, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, Myanmar, Thailand, and South Africa.

    Purpose and Tools

    FireEye found out that APT41 focused on stealing intellectual property from those targeted countries. But beginning in mid-2015, the hackers “have moved toward strategic intelligence collection and establishing access and away from direct intellectual property theft.”

    The hacker group uses “over 46 different malware families and tools to accomplish their missions, including publicly available utilities, malware shared with other Chinese espionage operations, and tools unique to the group,” the report said.

    In order for a firm to protect itself from potential attacks from APT41, FireEye warned firms not to open unfamiliar emails: “The group often relies on spear-phishing emails with attachments such as compiled HTML (.chm) files to initially compromise their victims.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 21:25

  • The Rise Of Robots Is Crippling Jobs In The Already Recessionary Auto Industry
    The Rise Of Robots Is Crippling Jobs In The Already Recessionary Auto Industry

    It’s no longer a question of “if” we’re going to all eventually be replaced with robot overlords in the workplace, it’s a question of “when”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The nuances of how this is going to occur – like which industries are likely to see to the most disruption from automation – were the topic of a new study published by St. Louis Fed Economist Maximiliano Dvorkin and Research Associate Asha Bharadwaj.

    The authors found that there has been predominantly a decline in U.S. “middle-skill” occupations as a result of automation. This was despite growth in both high- and low-skill occupations occurring at the same time. 

    According to the authors, this job polarization is a result of “automation and offshoring, because both these forces lower the demand for middle-skill occupations relative to the rest.”

    In the study, the authors looked at two types of work:

    1. Whether jobs involve routine tasks or nonroutine tasks

    2. Whether jobs use mostly cognitive skills or manual skills (brain vs. brawn)

    They also looked at how the state of employment has changed across these four categories:

    • Nonroutine cognitive, which includes management, professional and related occupations

    • Nonroutine manual, which includes service occupations related to assisting or caring for others, such as health care support, food preparation and serving, and cleaning

    • Routine cognitive, which includes sales and office occupations

    • Routine manual, which includes construction, transportation, production and repair occupations

    The study found that “employment in nonroutine occupations, both cognitive and manual, has been increasing steadily for several decades, while employment in routine occupations has been mostly stagnant or even declining.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The authors also honed in on robots used specifically for industrial automation processes. 

    The study found: “Industrial robots are fully autonomous machines that do not require any human intervention and can be reprogrammed to perform several manual tasks. For instance, technologies like tractors or elevators are not industrial robots since they are able to perform only specific tasks and require some degree of human intervention.”

    And the use of robots in industrial automation isn’t just prominent in the U.S. – industrial robots per thousand workers was higher in Germany and Italy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “France and the average of the countries Spain, the U.K. and Sweden were ahead of the U.S. in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but in the last decade, it seems that the U.S. has overtaken these countries,” the study found. 

    Arguably the most important finding, however, was that the automotive industry – an industry already being ravaged by recession and job cuts – is seeing the highest distribution of robots out of all industries.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The study concluded: “Clearly, the automotive industry is by far the largest user of robots, in the U.S. as well as in other advanced countries around the world. For instance, in 2014, the automotive industry accounted for around 54% of the total U.S. stock of robots. For Germany, the share was higher, at around 60%.”

    It’s just another brick in the wall of the worsening picture if you are dependent on the automotive industry, which has collapsed globally over the last 18 months, take make your living. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 21:05

  • Living Under The Spectre Of Hyperinflation: 1923 Weimar And Today
    Living Under The Spectre Of Hyperinflation: 1923 Weimar And Today

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The StrategiC ulture Foundation,

    While world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding across the Middle East, and as many Americans are brainwashed to believe the 2020 elections are driven by the need to impeach President Trump, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the western banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In my last report, I discussed why the current financial system is on the verge of a 1923-Weimar style hyperinflation driven by Federal Reserve bailouts trying desperately to support a deleveraging of the $1200 trillion derivatives bubble that has taken over the western banking system. I also discussed the Bank of England-led “solution” currently to this crisis involves a new global “green” digital currency with new “rules” which are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses.

    In this article, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.

    Versailles and the Destruction of Germany

    Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.

    Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.

    Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 2020 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheel barrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.

    1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed

    When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.

    Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.

    As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.

    One Last Attempt to Save Germany

    Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.

    By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The New Silk Road or New World Order

    Today’s world sits atop a bubble of unimagined proportions which began to blow in 2008 and has been kept afloat by nothing more than a decade of blind hope mixed with money printing, zero interest rates, speculation and austerity. The PHYSICAL economic basis supporting the money system has been crippled due to 40 years of post-industrial consumerism rampant across the west. While it is admitted that the U.S dollar cannot remain the reserve currency for the world as it has from 1945-present, those same central banking forces from London have admitted that if their plans for a “one-world” green digital currency is not forced onto nations, then China’s Yuan and the New Silk Road will shape the new system.

    Whether London will manage to succeed in 2020 pushing a fascist de-carbonization (ie: depopulation) scheme onto the world where their 1920 Monster failed remains to be seen.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 20:45

  • US Army Purchases 624 Robotic Mules For Combat Use
    US Army Purchases 624 Robotic Mules For Combat Use

    In an effort to rapidly modernize before the next large-scale military conflict, the US Army has purchased 624 robotic mules from General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), a deal worth more than $162 million, reported Defense Blog.

    GDLS’ MUTT (Multi-Utility Tactical Transport) is designed to reduce a soldier’s load by carrying gear on an 8×8 unmanned ATV. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Army officials, MUTT can haul up to 1,000 pounds of gear and is designed to follow infantry soldiers on the battlefield, through some of the harshest terrains. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Infantry soldiers carry between 60-120 pounds of gear, and MUTT can alleviate nearly 80% of the weight, which allows soldiers to move swiftly across the battlefield.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    MUTT comes in several sizes: tracked, 6×6, and 8×8. It measures 9 feet long by 5 feet wide, can carry 1,000 pounds of gear, and also provide 3,000 watts of power, in addition to a 60-mile range. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Besides hauling soldiers’ heavy gear packs, MUTT can hold anti-tank missiles and or spare ammunition. 

    Several other uses include evacuating wounded soldiers from frontlines, surveillance missions with high-tech sensors, and it can even be outfitted with machine guns, anti-tank missiles, and or grenade launchers to conduct attack missions. 

    In 2H18, soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, were given several MUTTs for a field training exercise that simulated warzone like conditions. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “It’s a huge upgrade for the dismounted reconnaissance troop. I picked up five casualties in one night at different locations with this vehicle [MUTT] that I wouldn’t have been able to do. I’d have been able to make it to maybe two,” said 1st Sgt. Joshua Richards, 1st Brigade Combat Team.

    The next big push with the Army are robots for the modern battlefield. Before you know it, these artificially intelligent machines will be making war decessions without any or limited input from humans. The rise of the terminator is happening. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 20:25

  • Dalio: "The World Has Gone Mad And The System Is Broken"
    Dalio: "The World Has Gone Mad And The System Is Broken"

    Authored by Ray Dalio via LinkedIn.com,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I say these things because:

    • Money is free for those who are creditworthy because the investors who are giving it to them are willing to get back less than they give. More specifically investors lending to those who are creditworthy will accept very low or negative interest rates and won’t require having their principal paid back for the foreseeable future. They are doing this because they have an enormous amount of money to invest that has been, and continues to be, pushed on them by central banks that are buying financial assets in their futile attempts to push economic activity and inflation up. The reason that this money that is being pushed on investors isn’t pushing growth and inflation much higher is that the investors who are getting it want to invest it rather than spend it. This dynamic is creating a “pushing on a string” dynamic that has happened many times before in history (though not in our lifetimes) and was thoroughly explained in my book Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises. As a result of this dynamic, the prices of financial assets have gone way up and the future expected returns have gone way down while economic growth and inflation remain sluggish. Those big price rises and the resulting low expected returns are not just true for bonds; they are equally true for equities, private equity, and venture capital, though these assets’ low expected returns are not as apparent as they are for bond investments because these equity-like investments don’t have stated returns the way bonds do. As a result, their expected returns are left to investors’ imaginations. Because investors have so much money to invest and because of past success stories of stocks of revolutionary technology companies doing so well, more companies than at any time since the dot-com bubble don’t have to make profits or even have clear paths to making profits to sell their stock because they can instead sell their dreams to those investors who are flush with money and borrowing power. There is now so much money wanting to buy these dreams that in some cases venture capital investors are pushing money onto startups that don’t want more money because they already have more than enough; but the investors are threatening to harm these companies by providing enormous support to their startup competitors if they don’t take the money. This pushing of money onto investors is understandable because these investment managers, especially venture capital and private equity investment managers, now have large piles of committed and uninvested cash that they need to invest in order to meet their promises to their clients and collect their fees.

    • At the same time, large government deficits exist and will almost certainly increase substantially, which will require huge amounts of more debt to be sold by governments—amounts that cannot naturally be absorbed without driving up interest rates at a time when an interest rate rise would be devastating for markets and economies because the world is so leveraged long. Where will the money come from to buy these bonds and fund these deficits? It will almost certainly come from central banks, which will buy the debt that is produced with freshly printed money. This whole dynamic in which sound finance is being thrown out the window will continue and probably accelerate, especially in the reserve currency countries and their currencies—i.e., in the US, Europe, and Japan, and in the dollar, euro, and yen. 

    • At the same time, pension and healthcare liability payments will increasingly be coming due while many of those who are obligated to pay them don’t have enough money to meet their obligations. Right now many pension funds that have investments that are intended to meet their pension obligations use assumed returns that are agreed to with their regulators. They are typically much higher (around 7%) than the market returns that are built into the pricing and that are likely to be produced. As a result, many of those who have the obligations to deliver the money to pay these pensions are unlikely to have enough money to meet their obligations. Those who are recipients of these benefits and expecting these commitments to be adhered to are typically teachers and other government employees who are also being squeezed by budget cuts. They are unlikely to quietly accept having their benefits cut. While pension obligations at least have some funding, most healthcare obligations are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, and because of the shifting demographics in which fewer earners are having to support a larger population of baby boomers needing healthcare, there isn’t enough money to fund these obligations either. Since there isn’t enough money to fund these pension and healthcare obligations, there will likely be an ugly battle to determine how much of the gap will be bridged by 1) cutting benefits, 2) raising taxes, and 3) printing money (which would have to be done at the federal level and pass to those at the state level who need it). This will exacerbate the wealth gap battle. While none of these three paths are good, printing money is the easiest path because it is the most hidden way of creating a wealth transfer and it tends to make asset prices rise. After all, debt and other financial obligations that are denominated in the amount of money owed only require the debtors to deliver money; because there are no limitations made on the amounts of money that can be printed or the value of that money, it is the easiest path. The big risk of this path is that it threatens the viability of the three major world reserve currencies as viable storeholds of wealth. At the same time, if policy makers can’t monetize these obligations, then the rich/poor battle over how much expenses should be cut and how much taxes should be raised will be much worse. As a result rich capitalists will increasingly move to places in which the wealth gaps and conflicts are less severe and government officials in those losing these big tax payers will increasingly try to find ways to trap them.

    • At the same time as money is essentially free for those who have money and creditworthiness, it is essentially unavailable to those who don’t have money and creditworthiness, which contributes to the rising wealth, opportunity, and political gaps. Also contributing to these gaps are the technological advances that investors and the entrepreneurs that I previously mentioned are excited by in the ways I described, and that also replace workers with machines. Because the “trickle-down” process of having money at the top trickle down to workers and others by improving their earnings and creditworthiness is not working, the system of making capitalism work well for most people is broken. 

    This set of circumstances is unsustainable and certainly can no longer be pushed as it has been pushed since 2008. That is why I believe that the world is approaching a big paradigm shift.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 20:11

  • Schlichter: Trump Is Derailing The Elite's Gravy Train
    Schlichter: Trump Is Derailing The Elite's Gravy Train

    Authored by Kurt Schlichter, op-ed via Townhall.com,

    Like the garbage French elite of long ago, our American garbage elite of today has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

    For four years, it has been focused entirely on deep-sixing Donald Trump for his unforgivable crime of demanding that our ruling caste be held accountable for its legacy of failure. Instead of focusing on not being terrible at their job of running America’s institutions, our elitists have decided that the real problem is us Normals being angry about how they are terrible at their job of running America’s institutions.

    So, let’s imagine that they finally vanquish Trump, though every time they come up against him they end up dragging themselves home like Ned Beatty after a particularly tough canoe trip.

    What happens then?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What happens then is that it’s back to business as usual, and for decades, business as usual for our garbage elite has not merely been running our institutions badly but pillaging and looting our country for power, prestige and cash.

    The difference is that in the future they will be much more careful to ensure that no one who is not in on the scam will ever again come anywhere near the levers of power. You can already see it – the demands that we defer to the bureaucrats they own, the attacks on the idea of free expression, and the campaign to disarm us. Their objective is no more Trumps, just an endless line of progressive would-be Maduros with the march toward despair occasionally put on pause for a term by some Fredocon Republican who hates us Normals just as much as the Dems, but won’t admit it until after he’s out of office.

    Our garbage elite talks a good game about its service and moral superiority, but if our betters were actually better than us, we would not be having this national conversation about how awful they are.

    The fact is that what they want to do is go back to the way it was before Trump, back to 2015, aka the year 1 BT – Before Trump. Back then, progressive Democrats got their bizarre social pathologies normalized. Moderate Democrats got money, power and an open season on the local talent. Corporate types represented largely by squishy Republicans got globalism and the ability to ship our jobs out and import Third World serfs in. And the fake conservatives of Conservative, Inc., got to cash in without the necessity of actually conserving anything.

    The only people that the old system didn’t work for were the American people.

    It’s important to remember and to always remind yourself, that everything our elite says about its motives and morals is a lie and a scam. Take the whole #MeToo thing. This was supposed to be some sort of revolutionary rebellion against the sexual exploitation of the powerless by the powerful. It’s not, and never was. Rather, it’s simply an internal power struggle among and within the elites to reallocate power among snooty people who don’t give a damn about you or me.

    The fall of Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer or any of the other bigwigs means nothing to the conservative single mom being exploited by the Democrat donors who own Walmart. It was actually striving female members of the elite – actresses, models, media figures, executives – leveraging the monstrosity of the creeps at the top to increase their own power within the elite. Do you see any of these #MeToo heroines, now that they have taken their scalps, helping their non-elite sisters out in Gun-Jesusland? Yeah, right. They are lining up with the rest of their elite pals to shaft us.

    What you do see is excuses. They excuse Bill Clinton and his enabler Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. They excuse Gropey Joe. They are in the process of excusing Katie Hill, whose naked hairbrush photo has ensured that none of us will ever sit on a hotel room chair again. Why no outrage? Why no concern? Because taking out Stumbles McMyturn or Hoover’s Dad or Congresswoman Every Man’s Lesbian Fantasy Destroyer does not help the faction of the elite that benefited from #MeToo. That would help us, but not the elite. Throuple Gal was exposed by Townhall’s peppery sister site Redstate, not the mainstream media, and the mainstream media is horrified – not by her furniture defilement but that word of it got through the gate they yearn to keep.

    The simple fact is that they desperately want Trump out so they can return to the good old days of winks, nods, and payoffs.

    Look at the Biden Family Crime Syndicate and the antics of the junior capo of the Cosa Nose Candy. In what universe is it A-OK that the crack-fueled Johnny Appleseed of paternity suits that is Joe’s snortunate son was cashing in on $50K a month in sweet, sweet Ukrainian gas gold just weeks after Ensign Biden got booted because he tooted? And then there’s riding on Air Force Two to the NBA’s favorite dictatorship for some commie ducats. Now there are even some Romanian shenanigans too – is there a single country on earth that Totally-Not-Senile Joe didn’t shake down for the benefit of his daughter-in-law’s second hubby?

    But our garbage elite’s garbage media seems amazingly uninterested in all this – it’s fascinated by the timing of a situation room snap after Trump unleashed the Army’s Delta Force on al-Baghdadi and by dog medal memes, but the Veep’s boy’s bag-mannery is not merely of no interest but is something they close their fussy phalanx ranks around to protect. Keep in mind, the premise underlying the whole star chamber impeachment festival of onanism is that Donald Trump, America’s chief law enforcement officer, was somehow wrong and bad and double-plus ungood because he allegedly asked the Ukrainians, “Hey, what’s the dealio with the Columbia Kid’s pay-offs?”

    In a non-bizarro political universe, the proper reaction to the Prezzy demanding, “You best fork over the evidence on these manifestly corrupt antics involving the Vice-President of the United States or we’re cutting you off from the American taxpayers’ feeding trough,” would be, “Hell to the yeah, four more years! Four more years!’

    But it’s not, because the elite likes its sexual abuse and its foreign cash and its total lack of accountability to us, the Normals, the people who are supposed to be the ones that our elite is working for. The elite has not learned its lesson. It has not admitted that it sucks and resolved to stop sucking.

    Instead, it has doubled down. And if it gets power again, it will act to solve what it sees as the most urgent problem facing America – the fact that we the people have the ability to reject the elite’s utter incompetence and surpassing greed and elect someone with a mandate to burn down the whole rotten edifice.

    If the elitists get power again, they are never letting go of it, not without a fight. And now, doesn’t the elite’s obsessive fixation on shutting down conservative dissent, eliminating competing institutions (like religious entities), and disarming law-abiding Americans make a lot more sense?

    *  *  *

    Our garbage elite is outraged over the success of my action-packed yet hilarious novels of America torn apart by liberal malice, People’s RepublicIndian Country and Wildfire. In a few weeks, Number IV, Collapse, will drop. They call these books “appalling.” They don’t want you to read them. That’s better than any blurb!


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 20:05

  • Most Severe Internet Outage To Date Hits Iraq After Government Blocks Access
    Most Severe Internet Outage To Date Hits Iraq After Government Blocks Access

    Iraqi anti-government demonstrators fear a major new crackdown is coming after much of the nation’s internet access has been cut, especially in the restive south. This also as Baghdad authorities fear outside ‘foreign interference’ after President Trump referenced the mass protests on Twitter. 

    A nearly nationwide blockage was first reported last night, and was briefly restored early Tuesday before being cut off again. “At the time of writing, national connectivity has fallen below 19% of normal levels sending tens of millions of users offline across Baghdad, also impacting Basra, Karbala and other population centers,” Reuters cited NetBlocks as stating late in the day Monday. “The new disruption is believed to be the most severe observed in Iraq to date,” the report added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The large scale protests, raging for over a month, have resulted in violent clashes with police, and involved Iraq’s paramilitary units backed by Iran.

    And NetBlocks monitoring group further observed into Tuesday  “Internet shut down again across most of Iraq following brief 3.5 hour restoration; real-time network data show national connectivity currently at 30% of ordinary levels” — related to the ongoing mass protests which have swept the country for over the past month. 

    After accusations of Iran being involved in assisting and directing Baghdad security forces’ crackdown, which in many case has involved live ammo to disband crowds, resulting at this point in over 250 Iraqis killed and nearly 10,000 wounded, there’s growing fears that a Syria-style broader proxy war could emerge. 

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

    The major government ordered blockage came a day after on Sunday the Iranian consulate in the city of Karbala came under attack by throngs of demonstrators and was torched, in the latest sign of public backlash over perceived Iranian control of Iraq’s politics and military. 

    On Sunday President Trump retweeted two videos showing the attack on the consulate, no doubt as encouragement given it was an Iranian target. It’s possible or even likely that this was a deciding factor in authorities blocking internet access for most of the country. 

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

    President Trump retweeted the above, along with another video of the consulate attack.

    NetBlocks and the NGO Internet Society have estimated that the current internet blockage, the most significant in the nation’s history, has now cost Iraq over $1.3 billion.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 19:45

  • All US Intel Agencies Confirm No Evidence Of Meddling In Election, Urge Everyone To Panic Nonetheless
    All US Intel Agencies Confirm No Evidence Of Meddling In Election, Urge Everyone To Panic Nonetheless

    Let the fearmongering begin…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a joint statement from the alphabet soup of US intel agencies (DOJ, DOD, DHS, DNI, FBI, NSA, and GSA) on ensuring the security of the 2020 elections, officials would like you to know that while there is no current evidence of any threats, “foreign malicious actors” are out there hating you for your freedom and democracy and ready to meddle…

    Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan, Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, FBI Director Christopher Wray, U.S. Cyber Command Commander and NSA Director Gen. Paul Nakasone, and CISA Director Christopher Krebs today released the following joint statement:

    Today, dozens of states and local jurisdictions are hosting their own elections across the country and, less than a year from now Americans will go to the polls and cast their votes in the 2020 presidential election. Election security is a top priority for the United States Government. Building on our successful, whole-of-government approach to securing the 2018 elections, we have increased the level of support to state and local election officials in their efforts to protect elections. The federal government is prioritizing the sharing of threat intelligence and providing support and services that improve the security of election intelligence and providing support and services that improve the security of election infrastructure across the nation.

    In an unprecedented level of coordination, the U.S. government is working with all 50 states and U.S. territories, local officials, and private sector partners to identify threats, broadly share information, and protect the democratic process. We remain firm in our commitment to quickly share timely and actionable information, provide support and services, and to defend against any threats to our democracy.

    Our adversaries want to undermine our democratic institutions, influence public sentiment and affect government policies. Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions.

    Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of means, including social media campaigns, directing disinformation operations or conducting disruptive or destructive cyber-attacks on state and local infrastructure.

    While at this time we have no evidence of a compromise or disruption to election infrastructure that would enable adversaries to prevent voting change vote counts or disrupt the ability to tally votes, we continue to vigilantly monitor any threats to U.S. elections.

    The U.S. government will defend our democracy and maintain transparency with the American public about our efforts. An informed public is a resilient public. Americans should go to trusted sources for election information, such as their state and local election officials. We encourage every American to report any suspicious activity to their local officials, the FBI, or DHS.

    In past election cycles, reporting by Americans about suspicious activity provided valuable insight which has made our elections more secure. The greatest means to combat these threats is a whole-of-society effort.

    In other words: be afraid, be very afraid, see something, say something – and do not question any crackdowns on your liberty and it is merely a temporary repression for your own good and to save democracy.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 19:29

    Tags

  • Why Your New Jail Cell May Be Your Home 
    Why Your New Jail Cell May Be Your Home 

    A housing affordability crisis, depressed wages, insurmountable debts, and a downturn in the economy have paralyzed US homeowners as their ability to move collapses. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US homeowners in 2019 had spent an average of 13 years in their home, up from eight years in 2010, reported Redfin.

    Across 55 metros Redfin analyzed, homeowners in all regions stayed in their home much longer versus 2010.

    Salt Lake City, UT; Houston, TX; Fort Worth, TX; San Antonio, TX; and Dallas, TX were some of the metropolitan areas where homeowners were staying the longest as their economic mobility rotted away over the last decade or so.

    Here are the top 18 cities where homeowners were staying in their homes the longest:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This means your home is your prison, and it’s possible new homeowners will be stuck in their new purchases for a much more extended period than ones before them after the next recession strikes. That is because many of the new homeowners are millennials with insurmountable debts. 

    It’s not just mortgage debt that will hold back millennial homeowners from moving — their student loans, auto loans, and credit card debt will also be a significant factor. 

    Plus, most millennials have been purchasing homes at the highest price extremes, they will have to wait for the Federal Reserve to blow up the housing bubble again before they can break even after prices fall in the next recession. 

    With economic mobility among all homeowners deteriorating, this is the latest example that the “greatest economy ever” is merely a hoax. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 19:05

  • Does Entire "Success" Of Democrats Depend On Keeping The American People Wildly Ignorant Of Reality?
    Does Entire "Success" Of Democrats Depend On Keeping The American People Wildly Ignorant Of Reality?

    Authored by JD Heyes via NaturalNews.com,

    The few times in our history when Congress has either voted to impeach a president or considered returning articles of impeachment, the process was handled very publicly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hearings were not held in secret. Testimony was not taken behind closed doors. Witnesses and evidence were presented out in the open so the American people, through various media of the day, were well aware of what was happening.

    The reasons for the openness should be obvious, but alas, they are not for far too many Americans.

    First of all, allowing someone accused of criminal activity to face his or her accuser is a fundamental legal principle of our founding. 

    Secondly, secret trials were banned hundreds of years ago because they are the legal instruments of tyrants: Kings and dictators holding secret proceedings can present phony “evidence” in order to achieve convictions. 

    Third, the accused are permitted legal representation of their own so they can challenge the prosecution’s witnesses and alleged “evidence.”

    None of these founding principles are being applied to the current “impeachment inquiry” involving President Donald Trump.

    Democrats, led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California, are holding the inquiry behind closed doors. They are bringing in ‘witnesses’ whose testimony is being sequestered – even as Schiff has been accused of leaking the contents of some witness testimony completely out of context. 

    Also, no one on the president’s legal team has been able to question any of the witnesses Democrats have called in to testify. So he doesn’t know what’s being said — other than what Schiff is leaking to the “mainstream media,” which is dutifully reporting what they’ve been provided, sans corroboration.

    It’s the most un-American legal process one could ever have envisioned. Worse, this is supposedly involving an impeachment process — one that, theoretically, could involve the removal of a duly elected president 63 million Americans voted for. (Related: “Ukraine” whistleblower suddenly not going to testify before Adam Schiff’s secret committee — so what’s the “impeachment inquiry” really for?)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We will rue the day we allow our country to be stolen from us

    In short, nothing about this process should be held in secret. Communist countries and others who are run by dictators have secret ‘legal’ proceedings, but clearly none that would involve the leader of the country.

    Democracies don’t operate that way and our unique American republic was never supposed to operate in the dark. 

    Granted, if the Democrat-controlled House ever does return actual articles of impeachment against President Trump, that will be conducted in the open. But knowing how secretive Democrats have been thus far, it’s a safe bet they’ll attempt to present as “evidence” the “testimony” of so-called “witnesses” who, thus far, have only appeared behind closed doors.

    It’s been said that ‘impeachable offenses’ are whatever the House of Representatives say they are in order to satisfy the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment requirement. But clearly the processes employed against Trump are partisan in nature and not based on any semblance of historical precedent.

    As Americans, we can’t allow this process to be warped — by one political party and the media. The future of our country is far too important. 

    “President Trump is a disruptor. That makes some people very happy, and it makes some people very mad,” former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said during a Friday speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

    “But if we are a country that lives by the rule of law, we must all accept that we have one president at a time, and that president attained his office by the choice of the American people.

    “No policy disagreement with him, no matter how heartfelt, justifies undermining the lawful authority that is vested in his office by the Constitution. … What’s at stake is not President Trump’s policies. What’s at stake is the Constitution,” she added.

    She’s exactly right. Nothing is worth losing our country. As long as we continue to have unimpeded free elections, there is always a chance to fix things. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 18:45

    Tags

  • "It's Obviously Disturbing" – Mortgage Market Reopens To Subprime Borrowers 
    "It's Obviously Disturbing" – Mortgage Market Reopens To Subprime Borrowers 

    After more than a decade since the subprime mortgage market triggered the 2008 financial meltdown, the strict lending standards placed on new homeowners post-crisis have disintegrated in the last three years.

    Homebuyers with low credit scores, gig-economy jobs, and high-debt loads (sounds like millennials), can now obtain mortgages and participate in the American dream of owning a home.

    Putting unqualified people back into homes is the latest example of stupidity from Wall Street, but the lack of oversight from the Federal Reserve and government. 

    The rapid surge of non-qualified, or non-QM bonds, is happening as cracks in the housing market have appeared. For instance, the housing price growth of major cities in the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Index has stalled. Delinquency rates of these unconventional loans have also started to tick higher. 

    “It’s obviously disturbing this late in the cycle to see originations for these loans at the kind of level they’ve kicked up to,” Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital, told Bloomberg. “The housing market is not quite ready for a big infusion of this product.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Banks, who are underwriting these unconventional loans, are doing so through weakening standards very late in an economic expansion. The expectation is that a recession could arrive as early as next year, could lead to a further tick up in delinquency rates.

    The non-QM bond market is nowhere near the size of the subprime bond market of 2007/08. 

    “It’s not the subprime we remember from 2006 to 2007,” said Mario Rivera, managing director of the Fortress Credit Funds business, which has bought non-QM bonds. “It’s more of a second or third inning of non-QM. We’re getting the best collateral before the more aggressive lending comes in.”

    Bloomberg says the size of the non-QM bond market is about $27 billion, a tiny fraction compared to the $10 trillion mortgage-bond market. Back in 2007, the subprime mortgage bond market was approximately $1.8 trillion right before it imploded. 

    Nonbank mortgage lenders have largely underwritten these unconventional loans, but large banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Credit Suisse Group AG, and Citigroup Inc. have been entering the space since 2016.  

    Recent non-QM borrowers have had credit scores at or below 700, many have provided income statements rather than tax returns. Fitch Ratings analysis warns non-QM borrowers are susceptible to income fluctuations. 

    Fitch added that non-QM bonds have a lot more safeguards than the subprime ones did in 2007.

    “There’s a lot more cushion, as there should be,” said John Kerschner, head of U.S. securitized products at Janus Henderson Group Plc. “You can get some comfort that even if defaults inch up, the losses from those defaults aren’t going to be egregious.”

    And while the non-QM bond market won’t lead to the next financial armageddon like what was seen a decade ago, it certainly demonstrates that Wall Street is willing to create the same financial products that led up to the last crisis. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 18:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 5th November 2019

  • US Challenges China's Belt And Road With New Global Infrastructure Scheme 
    US Challenges China’s Belt And Road With New Global Infrastructure Scheme 

    The Trump administration has spent the last several years, bashing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and calling it a ‘debt trap’ and urging countries around the world to resist allowing China to build infrastructure projects in their respected countries. The motive behind US officials attempting to discredit the BRI is because of Washington’s new plan to launch a similar infrastructure scheme.

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

    The US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) have unveiled on Monday the American-led Blue Dot Network, a global “sustainable infrastructure development in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world,” read an OPIC press release.

    “The development of critical infrastructure—when it is led by the private sector and supported on terms that are transparent, sustainable, and socially and environmentally responsible—is foundational to widespread economic empowerment,” said OPIC’s David Bohigian. “Through Blue Dot Network, the United States is proud to join key partners to fully unlock the power of quality infrastructure to foster unprecedented opportunity, progress, and stability.”

    “This endorsement of Blue Dot Network not only creates a solid foundation for infrastructure global trust standards but reinforces the need for the establishment of umbrella global trust standards in other sectors, including digital, mining, financial services, and research,” said US Department of State Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach. “Such global trust standards, which are based on respect for transparency and accountability, sovereignty of property and resources, local labor and human rights, rule of law, the environment, and sound governance practices in procurement and financing, have been driven not just by private sector companies and civil society but also by governments around the world.”

    “Australia is committed to promoting high-quality infrastructure, inclusive approaches, and facilitating private sector investment in the Indo-Pacific region,” said DFAT Deputy Secretary Richard Maude. “I’m pleased that this commitment is shared by East Asia Summit Leaders, and we look forward to working closely with our regional partners to develop Blue Dot Network to take action on this commitment.”

    “Blue Dot Network is an initiative that leads to the promotion of quality infrastructure investment committed by G20 countries,” said Maeda. “As JBIC has a long history of infrastructure finance all over the world, JBIC is pleased to share such experience and contribute to further development of Blue Dot Network.”

    Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary, told the Financial Times ahead of the launch: “Each blue dot is meant to be a dot on the map that will be a safe place for companies to operate if they are interested in sustainable infrastructure projects…The point is to show seriousness about the sustainability of projects.” 

    The Blue Dot Network is being developed by the Trump administration to be a direct competitor to China’s BRI.

    The Lowry Institute’s Asia Power Index shows the US remains the top power in Asia. Still, there are troubling signs that China is quickly gaining ground, likely to displace the US in the coming decade. 

    “The US remains an important, but not the primary economic player in Asia,” said Hervé Lemahieu, head of Lowy’s Asian Power and Diplomacy Programme. “They’ve got to get used to that.”

    Washington’s role in the world has diminished in the last decade since China launched BRI in more than 152 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The next big fight across the world is BRI versus The Blue Dot Network. The world economy is being fractured — this will only create heightened volatility in the years ahead. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 01:00

  • American Conspiracies & Cover-Ups
    American Conspiracies & Cover-Ups

    Authored by Douglas Citignano via Off-Guardian.org,

    In today’s world, the phrase “conspiracy theory” is pejorative and has a negative connotation. To many people, a conspiracy theory is an irrational, over-imaginative idea endorsed by people looking for attention and not supported by the mainstream media or government.

    History shows, though, that there have been many times when governments or individuals have participated in conspiracies. It would be naïve to think that intelligence agencies, militaries, government officials, and politicians don’t sometimes cooperate in covert, secretive ways.

    Following are five instances when it’s been proven that the government engaged in a conspiracy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On August 4, 1964, Captain John J. Herrick, the commander of the USS Maddox, a US Navy vessel that was on an intelligence-gathering mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported to the White House and Pentagon that North Vietnamese patrol boats had fired torpedoes at his ship, and, so, the Maddox had fired back.

    Two days later, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified to the Congress that he was certain that the Maddox had been attacked. On August 7, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, the Congressional act that allowed President Johnson free reign to commence war; Johnson immediately ordered air strikes on North Vietnam and the Vietnam War—which would eventually kill fifty-eight thousand Americans and two million Asians—was underway.

    Since then, it has been shown and proven that no North Vietnamese boats ever fired on the Maddox, and that McNamara had been untruthful when he testified before Congress. According to the official publication of the Naval Institute,

    …once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in the Vietnam War.”

    In the weeks prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, South Vietnamese ships had been attacking posts in North Vietnam in conjunction with the CIA’s Operation 34A. According to many inside sources, the Johnson administration wanted a full-scale war in Vietnam and through Operation 34A was trying to provoke North Vietnam into an attack that would give Johnson an excuse to go to war. But when McNamara was asked by the Congress on August 7 if these South Vietnam attacks had anything to do with the US military and CIA, McNamara lied and said no.

    Within hours after reporting that the Maddox had been attacked, Captain Herrick was retracting his statements and reporting to the White House and Pentagon that “in all likelihood” an over-eager sonar man had been mistaken and that the sonar sounds and images that he originally thought were enemy torpedoes were actually just the beat of the Maddox’s own propellers.

    Herrick reported that there was a good probability that there had been no attack on the Maddox, and suggested “complete reevaluation before any action is taken.”

    McNamara saw these new, updated reports and discussed them with President Johnson early in the afternoon of August 4. Even though this was so, on the evening of August 4, President Johnson went on national television and announced to the American public that North Vietnam had engaged in “unprovoked aggression” and, so, the US military was retaliating.

    A few days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson remarked, “Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

    Recently, new documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been declassified and according to Robert Hanyok, a historian for the National Security Agency, these documents show that the NSA deliberately “distorted intelligence” andand “altered documents” to make it appear that an attack had occurred on August 4.

    When President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented to the American public and said he knew that North Vietnam had attacked a US ship, and when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lied to the Congress and said he was sure that the Maddox had been attacked and that the CIA had nothing to do with South Vietnam aggression, and when NSA officials falsified information to make it appear that there had been an attack on the Maddox, that was a government conspiracy.

    OPERATION NORTHWOODS

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 1962, the most powerful and highest ranking military officials of the US government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt strongly that the communist leader Fidel Castro had to be removed from power and, so, came up with a plan to justify an American invasion of Cuba.

    The plan, entitled Operations Northwoods, was presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, and was signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer.

    Operations Northwoods was a proposal for a false flag operation, a plan in which a military organizes an attack against its own country and then frames and blames the attack on another country for the purpose of the purpose of initiating hostilities and declaring war on that country.

    The proposal was originally labeled Top Secret but was made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. The complete Operation Northwoods paper was published online by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001, and this once-secret government document can now be read by anyone.

    The actions that General Lemnitzer and the other chiefs wanted to d to take under Operations Northwoods are shocking. According to the plan, CIA and military personnel and hired provocateurs would commit various violent acts and these acts would be blamed on Castro to “create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility” and “put the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances.”

    One of the most ambitious plans of Operation Northwoods was to blow up a plane in midflight. The strategy was to fill a civilian airplane with CIA and military personnel who were registered under fake ID’s; an exact duplicate plane—an empty military drone aircraft—would take off at the same exact time.

    The plane of fake passengers would land at a military base but the empty drone plane would fly over Cuba and crash in the ocean, supposedly a victim of Cuban missiles. “Casualty lists in US newspapers” and conducting “fake funerals for mock-victims” would cause “a helpful wave of national indignation” in America.

    The Operation Northwoods proposal also states: “We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba.” Whether the ship was to be empty or full of US soldiers is unclear. The document also says: “Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged.”

    Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods would have surely led to serious injuries and even deaths of Cuban and American civilians. The plan suggests:

    We could sink a boatload of Cubans on route to Florida (real or simulated).”

    And:

    We could foster attempts on lives of anti-Castro Cubans in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized…We could explode a few bombs in carefully chosen spots.”

    Lemnitzer and the chiefs wanted many of these staged terrorist attacks to be directed at the Guantanamo Bay United States Naval Base in Cuba. The plans were:

    • “Start riots near the entrance to the base”

    • “lob mortar shells from outside the base to inside the base”

    • “blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires”

    • “burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)”

    • “sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napalm.”

    When Secretary of Defense McNamara was presented with the Operation Northwoods plan, he either stopped and rejected the plan himself or passed it on to President Kennedy and JFK then rejected it. But if Kennedy and McNamara had agreed with the plan, then the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to begin enacting Operation Northwoods “right away, within a few months.”

    Even though Operation Northwoods was never initiated, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other highest-ranking military officials of the United States Government planned to organize violent attacks on Americans and anti-Castro Cuban citizens, knowing those attacks could severely injure and kill those citizens, and when they planned to blame those attacks on Cuba and then use that as an excuse to invade Cuba, that was a government conspiracy.

    FBI AND THE MAFIA

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In March 1965, the FBI had the house of New England organized crime boss Raymond Patriarca wiretapped and overheard two mobsters, Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, asking Patriarca for permission to kill another gangster, Edward Deegan. Two days later, Deegan’s blood-soaked body was found dead in a Boston alley.

    Within days, an official FBI report confirmed that Joseph Barboza and three other mobsters were the murderers. Instead of those men going to prison for murder, though, three years later a man named Joseph Salvati was brought to trial for the murder of Edward Deegan. At that trial Joseph Barboza testified and lied that Salvati was one of the murderers. On the basis of Barboza’s testimony, Joseph Salvati was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

    At that time, in the mid 1960s, the FBI was being pressured more and more to do something to stop organized crime. The bureau began using members of the mafia—criminals and murderers—to inform against fellow mafia members. Joseph Barboza was one of these FBI-protected, paid informants. The FBI didn’t want Barboza to go to prison for the murder of Deegan because they wanted him to continue infiltrating the mafia and testifying against other mafia members.

    The bureau, apparently, did want a conviction in the Deegan murder case, though, and, so, let Barboza lie under oath and let a man they knew to be innocent, Joseph Salvati, go to prison.

    The Witness Protection Program was first created for Joseph Barboza, and Barboza was the first mafia informant to be protected under the program. After helping to convict a number of mobsters, Barboza was sent off to live in California. While under the Witness Protection Program, Barboza committed at least one more murder, and probably more.

    On trial for a murder in California, FBI officials showed up for Joseph Barboza’s trial and testified on his behalf, helping Barboza to get a light sentence.

    Joseph Salvati ended up serving thirty years in prison for a murder that he was innocent of. During that thirty-year period, lawyers for Salvati requested documents from the FBI that would have proved Salvati’s innocence, but the bureau refused to release them.

    Finally, in 1997, other evidence came forth suggesting Salvati’s innocence and the governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, granted Salvati’s release. A few years later, the FBI was ordered to release all its reports on the case; hundreds of documents showed the FBI knew that Barboza was a murderer, that he had murdered Edward Deegan, and that Joseph Salvati had had nothing to do with the crime.

    Salvati was exonerated in a court of law, and was eventually awarded millions of dollars in a civil lawsuit against the government. (Three other defendants were also exonerated. At the 1968 trial, Joseph Barboza had testified that three other men—men who were also not guilty—had participated in Deegan’s murder. These three innocent men were, with Salvati, also sent to prison.)

    Perhaps the most shocking thing that the FBI documents showed, though, was that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself knew Salvati was innocent and that Barboza had killed Deegan.

    Hoover was working closely, almost daily, with the agents handling Joseph Barboza, and it was probably Hoover directing the operation. The congressional committee that investigated the case was the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Dan Burton was the chairman.

    When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace “Did J. Edgar Hoover know all this?” Burton replied:

    “Yes . . . It’s one of the greatest failures in the history of American justice…J. Edgar Hoover knew Salvati was innocent. He knew it and his name should not be emblazoned on the FBI headquarters. We should change the name of that building.”

    Congressman Burton claimed there was evidence that there were more cases when the FBI did the same sorts of things they did in the Joseph Salvati case; when Burton and his committee requested the files on these cases, the Attorney General and the White House refused to release them.

    When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and top FBI officials let a known murderer lie and perjure himself in a courtroom, when they let four men they knew to be innocent suffer in the hell of a prison cell for thirty years, and when they deliberately covered that up for decades, that was a government conspiracy.

    THE MANHATTAN PROJECT

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In 1939, Albert Einstein and two other European physicists sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt informing Roosevelt that the German government was working on developing the science that could lead to the creation of a nuclear bomb. FDR immediately formed a committee to look into the idea of the US government making an atomic bomb.

    In 1942, the Manhattan Project, the United States program to build a nuclear bomb, headed by General Leslie R. Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers, was formed.

    The program existed from 1942–1946, spent two billion dollars, had plants and factories in thirty cities, and employed 130,000 workers. But virtually no one knew about it. The Manhattan Project is considered the “Greatest Secret Ever Kept.”

    The US government wanted to keep the Project a secret lest Germany or one of America’s other enemies found out about it and built—more quickly—a larger, better bomb. In the early 1940s, when American scientists began working on splitting atoms and nuclear fission, US government officials asked the scientists to not publish any reports on the work in scientific journals. The work was kept quiet.

    In 1943, when newspapers began reporting on the large Manhattan Project construction going on in a few states, the newly formed United States Government Office of Censorship asked newspapers and broadcasters to avoid discussing “atom smashing, atomic energy, atomic fission . . . the use for military purposes of radium or radioactive materials” or anything else that could expose the project. The press kept mum. The government didn’t talk about the Manhattan Project, the press didn’t report on it, and the public knew nothing about it.

    Not even the 130,000 Manhattan Project laborers knew they were building an atom bomb.

    In 1945, a Life magazine article wrote that before Japan was attacked with a-bombs, “probably no more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved.”

    The workers were told they were doing an important job for the government, but weren’t told what the job was, and didn’t understand the full import of the mysterious, daily tasks they were doing. The laborers were warned that disclosing the Project’s secrets was punishable by ten years in prison, and a hefty financial fine.

    Whole towns and cities were built where thousands of Manhattan Project workers lived and worked but these thousands didn’t know they were helping to build nuclear bombs.

    The Manhattan Project finally became known to the public on August 6, 1945, when President Harry Truman announced that America had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.

    Truman, himself, had not been informed of the Manhattan Project until late April 1945.

    When the government kept the purpose of the Manhattan Project a secret from the press, from the public, from America’s enemies, from Harry Truman, and even from the 130,000 laborers who worked for the Manhattan Project, that was a government conspiracy.

    THE CHURCH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the early 1970s, after the Watergate affair and investigative reports by the New York Times, it became apparent that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies might be engaging in inappropriate and illegal activities. In 1975, the Church Committee, named after the Committee’s chairman Senator Frank Church, was formed to investigate abuses by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.

    The Church Committee reports are said to constitute the most extensive investigations of intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Many disturbing facts were revealed. According to the final report of the Committee, US intelligence agencies had been engaging in “unlawful or improper conduct” and “intelligence excesses, at home and abroad” since the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt.

    The report added that “intelligence agencies have undermined the Constitutional rights of citizens” and “checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied.”

    One of the most well-known revelations of the Committee was the CIA’s so-called “Family Jewels,” a report that detailed the CIA’s misdeeds dating back to Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. The committee also reported on the NSA’s SHAMROCK and MINARET programs; under these programs the NSA had been intercepting, opening, and reading the telegrams and mail of thousands of private citizens.

    The Church Committee also discovered and exposed the FBI’s COINTELPRO program, the bureau’s program to covertly destroy and disrupt any groups or individuals that J. Edgar Hoover felt were bad for America. Some of the movements and groups that the FBI tried to discredit and destroy were the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr.

    The most alarming thing that the Church Committee found, though, was that the CIA had an assassination program. It was revealed that the CIA assassinated or had tried to assassinate Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Rene Schneider of Chile, Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and other political leaders throughout the world.

    The Committee learned about the different ways the CIA had developed to kill and assassinate people: inflicting cancer, inflicting heart attacks, making murders look like suicides, car accidents, boating accidents, and shootings. At one point, CIA Director William Colby presented to the Committee a special “heart attack gun” that the CIA had created. The gun was able to shoot a small poison-laden dart into its victim. The dart was so small as to be undetectable; the victim’s death from the poison would appear to be a heart attack, so no foul play would be suspected.

    In response to the Church Committee report, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11,905, which forbade employees of the US government from engaging in or conspiring to engage in political assassinations.

    In that same year, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 400, which established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee responsible for providing vigilant oversight over the intelligence agencies.

    Many former CIA employee-whistleblowers and other people, though, claim that US intelligence agencies are still acting in improper ways. In 2008, it was revealed that the CIA had hired Blackwater, a private company made up of ex-Navy Seals, to track down and assassinate suspected terrorists.

    Later in the 2000s, when the Congress formed a committee to investigate if CIA waterboarding and other methods of interrogation constituted torture, congressmen complained that they couldn’t get to the bottom of the matter because CIA officials and the CIA director were lying to the congressional committee.

    Forty-five years after the revelations of the Church Committee, it seems US intelligence agencies are still engaging in covert and improper conduct.

    When US intelligence agencies and the CIA plot to influence the affairs of foreign nations, when the CIA plots assassinations and assassinates foreign leaders and political dissidents, when the CIA develops new ways to kill and assassinate and interrogate and torture, and when the CIA keeps all that from Congress, the press, and the public, that’s a government conspiracy.

    *  *  *

    If these five instances of government engaging in conspiracies have been proven to be true—and they have been—isn’t it logical to assume that government agencies may have engaged in other conspiracies? It is the very nature of intelligence agencies and militaries to act in secretive, conspiratorial ways.

    The phrase “conspiracy theory” shouldn’t have a negative connotation. Politics always plays out with backroom handshakes. It is the suggestion of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups that government agencies and officials and the special interests that influence them are often engaging in conspiratorial actions, and that conspiracies have been behind some of the most iconic and important events of American history.

    A conspiracy theorist was regaling a friend with one conspiracy theory after another. Finally, the friend interrupted and said, “I bet I know what would happen if God Himself appeared out of the sky right now, looked down at us, and said, ‘There is no conspiracy.’ I bet you would look up and say, ‘So the conspiracy goes higher than we thought.’”

    Perhaps if the Almighty appeared to inform us that politicians and governments and government officials don’t act in secretive, covert, conspiratorial ways, then we could accept that.

    But when the evidence indicates otherwise….

    Theories questioning if multiple people might have shot at JFK, or if interior bombs brought down the World Trade Center, or if somebody was able to rig the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections can make for dramatic, sensational storytelling.

    But it is not the purpose of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups to be sensational; the purpose of this book is to talk about “conspiracy realities” that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics.

    If elements in the intelligence agencies participated in assassinating President Kennedy, then how can the intelligence agencies be better controlled? If elements in the government allowed or caused 9/11 to happen to give us an excuse to go to war in the Middle East, then how much of the War on Terror is disinformation and propaganda?

    If presidential elections can be rigged, then how can we have fairer, uncorrupted elections? If secretive influences behind the scenes, a Deep State, are controlling our social, political, and financial systems for their own selfish purposes, then it would benefit us to expose who and what these secretive influences are.

    American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups may give us a glimpse into the way that government and politics work.

    Or don’t work.

    *  *  *

    This is an extract from American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups, by Douglas Cirignano published by Simon&Schuster. It can be purchased in hard copy, digital and audio-book form through Amazon and other booksellers.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 11/05/2019 – 00:10

    Tags

  • Turning Japanese? Growth In $9BN US Adult Diaper Market Explodes, Topping Baby Diapers
    Turning Japanese? Growth In $9BN US Adult Diaper Market Explodes, Topping Baby Diapers

    Looking for a way to hedge against the economic damage likely to be wrought by the looming ‘demographic timebomb’ (note: that’s what economists and journalists call it)?

    Here’s one idea. 

    According to one recent study, fully one-fifth of the world’s population will be of retirement age by 2070. This phenomenon is largely due to trends in the developed world: as the costs of education, housing and survival skyrocket, many are choosing to have fewer babies, delay family formation, or simply skip that whole mess altogether.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We’ve been over the repercussions of an aging society particularly as it relates to the economy (more job openings, slower economic growth). For better or worse, the world already has a model for how these trends might impact us, at least in the early stages. And that model is Japan, a country that already has more citizen over the age of 80 than under the age of 10.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As demographic issues create new and unforeseen challenges, Reuters reported on an easily-overlooked issue: the revolution in the consumer-products space that will need to take place in the coming years. As the population of the elderly explodes, the need for hygiene products like adults diapers will likely see a commensurate surge (and many of the companies that make these products are publicly-traded consumer staples).

    The market is already growing, and last year, it expanded by 9%, to hit $9 billion.

    The time may not be far off when more adults need diapers than babies as the population grows older, potentially a huge opportunity for manufacturers of incontinence products – if they can lift the stigma that has long constrained sales.

    The market for adult diapers, disposable underwear and absorbent pads is growing fast, up 9% last year to $9 billion, having doubled in the last decade, according to Euromonitor.

    As more senior citizens grapple with their weak bladders, Reuters’ sources said the battle for market share will likely be won and lost by the marketing department, as products that emphasize discretion and independence, as well as successfully rebranding them as essential “personal care” products, instead of “baby products.”

    Advertising campaigns will also need to be launched to help “normalize” the use of “diapers” by adults.

    But manufacturers like market leaders Essity and Kimberly-Clark Corp reckon only half of the more than 400 million adults likely to be affected by weak bladders, are buying the right products, because they are too embarrassed.

    Companies are trying various methods to change attitudes, including making products more discreet, avoiding terms like diapers or nappies, and placing items in the personal care aisle, next to deodorants and menstrual pads, rather than in the baby products section.

    Resigning adult diapers so that they can be worn more discreetly will be critical (something that some US companies are already working on), as all of those hipster grandpas try to maneuver around in their tight pants and diapers.

    In the U.S., market leader Kimberly-Clark has this year given its 35-year-old Depend brand a makeover, introducing thinner, softer and more fitted products that can be worn discreetly, in an effort to make them more acceptable.

    The changes are just the latest in a decade-long attempt to win over consumers, which started with manufacturers dropping the ‘diaper’ label, to loosen the association older customers might have with a loss of control in their life.

    Yet it is still difficult for companies to persuade people they should buy specially made incontinence products.

    “People keep the fact that they have incontinence secret from their loved ones, from their husbands, brothers and sisters – this is a deep secret for many consumers and yet it’s just a fact of life, it’s a physiological reality,” said Fiona Tomlin, who leads Kimberly-Clark’s adult and feminine care division.

    Consumer products companies are also trying to “normalize” discussions on the subject via advertising. The market leader in Japan has resorted to clever catch-phrases to try and make problems like incontinence seem trivial.

    In Japan, where adult incontinence products have outsold baby diaper sales since around 2013 due to a rapidly ageing population, market leader Unicharm Corp has adopted the phrase “choi more” in its advertising, which translates as “lil’ dribble,” to make light of the problem.

    “What we are doing is trying to let people know that incontinence, even among young people, is normal,” said Unicharm spokesman Hitoshi Watanabe.

    Incontinence is one of those problems that people keep secret from their friends and loved ones out of shame. But it’s also surprisingly common, even in relatively young adults. Many women who have more than one child struggle with it, creating another branding opportunity.

    That is, so long as packaging designers follow a golden rule: Nothing should be associated with aging.

    Sweden’s Essity, the global industry leader, is also trying to reach a younger audience with its TENA brand and a new line of black, low-rise disposable underwear called Silhouette Noir.

    The advert’s tagline reads: ‘secret’s out: 1 in 3 women have incontinence’.

    Around 12% of all women and 5% of men experience some form of urinary incontinence, although conditions vary from mild and temporary to serious and chronic, according to the Global Forum on Incontinence, which is backed by Essity.

    Essity said it tries to package and market its products in a way that avoids associations with ageing.

    “Designing products and packaging it as feminine and discreet as possible for females and as masculine and discreet as possible for men helps,” said Ulrika Kolsrud, president of Essity’s health and medical solutions.

    Getting the message across to potential customers can sometimes be a tricky path to tread. A few years ago, SCA – from which Essity was spun off in 2017 – mailed samples of its products to Swedish men above 55, only to receive a barrage of complaints.

    As the countdown continues, the demographic timebomb looks set to hit the West and Japan especially hard. But in the PROC, where a one-child policy kept births down for multiple consecutive generations, the numbers are simply staggering. It’s a problem that’s already starting to hit, as China’s working age population shrinks for the first time  – and one that could have serious repercussions for the global  economy.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 23:50

  • Drunk-Driving And Fake-Science
    Drunk-Driving And Fake-Science

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Rsearch,

    Almost everyone I know has a story to tell about themselves, a friend, a friend’s friend. It’s about the abusiveness of the police in the enforcement of drunk-driving laws. I’ve known people who were quite sure that they were not over the legal limit but suddenly found themselves cuffed in the back of the police car. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I know a guy who was arrested out of his own driveway, having driven home perfectly safely. I’ve seen lives ruined and wrecked by a system that presumes everyone is guilty and then proves it was scientific machines that claim to be accurate to three decimal points. The level of paranoia on this subject in American life is palpable. 

    So it’s actually mind blowing – or maybe once you hear this it will seem incredibly obvious – that the New York Times has published a massive investigation that shows that the science behind the breathalyzer is bogus. Tens of thousands of arrests have been wrong. Cases are being thrown out around the country. The company that makes the machines for the police stations won’t share its technology or submit to a serious scientific review of its technology. Lives are being ruined even as the evidence piles up that vast numbers of arrests for “drunk driving” are wholly bogus. 

    Quoting the Times:

    A million Americans a year are arrested for drunken driving, and most stops begin the same way: flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror, then a battery of tests that might include standing on one foot or reciting the alphabet.

    What matters most, though, happens next. By the side of the road or at the police station, the drivers blow into a miniature science lab that estimates the concentration of alcohol in their blood. If the level is 0.08 or higher, they are all but certain to be convicted of a crime.

    But those tests — a bedrock of the criminal justice system — are often unreliable, a New York Times investigation found. The devices, found in virtually every police station in America, generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place.

    Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight. Across the country, thousands of other tests also have been invalidated in recent years.The machines are sensitive scientific instruments, and in many cases they haven’t been properly calibrated, yielding results that were at times 40 percent too high. 

    The story adds another several thousand words of horror stories about the use of fake science in the service of the machinery of compulsion and coercion that has entrapped millions of Americans and vexes all non-teetotallers on the road today. 

    It turns out that these expensive machines, both the ones carried by cops and the larger machines at police headquarters, are provided by only a few companies in the world and they are unwilling to open up their guts to serious peer review. They are poorly maintained and yet the numbers are invoked in court daily. The police have every incentive to allow them to be wrong so long as the results end in conviction. 

    The few times in which states mandated tests of the tests have resulted in shocking results. Something called the Intoxilyzer 8000 was tested in Vermont in 2005 and produced inaccurate results in “almost every test.” As it turns out, the only scientific way to determine blood-alcohol content is with blood tests. There are too many variables to make the breath alone reliable and yet breathing tests are the whole basis of drunk-driving enforcement. 

    The rounding-up problems and inflated numbers alone are raising questions about 45,000 convictions in Massachusetts and New Jersey. The trouble is that once the fake science is part of the court records, the accused has no viable option but to plead guilty and face a jail sentence and fines and ruined driving record, even if the person knows for sure that he or she was not drunk. When it’s the state armed with fake science vs. an individual motorist who had a couple of beers, everyone knows who wins. 

    This is a classic case of the dangers of scientism in the service of state-based justice. Put on the lab coat, sell the government a fancy machine, harass people with unending intimidation, and the result is vast injustice based on bad science. Citizens themselves have no recourse. This has been going on for decades in the United States and yet we are only now finding out about it. 

    There was always a potential for injustice at the heart of the rule against drunk driving since enforcement would always be based not on evidence of reckless driving but rather on the content of one’s blood. It was that which was being criminalized. In fact, there are many reasons one might drive dangerously: texting, physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation, bad day at work, fight with a lover, and so on. Nor is it the case that having a few necessarily and always results in endangerment of others. The only real sensible approach, then, is for the police to enforce the traffic rules, ticketing and arresting based on what the driver actually does. 

    The anti-drunk driving regime in this country was not based on that. Rather, it criminalized something that required a fancy scientific test to discover complete with black-box machines out of science fiction. Even if you are driving perfectly well, complying with all rules, endangering absolutely no one, you would be subjected to brutality at the hands of the police solely upon the discovery of a chemical in your blood, which, as it turns out, cannot be reliably determined based on any existing technology. 

    Think about this. The whole world is horrified by Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos’s claim that it could detect diseases via a tiny pin prick on the finger. That this company raised billions on an unverified claim has been the subject of vast outrage and criminal investigations. And yet we have what appears to be the exact same situation with the detection of drunk driving and yet it’s gone on for decades without much in the way of incredulity putting any damper on the arrest-and-jail machinery of the state. 

    Why is this? I would say the following. Theranos was subjected to a market test. Breathalyzers and Alcotests and so on exist within the apparatus of the state and have thereby been shielded from serious scrutiny. It has taken the New York Times and its intrepid reporters to blow the cover, and yet, realistically, it will be years before anyone can put a damper on the machinery of personal destruction that is currently in operation even in your hometown. 

    There are lessons here. The combination of state power and pseudoscience is a dangerous one. Criminalizing something that depends on the scientific accuracy of some secret test rather than observable behavior is itself fraught with dangers. The state cannot be trusted to police its own application of science in service of itself. It will always face an incentive to exaggerate to gain more money and more convictions. 

    Now is the time seriously to rethink the entire machinery of drunk-driving enforcement. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 23:30

  • Pork Pile-Up Continues: Bacon Levels In US Cold Storage Surge To 48-Year High
    Pork Pile-Up Continues: Bacon Levels In US Cold Storage Surge To 48-Year High

    Cold storage facilities across the U.S. have just hit record-high levels of pork bellies, the cut of the pig used to make bacon, reported Bloomberg. Much of the oversupply problem stems from farmers’ increasing herd sizes ahead of a possible trade deal that was expected to occur earlier this year. 

    Farmers in 1H20 across Central and Midwest regions were desperately trying to increase herd sizes and or fields planted of corn and soybean because President Trump kept touting imminent trade deal in the press. What the farmers didn’t realize is that there was no trade deal at the time, and the impending trade deal comments were only to boost the stock market. What this created was massive misguidance by the government that has led to shocking oversupplied conditions. 

    According to new U.S. government data published last week, there are more than 40 million pounds of pork bellies in cold storage facilities across the U.S. The levels are so high that some cold storage facilities could run out of space. The last time storage facilities saw this much pork belly was 1971.

    Hog producers, listening to every trade headlines from the Trump administration, quickly expanded herds through spring and summer with the anticipation of an imminent trade deal with China. U.S. herd levels rose to 7.7 million heads as of Sept. 1, a level not seen since 1943. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While the massive overhang of pork bellies could be short-lived due to the anticipation of a “Phase 1” trade deal could be signed imminently between the U.S. and China, the lesson to be seen is that fake trade news has consequences, such as disrupting free markets and creating imbalances.  

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 23:10

  • Sjursen: Trump Will Live To Regret Sending Troops To Saudi Arabia
    Sjursen: Trump Will Live To Regret Sending Troops To Saudi Arabia

    Authored by US Army Major (ret.) Danny Sjursen via AntiWar.com,

    What is Trump really up to? It’s almost unknowable. At the same time that the president was pulling (some) troops out of Northeast Syria, giving an antiwar speech, and then sending other troops back into Syria to “secure the oil,” he also quietly sent another 1800 service members into Saudi Arabia. What little Trump did say about it consisted of a peculiar defense of his actions. Faced with the obvious question from a reporter:

    “Mr. President, why are you sending more troops to Saudi Arabia when you just said it’s a mistake to be in the Middle East?”

    Trump argued that there was no contradiction in his policy because, well, the Saudis “buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of merchandise from us,” and have “agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.”

    It seems the U.S. military is going full mercenary in the Gulf.

    While I’ve noted that Trump’s recent antiwar remarks were profound – though largely unfulfilled – these words will amount to nothing if followed by a military buildup in Saudi Arabia that leads to a new, far more bloody and destabilizing, war with Iran.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nothing would please the “three Bs” – Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton – more than a US military strike on the Islamic Republic, cost and consequences be damned.

    It’s just that an Iran war isn’t the only risk associated with basing majority-Christian, foreign American troops in the land of Islam’s two holiest cities. And a brief historical review of US presence in Saudi Arabia demonstrates quite clearly the potential transnational terrorist “blowback” of Washington’s basing decisions.

    In fact, Trump’s latest deployment constitutes at least the third time the US military has been stationed on the Arabian peninsula.

    It’s rarely ended well, and, in a paradox stranger than fiction, often linked Washington and Riyadh’s dollars with the Bin Laden family. It’s almost enough to make one understand the propensity of some Americans to buy into some degree of 9/11 “truth.”

    The strange saga began in the 1930s when a US oil conglomerate, Aramco, built a settlement at Dhahran in the desert near the little town of Khobar. Local workers did the construction, including a rather talented Yemeni bricklayer named Mohamed Bin Laden. Though illiterate and with only one eye, he and his brother then started their own construction company: Mohamed and Abdullah, Sons of Awadh bin Laden.” When, in 1945, the US military decided to lease a sizable air base at Dhahran, the Bin Laden brothers got the contract. The firm made a fortune on the American taxpayers’ dime. After that, the Bin Laden’s became the builders of choice for the spendthrift Saudi royal family, by then flush with oil profits.

    Nonetheless, the devoutly Muslim Saudi people were horrified by the Western presence and the king ended the first US military lease in 1962. Still, the Bin Laden company continued to do business with the American government and corporate entities, so much so, in fact, that it retained an agent in New York City. After the elder Bin Laden died in 1967, his sons took over the family business. One, Osama, had a particular knack for construction.

    He was also devoutly religious, and, despite his family business’ close connections with the Americans, virulently opposed to foreign intervention in the Greater Middle East. So, with tons of his firm’s heavy construction equipment in tow, he headed off to Afghanistan to fight with the mujahideen against the Soviet Army occupation of that country. Though he and his fellow Arab volunteers played only a small role in the Soviet’s eventual defeat, Osama Bin Laden dug tunnels, built roads, and crafted a genuine mountain base for his fighters in Afghanistan. He even named his new organization to direct the jihad Al Qaeda, or “the base,” and learned a life-altering lesson from the Soviet war. As he reflected, “The myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims.”

    Thus, when Saddam Hussein’s massive Iraqi Army swallowed up Kuwait and threatened the Saudi Kingdom in 1990, Bin Laden thought he could recruit a new mujahideen army and single-handedly defeat the invaders. He offered his services to the king, but was rebuked, in favor of an invitation to the US military to instead defend Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden never forgave the king or the American “occupiers” of his holy homeland. The American troopers flooded into a reopened base at Dhahran, the Iraqis were swiftly defeated by the US military coalition, Bin Laden later declared war on the United States, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Terror attacks on the Khobar Towers Air Force barracks, two US African embassies, and the Navy’s USS Cole followed, and then New York and Washington were struck in the worst terrorist incident in American History. Bin Laden got the war he sought, lured the US military into countless quagmires in the Mideast and, despite his eventual death at the hands of American Navy SEALs, succeeded beyond probably even his wildest imagination.

    All that brief history ought to remind American policymakers and people alike of the inherent dangers of military basing in Saudi Arabia in this, the third, such instance. Washington, as has been proven time and again since the end of the Second World War, reaps what it sows across the world. So, when Trump’s latest addition to the tragic US history of building bases and stationing troops on the Arabian Peninsula backfires, when a new Bin Laden of sorts takes the war to a major American city, I’ll be one of the few voices saying I told you so…


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 22:50

  • Turkish-Backed Jihadists Filmed Using CIA-Supplied Missiles Against Syrian Kurds
    Turkish-Backed Jihadists Filmed Using CIA-Supplied Missiles Against Syrian Kurds

    The Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton captioned the below video accurately when he bluntly stated:

    CIA’s former(?) “moderate” jihadist terrorists blast DoD’s Kurdish YPG friends with U.S. TOW missile. 

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

    This is exactly what it shows. The CIA previously introduced BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Syrian battlefield, handing the advanced weaponry off to the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in order to accomplish regime change against Assad as part of operation ‘Timber Sycamore’ (which failed).

    Critics of CIA efforts in Syria were quick to point out that such American hardware would inevitably go straight to the jihadists of ISIS and al-Qaeda. As even the mainstream media and pundits were forced to document, this is precisely what happened, given Washington ultimately sought to use Sunni jihadists to overthrow the Syrian government

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Photo of ISIS deploying CIA-supplied TOW missiles near Palmyra in 2015, documented by Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ (FDD) Long War Journal.

    And now the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (TFSA), more commonly known as the Syrian National Army, is deploying the very same CIA-supplied TOW missiles against America’s current proxy in Syria, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as part of Erdogan’s ‘Operation Peace Spring’. 

    It’s been well-documented that the Turkey invasion forces of Syrian National Army are stacked with former ISIS, Nusrah, and FSA jihadists… who clearly brought their CIA toys with them.

    “US Military May Be Targeted by Its Own Missiles in Middle East,” warned Newsweek earlier this year. Well, yes…

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

    This means American Green Berets and other special forces advisers still embedded with Kurdish SDF units around the oil fields in Deir Ezzor and Hasakah province could find themselves on the receiving end of US-supplied missiles, ironically enough.

    Just another day in Washington’s long-term covert war in Syria, and yet another example of what many of us years ago warned would happened, once again coming to exact fruition. And yet Washington is still addicted to its regime change wars in the Middle East. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 22:30

  • 'Do Your Job!': Rand Paul Slams MSM And GOP Over Whistleblower Horsepucky
    ‘Do Your Job!’: Rand Paul Slams MSM And GOP Over Whistleblower Horsepucky

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) slammed the media for refusing to publish the name of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, despite it being one of the biggest open secrets in the Beltway. The Kentucky Republican also shot barbs at his GOP colleagues in Congress for not taking enough action to defend the president against the Democratic-led impeachment, according to the Washington Examiner.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “President Trump has great courage,” Paul said during a Monday evening Trump rally. “He faces down the fake media every day. But Congress needs to step up and have equal courage to defend the president.”

    “We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” he added. “The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked with Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media, ‘Do your job and print his name!‘ And I say this to my fellow colleagues in Congress, to every Republican in Washington, ‘Step up and subpoena Hunter Biden and subpoena the whistleblower!

    The whistleblower was outed by RealClearPolitics‘ Paul Sperry last week as 33-year-old CIA employee Eric Ciaramella, whose attorneys would “neither confirm nor deny” that it was him.

    Watch:

    Last month House Democrats launched impeachment proceedings against Trump based on Ciaramella’s second-hand whistleblower complaint alleging that the president abused his office by asking Ukriane to investigate former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter, along with other matters.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 22:10

  • SoftBank's 'Conglomerate Discount' Balloons To $130 Billion As Investors Bet Worst Is Yet To Come
    SoftBank’s ‘Conglomerate Discount’ Balloons To $130 Billion As Investors Bet Worst Is Yet To Come

    After a suite of marquee investments blew up in the company’s face over the summer, SoftBank, the Japanese telecoms giant with a massive VC arm attached, is preparing to face its first real ‘day of reckoning’ this week when it reports Q2 earnings, according to the FT and Nikkei Asian Review. The results will be released after the close of Japanese markets on Wednesday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Masayoshi Son

    Most analysts expect a grim showing: In the span of a few months, SoftBank Chairman Masayoshi Son’s reputation as one of the world’s most successful momentum investors has been totally eviscerated. The company’s stake in ride-share darling Uber has generated an on-paper loss of 30%. What’s worse, Son has insisted on throwing even more money at WeWork parent ‘The We Company’ in a desperate attempt to stave off an imminent bankruptcy, which would have stuck SB with losses in the billions of dollars.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the latest indication of just how little faith investors’ have in the company, Nikkei points out that SoftBank’s ‘valuation discount’, the gap between its valuation in public markets and its net asset value, has swollen to $130 billion.

    Take the group’s net debt figure of $45 billion (which excludes 10 trillion yen of debt held in subsidiaries and is the figure that Son prefers to use), add that to SoftBank’s market capitalization of $81 billion, and its enterprise value is $126 billion. This is essentially the all-in cost of buying the company.

    Against that, however, SoftBank has around $191 billion of quoted assets on its balance sheet, the largest of which is a 26% stake in Alibaba Group Holding, the Chinese e-commerce giant. It also owns U.K. chip designer Arm, which SoftBank has on its books at $25 billion, and another $8 billion of assorted assets it classifies as “others.” Add it all up, and SoftBank owns around $224 billion of assets.

    In addition, however, there are over 80 tech companies in the Vision Fund – such as ride-hailing giants Didi Chuxing and Grab, Indian hotel startup Oyo, and Chinese social media company ByteDance. SoftBank estimates its one-third share of these are worth $32 billion.

    Add all these assets together and the total comes to $256 billion – or $130 billion more than the company is worth on the market. This is the “conglomerate discount,” and it appears to have widened since Son railed about it in the past.

    SoftBank and Son are still desperately trying to court Saudi Arabia and convince Crown Prince MbS to commit to backing a planned second iteration of its Vision Fund (which Saudi Arabia backed to the tune of $45 billion from its sovereign wealth fund). However, even before WeWork’s valuation imploded, leading to the scrapping of its planned IPO and an embarrassingly public rescue that involved the ouster of co-founder and CEO Adam Neumann, there was talk that the Saudi’s would sit this one out.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Courtesy of the FT

    As SoftBank sees it, the Saudis owe it another chance: In the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder inside a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, SoftBank stood by the kingdom, even as Wall Street executives and other business leaders in the West cancelled plans to attend last year’s Future Investment Initiative (better known as MbS’s “Davos in the Desert”) while publicly contemplating whether to sever all business ties to the kingdom, according to the FT.

    One year later, those grievances appear to have been forgotten. But sparse attendance at Son’s speech at this year’s FII was seen as emblematic of the reputational hit that Son had taken in the aftermath of the WeWork blowup.

    Analysts quoted by Nikkei said that unless SoftBank can pull off the turnaround at WeWork, reviving its valuation will be difficult.

    “It cannot be helped that SoftBank’s [WeWork] investment is seen as a failure,” said Mitsunobu Tsuruo, analyst at Citigroup Global Markets Japan. “Investors are worried whether [it] will be the last negative material to affect SoftBank and its shares.”

    “We believe that unless the WeWork episode is resolved, SoftBank improves disclosure and clarifies its strategy, there is no solid anchor” to its net asset value, said Atul Goyal, analyst at Jefferies Securities.

    On the other hand, another analyst argued that the double-digit slump in SoftBank’s share price this year has completely priced in the WeWork fiasco, and that the SoftBank shares have nowhere to go but up from here.

    “We think the impact of this [WeWork] event is now priced in and expect the shares to rebound,” SMBC Nikko Securities wrote in an Oct. 25 report.

    A successful IPO from one of the Vision Fund’s 80 other portfolio companies could provide exactly the catalyst that the company needs. A listing for TikTok owner ByteDance in Hong Kong could accomplish this. Whatever happens, a successful offering will almost certainly need to happen outside of the US, since American markets have repeatedly shown this year that they have little appetite left for richly valued unicorns following a nearly uninterrupted string of IPO flops, from Uber & Lyft, to Slack, Peloton and others.

    A successful IPO would certainly help, after WeWork’s failed share float. ByteDance, the owner of social media app TikTok, which was valued at $75 billion in an October 2018 fundraising led by SoftBank, is reportedly considering a listing in Hong Kong.

    Then again, one IPO might not be enough; many professional asset managers now see Vision Fund backing as an obvious counter-indicator, as one hedge fund manager told the FT. After all, when it comes to valuing its portfolio companies, SoftBank has been so wrong, so many times, that rebuilding trust and faith in its abilities could prove to be an impossible task.

    “If SoftBank says this is the value, how much of that should you believe?” says Kirk Boodry, a tech analyst at Redex Holdings who publishes on research platform Smartkarma. One hedge fund investor says backing from the Vision Fund is “an immediate cue to sell.”

    And though SoftBank has scored several huge wins in recent years (it still owns a massive stake in Alibaba), investors in the Vision Fund largely missed out on those wins.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the FT, Vision Fund executives are counting on a $30 billion investment from Saudi Arabia for V2. But MbS has reportedly told advisors and other insiders that, while he would like to reward Son’s loyalty, his advisors are vehemently against it.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 21:50

  • Steve Bannon Set To Testify Against Roger Stone, Report
    Steve Bannon Set To Testify Against Roger Stone, Report

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon is set to testify against Roger Stone by claiming Stone was in contact with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, according to sources close to the trial.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The information was uncovered by reporters on the scene of Stone’s pre-trial.

    Bannon testifying against Stone is an act of revenge for Stone’s role in having him ousted from the Trump administration.

    Stone wrote an article that was published by the Daily Caller headlined ‘Bannon’s Time Is Up’ the day before Bannon left the White House, although Bannon asserts his departure was by mutual consent.

    In the article, Stone accused Bannon of paving the way for ‘Never Trumpers’ and neo-cons like Rex Tillerson, Dina Powell and Fiona Hill.

    Soon after Bannon left, he was swept under the wing of Robert Mueller’s investigation. Since that time Bannon has been working behind the scenes to undermine Stone, as well as Infowars host Alex Jones and Donald Trump Jr.

    Bannon also reportedly sought dirt and information on Jones at the peak of Mueller’s investigation into Infowars. Jones also asserts that he was subsequently the victim of a dirty tricks campaign that attempted to frame him for Russian collusion, which Jones reported to the FBI.

    Stone is charged with lying to Congress, trying to obstruct a congressional inquiry and intimidating a witness. He faces 20 years in prison.

    Prosecutors claim Stone attempted numerous times to contact WikiLeaks via intermediaries and leaked information about upcoming WikiLeaks disclosures to the Trump campaign and then lied about this to Congress.

    Stone claims that he only had tentative knowledge of WikiLeaks via radio host Randy Credico and did not meet with Assange.

    Russiagate, which failed to claim any significant scalps and turned out to be exactly as President Trump asserted all along – a witch hunt – now appears to rest on Bannon’s betrayal of Stone.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/04/2019 – 21:30

    Tags

  • Abenomics Update: New Car Sales In October Plunge 24.9% In Japan
    Abenomics Update: New Car Sales In October Plunge 24.9% In Japan

    It appears that Abenomics continues to fail in Japan, as a worldwide global recession in automobile sales combined with Typhoon Hagibis, which pummeled the Kantō region of Japan during October, both contributed to a huge drop off in new car sales for the month. Japan’s recent increase in its consumption tax was also cited as a potential drag on sales.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sales of new cars in Japan (including minicars) fell 24.9% year over year, according to the Japan Automobile Sales Association, Nikkei writes.

    Sales of registered vehicles fell 26.4% during the month, to 192,504 units. Honda saw its numbers plunge by 40.5%, Toyota fell by 21.7% and Nissan fell 36.9%. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Vendors attributed the drop off to the typhoon and “other weather factors and disasters” during the month.

    Minicar sales fell by 22.3% to 122,280 units, the first decrease in 3 months. Sales from Suzuki fell 6.2% and the numbers from Daihatsu plunged 26.3%. 

    “It cannot be said that there was no impact from the consumption tax hike, but it is necessary to check the trend of several months,” a spokesperson from the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association said. 

    Recall, the country raised its sales tax from 8% to 10% at the beginning of October. The new rate applies to nearly all goods and services, including vehicles, and excludes most food. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 21:10

  • China Services PMI Drops To 12-Month Low, Hong Kong Business Activity Crashes Most On Record
    China Services PMI Drops To 12-Month Low, Hong Kong Business Activity Crashes Most On Record

    Despite China’s surprise surge in Caixin Manufacturing PMI (to its highest since Dec 2016), Services were expected to show a modest decline which it did (down from 51.3 to 51.1).

    Note that the only one of the four PMIs to rise was the Caixin manufacturing index – massively bucking the trend of the rest…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Commenting on the China General Services PMI™ data, Dr. Zhengsheng Zhong, Director of Macroeconomic Analysis at CEBM Group said:

    “The Caixin China General Services Business Activity Index dipped to 51.1 in October from 51.3 in the previous month, marking the slowest expansion in eight months amid subdued market conditions.

    1) Demand across the services sector grew at a reduced pace, with the gauge for new business falling to the lowest level since February. The measure for new export business picked up slightly.

    2) While the job market expanded at a weaker clip, with the employment gauge falling from the previous month’s recent high, the measure for outstanding business rose further into expansionary territory. This implied a mismatch between labor supply and demand.

    3) Both gauges for input costs and prices charged by service providers edged down, but they remained in positive territory, reflecting relatively high pressure on costs, including those of workers, raw materials and fuel.

    4) The measure for business expectations dropped to the lowest point in 15 months, indicating depressed business confidence.

    Additionally, the Caixin China Composite Output Index inched up to 52 in October from 51.9 in the month before, amid an improvement in manufacturing, but a softer service sector performance.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The employment gauge dipped into contractionary territory, indicating renewed pressure on the labor market, which was likely due mainly to structural unemployment. The measure for backlogs of work climbed to the highest level since early 2011, highlighting bottlenecks in production capacity and inventories due to weak business confidence.

    “China’s economy continued to recover in general in October, thanks chiefly to the performance of the manufacturing sector. Domestic and foreign demand both improved. However, business confidence remained weak, constraining the release of production capacity. Structural unemployment and rising raw material costs remained issues. The foundation for economic growth to stabilize still needs to be consolidated.

    But then again, it could be worse – it could be Hong Kong, which saw its PMI crash to 39.3 in October – the lowest since November 2008 with business activity crashing at the fastest pace in the survey’s 21-year history. So much for the bounce in August that everyone declared as the bottom…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Commenting on the latest survey results, Bernard Aw, Principal Economist at IHS Markit, said:

    Hong Kong’s private sector remained mired in one of its worst downturns for the past two decades during October, with the latest PMI survey signalling a deepening economic malaise.

    The ongoing political unrest and impact of trade tensions saw business activity fall at the sharpest pace since the survey started over 21 years ago. Anecdotal evidence revealed that the retail and tourism sectors remained particularly affected.

    “As new orders continued to fall sharply, led by a record decline in demand from mainland China, firms were becoming increasingly pessimistic about the outlook.”

    Which doesn’t sound like a picture of ‘recovery’ or bottoming for the Chinese economy as a whole.

    And finally, both attempts to juice stocks today on US-China trade deal talk have failed…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Better keep tweeting.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 20:52

  • Conservative Californians Leaving In Droves For "America First, Law And Order" Red States
    Conservative Californians Leaving In Droves For “America First, Law And Order” Red States

    California conservatives are leaving the state in droves over what the LA Times describes as their “disenchantment with deep-blue California’s liberal political culture,” not to mention “high taxes, lukewarm support for local law enforcement, and policies they believe have thrown open the doors to illegal immigration.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Just over half of California’s registered voters have considered leaving the state, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. Republicans and conservative voters were nearly three times as likely as their Democratic or liberal counterparts to seriously have considered moving — 40% compared with 14%, the poll found. Conservatives mentioned taxes and California’s political culture as a reason for leaving more frequently than they cited the state’s soaring housing costs. –LA Times

    Former Californians Richard and Judy Stark had no regrets as they left their Modesto home, towing a U-Haul trailer with their Volkswagen SUV 1,300 miles to Amarillo, Texas. After finding the website Conservative Move, the Starks put their home up for sale around six months ago and bought a newly constructed three-bedroom home in the suburb of McKinney for around $300,000. According to Stark, a similar home in California would cost around twice as much.

    We’re moving to redder pastures,” said the 71-year-old. “We’re getting with people who believe in the same political agenda that we do: America first, Americans first, law and order.

    According to new Census Bureau migration data for 2018, 691,145 Californians left for other states last year, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

    Where they’re going (via the Mercury News)

    • Top destinations: In raw terms of people moving, the top spot for Californians is Texas, which got 86,164 Californians in 2018. Next came Arizona (68,516), Washington (55,467), Nevada (50,707), and Oregon (43,058). All told, California had the most exits among the state and that wave grew by 4% in a year.

    • Largest net gain: Texas also had the largest “net gain” from California — more ins than outs — with 48,354. Next was Arizona (34,846), Nevada (28,274), Oregon (19,008), and Washington (17,460).

    • Greatest ratio of ins to outs: Or look at the comings and goings as a ratio of ins to outs.  Idaho wins this race with 497 arrivals from the Golden State for every 100 former Potato State residents who moved to California. Next was South Carolina (247 ins per 100 out); Texas (228); Nevada (226); and Arizona (203).

    ***

    That said, the LA Times also notes that California is gaining people with higher incomes – most of whom have migrated to the Bay Area.

    Over the last decade, the Legislative Analyst’s Office report said, the state added about 100,000 residents with household incomes of $120,000 or higher. About 85% of these higher-income earners moved to the Bay Area counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. –LA Times

    The three-member Bailey family moved from California to Prosper, Texas in 2017 to get away from Southern California’s steep housing prices. Bailey and her husband Scott owned a home in Orange County, while renting in El Segundo to be closer to Scott’s work in Santa Monica.

    “To buy a house there [El Segundo] is insane,” said Marie. “It’s like $1 million. Why are we working our butts off for a fixer-upper in El Segundo? We’re just working, working, working — and for what?”

    Bailey launched a Facebook group for people struggling with the same problems – “Move to Texas From California!“, which boasts over 14,000 members. She says that most members are conservatives like her, though not all. As such, one of her rules is “no insulting or going overboard with political conversations.”

    “I wouldn’t be one to put up a Trump sign, even here,” said the 40-year-old Bailey. “But in your town Facebook, people would be like, ‘We know who the Trump supporters are.’ I had friends who voted for Trump and went to work the next day and pretended they didn’t.”

    Bailey says she helped around 40 families migrate to Texas over the last year.

    “There are hundreds more who made the move who didn’t use my real estate services but are in the group,” she said. “Tons and tons of families are moving all the time. People are posting photos of their families waving goodbye.”

    Nicole Rivers and her husband put their Clovis home on the market in April, and hope to close escrow soon. They plan on flying to Texas to look for a place to rent in the eastern part of the state, near Tyler, coming back to California and then driving to their new home.

    Rivers, who recently quit her job as a medical assistant and phlebotomist, said the cost of living is so much lower in the Tyler area that she can afford to stop working and dedicate herself to being a stay-at-home mom.

    Her husband works in the oil fields, she said, and was already splitting his time between his job in Pennsylvania and family in California. When he had the chance to transfer to Texas full time, they jumped on it.

    The 37-year-old said she wants to live in a town where the family can save money and her husband can retire sooner.

    It’s just too expensive here in California,” said Rivers, a California native. The state’s politics have “really gotten out of hand,” she added. She doesn’t support the state’s restrictive gun laws, she said, or the controversial sex education framework California approved despite protests earlier this year. –LA Times

    Between earthquakes, seasonal fires, high taxes, poo-covered streets, the worst homeless crisis in the nation, and transgender summer camp for children as young as four, what’s not to love?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 20:37

  • Burisma Pressured Obama Admin Weeks Before Joe Biden Got Ukrainian Prosecutor Fired
    Burisma Pressured Obama Admin Weeks Before Joe Biden Got Ukrainian Prosecutor Fired

    Authored by John Solomon via John Solomon Reports

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (emphasis ours)

    Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.

    During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. (I filed that suit this summer with the help of the public interest law firm the Southeastern Legal Foundation.)

    Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

    Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”

    “Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption,” a Feb. 24, 2016, email between State officials read. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member).

    “Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt,” the email added. “According to Tramontano there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.”

    At the time, Novelli was the most senior official overseeing international energy issues for State. The undersecretary position, of which there are several, is the third-highest-ranking job at State, behind the secretary and deputy secretary. And Tramontano was a lawyer working for Blue Star Strategies, a Washington firm that was hired by Burisma to help end a long-running corruption investigation against the gas firm in Ukraine.

    Tramontano and another Blue Star official, Sally Painter, both alumni of Bill Clinton’s administration, worked with New York-based criminal defense attorney John Buretta to settle the Ukraine cases in late 2016 and 2017. I wrote about their efforts previously here

    Burisma Holdings records obtained by Ukrainian prosecutors state the gas firm made a $60,000 payment to Blue Star in November 2015.

    The emails show Tramontano was scheduled to meet Novelli on March 1, 2016, and that State Department officials were scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

    The records don’t show whether the meeting actually took place. The FOIA lawsuit is ongoing and State officials are slated to produce additional records in the months ahead.

    But the records do indicate that Hunter Biden’s fellow American board member at Burisma,  Devon Archer, secured a meeting on March 2, 2016 with Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition to serving on the Burisma board, Archer and Hunter Biden were partners at an American firm known as Rosemont Seneca.

    Devon Archer coming to see S today at 3pm – need someone to meet/greet him at C Street,” an email from Kerry’s office manager reads. “S” is a shorthand frequently used in State emails to describe the Secretary of State. The memos don’t state the reason for the meeting.

    Tramontano, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, Archer and Joe Biden’s campaign did not return messages seeking comment on Monday.

    In an interview with ABC News last month, Hunter Biden said he believed he had done “nothing wrong at all” while working with Burisma but “was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is…a swamp in — in — in many ways? Yeah.”

    Whatever the subject of the Archer-Kerry meeting, its existence is certain to spark interest. That’s because Secretary Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, had been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment firm in the United States.

    Heinz, however, chose not to participate in the Burisma dealings. In fact, he wrote an email to his stepfather’s top aides in May 2014, pointedly distancing himself from the decision by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer to join Burisma’s board.

    Heinz’s spokesman recently told The Washington Post that Heinz ended his relationship with Archer and Hunter Biden partly over the Burisma matter. “The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told the newspaper

    A person who assisted Blue Star and Buretta in settling the Burisma matters in Ukraine told me in an interview that the late February 2016 overture to State was prompted by a dramatic series of events in Ukraine that included when that country’s top prosecutor escalated a two-year probe into Burisma and its founder, the oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky.

    Zlochevsky’s gas firm hired Hunter Biden and Archer as board members for Burisma Holdings in spring 2014, around the time that British officials opened corruption investigations into Zlochevsky’s gas firm for actions dating to 2010 before Hunter Biden and Archer joined the firm. Ukraine officials opened their own corruption probe in August 2014.

    A firm called Rosemont Seneca Bohai began receiving monthly payments totaling more than $166,000 from Burisma Holdings in May 2014, bank records show. The records show Devon Archer was listed as a custodian for the Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm and that Hunter Biden received payments from it. You can read those bank records here.

    In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gave a speech imploring Ukrainian prosecutors to do more to bring Zlochevsky to justice, according to published reports at the time.

    By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in Ukraine.

    The same day that the Zlochevsky seizure was announced in Ukraine, Hunter Biden used his Twitter account to start following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a longtime national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under Secretary John Kerry.

    The Feb. 4, 2016 Twitter notification from Hunter Biden to Blinken was captured by State email servers and turned over to me as part of the FOIA release.

    Within a few weeks of Tramontano’s overture to Novelli and of Archer’s overture to Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden took a stunning action, one that has enveloped his 2020 campaign for president in controversy.

    By his own admission in a 2018 speech, Joe Biden used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to strong-arm Ukraine into firing Shokin, a prosecutor that he and his office knew was investigating Burisma.

    Biden has said he forced Shokin’s firing because he and Western allies believed the prosecutor wasn’t aggressive enough in fighting corruption.

    Shokin disputes that account, telling both me and ABC News that he was fired specifically because he would not stand down from investigating Burisma. In fact, Shokin alleges, he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden about his Burisma work and payments when he got the axe.

    Ukraine prosecutors have said they do not believe the Bidens did anything wrong under Ukraine law. But some of the country’s prosecutors made an effort in 2018 to get information about Burisma to the U.S. Justice Department because they believed American prosecutors might be interested in some activities under U.S. law. You can read about that effort here.

    Some experts and officials have been quoted in reports saying Joe Biden’s actions created the appearance of a conflict of interest, something all U.S. government officials are supposed to avoid. The questions about conflicts were previously raised in a 2015 article by the New York Times and the 2018 book Secret Empires by author Peter Schweizer.

    The new evidence of contacts between Burisma, Hunter Biden and Archer at State are certain to add a new layer of intrigue to the debate. Those contacts span back to at least spring 2015, the new memos show.

    On May 22, 2015, Hunter Biden emailed his father’s longtime trusted aide, Blinken, with the following message: “Have a few minutes next week to grab a cup of coffee? I know you are impossibly busy, but would like to get your advice on a couple of things, Best, Hunter.”

    Blinken responded the same day with an “absolutely” and added, “Look forward to seeing you.”

    The records indicate the two men were scheduled to meet the afternoon of May 27, 2015.

    The State Department records also indicate Hunter Biden met Blinken in person for lunch on July 22, 2015, when State officials gave the name of a person to meet to help him enter the building. “He has the VIP pin and can escort you upstairs for your lunch with Tony,” the email said.

    The emails don’t indicate whether the meeting had to do with Burisma or one of Hunter Biden’s other interests.

    But they clearly show that Hunter Biden, his business partner and Burisma’s legal team were able to secure contacts inside the State Department, including to one of his father’s most trusted aides, to Secretary Kerry and to the agency’s top energy official.

    The question now is: Did any of those contacts prompt further action or have anything to do with Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in March 2016 when he forced Shokin’s firing?

    ***

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


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 20:30

    Tags

  • US Issues $20M Reward For Return Of US Agent, "Longest Held" Hostage In Iran
    US Issues $20M Reward For Return Of US Agent, “Longest Held” Hostage In Iran

    A flurry of US-Iran related activity on the 40th anniversary of the American hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution that sparked it: after Iran earlier on Monday announced it took steps to double its uranium enrichment capacity via new advanced centrifuges, Washington has answered by slapping new sanctions on Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as eight advisers of Iran’s top cleric, including the head of judiciary Ebrahim Raisi, and Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff and its chief, General Mohammad Bagheri.

    Crucially, the United States Treasury also announced a $20 million reward for info on the return of Bob Levinson, who is believed to have been held hostage by the Iranian government since his disappearance from Iran’s Kish Island in 2007.

    Levinson is the longest held American hostage inside the Islamic Republic, and multiple efforts to free him or gain knowledge of his whereabouts have come up empty over the years. It’s believed he came under suspicion of Iran’s intelligence agencies due to his being a former Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI agent.

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

    Indeed years ago it was revealed that he was likely working as a contractor for the CIA. According to a recent Newsweek profile of Levinson:

    Levinson, an ex–FBI agent well into a second career as a private detective, had disappeared over a decade earlier from a hotel on Iran’s Kish Island. He had been seen only twice since then, first in a hostage video his family received from unknown intermediaries in 2010, then in photos three years later, showing the then-63-year-old increasingly haggard and begging for help.

    At first, the U.S. government claimed it had no knowledge of why Levinson, an expert on Russian organized crime, had gone to Iran. The Iranian regime denied it was holding him. But in 2013, the Associated Press and other news outlets revealed that the ex-agent had gone to Kish on an off-the-books CIA mission to probe high-level Iranian money laundering.

    The United States has reportedly long been engaged in secretive efforts to secure his release, but little is as yet known of his status. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Concerning the new sanctions announced Monday, the US Treasury stated in its press release that it is targeting “Iran’s inner circle responsible for advancing regime’s domestic and foreign oppression,” or what it also describes as “Khamenei’s network”.

    This follows broader economic sanctions on Iran’s energy, auto, banking, and other major sectors after the May 2018 Trump administration pullout of the 2015 nuclear deal. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP.

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said of the new sanctions: “The designation seeks to block funds from flowing to a shadow network of Khamenei’s military and foreign affairs advisers who have for decades oppressed the Iranian people, supported terrorism, and advanced destabilizing policies around the world.”

    “While the Iranian regime’s decision to jail our diplomats has cast a 40-year shadow over our relations, the United States knows that the longest-suffering victims of the Iranian regime are the Iranian people,” he added, referencing the 40th anniversary of the 1979 crisis, which went for 444 days. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 20:30

    Tags

  • China Is Weaponizing Water And Worsening Droughts Across Asia
    China Is Weaponizing Water And Worsening Droughts Across Asia

    Authored by Brahma Chellaney, op-ed via Nikkei Asian Review,

    Asia, the world’s driest continent in per capita terms, remains the center of dam construction, with more than half of the 50,000 large dams across the globe. The hyperactivity on dams has only sharpened local and international disputes over the resources of shared rivers and aquifers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A night view of China’s Three Gorges Dam: Asia can build a harmonious, rules-based water management regime only if China gets on board, which does not seem likely. © Visual China Group/Getty Images

    The focus on dams reflects a continuing preference for supply-side approaches, which entail increased exploitation of water resources, as opposed to pursuing demand-side solutions, such as smart water management and greater water-use efficiency. As a result, nowhere is the geopolitics over dams murkier than in Asia, the world’s most dam-dotted continent.

    Improving the hydropolitics demands institutionalized cooperation, transparency on projects, water-sharing arrangements and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Asia can build a harmonious, rules-based water management regime only if China gets on board. At least for now, that does not seem likely.

    Last summer, water levels in continental Southeast Asia’s lifeline, the 4,880-kilometer Mekong River, fell to their lowest in more than 100 years, even though the annual monsoon season stretches from late May to late September. Yet, after completing 11 mega-dams, China is building more upstream dams on the Mekong, which originates on the Tibetan Plateau. Indeed, Beijing is also damming other transnational rivers.

    China is central to Asia’s water map. Thanks to its annexation of the water-rich Tibetan Plateau and the sprawling Xinjiang province, China is the starting point of rivers that flow to 18 downstream countries. No other country in the world serves as the riverhead for so many countries.

    By erecting dams, barrages and other water diversion structures in its borderlands, China is creating an extensive upstream infrastructure that arms it with the capacity to weaponize water.

    To be sure, dam-building is also roiling relations elsewhere in Asia. The festering territorial disputes over Kashmir and Central Asia’s Ferghana Valley are as much about water as they are about land. Across Asia, states are jockeying to control shared water resources by building dams, even as they demand transparency and information on their neighbors’ projects.

    A serious drought presently parching parts of the vast region extending from Australia to the Indian peninsula has underscored the mounting risks from the pursuit of dam-centered engineering solutions to growing freshwater shortages.

    Asia’s densely populated regions already face a high risk that their water stress could worsen to water scarcity. The dam-driven water competition is threatening to also provoke greater tensions and conflict.

    In the West, the building of large dams has largely petered out. The construction of large dams is also slowing in Asia’s major democracies, such as Japan, South Korea and India, because of increasing grassroots opposition.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shrunken Varuna River in Phoolpur, India, picuterd on June 8: a serious drought has underscored the mounting risks from the pursuit of dam-centered engineering solutions to growing freshwater shortages.   © NurPhoto/Getty Images

    It is the construction in non-democracies that has made Asia the global nucleus of dam-building. China remains the world’s top dam-builder at home and abroad. In keeping with its obsession to build the tallest, largest, deepest, longest and highest projects, China completed ahead of schedule the world’s biggest dam, Three Gorges, touting it as the greatest architectural feat in history since the building of the Great Wall.

    It is currently implementing the most ambitious interbasin and inter-river water transfer program ever conceived in human history.

    Among its planned new dams is a massive project at Metog, or Motuo in Chinese, on the world’s highest-altitude major river, the Brahmaputra. The proposed dam, close to the disputed, heavily militarized border with India, will have a power-generating capacity nearly twice that of the Three Gorges Dam, whose reservoir is longer than the largest of North America’s Great Lakes.

    Several of the Southeast Asian dam projects financed and undertaken by Chinese companies, like in Laos and Myanmar, are intended to generate electricity for export to China’s own market.

    Indeed, China has demonstrated that it has no qualms about building dams in disputed territories, such as Pakistan-administered Kashmir, or in areas torn by ethnic separatism, like northern Myanmar.

    Ever since China erected a cascade of giant dams on the Mekong, droughts have become more frequent and intense in the downriver countries. This has created a serious public-relations headache for Beijing, which denies that its upriver dams are to blame.

    Indeed, seeking to play savior, it has promised to release more dam water for the drought-stricken countries. But this offer only highlights the newfound reliance of downriver countries on Chinese goodwill — a dependence that is set to deepen as China builds more giant dams on the Mekong.

    With water woes worsening across Asia, the continent faces a stark choice — stay on the present path, which can lead only to more environmental degradation and even water wars, or fundamentally change course by embarking on the path of rules-based cooperation.

    The latter path demands not only water-sharing accords and the free flow of hydrological data but also greater efficiency in water consumption, increased use of recycled and desalinated water, and innovative conservation and adaptation efforts.

    None of this will be possible without the cooperation of China, which thus far has refused to enter into water-sharing arrangements with any downstream neighbor. If China does not abandon its current approach, the prospects for a rules-based order in Asia could perish forever. Getting China on board has thus become critical to shape water for peace in Asia.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 20:10

  • Malaysia PM: Protectionism Will Fail, Free Trade Will Triumph
    Malaysia PM: Protectionism Will Fail, Free Trade Will Triumph

    The 35th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Business Advisory Council (ASEAN BAC) was held over the weekend at the IMPACT Exhibition Center in Muang Thong Thani, Nonthaburi Province, a northern suburb of Bangkok, Thailand. 

    The theme of the business investment summit was empowering ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar (Burma), and Laos in the 21st century.

    There was also another theme at the summit, and that was the trade war and how protectionism will be short-lived. 

    Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad told attendees at the summit, that the rapid surge of protectionism seen by the US-China trade war will not last long, and free trade will triumph at the end, who was quoted by The Straits Times.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Popularism is mounting in Europe and America where there are talks about limiting trade, about trade wars and applying higher taxes for imports. But I think this will not last very long because they will understand that if they cut themselves off from the new producers, they tend to lose a lot. They cannot really stop trade from expanding and becoming multilateral,” Mohamad said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “There is a fear now that competition this time would benefit the countries in the East, rather than the developed countries from the West. That is why now there is a lot of resistance expressed openly by the people. And the politicians have responded, listening to the people, their worry about their jobs, about their growth, etc, and they like to now restrict trade, rather than have free trade, because now they understand that they are at the wrong end,” he added. 

    President Trump skipped out on the summit this weekend, was seen at UFC 244 at Madison Square Garden in New York City on Saturday night. 

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

    Mohamad called President Trump “not a very nice man” and criticized US protectionist policies that were leading the world towards a trade recession.

    “People will come to their senses one day. At the very worst, this is going to go on for another five years, if he wins. When you limit the presidency to two terms, then the damage done will be much less,” Mohamad said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With President Trump absent, China was seen leading the ASEAN summit and vowed to strengthen economic ties with neighboring countries.

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

    ASEAN countries were striving towards new trade deals with six other nations: China, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. None of the trade deals included in the US.

    Mohamad better hope President Trump doesn’t win a second term in 2020, otherwise, if he does, protectionism will continue to soar. 

    The US is rapidly decoupling from the Eastern Hemisphere. The global economy is being fractured between the West and the East. This will produce a decade of financial market volatility and elevated geopolitical risks if not corrected in the near term. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 19:50

    Tags

  • Peter Schiff: It's Not A 'Great Economy' Driving Stocks; It's The Fed!
    Peter Schiff: It’s Not A ‘Great Economy’ Driving Stocks; It’s The Fed!

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    The Nasdaq and the S&P 500 closed on record highs Friday after a stronger than expected jobs report. But in his podcast, Peter Schiff said that the stock markets aren’t surging because of a great economy. They’re surging because of bad monetary policy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The economy added 128,000 jobs in October, according to the Labor Department. That beat the expectation of 98,000. Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow called it a great jobs report and a sign of a strong economy. In fact, Trump tweeted last week that we have the strongest economy in American history.

    But Peter said the jobs report wasn’t really all that great, despite the fact that it beat expectations. And there was other economic data that came out weaker than expected last week. Peter called it a mixed bag. And the Atlanta Fed actually revised its Q4 GDP estimate down from 1.5 to 1.1.

    So hardly the strongest economy in history. And yet the markets and President Trump are certainly celebrating like the economy was strong.”

    Peter said the underlying economy is weak despite the job numbers. The real reason the markets are rising is because of the Fed. As Peter discussed in his previous podcast, the Fed cut rates for the third time this year last week. More significantly, Fed chair Jerome Powell indicated that it would take a “really significant” and “persistent” move up in inflation before considering rate hikes. Basically, Powell conceded that the Fed wasn’t going to be vigilant about inflation.

    Rate hikes are the furthest thing from their mind. They’re not even considering raising rates right now. So, the only thing that they’ll do is cut rates or leave them alone … This is a very dovish stand for the Fed to take. Probably the most dovish stance I’ve ever seen the Fed take with respect to its supposed tolerance for inflation. Because, in the past, the Fed always pretended it would be vigilant and it would be more proactive when it came to inflation — that it wouldn’t wait to see the whites of inflation’s eyes. I mean, it would fire if it believed there was an inflation threat, but it didn’t actually believe one existed.”

    But now the Fed is basically saying it’s going to wait until inflation is clearly a problem.

    This is a green light to the stock market. ‘Hey, don’t worry. The Fed has got your back. We’ve got the Powell Put in place. Buy stocks.’”

    And of course, it’s not just the rate cuts. It’s QE4.

    The Fed can deny that they’re doing quantitative easing. But they can’t hide the numbers. They can’t hide their balance sheet.”

    [ZH: And in case you wondered what the real role of central banks was/is…]

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    In fact, the balance sheet rose by 51.1 billion last week alone. The balance sheet is now above $4 trillion. It has grown by $250 billion over the last seven weeks.

    That is a lot of quantitative easing. The Fed is expanding its balance sheet right now at about twice the pace that it was expanding its balance sheet when it was doing QE3. So QE4, whether they admit it or not, is much, much bigger than QE3, and it’s going to continue, and it is going to accelerate. And that is what is driving the stock market. Despite the fact that the economic data is deteriorating. Despite the fact that corporate earnings are falling, it is the Fed that is pushing this market to new highs by cutting interest rates, by indicating to the markets that they don’t have to worry about rate hikes no matter what happens with inflation. The Fed’s not going to raise interest rates. Oh, and by the way, they’re doing quantitative easing, and they’re going to print as much money as they have to keep the markets going up and to keep the economy propped up.”

    Peter goes on to ponder an interesting question: what would things look like if the Fed hadn’t expanded its balance sheet by $250 billion? Obviously, it bought something with all that money.

    They are buying new highs in the stock market.”

    The Fed isn’t solving the problems. It’s just papering over the problems.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 11/04/2019 – 19:30

  • The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window
    The Incredible Shrinking Overton Window

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

    ~ Noam Chomsky

    The plutocrat-owned narrative managers of the political/media class work constantly to shrink the Overton window, the spectrum of debate that is considered socially acceptable.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    They do this by framing more and more debates in terms of how the oligarchic empire should be sustained and supported, steering them away from debates about whether that empire should be permitted to exist at all.

    They get people debating whether there should be some moderate changes made or no meaningful changes at all, rather than the massive, sweeping changes we all know need to be made to the entire system.

    They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks.

    They get people debating violations of government secrecy laws, not whether the government has any business keeping those secrets from its citizenry in the first place.

    They get people debating how internet censorship should take place and whom should be censored, rather than whether any internet censorship should occur.

    They get people debating how and to what extent government surveillance should occur, not whether the government has any business spying on its citizens.

    They get people debating how subservient and compliant someone needs to be in order to not get shot by a police officer, rather than whether a police officer should be shooting people for those reasons at all.

    They get people debating whether or not a group of protesters are sufficiently polite, rather than debating the thing those protesters are demonstrating against.

    They get people debating about whether this thing or that thing is a “conspiracy theory”, rather than discussing the known fact that powerful people conspire.

    They get people debating whether Tulsi Gabbard is a dangerous lunatic, a Russian asset, a Republican asset gearing up for a third party run, or just a harmless Democratic Party crackpot, rather than discussing the fact that her foreign policy would have been considered perfectly normal prior to 9/11.

    They get people debating whether Bernie Sanders is electable or too radical, rather than discussing what it says about the status quo that his extremely modest proposals which every other major country already implements are treated as something outlandish in the United States.

    They get people debating whether Jeremy Corbyn has done enough to address the Labour antisemitism crisis, rather than whether that “crisis” ever existed at all outside of the imaginations of establishment smear merchants.

    They get people debating whether Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren would win against Trump, rather than whether either of those establishment lackeys is a worthy nominee.

    They get people debating whether politicians should have corporate sponsors, rather than whether corporations should be allowed to interfere in the electoral process at all.

    They get people debating if the US should be pursuing regime change in Iran or Syria, rather than whether the US has any business overthrowing the governments of sovereign nations to begin with.

    They get people debating how many US troops should be in Syria, rather than whether that illegal invasion and occupation was ever legitimate in the first place.

    They get people debating whether to kill people slowly by sanctions or kill them quickly with bombs, rather than whether they should be killed at all.

    They get people debating whether or not some other country’s leader is an evil dictator, rather than whether it’s any of your business.

    They get people debating the extent to which Russia and Trump were involved in the Democratic Party’s 2016 email leaks, rather than the contents of those leaks.

    They get people debating what the response should be to Russian interference in the election, rather than whether that interference took place at all, and whether it would really matter if it did.

    They get people debating how much government support the poor should be allowed to have, rather than whether the rich should be allowed to keep what they’ve stolen from the poor.

    They get people debating what kind of taxes billionaires should have to pay, rather than whether it makes sense for billionaires to exist at all.

    They get people impotently debating the bad things other countries do, rather than the bad things their own country does which they can actually do something about.

    They get people debating what should be done to prevent the rise of China, rather than whether a multipolar world might be beneficial.

    They get people debating whether western cold war escalations against the Russian Federation are sufficient, rather than whether they want the horrors of the cold war to be resurrected in the first place.

    They get people debating what extent cannabis should be decriminalized, rather than whether the government should be allowed to lock anyone up for deciding to put any substance whatsoever in their own body.

    They get people debating whether or not US troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, rather than whether or not there should be any US troops outside of the US.

    They get people debating whether or not Julian Assange is “a real journalist”, rather than whether or not they should set legal precedents that necessarily criminalize acts of journalism.

    They get people debating the subtle details of bail protocol, political asylum, embassy cat hygiene and leaking rather than whether it should ever be legal to imprison a publisher for exposing government war crimes.

    They get people debating what the punishment should be for whistleblowers, not what the punishment should be for those they blow the whistle on.

    They get people debating whether Fox or MSNBC is the real “fake news”, rather than whether the entirety of mainstream media is oligarchic propaganda.

    They get people debating about how the things everyone is freaking out over Trump doing were previously done by Obama, rather than discussing why all US presidents do the same evil things regardless of their parties or campaign platforms.

    They get people debating what should be done with money, not whether the concept of money itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

    They get people debating what should be done with government, not whether the concept of government itself is in need of a complete overhaul.

    They get people debating whether the status quo should be reinforced or revised, rather than whether it should be flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

    They get people angrily debating things they can’t change, rather than constructively working on the things that they can.

    They get people shoving against each other in opposite directions, while they swiftly build a cage around us all.

    *  *  *

    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, 11/04/2019 – 18:50

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 4th November 2019

  • Rebuilding Syria… Without Syria's Oil?
    Rebuilding Syria… Without Syria’s Oil?

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Compare US pillaging with Russia-Iran-Turkey’s active involvement in a political solution to normalize Syria…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What happened in Geneva this Wednesday, in terms of finally bringing peace to Syria, could not be more significant: the first session of the Syrian Constitutional Committee.

    The Syrian Constitutional Committee sprang out of a resolution passed in January 2018 in Sochi, Russia, by a body called the Syrian National Dialogue Congress.

    The 150-strong committee breaks down as 50 members of the Syrian opposition, 50 representing the government in Damascus and 50 representatives of civil society. Each group named 15 experts for the meetings in Geneva, held behind closed doors.

    This development is a direct consequence of the laborious Astana process – articulated by Russia, Iran and Turkey. Essential initial input came from former UN Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. Now UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen is working as a sort of mediator.

    The committee started its deliberations in Geneva in early 2019.

    Crucially, there are no senior members of the administration in Damascus nor from the opposition – apart from Ahmed Farouk Arnus, who is a low-ranking diplomat with the Syrian Foreign Ministry.

    Among the opposition, predictably, there are no former leaders of weaponized factions. And no “moderate rebels.” The delegates include several former and current parliament members, university rectors and journalists.

    After this first round, significantly, the committee’s co-chair, Ahmad Kuzbari, said:

    “We hope that our next meeting could take place in our native land, in our beloved Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited capital in history.”

    Even the opposition, which is part of the committee, hopes that a political deal will be clinched next year. According to co-chair Hadi al-Bahra:

    “I hope that the 75th anniversary of the United Nations next year will be an opportunity to celebrate another achievement by the universal organization, namely the success of efforts under the auspices of a special envoy for political process, who will bring peace and justice to all Syrians.”

    Join the patrol

    The committee’s work in Geneva proceeds in parallel to ever-changing facts on the ground. These will certainly force more face-to-face negotiations between Presidents Putin and Erdogan, as Erdogan himself confirmed: “A conversation with Putin can take place any time. Everything depends on the course of events.”

    “Events” seem not to be that incandescent, so far, even as Erdogan, predictably, releases the whiff of a threat in the air: “We reserve the right to resume military operation in Syria if terrorists approach at the distance of 30km to Turkey’s borders or continue attacks from any other Syrian area.”

    Erdogan also said the de facto safe zone along the Turkish-Syrian border could be “expanded,” something that he would have to clear in minute detail with Moscow.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Those threats have already manifested on the ground. On Wednesday, Turkey and allied Islamist factions launched an attack against Tal Tamr, a historic Assyrian Christian enclave 50km deep inside Syrian territory – far beyond the scope of the 10km patrol zone or the 30km “safe” zone.

    Poorly-armed Syrian troops pulled out under fierce attack, and with no apparent Russian cover. The Syrian military on the same day issued a public statement calling on the Syrian Democratic Forces to reintegrate under its command. The SDF has said a compromise must be reached first over semi-autonomy for the northeastern region. Thousands of residents in the meantime fled farther south to the more protected city of Hasakeh.

    Two facts are absolutely crucial. The Syrian Kurds have completed their pull out ahead of schedule, as confirmed by Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu. And, this Friday, Russia and Turkey start their joint military patrols to the depth of 7km away from the border, part of the de facto safe zone in northeast Syria.

    The devil in the immense details is how Ankara is going to manage the territories that it now actually controls, and to which it plans to relocate as many as 2 million Syrian refugees.

    Your oil? Mine

    Then there’s the nagging issue that simply won’t go away: the American drive to “secure the oil” (Trump) and “protect” Syrian oilfields (the Pentagon), for all practical purposes from Syria.

    In Geneva, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – alongside Iran’s Javad Zarif and Turkey’s Mevlut Cavusoglu – could not have been more scathing. Lavrov said Washington’s plan is “arrogant,” and violates international law. The very American presence on Syrian soil is “illegal,” he said.

    All across the Global South, especially among countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, this is being interpreted, stripped to the bone, for what it is: the United States government illegally taking possession of natural resources of a third country via a military occupation.

    And the Pentagon is warning that anyone attempting to contest it will be shot on sight. It remains to be seen whether the US Deep State would be willing to engage in a hot war with Russia over a few Syrian oilfields.

    Under international law, the whole “securing the oil” scam is a euphemism for pillaging, pure and simple. Every single takfiri or jihadi outfit operating across the “Greater Middle East” will converge, perversely, to the same conclusion: US “efforts” across the lands of Islam are all about the oil.

    Now compare that with Russia-Iran-Turkey’s active involvement in a political solution and normalization of Syria – not to mention, behind the scenes, China, which quietly donates rice and aims for widespread investment in a pacified Syria positioned as a key Eastern Mediterranean node of the New Silk Roads.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 23:50

    Tags

  • Generation 'Rent': How Millennials Are Fueling The 'Lease, Don't Buy' Economy
    Generation ‘Rent’: How Millennials Are Fueling The ‘Lease, Don’t Buy’ Economy

    It’s long been said that millennials have the power to disrupt and reshape entire industries.

    Most recently, as Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones points out, this effect has been seen in the retail landscape, where millennial spending habits are setting the tone for the market’s future.

    Not only does the millennial generation demand the convenience of making instant purchases – but they can now rent almost anything they want, anytime, and anywhere.

    Visualizing the Growth of the Rental Economy

    Today’s infographic from Adweek takes a deeper look at the consumer goods rental economy, and the potential long-term impact of this shift in buyer behavior.

    Although the current market for rentals is still in its early stages, the sheer momentum that the industry has gained in the last year is enough to threaten even the largest retailers—forcing them to reconsider their own business models.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The data for the visualization above comes from market research company Lab 42. In a survey of 500 people, they found that 94% of the U.S. population has participated in the sharing economy in one way or another.

    While the sharing economy spotlight typically shines on global behemoths like Airbnb and Uber, the research used to populate this infographic focuses on renting consumer goods for a short period of time, as a sub-segment of the sharing economy.

    The Renting Revolution

    Offerings within the rental sector have exploded over the last decade, with furniture being the number one category that consumers rent.

    According to the infographic, reasons for renting furniture include:

    • Temporary housing: 45%

    • Expensive upfront costs: 43%

    • Testing products before committing: 41%

    • Hosting events at home: 35%

    • Moving into a new home: 29%

    • Redesigning a house: 27%

    Other products that consumers rent include gaming systems, clothes, tools, and technology. Female renters are more likely to rent furniture, clothes, and jewelry, while male renters are more likely to rent tools and gaming systems.

    Renting goods is predominantly done on an as-needed basis. The Lab 42 report states that for clothing, 77% of respondents indicate that they either rent, or would rent for a formal event.

    The End of Ownership?

    Despite the common misconception that millennials are driven by emotional needs, the reasons behind why they rent consumer goods are much more pragmatic.

    • Test things before purchasing: 57%

    • Need a temporary solution: 55%

    • Need an item or a service for a short time-frame : 52%

    • Less expensive than buying: 43%

    • More convenient than buying: 42%

    Further, only 6% said that they rent because they do not like owning things. This tells us that the rental economy does not indicate the end of ownership, but rather, provides a strategy for consumers to try before they buy.

    Attitudes Towards Sustainability

    According to the research, very few millennials choose to rent consumer goods because it is better for the environment. However, Nielsen claim that 73% of millennials are willing to pay more money for sustainable offerings—impacting both retail and rental industries.

    As evidence of this, Ikea will test a range of subscription-based leasing offers in all 30 of its markets by 2020 in a bid to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers and boost its sustainability credentials. If Ikea’s evolving business model is a success, it could open the floodgates for others to follow suit.

    A Promising Market

    In the clothing rental space, brands like Rent the Runway pave the way, but there has also been an explosion of startups entering the market in the last year.

    One example is the monthly subscription service Nuuly. The company offers consumers access to over 100 third-party brands and vintage items. Consumers can borrow up to six items a month for $88. Similarly, American Eagle’s Style Drop program rents out the latest collections for a flat monthly fee of $49.95.

    As more companies incorporate short-term rental services into their offerings, more millennials will shift their behavior from buying to renting—disrupting the traditional retail business model as we know it. With that being said, the impact of millennials having it all, and owning none of it, is yet to be determined.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 23:25

  • Watch: "You Are Slave Property Of A Corporation Called The United States Of America"
    Watch: “You Are Slave Property Of A Corporation Called The United States Of America”

    Authored by Mike Adams via NaturalNews.com,

    Today we’ve published a powerful new video on Brighteon.com that explains how you are a “slave wage worker” owned by a globalist corporation known as the United States of America.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The video explains how the ability of the Federal Reserve to create new debt (i.e. print new wealth for the elite political criminals who run everything) hinges on the ability of the government to confiscate wealth from workers who are tracked with “social security” numbers.

    The term “social security” doesn’t mean security for you. It means that you are being securitized as a guarantee of future confiscated income to support the creation of new debt. You are the security for the Treasury / Fed scam of creating new money, in other words.

    It’s not about providing security for you; it’s about exploiting you to provide security for new debt.

    That’s why the social security trust fund is already tapped out. The criminal bureaucrats who run the corrupt government have already spent the money they’ve stolen from you, and the only way you’ll ever get it back is if they continue stealing more money from the next generation of workers.

    It’s all a Ponzi scheme, in other words. And like every Ponzi scheme, it will eventually run out of new victims to exploit, causing it to catastrophically implode.

    Watch the full video to learn more.

    Brighteon.com, by the way, has just rolled out a major upgrade, including new video categories on the home page, video channel subscribers and video like buttons. (Many glitches were just resolved today, and the full feature set is now active.)


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 23:00

  • Lagarde: "We Should Be Happier To Have A Job Than To Have Savings"
    Lagarde: “We Should Be Happier To Have A Job Than To Have Savings”

    Any hopes that the replacement of Mario Draghi, who on Halloween left the ECB more polarized than ever, as the core European nations revolted against the Italian’s profligately loose monetary policy in an unprecedented public demonstration of discord within the European Central Bank…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … with the ECB’s new head, former IMF Director and convicted criminal, Christine Lagarde would result in some easing of tensions, were promptly crushed when Lagarde picked up where Draghi left off, calling on Germany and the Netherlands to use their budget surpluses to fund investments that would help stimulate the economy, in a sharp rebuke that will not win the former French finance minister any friends in fiscally conservative Germany.

    In an appeal to Germany’s sense of solidarity, and in hopes that Germany’s memory of hyperinflation has faded enough, Lagarde said that there “isn’t enough solidarity” in the single currency area, adding: “We share a currency, but we don’t share much budgetary policy for now.”

    “Those that have the room for manoeuvre, those that have a budget surplus, that’s to say Germany, the Netherlands, why not use that budget surplus and invest in infrastructure? Why not invest in education? Why not invest in innovation, to allow for a better rebalancing?” asked Lagarde, blaming Germany and the Netherlands for living within their means, and demanding they should no longer do so, just because most other Europeans decided to pull a page out of the American playbook, and live exorbitantly outside of their means.

    Lagarde’s direct attempt at shaming Europe’s fiscal conservatives was nothing short of shocking: normally ECB officials avoid naming individual countries in public statements, because their mandate is to act in the interests of the eurozone as a whole. But when Lagarde made her speech she had not yet officially taken over at the Frankfurt-based institution — she succeeds Mario Draghi on Friday.

    We somehow doubt this “explanation” will fly with the German population, which sees itself as funding peripheral Europe’s profligate ways for the past decade, even as it benefited from the weak euro to supercharge the German export machine.

    And just to guarantee she is as resented by Germany as was Mario Draghi, she said that the German and Dutch governments, which last year had budget surpluses of 2% and 1.5% respectively, “have not really made the necessary efforts,” she added, referring to establishment’s increasing desperation to force anyone with an even remotely normal balance sheet to sink to the same level as their insolvent peers.

    As for the punchline, Lagarde defended the negative interest rates introduced by her predecessor Draghi, arguing that people should be happier to have a job than a higher savings rate. This, as a reminder, comes at a time when virtually everyone who is not named “Draghi” or “Lagarde” thinks that negative rates are catastrophic, and assure doom for the Eurozone.

    When asked about the impact of negative rates on savers, Ms Lagarde said on Thursday that they should think about how much worse the situation would be if the ECB had not cut rates as much as it had.

    “Would we not be in a situation today with much higher unemployment and a far lower growth rate, and isn’t it true that ultimately we have done the right thing to act in favor of jobs and of growth rather than the protection of savers?” she asked.

    The unemployment rate in the 19-country eurozone has fallen from 12 per cent in 2013 to 8.2 per cent last year. GDP growth in the single currency zone was 1.8 per cent last year and the ECB expects it to slow to 1.1 per cent this year.

    Finally, for those curious if the authorities will stop at anything to destroy the currency and send rates to even more negative levels if it means kicking the can on a global, populist uprising, by just a few months, weeks or days, here is the answer: “We should be happier to have a job than to have our savings protected,” said Lagarde.

    “I think that it is in this spirit that monetary policy has been decided by my predecessors and I think they made quite a beneficial choice.”

    Let’s check back on that statement in a year, shall we?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, there is no magic solution here: all the ECB has done is kick the can, and ensure that the next crisis will be even worse than if some semblance of a price-clearing reality had been allowed under Draghi’s 8 years. Instead, the ECB’s balance sheet exploded to €4.7 trillion euros, as the world’s largest central bank-cum-hedge fund bought every bond in sight in hopes of keeping asset prices artificially elevated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In October, the ECB, less than a year after it ended QE in a failed attempt to “renormalize” monetary policy, announced it would cut rates to a record -0.5% and unveiled open-ended plans to start buying €20bn of bonds starting in November.

    Needless to say, the comments by the former French finance minister confirm market expectations that she is likely to pursue similar monetary policy strategy to Draghi who flooded the financial system with cheap money to fight slowing growth and inflation while calling on governments to do more through fiscal policy to take the burden off the central bank.

    In the end, the consequences of Draghi’s monetary policy, as we explained before, will be catastrophic, but the former Goldman partner was wise enough to get off the European Titanic before it hit the iceberg. It will now be Lagarde’s task to save as many people as possible once the ship starts sinking, and judging by her remarks, she is perfectly fine of not only going down with the ship, but also being blamed for the collision.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 22:35

  • Reddit Must End Politically-Motivated Publishing Decisions
    Reddit Must End Politically-Motivated Publishing Decisions

    Authored by Congressman Jim Banks, op-ed via RealClearPolitics.com,

    Reddit administrators’ decision to “quarantine” r/The_Donald, a subreddit forum for fans of President Trump and Reddit’s largest conservative community, is a recent and egregious example of social media sites meddling in political affairs. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s no secret that Silicon Valley is overwhelmingly left wing. For every $1 that employees at the world’s biggest technology companies donated to Donald Trump, they gave $60 to Hillary Clinton. 

    But tech CEOs assure conservatives that their company’s overwhelming partisanship somehow has no effect on the content they publish. They claim that because their sites are run by algorithms, not people, they’ve managed to uphold a Spockian political impartiality. What a bunch of baloney! Many of tech companies’ editorial decisions are made by people, and ultimately their algorithms were created by a group 99% opposed Donald Trump’s election. Tech CEOs may imitate Spock’s empty gaze, but they’ve strayed far from his actual disposition.  

    The original r/The_Donald “quarantine” was put in place for what site administrators described as “repeated rule breaking behavior.” Some of r/The_Donald’s 770,000 users commented “encouragements to violence” after Oregon Gov. Kate Brown called on state police to corral Republican representatives back to the statehouse following a skipped global warming vote. 

    The comments in question were reprehensible and clearly violated Reddit’s rules. The problem is that Reddit, with its 330 million users, was and is rife with similarly disgusting rhetoric. After the controversy in Oregon, a commenter in the liberal subreddit r/Politics had the following to say about Republican legislators: “Shoot these f*ckers. In the knees. For running like pieces of sh*t.” I’m not going to belabor my point and list the thousands of unaddressed, rule-breaking comments on left-wing subreddits. The point is, when such comments are posted in apolitical or left-wing subreddits, nothing happens. Reddit has a responsibility to ensure that it applies its rules equally to all political content.

    Reddit’s decision to quarantine r/The_Donald is not just unfair — Reddit’s size ensures that it will have far-reaching political effectsAlthough CEO Steve Huffman touted his small staff during a recent House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, the truth is that Reddit is an online behemoth. It is the third biggest social media site in the U.S. based on overall web page visits, with a larger reach than Facebook. Reddit’s political forums are important hubs of discussion, debate and organization. 

    An obvious instance of real-world political effect is the July 27, 2016 question-and-answer session then-candidate Trump held with his supporters on r/The_Donald. Conversely, before the 2016 election Trump’s staff closely monitored the subreddit’s political temperature. Reddit has now intentionally blocked off an avenue of communication between the president and his supporters ahead of the 2020 election. 

    Other political subreddits, such as r/SandersForPresident, have seen their political efforts uninterrupted. Sen. Sanders hosted a Q&A session there this past June. During the 2016 campaign, in addition to rallying support for Sanders, the subreddit served as a place to coordinate campaign activity. In 2016, a moderator of r/SandersForPresident posted that he had “just got off a conference call with the Bernie 2016 national staff” and relayed instructions for effective political volunteering. 

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated that the Internet Research Agency (IRA) played a central role in the “most aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process” that he’d ever seen.

    Evidently, this was before Reddit quarantined r/The_Donald. 

    According to a Senate Intelligence Committee report, over a year-long period the 3,900 IRA-connected Twitter accounts posted 600,000 tweets regarding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Well, researchers from the University of Alabama calculated that from July 2016 to February 2017 r/The_Donald was responsible for an estimated 2,771,030 tweets linking to news stories. 

    To recap, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman is set to influence conversation about the 2020 election on Twitter 4.5 times as much as Vladimir Putin influenced the 2016 electoral conversation. This doesn’t account for the much larger effect of the quarantine on Reddit’s own political discussion, which is comparable in scope to Twitter’s. I look forward to the Intelligence Community’s soon-to-be-announced special investigation.  

    During a 2018 interview with Andrew Marantz of the New Yorker, Reddit’s CEO said, “I’m confident that Reddit could sway elections,” followed by “we wouldn’t do it, of course.” Of course, that wasn’t true. 

    Republicans need to start speaking out about the treatment we’ve received from technology companies. We need to understand that nobody else will stand up for us. It’s time to start exploring legislative solutions to big tech’s bias. The alternative is accepting a status quo where enormous corporations use their publishing power to favor Democratic presidential candidates.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 22:10

    Tags

  • China To Establish $10 Trillion Economic Zone In Space
    China To Establish $10 Trillion Economic Zone In Space

    Having already created 12 free trade zones (with 6 more coming soon) in and around major Chinese metro areas…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … Beijing’s next project to boost commerce is more ambitious than anything seen on earth before. Literally.

    According to the Global Times, China plans to establish an Earth-moon space economic zone by 2050, which is expected to generate $10 trillion worth of services per year. The zone will cover areas of space near Earth, the moon and in between.

    Bao Weimin, director of the Science and Technology Commission of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, revealed the ambitious plan at a seminar last week on the space economy, Chinese media reported Friday. CAST is a state-owned company focused on researching, making and launching carrier rockets, satellites, spacecraft and space stations. 

    Perhaps because by 2050 all of China will be one giant free trade zone (even though the US Trade war will still not be over), the proposed zone will cover areas of space near Earth, the moon and in between, Weimin said, adding that companies involved in basic industries, application exploration and development will feature at the zone, which will focus on three key fields: interspace transport, space resource detection and space-based infrastructure.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a report on developing earth and moon space, Bao shared his thoughts on the economic potential in this field and pledged that the country would study its reliability, cost and flight-style transportation system between the Earth and moon, The Science and Technology Daily reported Friday.

    He pledged to complete basic research and make a breakthrough on key technologies before 2030 and establish the transportation system by 2040.  By 2050, China could successfully establish an earth-moon space economic zone, he said.

    In other words, while the US contemplates a Green New Deal, China is set to counter with a “Space New Deal”, which would likely cost tens of trillions too.

    As the Global Times notes, many Chinese netizens were “thrilled” by the news, with some saying that “if I can catch a flight to the moon during the rest of my life, I would die without any regrets.”

    An aerospace scholar told the Global Times that by exploring earth-moon space, China can gain a lot, such as developing the space travel industry or conducting experiments on the moon.

    As early as 2016, Zhang Yulin, then deputy commander-in-chief of China’s manned space program, told media that they had plans to explore Earth-moon space.

    In May 2018, China launched a relay satellite to set up a communications link between the Earth and the then planned Chang’e-4 lunar probe, which accomplished the first-ever soft landing on the far side of the moon in January. Chinese scientists and engineers hope the Queqiao satellite will form a communications bridge between controllers on Earth and the far side of the moon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A model of China’s robotic lunar probe Chang’e-4

    Aerospace fans predicted that the plan will accelerate many important projects, including the Long March-5 carrier rocket, China’s largest launch vehicle, which is expected to be used to send the Chang’e-5 probe in 2020 to bring moon samples back to Earth, and China’s heavy-lift carrier rocket, the Long March-9, which is expected to make its first flight around 2030 and will support manned lunar exploration, deep space exploration and construction of a space-based solar power plant.

    According to Yicai Globa, China will strive to complete its basic research in these fields by 2020, make breakthroughs in key technologies by 2030, and have a robust, low-cost space transport system in place by 2040 in order to make the zone a reality.

    Needless to say, between the US “Green New Deal”, and China’s “Space new Deal”, US and Chinese money printers will be on overdrive for the next several decades, working dilligently to inflate away the world’s record debt load and in the process destroy the world’s two most important fiat currencies.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 21:45

  • The Metamorphosis Of The Deep State
    The Metamorphosis Of The Deep State

    Authored by Edward Curtin via Off-Guardian.org,

    It gets funny, this shallow analysis of the deep state that is currently big news. There’s something ghoulish about it, perfectly timed for Halloween and masked jokers. What was once ridiculed by the CIA and its attendant lackeys in the media as the paranoia of “conspiracy theorists” is now openly admitted in reverent tones of patriotic fervor. But with a twisted twist.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The “Deep State” has been redefined as career bureaucrats doing their patriotic duty

    It was two years ago, early in the Trump administration, when The New Yorker and Salon, among many others, were asserting in no uncertain terms that there was no deep state in the United States, and so Trump had nothing to fear from that quarter since it was a figment of his paranoia.

    Kit Knightly, writing in the Off-Guardian, brilliantly demolished this spurious propaganda at the time in a must read reminder of how tricksters play their games.

    The corporate mass-media has recently discovered a “deep state” that they claim to be not some evil group of assassins who work for the super-rich owners of the country and murder their own president (JFK) and other unpatriotic dissidents (Malcom X, MLK, RK, among others) and undermine democracy home and abroad, but are now said to be just fine upstanding American citizens who work within the government bureaucracies and are patriotic believers in democracy intent on doing the right thing.

    This redefinition has been in the works for a few years, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that this tricky treat was being prepared for our consumption a few years ago by The Council on Foreign Relations.

    In its September/October 2017 edition of its journal Foreign Affairs, Jon D. Michaels, in “Trump and the Deep State: The Government Strikes Back,” writes:

    Furious at what they consider treachery by internal saboteurs, the president and his surrogates have responded by borrowing a bit of political science jargon, claiming to be victims of the “deep state,” a conspiracy of powerful, unelected bureaucrats secretly pursuing their own agenda.

    The concept of a deep state is valuable in its original context, the study of developing countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey, where shadowy elites in the military and government ministries have been known to countermand or simply defy democratic directives. Yet it has little relevance to the United States, where governmental power structures are almost entirely transparent, egalitarian, and rule-bound.

    The White House is correct to perceive widespread resistance inside the government to many of its endeavors. But the same way the administration’s media problems come not from “fake news” but simply from news, so its bureaucratic problems come not from an insidious, undemocratic “deep state” but simply from the state—the large, complex hive of people and procedures that constitute the U.S. federal government.

    Notice how in these comical passages about U.S. government transparency and egalitarianism, Michaels slyly and falsely attributes to Trump the very definition – “unelected bureaucrats” – that in the next paragraph he claims to be the real deep state, which is just the state power structures.

    Pseudo-innocence conquers all here as there is no mention of the Democratic party, Russiagate, etc., and all the machinations led by the intelligence services and Democratic forces to oust Trump from the day he was elected.

    State power structures just move so quickly, as anyone knows who has studied the speed with which bureaucracies operate. Ask Max Weber.

    Drip by drip over the past few years, this “state bureaucracy” meme has been introduced by the mainstream media propagandists as they have gradually revealed that the government deep-staters are just doing their patriotic duty in trying openly to oust an elected president.

    Many writers have commented on the recent New York Times article, “Trump’s War on the ‘Deep State’ Turns Against Him” asserting that the Times has finally admitted to the existence of the deep state, which is true as far as it goes, which is not too far. But in this game of deceptive revelations – going shallower to go deeper – what is missing is a focus on the linguistic mind control involved in the changed definition.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I’m convinced.

    In a recent article by Robert W. Merry, whose intentions I am not questioning – “New York Times Confirms: It’s Trump Versus the Deep State” – originally published at The American Conservative and widely reprinted, the lead-in to the article proper reads:

    Even the Gray Lady admits the president is up against a powerful bureaucracy that wants him sunk.”

    So the “powerful bureaucracy” redefinition, this immovable force of government bureaucrats, is slipped into public consciousness as what the deep state supposedly is. Gone are CIA conspirators and evil doers. In their place we find career civil servants doing their patriotic duty.

    Then there is The New York Times’ columnist James Stewart who, appearing on the Today Show recently, where he was promoting his new book, told Savannah Guthrie that:

    Well, you meet these characters in my book, and the fact is, in a sense, he’s [Trump] right. There is a deep state…there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law. They do not work for the President. They work for the American people.

    And, as Comey told me in my book, ‘thank goodness for that,’ because they are protecting the Constitution and the people when individuals – we don’t have a monarch, we don’t have a dictator – they restrain them from crossing the boundaries of law.

    What Trump calls the deep state in the United States is protecting the American people and protecting the Constitution. It’s a positive thing in this sense.

    So again we are told that the deep-state bureaucracy is defending the Constitution and protecting the American people, as James Comey told Stewart, “in my book, ‘thank goodness for that,’” as he put it so eloquently.

    These guys talk in books, of course, not person to person, but that is the level not just of English grammar and general stupidity, but of the brazen bullshit these guys are capable of.

    This new and shallow deep state definition has buried the old meaning of the deep state as evil conspirators carrying out coup d’états, assassinations, and massive media propaganda campaigns at home and abroad, and who, by implication and direct declaration, never existed in the good old U.S.A. but only in countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan where shadowy elites killed and deposed leaders and opponents in an endless series of coup d’états.

    No mention in Foreign Affairs, of course, of the American support for the ruthless leaders of these countries who have always been our dear allies when they obey our every order and serve as our servile proxies in murder and mayhem.

    Even Edward Snowden, the courageous whistleblower in exile in Russia, in a recent interview with Joe Rogan, repeats this nonsense when he says the deep state is just “career government officials” who want to keep their jobs and who outlast presidents. From his own experience, he should know better. Much better.

    Interestingly, he suggests that he does when he tells Rogan that “every president since Kennedy” has been successfully “feared up” by the intelligence agencies so they will do their bidding.

    He doesn’t need to add that JFK, for fearlessly refusing the bait, was shot in the head in broad daylight to send a message to those who would follow.

    Linguistic mind-control is insidious like the slow drip of a water faucet. After a while you don’t hear it and just go about your business, even as your mind, like a rotting rubber washer, keeps disintegrating under propaganda’s endless reiterations.

    To think that the deep state is government employees just doing their patriotic duty is plain idiocy and plainer propaganda.

    It is a trick, not the treat it is made to seem.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 21:20

    Tags

  • Social Media Is Driving A Global Epidemic Of Loneliness Among Millennials
    Social Media Is Driving A Global Epidemic Of Loneliness Among Millennials

    A team of academics from Swinburne University and VicHealth studied 1,520 Victorians aged 12 to 25, and examined their experience of loneliness, asking questions about their symptoms of depression and social anxiety. The study confirmed that loneliness – the biggest driver behind symptoms of depression – has become a global epidemic tied to the rise of social media.

    Here’s what they found: One in four young people – aged 12 to 25 – reported feeling lonely for three or more days within the last week. Among 18 to 25 year olds, one in three – 35% – reported feeling lonely three or more times a week. We also found that higher levels of loneliness increases a young adult’s risk of developing depression by 12% and social anxiety by 10%, according to the WEF.

    Adolescents aged 12 to 17 reported better outcomes, with one in seven (13%) feeling lonely three or more times a week. Participants in this age group were also less likely to report symptoms of depression and social anxiety than the 18 to 25 year olds.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is some evidence that those who are lonely are more likely to use the internet for social interactions, while spending less time on legitimate interactions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, some argue that social media can be used to replace offline relationships with online ones, citing one new study. Another recent study found that the relationship between social media use and psychological distress simply isn’t all that clear. Over a six-month period, people who are lonely are more likely to experience higher rates of depression, social anxiety and paranoia. Being socially anxious can also lead to more loneliness at a later time. the study said.

    But when lonely people do get out there and socialize, they are more likely to engage in self-defeating actions, such as being less cooperative, while also showing more negative emotions and body language. This is done in an (often unconscious) attempt to disengage and protect themselves from rejection.

    Now, doctors are increasingly challenging young people to identify their strengths and learn how they’re important in forging strong, meaningful relationships. Meanwhile, challenging unhelpful thinking and negative views about others is helping more young people learn how to use humor as a strength.

    These tools could help young people learn skills to develop and maintain meaningful relationships. And because lonely people are more likely to avoid others, digital tools could also be used as one way to help young people build social confidence and practice new skills within a safe space.

    Ultimately, a cornerstone of any solution to the rise in loneliness-fueled depression, will be to normalize feelings of loneliness, so feeling lonely is seen not as a weakness but rather as an innate human need to connect.

    When it is ignored, loneliness can have a seriously negatively impact on an individual’s health, especially when it is allowed to persist.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 20:55

  • Islamic State Exacts Revenge On Turkey For Selling Out Al-Baghdadi
    Islamic State Exacts Revenge On Turkey For Selling Out Al-Baghdadi

    Submitted by Nauman Sadiq, an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.

    A car bomb exploded in northern Syria killing 13 and wounding 20. The blast on Saturday ripped through a crowded market in Tal Abyad, a town recently occupied by Turkish-backed militant proxies. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the blast targeted pro-Turkey fighters and civilians were also among the dead.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The aftermath of the explosion in Tal Abyad, northern Syria. Photograph: AP

    Even though the Turkish Defense Ministry promptly laid the finger of blame on Turkey’s arch-foe, the Kurdish YPG militia, without conducting an investigation, car bombing as a tactic for causing widespread fear is generally employed by jihadist groups and not by the Kurds.

    It’s important to note in the news coverage about the killing of al-Baghdadi that although the mainstream media had been trumpeting for the last several years that the Islamic State’s fugitive chief had been hiding somewhere on the Iraq-Syria border in the east, he was found hiding in the northwestern Idlib governorate, under the control of Turkey’s militant proxies and al-Nusra Front, and was killed while trying to flee to Turkey in Barisha village five kilometers from the border.

    The morning after the night raid, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported on Sunday, October 27, that a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by warplanes belonging to the international coalition had attacked positions of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated group, in Idlib province where the Islamic State chief was believed to be hiding.

    According to the “official version” of Washington’s story regarding the killing of al-Baghdadi, the choppers took off from an American airbase in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, flew hundreds of miles over the enemy territory in the airspace controlled by the Syrian and Russian air forces, killed the self-proclaimed “caliph” of the Islamic State in a Hollywood-style special-ops raid, and took the same route back to Erbil along with the dead body of the “caliph” and his belongings.

    Although Washington has conducted several airstrikes in Syria’s Idlib in the past, those were carried out by fixed-wing aircraft that fly at high altitudes, and the aircraft took off from American airbases in Turkey, which is just across the border from Syria’s northwestern Idlib province. Why would Washington take the risk of flying its troops at low altitudes in helicopters over the hostile territory controlled by myriads of Syria’s heavily armed militant outfits?

    In fact, several Turkish journalists, including Rajip Soylu, the Turkey correspondent for the Middle East Eye, tweeted [4] on the night of the special-ops raid that the choppers took off from the American airbase in Turkey’s Incirlik. As for al-Baghdadi, who was “hiding” with the blessing of Turkey, it now appears that he was the bargaining chip in the negotiations between Trump and Erdogan, and the quid for the US president’s agreeing to pull out of Syria was the pro quo that Erdogan would hand Baghdadi to him on a silver platter.

    After the betrayal of its erstwhile allies, the Islamic jihadists, by the Erdogan administration, a tidal wave of terrorism in Turkey was expected, and its first installment has apparently been released in the form of a car bombing in Tal Abyad in northern Syria occupied by Turkish-backed militant proxies.

    The reason why the Trump administration is bending over backwards to appease Ankara is that Turkish President Erdogan has been drifting away from Washington’s orbit into Russia’s sphere of influence. Even though the Kurds too served the imperialist masters loyally for the last five years of Syria’s proxy war, the choice boiled down to choosing between the Kurds and Turkey, and Washington understandably chose its NATO ally.

    Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, has been cooperating with Russia in Syria against Washington’s interests for the last several years and has also placed an order for the Russian-made S-400 missile system, whose first installment has already been delivered.

    In order to understand the significance of relationship between Washington and Ankara, it’s worth noting that the United States has been conducting airstrikes against targets in Syria from the Incirlik airbase and around fifty American B-61 hydrogen bombs have also been deployed there, whose safety became a matter of real concern during the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration; when the commander of the Incirlik airbase, General Bekir Ercan Van, along with nine other officers were arrested for supporting the coup; movement in and out of the base was denied, power supply was cut off and the security threat level was raised to the highest state of alert, according to a report [5] by Eric Schlosser for the New Yorker.

    Perceptive readers who have been keenly watching Erdogan’s behavior since the foiled July 2016 coup plot against the Erdogan administration must have noticed that Erdogan has committed quite a few reckless and impulsive acts during the last few years.

    • First, the Turkish air force shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the border between Syria and Turkey on 24 November 2015 that brought the Turkish and Russian armed forces to the brink of a full-scale confrontation in Syria.
    • Second, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated at an art exhibition in Ankara on the evening of 19 December 2016 by an off-duty Turkish police officer, Mevlut Mert Altintas, who was suspected of being an Islamic fundamentalist.
    • Third, the Turkish military mounted the seven-month Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria, immediately after the attempted coup plot, from August 2016 to March 2017 that brought the Turkish military and its Syrian militant proxies head-to-head with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their American backers.
    • Fourth, Ankara invaded Idlib in northwestern Syria in October 2017 on the pretext of enforcing a de-escalation zone between the Syrian militants and the Syrian government, despite official protest from Damascus that the Turkish armed forces were in violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    • Fifth, Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave Afrin in northwestern Syria from January to March 2018.
    • And lastly, the Turkish armed forces and their Syrian jihadist proxies invaded and occupied 120 kilometers stretch of Syrian territory between the northern towns of Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn on October 9, even before the American forces had a chance to fully withdraw from their military bases in northern Syria, as soon as an understanding between Trump and Erdogan was reached in a telephonic conversation on October 6.

    To avoid confrontation between myriads of local militant groups and their regional and international backers, Russia once again displayed the stroke of a genius by playing the role of a peace-maker in Syria, and concluded an agreement with Turkey in a Putin-Erdogan meeting in Sochi, Russia, on October 22 to enforce a “safe zone” in northern Syria.

    According to the terms of the agreement, Turkish forces would have exclusive control over 120 kilometers stretch between Tal Abyad and Ras al-Ayn to the depth of 32 kilometers in northern Syria. To the west and east of the aforementioned area of the Turkish Operation Peace Spring, Turkish troops and Russian military police would conduct joint patrols to the depth of 10 kilometers in the Syrian territory, and the remaining 20 kilometers “safe zone” would be under the control of Syrian government which would ensure that the Kurdish forces and weapons are evacuated from Manbij, Kobani and Tal Rifat to the west and the Kurdish areas to the east, excluding the city of Qamishli.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 20:30

  • The Great Decoupling Has Begun, Sinophobia Erupts, DJI Drones Banned 
    The Great Decoupling Has Begun, Sinophobia Erupts, DJI Drones Banned 

    Before a complete fracturing of the US and Chinese economies, there have already been numerous signs of decoupling that are currently taking place behind the scenes. 

    But before we tell you about the decoupling and the latest evidence we’ve found. You must be asking: Where are we in the trade war? Beginning innings? Imminent trade deal?  

    The flurry of trade headlines from the US and China over the last 15 or so months have certainly been confusing. The fact is, there’s so much fake trade news that it’s hard to tell exactly the progress between both countries. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But what’s certain is that the trade war is in the beginning innings and nowhere near being resolved. Yes, there’s a Phase 1 deal being floated around, but that’s only for President Trump to save Midwest farmers and to create positive sentiment ahead of the 2020 election to pump the stock market. 

    In reality, the trade war is a winner take all game, it’s really about empire, and how Washington is attempting to prevent China from becoming the next global superpower. Hence the reason for tariffs, which is an attempt by President Trump, the Pentagon, and US corporate elites to limit China’s ascension. 

    The decoupling will be slow at first, then rapid. We’re already seeing small to medium-sized Chinese companies being denied IPOs on Nasdaq. President Trump has already banned Haweui access to key US markets. And now, the next evidence that the decoupling is gaining momentum comes from the US Department Of The Interior. 

    The Department has grounded its entire fleet of 800 drones for fear that Chinese hackers could spy on critical infrastructure, reported The Wall Street Journal.

    “Secretary Bernhardt is reviewing the Department of the Interior’s drone program. Until this review is completed, the Secretary has directed that drones manufactured in China or made from Chinese components be grounded unless they are currently being utilized for emergency purposes, such as fighting wildfires, search and rescue, and dealing with natural disasters that may threaten life or property,” the Department told The Verge via an email statement. 

    US officials worry that the Department is relying too heavily on Chinese drones and has put critical infrastructure at risk of being spied on by the Chinese. 

    Last month a bipartisan bill was introduced that would limit federal agencies from purchasing Chinese drones. 

    Several years ago, the Department of Homeland Security warned federal agencies from purchasing Chinese drones, specifically ones made by Shenzhen-based SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A DJI spokesperson told The Verge in a statement that the latest grounding of their drones by the Department Of The Interior is rather “disappointing.” 

    “We are aware the Department of Interior has decided to ground its entire drone program and are disappointed to learn of this development…As the leader in commercial drone technology, we have worked with the Department of Interior to create a safe and secure drone solution that meets their rigorous requirements, which was developed over the course of 15 months with DOI officials, independent cybersecurity professionals, and experts at NASA. We will continue to support the Department of Interior and provide assistance as it reviews its drone fleet so the agency can quickly resume the use of drones to help federal workers conduct vital operations,” the DJI spokesperson said.

    The Department’s decision to ground Chinese drones is a clear trend of what’s to come in the year ahead: more groundings across a wide array of agencies. 

    Just wait until the groundings start hitting state and local municipalities and lower-level agencies. It’s going to be a nightmare. 

    Nevertheless, when the government starts banning certain Chinese products from consumers, you’ll know the great decoupling between the US and China is imminent. 

    For this to all happen, the Trump administration will need to ramp up Sinophobia propaganda to convince the American people that decoupling is the right move. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 20:05

  • Hedge Fund CIO: "You Either Have Risk On, Or You Do Not"
    Hedge Fund CIO: “You Either Have Risk On, Or You Do Not”

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “You either have risk on, or you do not,” said Simplicity, walking Occam’s Razor, “There are only these two states, nothing more.” He lifted both hands, palms up, to illustrate the point.

    “Now, reflect on the levels of anxiety you have experienced in each state throughout your career.” And decades of an agitated existence flashed before my eyes.

    “There are times when you are carrying an enormous amount of risk and sleep like a newborn. And there are times when you have a tiny amount of risk yet feel deeply perturbed.” Sometimes you carry no risk and feel supremely relaxed.

    “But the most interesting state is the one where you have no risk and experience intense anxiety.”

    There are only a few times in a year to make a lot of money. When those times occur, you need to be involved, aggressive, big. The rest of the year it’s best to do as little as possible.

    “How do you tell the few opportune times from all the others?” asked Simplicity, weighing imaginary scenarios in each hand,

    “The answer is: you just do.” And I smiled, because of course, that is at once the simplest and most complex answer in all the world. “I was wrong about the election result,” he explained. “And I was then wrong about the reaction to the election.” He bought gold when Florida looked likely to fall. It rallied, then reversed unexpectedly.

    “I knew enough to immediately get out of all of my risk, everything.” Leaving him to observe the world with clear eyes.

    “For two days I watched, as a growing anxiety consumed me. I had no risk on at all but wanted to jump off a bridge.” And Simplicity paused, reflecting. “There are times when you just know that something important is happening. And that you must take risk.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 19:40

  • Ken Fisher Taking Out "Women Friendly" Ads As Redemptions Near $4 Billion
    Ken Fisher Taking Out “Women Friendly” Ads As Redemptions Near $4 Billion

    It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him. 

    Embattled money manager Ken Fisher, who has seen almost $4 billion withdrawn from his firm after making lewd sexual jokes at a financial conference about a month ago, is now “fighting back” by taking out advertisements that feature women, according to Bloomberg

    “You Heard Their Story. Now Hear Ours,” the headline to one of his ads reads. It features 7 female employees at Fisher Investments and statistics that put the company in a favorable light. “Over 800 women strong, with women leading 63% of employees,” the ad reads. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fisher may feel as though the blowback from his recent comments may not just go away on their own, especially as redemptions and withdrawls from his firm continue. They now total about $3.9 billion. 

    John Dillard, a Fisher spokesman, said: “Over the past few weeks, numerous women at Fisher Investments expressed their desire to share their stories in reaction to recent, inaccurate media reports. The women in the ad were asked if they wanted to participate, and were eager to do so.”

    We bet it was a real tough decision – either participate or let the firm go under and risk losing their jobs. 

    One testimonial from a VP at Fisher says: 

    “The stories out there don’t feel like who we are, and if they were, I wouldn’t be here.”

    Fisher has also launched a website, which for some reason has a toll free number on it. We wonder if the women are standing by, working the phones, eager to reassure callers of how un-oppressed they are. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Recall, we have been following the sustained outflows from Ken Fisher’s firm over the last few weeks. We recently noted that the firm had seen more than $3 billion in redemptions since Fisher’s comments. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The latest to cut bait was the Employees Retirement System of Texas, who announced last week that it was going to pull $350 million from the asset manager. 

    Mary Jane Wardlow, a spokeswoman for the pension system, said: “Texas ERS has completed its due diligence. With respect to our fiduciary duty, we are defunding Fisher Investments, which had served as an external manager in the international equities portfolio with $350 million [as of Sept. 30] under management.”

    Recall, just days after the $70 billion state of Michigan retirement fund pulled its assets from Fisher Investments, the city of Boston also did the same.

    Fisher managed $600 million in retirement funds for Michigan and the state’s exit ends a 15 year relationship with Fisher’s firm.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Boston Mayor Martin Walsh said at the time: “Boston will not invest in companies led by people who treat women like commodities. Reports of Ken Fisher’s comments and poor judgment are incredibly disturbing.”

    Michigan’s chief investment officer, Jon Braeutigam, notified the state investment board of the termination on October 10. In his letter, he said that Fisher’s comments were “unacceptable” and that although employees at his fund hadn’t witnessed similar comments, “history does not outweigh the inappropriateness of the comments.” 

    Fisher was managing about $10.9 billion on behalf of 36 state or municipal government entities at the end of 2018, down from $13.2 billion at the end of 2017. That number will likely be sizeably lower at the end of 2019.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 19:15

  • Morgan Stanley Asks "What Returns Can Long-Run Investors Expect In This Market", Offers Frightning Answer
    Morgan Stanley Asks “What Returns Can Long-Run Investors Expect In This Market”, Offers Frightning Answer

    Authored by Andrew Sheets, chief cross-asset strategist at Morgan Stanley

    Morgan Stanley’s Research department is currently working on, and debating, what we think the market will look like in 2020. But before thinking about the year ahead, it can be useful to take an even longer perspective. If we put aside the noise around politics and trade, ignore the market’s obsession about every word that central banks utter, or every data release, and step back from it all, what sort of returns can a long-run investor expect from this market?

    This is not purely an academic exercise.

    Assumptions about the long-run return outlook have real implications for how investors think about retirement security, how institutions think about solvency and how asset allocators think about strategic tilts. Long-run views of the market have limits; by being rooted in valuation, they are driven by a factor that often has little bearing on performance over the next 6 or 12 months. But valuation also has its advantages, proving far more accurate than any other variable in determining what the 5- or 10-year experience of an investor will be.

    And at the moment, that experience looks challenging: On our estimates, the expected return of a US 60/40 portfolio of stocks and government bonds will return just 4.1% per year over the next decade, close to the lowest expected return over the last 20 years, and one that has only been worse in 4% of observations since 1950.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For a European investor, that blended 60/40 return is also 3.9%, better than just 6% of historical observations since 1970. And lest you think we are placing our hand on the scale, other approaches to estimating long-run returns can lead to even lower long-term numbers, especially if one assumes that currently above-trend margins need to fully mean-revert (we do not).

    If we put this in terms of portfolio theory, our long-run return assumptions suggest an unusually low ‘efficient frontier’ for portfolio construction. This frontier is flattest for US dollar assets, and steeper for European and Japanese assets, thanks to higher equity risk premiums.

    An important caveat here is that expected returns for the market have looked low before, only to be bailed out, so to speak, as central banks eased policy and pushed prices up ever higher. But it’s important to remember that these higher prices are simply pulling forward ever more future return to the present. That’s great for today’s asset owners, especially those close to retirement. It is much less good for anyone trying to save, invest or manage well into the future, who face an increasingly barren return landscape.

    Indeed, we think that there remains an underappreciation of the costs of easy policy and its pull-forward of returns; it is not a free lunch:

    • First, by pressuring insurance and pension solvency, low rates, ironically, may drive less ability to take risk through traditional higher-beta assets, such as equities.
    • Second, for investors who are able to move out the risk curve, low return in public equity and bond markets drives more money into illiquid corners of the market.
    • Third, by confronting individual investors with low returns, it increases the pressure to save more to hit a given level of retirement savings, potentially one reason why the savings rate in developed markets remains stubbornly high.

    Do any markets offer a better long-run story? We’d highlight two: UK equities, which trade at a historically large discount to global markets, show little sign of over-earning or margin extension versus history and enjoy a high dividend yield, and emerging market hard currency debt, which offers higher expected long-run returns than other bond assets of similar volatility, on our framework.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 18:50

  • Under Armour Faces Federal Accounting Probe Amid Major C-Suite Churn
    Under Armour Faces Federal Accounting Probe Amid Major C-Suite Churn

    Sources have told The Wall Street Journal that Baltimore-based Under Armour Inc. is at the center of a federal investigation for its accounting practices.  

    The probe, which hasn’t been publicly announced, is being coordinated by civil investigators at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

    The announcement of the probe via The Journal comes one day before Under Armour reports Q3 results on Monday. 

    Investigators are examining “revenue-recognition practices, authorities generally focus on whether companies record revenue before it is earned or defer the dating of expenses to make earnings appear stronger, among other possible infractions,” The Journal noted.

    Under Amour shares have crashed more than -60% in the last 17 quarters on weak apparel sales.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The investigation comes several weeks after Kevin Plank, founder/CEO, stepped down from the helm, and perhaps most suspiciously, The Journal reports that Under Armour had three CFOs from 2016 to 2017.

    Brad Dickerson, who had served as CFO since 2008, left the company in February 2016.

    Chip Molloy, a former PetSmart Inc. executive, took over but stayed a year on the job. Under Armour at the time cited unspecified personal reasons for his departure.

    David Bergman was named acting finance chief in February 2017, after the company reported its quarterly sales miss and Mr. Molloy’s exit. Mr. Bergman, who has worked at Under Armour since 2004 in various finance roles, was named permanent CFO in December 2017.

    Makes one wonder just what the ‘outsider’ CFO saw to depart so quickly.

    The apparel company has spent two years restructuring operations, in the attempt to turn the tide and increase sales. Still, nothing seems to work as their North American segment continues to sink. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last year, Plank and top executives were exposed by The Journal for using company funds at strip clubs in Baltimore

    What The Journal missed, which was an even more important story, is that Plank and top executives hosted wild parties at his 18 million dollar farm in Baltimore County. All of the partying has been suspected to be on the company’s dime. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Plank and his brother, Scott Plank, sold company stock over the years to expand their real estate empire, called Sagamore Development Company. The brothers dumped company stock and built an exotic hotel, and a whiskey distillery as the market capitalization of the company was halved. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After the #MeToo movement hit Under Armour in 2018, mainly because lower-level staff, women staff to be exact, complained about a highly toxic male environment in management, it now seems that one year later, with Plank out the door and the company currently under federal investigation for its accounting practices — sh*t is hitting the fan.

    With the company imploding and now a federal investigation underway, it seems that one local investor has “rang” Plank’s doorbell this evening in the attempt to see the accounting books. Does this mean a run on the stock is coming?   

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


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 18:25

  • Exposing The Bogus "97% Consensus" Claim Over Climate Change 'Science'
    Exposing The Bogus “97% Consensus” Claim Over Climate Change ‘Science’

    Authored by Robert Murphy via The Mises Institute,

    One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby inflating the estimate.

    But beyond that, a review in The New Republic of a book critical of mainstream economics uses the exact same degree of consensus in order to cast aspersions on the science of economics. In other words, when it comes to the nearly unanimous rejection of rent control or tariffs among professional economists, at least some progressive leftists conclude that there must be group-think involved. The one consistent thread in both cases – that of the climate scientists and that of the economists – is that The New Republic takes the side that will expand the scope of government power, a central tenet since its birth by Herbert Croly a century ago.

    The Dubious “97% Consensus” Claim Regarding Climate Science

    Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the “97% consensus” talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution).

    This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax. Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be. That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax.

    Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson:

    [Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]

    So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The New Republic’s Differing Attitudes Towards Consensus

    The journal The New Republic was founded in 1914. Its website states: “For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion….The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues.”

    With that context, it’s not surprising that The New Republic uses the alleged 97% consensus in climate science the way other progressive outlets typically do. Here’s an excerpt from a 2015 article (by Rebecca Leber) in which Republicans were excoriated for their anti-science stance on climate change:

    Two years ago, a group of international researchers led by University of Queensland’s John Cook surveyed 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate change since the 1990s. Out of the 4,000 papers that took a position one way or another on the causes of global warming, 97 percent of them were in agreement: Humans are the primary cause. By putting a number on the scientific consensus, the study provided everyone from President Barack Obama to comedian John Oliver with a tidy talking point. [Leber, bold added.]

    Notice already that Leber is helping to perpetuate a falsehood, though she can be forgiven—part of David Friedman’s blog post was to show that Cook himself was responsible (Friedman calls it an outright lie) for the confusion regarding what he and his co-authors actually found. And notice that Leber confirms what I have claimed in this post, namely that it was the Cook et al. (2013) paper that originally provided the “talking point” (her term) about so-called consensus.

    The point of Leber’s essay is to then denounce Ted Cruz and certain other Republicans for ignoring this consensus among climate scientists:

    All this debate over one statistic might seem silly, but it’s important that Americans understand there is overwhelming agreement about human-caused global warming. Deniers have managed to undermine how the public views climate science, which in turn makes voters less likely to support climate action.

    Now here’s what’s really interesting. A colleague sent me a recent review in The New Republic of a new book by Binyan Appelbaum that is critical of the economics profession. The reviewer, Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein, quoted with approval Appelbaum’s low view of consensus in economics:

    Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.” And in a moment of impish humor he notes that “Although nature tends toward entropy, they shared a confidence that economies tend toward equilibrium.” Economists shared a creepy lack of doubt about how the world worked. [Kaiser-Schatzlein, bold added.]

    Isn’t that amazing? Rather than hunting down and demonizing Democratic politicians who dare to oppose the expert consensus on items like rent control – which Bernie Sanders has recently promoted – the reaction here is to guffaw at the hubris and “creepy lack of doubt about how the world [works].”

    Conclusion

    From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did. Furthermore, a recent book review in The New Republic shows that when it comes to economic science, 97% consensus means nothing, if it doesn’t support progressive politics.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 18:00

  • Freight Railroad Traffic Plunged 8% At The End Of October
    Freight Railroad Traffic Plunged 8% At The End Of October

    US freight railroads, which along with Class 8 trucking have long been used as a gauge of the country’s economic health, continue to show declines in traffic.

    Freight railroads logged 513,147 carloads and intermodal units during the week ending October 26, according to data from the Association of American Railroads reported on by Progressive Railroading. This marks an 8.8% decline compared to the same week last year. 

    Total carload traffic for the week was down 9.4% to 243,321 units and intermodal volume fell 8.3% to 269,826 containers and trailers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The AAR tracks 10 carload commodity groups on a weekly basis – none of them showed growth for the week. Coal fell 14,797 carloads, grain fell 2,512 carloads and metallic ores and metals fell 2,064 carloads.

    Canadian and Mexican railroads also reported traffic declines for the week. Canadian railroads were down 7.9% and intermodal units were down 3.6%. Mexican railroads logged 19,573 carloads for the week, down 1.1% and intermodal units fell 5.6%.

    As the report notes, in aggregate: 

    • U.S. railroads reported a combined 22,300,581 carloads and intermodal units, down 4.3 percent;

    • Canadian railroads reported a combined 6,523,922 carloads, containers and trailers, up 0.7 percent; and

    • Mexican railroads reported a combined 1,625,137 carloads and intermodal containers and trailers, down 2.8 percent.

    Total North American rail volume for the YTD 43 week period is still 3.2% lower than 2018. Recall, we wrote earlier this month that Class 8 orders for September had also crashed 71%, with the two indicators marking an obvious slowdown in the country’s economic productivity that everybody except Jim Cramer and Jerome Powell are able to see. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 17:35

  • McDonald’s CEO Fired Over Relationship With Employee
    McDonald’s CEO Fired Over Relationship With Employee

    McDonald’s Corporation dropped a press release on Sunday afternoon detailing it had fired Chief Executive Officer Steve Easterbrook for having a consensual relationship with an employee. 

    Easterbrook “violated company policy and demonstrated poor judgment involving a recent consensual relationship with an employee,” the release stated. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    McDonald’s said Sunday that its board voted Friday to terminate Easterbrook over the “consensual relationship,” indicating that he violated company policy on personal conduct.

    Chris Kempczinski, most recently President of McDonald’s USA, was voted by the board to succeed Easterbrook. Easterbrook has also been removed from the board. 

    Easterbrook emailed employees after his hiring and said: “I engaged in a recent consensual relationship with an employee, which violated McDonald’s policy. This was a mistake. Given the values of the company, I agree with the board that it is time for me to move on. Beyond this, I hope you can respect my desire to maintain my privacy.”

    Easterbrook took the reins as CEO in 2015, during his tenure, traffic volumes in the North American segment have slumped. 

    McDonald’s tumbled last week when Q3 earnings missed on the top and bottom line, while US comp sales disappointed lofty expectations.

    McDonald’s stock has more than doubled over the last five years as fundamentals have worsened.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 17:11

    Tags

  • Sleepwalking Toward A Crisis – Got Gold?
    Sleepwalking Toward A Crisis – Got Gold?

    Via InvestmentResearchDynamics.com,

    “By sticking to the new orthodoxy of monetary policy and pretending that we have made the banking system safe, we are sleepwalking towards that crisis.”

     – Mervyn King, former head of the Bank of England in a lecture at the IMF’s recent annual meeting

    The market levitates higher on phony economic data from the Government, Trump tweets, Fed money printing and hedge fund algorithms chasing headline and twitter sound bites. Currently the stock market, dulled by money printing and official interventions, could care less about economic reality and rising global systemic geopolitical and financial risk. Corporate headline earnings “beats” are considered bullish even if the earnings declined YoY or sequentially.

    But for those who don’t have their head in the sand, clinging desperately to the “hope” offered by the misdirecting Orwellian propaganda, it’s difficult to ignore the message signaled by the legendary levels of insider selling.

    Someone is not telling the truth – The Fed once again last week increased the size of both the overnight and “term” repo operations. Starting Thursday (Oct 24th) the overnight repos were increased from $75 billion to “at least” $120 billion and the term repos (2 week term) of “at least” $35 billion were extended to the end of November, with two “at least $45 billion” term repos thrown in for good measure. The Fed is also outright printing helicopter money for the banks at a rate of $60 billion per month (via “T-bill POMOs).

    At the height of the last QE/money printing cycle, the Fed was doing $75 billion per month. So whatever the problem is behind the curtain, it’s already as large or larger than the 2008 crisis..

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That escalated quickly – When the repo operations started in September, the Fed attributed the need to “relieve funding pressures.” At the time the public was fed the fairytale that corporations were pulling funds from money market funds to pay quarter-end taxes. Well, we’re over five weeks past that event and the repo operations have escalated in size and duration three times. Someone is not telling the truth…

    The rapid increase in Fed money printing in just five weeks reflects serious problems developing in the global financial system. Actually, the problem is easy to identify: 

    At every cohort – government, corporate and household – the level of debt has become unsustainable, with not insignificant portions of that debt in non-performing status (seriously delinquent or in default).

    Thus, the Central Banks have had to resort to money printing to help the banks manage the rising level of distress on their balance sheet and to monetize the escalating rate of Treasury debt issuance.

    The quote at the beginning is from the former head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. King is warning that the global financial system is headed toward a crisis and that money printing ultimately won’t save it.  While it’s pretty obvious that a disaster waits on the horizon, when the former head of a big Central Bank delivers a message like that instead of Orwellian gobbledygook, the world should pay heed.  I would suggest that the Fed’s money printing signals that the risk of a crisis intensifies weekly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Got Gold?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 17:10

  • US Convoy In Syria Attacked By Turkey-Backed Militants: Russian MoD
    US Convoy In Syria Attacked By Turkey-Backed Militants: Russian MoD

    Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced Sunday that a US military convoy came under attack by Turkey-backed militants in Syria.

    “American troops heading toward the Iraqi border have been attacked from land held by Turkish-backed militants in northern Syria, Russia’s Ministry of Defense has claimed,” according to a breaking report by RT.

    Russian military sources, who have this week been seen in close vicinity with US troops amid a Pentagon draw down from border areas, reported no casualties as a result of the alleged incident. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US convoy in northern Syria file image, via Zuma Press/WSJ 

    Though the Pentagon did not immediately confirm the report, there’s been increasing tensions between Washington and Ankara over proposed Congressional sanctions on Turkey, also as the ‘US withdrawal’ from northern Syria became in reality a mere ‘partial’ draw down with American forces redeployed to ‘secure’ oil fields in partnership with the Kurdish-led SDF. 

    According to details from the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD), the American convoy was attacked near the town of Tell Tamer on the M4 highway, which runs parallel to the Turkish border near areas captured by pro-Turkish forces as part of ‘Operation Peace Spring’. 

    An official statement from the Russian MoD reads as follows:

    “As part of deconfliction exchange, information has been received from the US side that on November 3 a convoy of American servicemen…was fired upon from the territory controlled by the pro-Turkish Syrian National Army.” 

    This follows an incident last month which involved American troops in the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani coming under Turkish artillery fire.

    Since Trump’s declared US withdrawal from the border areas due to Erdogan’s Turkish military incursion, American and Russian convoys have been seen passing each other on the roadways. 

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

    Subsequent to that mid-October incident Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that US forces had permission to fire back if fired upon

    Multiple media reports have lately documented the presence of former ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters swelling the ranks of Turkish-backed Sunni militias currently serving as the main ground force for Erdogan’s ‘Operation Peace Spring’.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 11/03/2019 – 16:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 3rd November 2019

  • How Controlling Syria's Oil Serves Washington's Strategic Objectives?
    How Controlling Syria's Oil Serves Washington's Strategic Objectives?

    Authored by Nauman Sadiq,

    Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria. After the drawdown of US troops at Erdogan’s insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria, the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and at al-Tanf military base.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which serves as a lifeline for Damascus. Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.

    It’s worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel’s concerns regarding the expansion of Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it’s worth pointing out that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000 barrels per day, which isn’t much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the Gulf states.

    Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where there was oil, the purpose of exercising control over Syria’s oil is neither to smuggle oil out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.

    There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State strongholds in eastern Syria.

    Much like the “scorched earth” battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds in eastern Syria – Washington’s basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over Syria’s own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.

    Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria’s oil wealth, it bears mentioning that “scorched earth” policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep state. President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been misled by the Pentagon and Washington’s national security establishment.

    Regarding Washington’s interest in propping up the Gulf’s autocrats and fighting their wars in regional conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister threatened that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

    Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investments in North America and Western Europe.

    Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788 billion barrels, more than half of world’s 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

    No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

    Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry’s sales of arms to the Gulf Arab States, a report authored by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during its eight-year tenure.

    Similarly, the top items in Trump’s agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were: firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led “Arab NATO” to counter Iran’s influence in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.

    Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind, during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.

    Similarly, when King Abdullah’s successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.

    In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf’s petro-sheikhs contribute substantial investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.

    Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order, according to a January 2017 infographic by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world, including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.

    Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops, particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is already shared between Washington and host countries.

    Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.

    Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of world’s proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.

    *  *  *

    Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 23:30

  • Visualizing The Massive Cost Of Cybercrime
    Visualizing The Massive Cost Of Cybercrime

    What do Equifax, Yahoo, and the U.S. military have in common? They’ve all fallen victim to a cyberattack at some point in the last decade – and they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

    Today’s infographic from Raconteur delves into the average damage caused by cyberattacks at the organizational level, sorted by type of attack, industry, and country.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rising Cybercrime Costs Across the Board

    The infographic focuses on data from the latest Accenture “Cost of Cybercrime” study, which details how cyber threats are evolving in a fast-paced digital landscape.

    Overall, Visual Capitalist’s Imam Ghosh notes that the average annual cost to organizations has been ballooning for all types of cyberattacks. For example, a single malware attack in 2018 costed more than $2.6 million, while ransomware costs rose the most between 2017–2018, from $533,000 to $646,000 (a 21% increase).

    Both information loss and business disruption occurring from attacks have been found to be the major cost drivers, regardless of the type of attack:

    • Malware
      Major consequence: Information Loss
      Average cost: $1.4M (54% of total losses)

    • Web-based attacks
      Major consequence: Information Loss
      Average cost: $1.4M (61% of total losses)

    • Denial-of-Service (DOS)
      Major consequence: Business Disruption
      Average cost: $1.1M (65% of total losses)

    • Malicious insiders
      Major consequences: Business Disruption and Information Loss
      Average cost: $1.2M ($0.6M each, 75% of total losses)

    In 2018, information loss and business disruption combined for over 75% of total business losses from cybercrime.

    Cybercrime Casts a Wide Net

    No industry is untouched by the growing cost of cybercrime—the report notes that organizations have seen security breaches grow by 67% in the past five years alone. Banking is the most affected, with annual costs crossing $18 million in 2018. This probably comes as no surprise, considering that financial motives are consistently a major incentive for hackers.

    Here is the average cost of cyberattacks (per organization) across 15 different industries:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Interestingly, the impact on life sciences companies rose the most in a year (up by 86% to $10.9 million per organization), followed by the travel industry (up 77% to $8.2 million per organization). This is likely due to an increase in sensitive and valuable data being shared online, such as clinical trial details or credit card information.

    So What Can Companies Do?

    Accenture analyzed nine cutting-edge technologies that are helping mitigate cybercrime, and calculated their net savings: the total potential savings minus the required investment in each type of technology or tool.

    With almost $2.3 million in net savings, many companies recognize the high payoff that comes with security intelligence. On the other hand, leveraging automation, artificial intelligence, and machine learning can potentially save over $2 million—however, only 38% of businesses have adopted this solution so far.

    Cybercrime will remain a large-scale concern for years to come. From 2019–2023E, approximately $5.2 trillion in global value will be at risk from cyberattacks, creating an ongoing challenge for corporations and investors alike.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 23:00

  • Was There Another Reason For Electricity Shutdowns In California?
    Was There Another Reason For Electricity Shutdowns In California?

    Authored by Richard Trzupek via The Epoch Times,

    According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) shut down substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

    Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if they didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to their infrastructure could start more wildfires in the area.

    Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

    Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

    Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

    Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break the grid can still function.

    So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure is not the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when an “historic” weather event occurs?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Wind Speed Limits

    The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations. With solar power the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One does not generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

    The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 mph wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 mph for most modern wind turbines.

    It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

    The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which in turn allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

    Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

    By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources.

    Thus, it would not be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 22:30

  • Forgiving Student Loan Debt Would Create Moral Hazard, Exacerbate Problems: Moody's
    Forgiving Student Loan Debt Would Create Moral Hazard, Exacerbate Problems: Moody's

    Wiping out student loan debt would provide a modest bump to the economy, but could risk “moral hazard” which would eventually make the problem worse, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The opinion comes as Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren dangle the prospect of forgiving some or all of the $1.5 trillion in outstanding education debt. Both candidates have also proposed free free college.

    Moody’s, however, think the effects of wholesale debt forgiveness at a macro level would be fairly muted.

    “In the near term, we would expect student loan debt cancellation to yield a tax-cut-like stimulus to economic activity, contributing to a modest increase in household consumption and investment,” said William Foster, the firm’s senior credit analyst. “The magnitude of the stimulus would depend on the size of the debt relief and income level of the beneficiaries.

    In dollar terms, Foster cited studies showing that canceling debt would add $86 billion to $108 billion a year to GDP over a 10-year period. Less aggressive measures to forgive some loans and restructure payments for others would amount to $120 billion over a decade.

    In a $21.5 trillion U.S. economy, those kinds of gains won’t move the needle very fair [sic] from a broad sense. –CNBC

    That said, CNBC notes that the issue of student debt ‘and its role in growing wealth inequality’ has been seized upon by Democratic candidates, and could eventually lead to a ‘fundamental change to the way higher education is financed in the U.S.’ due to the disproportionate impact on younger people.

    “Over the longer term, debt forgiveness could lead to an improvement in small business and household formation, as well as increased homeownership,” Foster continues in the note. “However, it could also increase the risk of moral hazard and the accumulation of even higher student debt burdens.

    Future borrowers, for instance, might be encouraged to run up big loan balances on the assumption that their debts will be forgiven at some point.

    It’s also unclear how much forgiveness would address wealth inequality. The New York Fed estimates that about two-thirds of outstanding debt is currently held by the upper-half of earners. –CNBC

    Last month a former official working for the agency administering the country’s federal student loan program resigned, and has endorsed canceling most of the country’s outstanding student debt.

    Calling the system “fundamentally broken,” A. Wayne Johnson – appointed in 2017 by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, says that repayment trends suggest most student loan debt will never be repaid, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    His solution? Forgive up to $50,000 for anyone with federal student-loan debt, which would amount to a bailout of approximately $925 billion. The plan would wipe out the debt of nearly 37 million borrowers. He would also advocate for a tax credit for up to $50,000 for people who have already repaid their debt.

    Interestingly, that’s the exact amount Elizabeth Warren’s plan would forgive; $50,000 for anyone with under $100,000 in annual household income (and less for those above that amount).

    “It’s a problem for all of us,” said Warren in April, adding: “It’s reducing home ownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 22:00

  • The Middle East's New Post-Regime-Change Future
    The Middle East's New Post-Regime-Change Future

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    With the transformation of the rules of the “Great Game” in the Middle East emerging out of President Trump’s recent Syrian surprise pullout and Putin’s brilliant manoeuvres since 2015, a sweeping set of development/reconstruction programs led by China now have a chance to become hegemonic across the formerly hopeless, terrorist-infested region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The fact that the Arab states of the Middle East were targeted for destruction by western geopoliticians over the last 40 years is not un-connected to the region’s historic role as “cross-roads of civilizations” which were once the bridge between East and West along the ancient Silk Road (c. 250 BC). Today’s New Silk Road has brought 150 countries into a multipolar model of cooperation and civilization-building which necessitates a stabilized Middle East in order to function.

    When asking “how could a reconstruction of the Middle East be possible after so many years of hell” I was pleasantly surprised to discover that both great projects once derailed have been given new life with the new prospects for peace and also new projects never before dreamed possible have been created as part of the New Silk Road (Aka: One Belt One Road).

    Just to get a sense of this incredible potential that is keeping western oligarchs up at night, I want to quickly review just a few of the greatest China-led reconstruction projects which are now taking hold in four of the most decimated areas of the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.

    Iraq Joins the New Silk Road

    After decades of foreign manipulation, the Iraqi government was able to declare victory over Da’esh in 2017- just 3 years after the western-sponsored insurgents had gained control of one third of the territory. This new stability created by Russia’s intervention into Syria, unleashed a vast potential for China-led reconstruction to not only re-build the war-torn nation, but launch it into the 21st century.

    In September 2019, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdu-Mahdi announced Iraq’s participation in the New Silk Road standing alongside Xi Jinping in Beijing. Mahdi said: “Iraq has gone through war and civil strife and is grateful to China for its valuable support… Iraq is willing to work in the ‘One Belt One Road’ framework”.  President Xi then said: “China would like, from a new starting point together with Iraq, to push for the China-Iraq Strategic Partnership”.

    Part of this Strategic Partnership involves an Oil for Reconstruction program which will see Chinese firms exchange infrastructure-building for oil (100 000 barrels/day to be exact). Already Iraq is China’s 2nd largest supplier of overseas oil while China has become Iraq’s #1 trade partner. Abdul Hussein al-Hanin (Advisor to the Prime Minister) explained that rather than giving money for Iraqi oil, China would build its projects defined by 3 priorities which al-Hanin said “first is building and modernizing the highways and internal roads with their sewage systems. Second is the construction of schools, hospitals and residential and industrial cities, and third is the construction of railways, ports, airports and other projects”. Atop the list of “other projects” include water treatment systems and power plants.

    While Iraq’s economy is dependant on oil (making up 65% of its GDP, 100% of its export revenue), China’s New Silk Road focuses upon diversifying Iraq into a more complex full spectrum economy which is vital to enhance its sovereignty.

    While great strides have been made towards a new system, anti-government protests threaten to disrupt this program having left 100 dead and thousands wounded since they began in July 2018.

    A New Hope for Syria

    The wounds Syria has inflicted since the crisis erupted in 2011 will take generations to heal, with over half a million deaths, a loss of 5.6 million civilians who have fled the country and approximately 6.1 million displaced within Syria itself. China has made clear its intentions to bring the BRI to Syria as fast as possible since 2017 with Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang saying:

    “Too many people in the Middle East are suffering at the brutal hands of terrorists. We support regional countries in forming synergy, consolidating the momentum of anti-terrorism and striving to restore regional stability and order. We support countries in the region in exploring a development path suited to their national conditions and are ready to share governance experience and jointly build the Belt and Road and promote peace and stability through common development.”

    After committing $23 billion in aid in 2018, BRI projects in Syria have taken many forms which can now begin as a viable peace process is finally underway, including East-West rail and road connections between Asia and Europe passing through Iran, to Iraq and into Syria where goods can be sent to the Basra Port in Iraq, the Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus on the Mediterranean as well as the incredibly important Port of Tripoli in Lebanon called a “pearl on the New Silk Road” by the Chinese.

    Discussion of a North South route connecting transport routs through Syria to Lebanon, Israel and Egypt into Africa are now underway and the timing of the chaotic anti-government protests in Lebanon makes one wonder if western meddling is behind it.

    Many of the beautiful possibilities for Syrian reconstruction were laid out in great detail in a 2016 Schiller Institute video entitled Project Phoenix which has circulated widely across the Arab world.

    Assad’s Five Seas Strategy Revived

    Little known in the western world, President Bashar al-Assad had already advanced this vision as early as 2004 when he first announced his “Five Seas Strategy”. In an August 1, 2009 interview, President Assad described his program beautifully: 

    “Once the economic space between Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran becomes integrated, we would link the Mediterranean, Caspian, Black Sea, and the [Persian] Gulf . . . we aren’t just important in the Middle East. . . Once we link these four seas, we become the unavoidable intersection of the whole world in investment, transport, and more.”

    Going beyond mere words, President Assad had led delegations signing agreements with Turkey, Romania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon to begin Five Seas projects. This was done at a moment that President Qadaffi was well underway building the Great Manmade River as the largest water project in history alongside a coalition of nations of Sudan and Egypt.

    In a powerful report Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa, BRI expert Hussein Askary wrote: “Through the BRI, China is offering the rest of the world its know-how, experience and technology, backed by a $3 trillion financial arsenal. This is a great opportunity for West Asia and Africa to realize the dreams of the post-World War II independence era, dreams that have unfortunately been sabotaged for decades. The dramatic deficit in infrastructure both nationally and inter-regionally in West Asia and Africa can, ironically, be considered in this new light as a great opportunity.”

    It is now becoming obvious, that the Syrian project that was derailed in 2011 can now get back on track.

    Yemen as Keystone of the Maritime Silk Road

    The four year Saudi war on Yemen has been a humanitarian disaster of our times. However in spite of insurmountable odds, the Yemenis have managed to not only defend themselves but have pulled off one of the most brilliant military flanking maneuvers in history crippling the Saudi economy on September 29th. This victory has both forced the Saudis to eat yet-another mouthful of humble pie and created a breathing space for a serious discussion for Yemen’s reconstruction through participation in the New Silk Road. Sitting upon the entry of the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea, Yemen is today as it was 2000 years ago: a vital node in both Maritime Silk Road and the land-based Silk Road connecting Asia with Africa and Europe.

    Already several Yemeni organizations have been created endorsing this vision led by the Yemeni Advisory Office for Coordination with the BRICS, Yemeni Youth BRICS Cabinet and the New Silk Road Party which has gained the support of leading government officials since their founding by Yemeni poet/statesman Fouad al-Ghaffari in 2016. Courageous efforts such as these have resulted in the government’s signing an MOU to join the BRI in June 2019.

    A word on Turkey and Afghanistan

    The Middle Corridor linking Turkey to Georgia and Azerbaijan via rail and to China via Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan was hailed by Erdogan to “be at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative.” In July 2019, Erdogan said the BRI “has emerged as the greatest development project of the 21st century”. After citing the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge over the Bosporus, Eurasian tunnel and Marmaray system across the Dardanelles and its vast high speed rail, Erdogan continued by saying: “Turkey shares China’s vision when it comes to serving world peace, preserving global security, stability, promoting multilateralism… the world seeks a new multipolar balance today”. It is no secret that Turkey has come to the realization that its destiny relies on China, whose trade rose from $230 million in 1990 to a staggering $28 billion in 2017!

    President Trump’s efforts to bring the Taliban to the discussion table with the Afghan government of Ahmadzai have resulted in a renewed potential for China’s desire to extend the $57 billion China-Pakistan-Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Kabul. While this diplomatic opportunity is very fragile, it is the closest the region has yet come to a viable resolution to the post 2001 insanity (including the replacement of its opium-based economy towards a viable full spectrum nation).

    It goes without saying that the entire Arab world is looking at a new future of hope and development through the combined efforts of Russia and China. The USA, under Trump’s efforts to undo the decades of Gordian Knots in the Middle East have resulted in the most absurd campaign from republican and democratic tools in Washington to impeach the president. Obviously, a US-Russia-China alliance would be a wonderful blessing for the world, but for this to occur, the matter of the deep state infestation of America must first be dealt with.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 21:30

    Tags

  • Rage With The Machine? 90's Resistance Band Reunites To Do Establishment Bidding In 2020
    Rage With The Machine? 90's Resistance Band Reunites To Do Establishment Bidding In 2020

    Legendary 1990s band Rage Against The Machine has been triggered into reuniting ahead of the 2020 election in order to #resist four more years of Donald Trump – perhaps the most anti-establishment, ‘outsider’ president in US history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The band will initially play three shows “along or near the Mexican border,” according to Consequence of Sound,  where they’ll surely explain their silence in 2011 when the Obama administration was called out by the ACLU for family separation and sticking migrant kids in cages (though Tom Morello did accuse Obama of war crimes, and admitted in 2012 that he ‘drank the Kool-Aid‘ when Obama was elected in 2008).

    Next spring, Zack de la Rocha, Tom Morello, Brad Wilk, and Tim Commferford will take the stage for the first time since 2011. The staunchly political rock band will initially play a trio of shows in cities along or near the Mexican border, including El Paso, Texas; Las Cruses [sic], New Mexico; and Phoenix, Arizona. They’ll then head to Indio, California in April to headline the 2020 installment of Coachella. –Consequence of Sound

    According to CoS, the reunion shows were announced Friday morning via an unverified Instagram account and later confirmed by the publication.

    As recently as May of this year, Morello seemed to downplay the possibility of a RATM reunion. “I would say, rather than people waiting around for Rage Against the Machine, form your own band,” he told Heavy Consequence. “Let’s hear what you have to say. Get out there and do it. Don’t sit around twiddling your thumbs waiting for some other band to do it.” However, the impending 2020 presidential election and possibility of Donald Trump winning a second term reportedly compelled the band into action.

    Needless to say, the fact that RATM will effectively be cheerleading for the establishment has not gone unnoticed. 

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

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

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


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 21:00

  • How School Districts Put Politics Before Children
    How School Districts Put Politics Before Children

    Authored by Matthew Bankert via The Mises Institute,

    Many people wary of government power rightly criticize public schools for being more indoctrination than education.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When the institution is fully dependent on the state for support, why would any ideas be put forth that could put their lifeblood in jeopardy? On education, Mises wrote in Human Action:

    …as soon as one wants to go farther [than elementary notions of geometry, the natural sciences, and the valid laws of the country], serious difficulties appear. Teaching at the elementary level necessarily turns into indoctrination. It is not feasible to represent to adolescents all the aspects of a problem and to let them choose between dissenting views…The party that operates the schools is in a position to propagandize its tenets and to disparage those of other parties.

    However, one aspect of public education that is not often discussed is the potential insidiousness of school districting. In the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) in Maryland this insidiousness is coming brazenly out in the open.

    Without much fanfare, schools routinely get their districts tweaked every few years to balance out school capacity as students age in and out. Back in August 2019, however, the HCPSS superintendent unveiled a radical redistricting plan that seeks to more evenly distribute students across the county by household income. In the superintendent’s own words, “Previous redistricting processes focused more narrowly on capacity utilization and other factors such as socioeconomics took a back seat. This proposal is…leading with equity as the driver to provide all students with full access and opportunity to receive the best educational services and supports.”

    Having school capacity take a back seat, the proposal looks at the percentage of students in the Free and Reduced Meals (FARM) program at a given school as a gauge for socio-economic status. If the percentage is higher than desired, “polygons” (the subdistricts in the county allocated to a particular school) would be moved from that school’s district to another school’s district where the FARM percentage is less, and vice versa. For many, this will mean leaving their neighborhood school and going to a school farther away. Thus, a flurry of polygons are potentially shuffling around for the sake of equity.

    The legislative body of Howard County is the Howard County Council. Three council members recently introduced a resolution called CR-112 in support of the redistricting plan that made things even more explicit, bringing race into the equation: “…[the Council] supports the Howard County Board of Education and Howard County Public School System in their efforts to lawfully integrate through the boundary review process and focus their efforts and resources to close the achievement gaps and racial and economic disparities in the Howard County Public School System.”

    Fallacies of the Proposal

    CR-112 cites the landmark Supreme Court case “Brown v. Board of Education” as justification. Unfortunately, the irony of that case is lost on the council: Oliver Brown sued the school board with the NAACP because his daughter was being bused far away to a segregated school, when there was a neighborhood school close to his house.

    CR-112 also is arguably going against a 2007 supreme court decision, which forbade local school systems from integrating schools compulsorily based on race. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” said Chief Justice John Roberts at the time. The superintendent’s proposal, on the other hand, slyly avoids this pitfall by not explicitly referring to race, but focusing on socio-economic status.

    Wanting to bring busing back into fashion, the superintendent is willing to accept a $2.76 million increase in transportation costs for busing students further distances in the name of equity. The cynical among us might wonder if just dividing the $2.76 million among the less affluent students could be more effective (and greener). The increased busing puts some families in a strange position where their kids will be transported right by their closest high school on the way to their newly districted high school (this sounds eerily similar to a famous Supreme Court case). Some families will have 3, 4, or 5 high schools in closer proximity than their districted high school.

    Furthermore, Howard County has some notable characteristics that make this redistricting situation especially amusing. The redistricting proposal calls for greater socioeconomic equality, but Howard County is the third richest county in the United States as of 2018. Might other US counties call on Howard County to spread their wealth around?

    The county council calls for “racial integration,” but the schools are already incredibly diverse. The county-wide average of white students in the elementary, middle, and high schools is only 34%, 36%, and 39% respectively (pages 25-26 of the superintendent’s proposal). One could rightly ask the question, what are the “correct” demographics, and why? What is the goal the proposal seeks to achieve?

    In a free society, if there was a local school that didn’t live up to a family’s standards, they could just choose another nearby school. There would be no school districts. But in this society of public schools, what is a family’s only option if they don’t like the local school and private or home school is not a good option? In many cases, though not all, they have to move to a different area. This is a pretty drastic measure, and some are willing to do it. However, when the public school bureaucracy has the power to radically change the school districts according to their whims, what hope will families have that even moving to a different neighborhood will get them into a better school?

    Fortunately, the opposition to this proposal in Howard County has been overwhelming. Many protests have happened across the county with national media taking noticeHundreds and hundreds of parents and students have written letters and testified before the Board of Education. The Board of Education will make a final decision on the proposal in late November 2019.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 20:30

  • Uber Eats Says Drone Deliveries Coming To San Diego In 2020
    Uber Eats Says Drone Deliveries Coming To San Diego In 2020

    If it’s UPS, FedEx, and or Amazon, or maybe even food delivery companies, they’re all gravitating towards adopting drones for last-mile deliveries.

    UPS has undoubtedly embraced the focus of last-mile logistics by incorporating drones over the last several years.

    Now it seems like Uber Eats, an online food ordering and delivery platform — launched by ride-hailing company Uber, is the next company to utilize drones for delivering goods from businesses to consumers. 

    The company is expected to launch the new drone delivery service in the San Diego Metropolitan area in 2H20. 

    On Oct. 28, Uber tweeted a rendering of the Uber Eats drone, a six-rotor drone that is capable of carrying two meals in its body. 

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

    The drone has the capability of traveling up to 18 miles or 12 miles round-trip at an altitude of about 400 feet. 

    From the restaurant (staging area) to the drop-off point, the company estimates delivery times to the customer will be around eight minutes, including the time to load and unload the meals.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Several pilot tests of the new service were conducted in 2018. A McDonald’s near San Diego State University was the site of one of the tests.

    Uber Eats has spent that last year perfecting the design of the drone. The one seen in the rendered picture tweeted by Uber is expected to be the final design.

    More elaborate test flights are slated for the next several months, as it’s expected the new service will launch in San Diego by summer 2020.

     

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 20:00

  • Chang: China Is "The Third Reich In The 21st Century"
    Chang: China Is "The Third Reich In The 21st Century"

    Via SaraACarter.com,

    Scholar Gordan Chang warns that the United States must ultimately “disengage from China” on all fronts if it is to maintain its status as a global superpower or risk China’s massive potential to change the geopolitical structure of the world.

    Chang, who just returned from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea, spoke on The Sara Carter Show where he described the current state of Beijing and the authoritarian government’s influence across the globe.

    “This is the Third Reich in the 21st century,” said Chang.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s policy “is incompatibility with our system. We are unfortunately going to have to reverse course and disengage from China to protect ourselves – to reduce our vulnerability to an extremely dangerous actor.”

    This reporter was recently in Japan and South Korea with Chang and other experts who attended the international CPAC conventions. It is an international effort to connect with foreign allies who are battling increased pressure by socialist and leftist leaders bent on targeting open markets, democracy and independence.

    What we have to do ultimately is to disengage from China to get our companies out of China, to get China out of the United States because we cannot live with this militant Communist superstate that takes the position that China is the world’s only sovereign state,” said Chang.

    He noted that the Chinese government sees the U.S. as  basically subjects of Beijing’s expansion and that the communist government believes “Americans must acknowledge Chinese sovereignty and obey them.”

    He noted that the Trump administration must “continue to impose high tariffs.” Chang does not believe that the current proposed trade deal with China will change Beijing’s efforts to take economic control or curtail the Chinese military and intelligence apparatus from stealing intellectual property.

    “China has been stealing hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. intellectual property each year,” he said. “And I don’t think we’re going to stop that with a Phase 1 trade deal.”

    “So get our companies out of China,” he added. “That will reduce their opportunity for stealing from us right now. You know Sara, Beijing is dropping hints that we have to accept the genocidal campaign it’s conducting inside its own borders.”

    “This is absolutely unacceptable what China is doing there is trying to eliminate racial and ethnic group a religious group,” said Chang.

    He noted that the Chinese aren’t going to back down and basically demand that the U.S. not change its policy or get involved with their own human right’s violations in their nation or in the region.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 19:30

    Tags

  • "What Are You Thinking?": Pelosi Warns 2020 Candidates They're On The Wrong Track
    "What Are You Thinking?": Pelosi Warns 2020 Candidates They're On The Wrong Track

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks Democrats running for president in 2020 might strike out against Trump with ultra-liberal policies that fire up the party’s progressive base, yet might not go over so well with swing voters in flyover states.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said. –Bloomberg

    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.”

    “Remember November,” she added. “You must win the Electoral College.”

    And while she didn’t back any particular candidate running for office, Pelosi said Democrats should be focusing on “lower costs of prescription drugs, bigger paychecks by building infrastructure, and cleaner government.

    She also worries that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by trying to ‘out-left’ each other to court fellow progressives while abandoning moderate voters that the party needs to win back from Trump.

    “As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?” Pelosi said. “You can ask the left — they’re unhappy with me for not being a socialist.

    Pelosi also expressed concerns that voters don’t care about the Green New Deal promoted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, which calls for rapid, radical reductions in carbon emissions.

    There’s very strong opposition on the labor side to the Green New Deal because it’s like 10 years, no more fossil fuel. Really?” said Pelosi.

    The speaker’s concerns reflect those of many Democratic leaders and donors who believe that left-wing policies will alienate swing voters and lead to defeat.

    Warren and Sanders are betting on a different theory — that voters who float between parties are less ideological and can be inspired to vote for candidates who represent bold new change in Washington.

    Pelosi said Democrats should seek to build on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act instead of pushing ahead with the more sweeping Medicare for All plan favored by Warren and Sanders that would create a government-run health care system and abolish private insurance. –Bloomberg

    Instead, Pelosi says Democrats need to salvage Obamacare:

    Protect the Affordable Care Act — I think that’s the path to health care for all Americans. Medicare For All has its complications,” she said, adding that “the Affordable Care Act is a better benefit than Medicare.”

    Warren on Friday announced that her Medicare for All plan would cost $52 trillion (raising federal spending by $20.5 trillion over 10 years), and would be funded through a wave of taxes on large corporations, the wealthy, cracking down on tax evasion, an $800 billion reduction in defense spending, and putting newly legalized immigrants on the tax rolls. The Biden campaign called her plan “mathematical gymnastics” which would raise taxes on the middle class. Warren hit back, accusing Biden of “running in the wrong presidential primary.”

    Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points,” Warren said while speaking in Des Moines, Iowa. “So, if Biden doesn’t like that, I’m just not sure where he’s going.”

    Watch above, or read the rest of the report here.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 19:21

  • The Plunge In Global Shipping Container Rates Means The Economic Rebound Will Have To Wait 
    The Plunge In Global Shipping Container Rates Means The Economic Rebound Will Have To Wait 

    The global/US economy is in trouble, and more specifically, S&P500 earnings deterioration will likely end up in a recession in the next several quarters.

    US major equity indexes are hitting new highs, as Treasury yields have soared this weak on the idea that a 2016-style rebound in the global economy is imminent. 

    Earlier in the week, UBS strategist Francois Trahan blew apart the imminent global/US rebound narrative and said: “The earnings landscape has already deteriorated and will likely get worse: The consensus year-over-year growth rate in S&P500 forward earnings is down to a mere 1% from a peak of 23% in September of 2018. Forward earnings are already contracting in the Midcap and Smallcap indices…If history were a perfect guide, the S&P500 would trough in Q2 of 2020 and rebound after that. Should the economy bottom in Q4 of 2020, as interest rates suggest, then history argues, the S&P500 would begin to price in a sustainable recovery sometime between April and August of 2020…PMIs Argue That Forward EPS Growth Will Trend Lower For Another 6 Months.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Trump’s non-stop fake trade news tweeting has indeed decoupled the market from focusing on worsening macro and fundamentals. 

    Teddy Vallee, CIO of Pervalle Global, has spotted an alarming downtrend in the Freightos 40 ft. Global Shipping Container Rate. 

    Vallee has likely found an accurate barometer of global economic activity, now plunging in the last two months. 

    “The move in container shipping rates is consistent with the continued deterioration in raw industrial commodities, China’s official PMI, China’s steel PMI, as well as market internals such as industrials relative to the S&P500,” Vallee said. 

    Freightos 40 ft. Global Shipping Container Rate started to trough in 1H19. The narrative back then was the global/US economy would rebound in 4Q19 and soar in 2020. But with 61 days left in 4Q, macroeconomic headwinds continue to mount across the world as global container rates plunge to new lows on the year, suggesting a global/US economic revival is nowhere to be found.  

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With no signs of a global recovery, market participants will once again be jawboned back to reality, or as some have called it: a ‘macro matters’ event — the only question is finding the trigger that brings everybody out of the fake trade news daze spurred by the Trump administration. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 19:00

  • Portland Antifa Sentenced To Nearly Six Years For Attacking Trump Supporter
    Portland Antifa Sentenced To Nearly Six Years For Attacking Trump Supporter

    A 24-year-old member of Antifa who hit another man over the head with a baton during a June 29 scuffle in Portland was sentenced to nearly six years in prison on Friday, according to Oregon Live.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gage Halupowski

    Gage Halupowski was identified as one of several black-clothed and masked Antifa demonstrators seen on video attacking Adam Kelly after he appeared to come to the aid of an elderly man who had been attacked by the violent leftists.

    Different angle:

    Kelly wrote on Facebook after the attack that he suffered a concussion and required 25 staples to close the wounds.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Adam Kelly’s head

    And now, Gage is going to prison.

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

    Defense attorney Edward Kroll said Halupowski made “a really terrible decision” and that Kelly didn’t deserve what happened to him, but the attorney believed the agreed-upon 70-month prison sentence was “one of the harshest sentences I’ve seen for someone with no criminal background and young age.”

    Kroll cited the Measure 11 charges Halupowski faced and the attack being caught on video as leaving the 24-year-old with few options other than taking the plea deal. Kroll also noted that Halupowski hit Kelly once, but it had been determined that at least two other people hit him in the head with batons.

    [Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Melissa] Marrero disagreed with Kroll’s assertions, saying she felt the charges and sentence were appropriate based on the severity of Kelly’s injuries and Halupowski’s strike. She said first-degree assault, which carried a potential 90-month sentence, and riot charges were initially considered in the case. –Oregon Live

    Conservative journalist Andy Ngo was also present at the June protest, where he sustained injuries of his own. 

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

    According to the report, “Halupowski was one of three people arrested during rival demonstrations between far-right and anti-fascist groups on June 23. Police at one point declared the protests a civil disturbance.”


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 18:40

    Tags

  • Connecticut: Where Ridicule Is A Crime
    Connecticut: Where Ridicule Is A Crime

    Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

    Two students at the University of Connecticut have been charged with the crime of ridiculing African Americans by shouting the N-word as part of a childishly inappropriate game. A video of the incident went viral and generated protests on and off the campus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Outrageous as shouting this racist epithet is, the First Amendment protects it from criminal prosecution or other governmental sanctions. The Connecticut General Statute under which the students were charged is just about as unconstitutional as any statute can be. It is not even a close case. Here is what the statute criminalizes:

    Section 53-37 – Ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race.

    Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

    “Ridicules or holds up to contempt”!

    Among the most fundamental First Amendment rights is to ridicule — regardless of the reason. The same is true of holding people or groups up to contempt. Were this absurd statute to be upheld — which it will not be — it could be applied to comedians, op-ed writers, politicians, professors and other students.

    Consider, for example, ridiculing people based on nationality. Sacha Baron Cohen, based on his films, would be guilty on multiple accounts. So would Mel Brooks. African American comedians often ridicule “whitey.” Feminist stand-up comedians mock men mercilessly.

    Or consider “holds up to contempt” — half the faculty of many universities, including some at University of Connecticut — would be guilty for holding up Israel to contempt. Or students who attack other students for “white privilege” or “male privilege” would be committing a crime. Or pro-choice students or faculty who mock Christian fundamentalists who oppose abortion or gay rights. Where would it stop?

    And what about “creed”? Is being a conservative or a Trump supporter a creed that cannot be ridiculed?

    Of course, none of these politically correct ridiculers would ever be prosecuted under this statute. And therein lies its greatest danger: selective prosecution based on current political correctness. Precisely the kind of unpopular speech which the First Amendment was designed to protect would be most at risk. Anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-conservative views are freely expressed not only outside of classes but in some classes as well. Such hateful expressions are not only tolerated, they are often praised as “progressive” by some of the same students and faculty members who would censor politically incorrect hate speech. Under the First Amendment, such selective censorship is intolerable.

    Because the University of Connecticut is a public institution for adults, it is fully bound by the First Amendment. Its students are free to express racist ridicule and contempt outside of the classroom (the rules governing classroom speech are more complex).

    The proper response to the expression of such obnoxious views is to counter them with better views in the marketplace of ideas, not to censor them and not to call the police.

    So let there be rallies demanding mandatory diversity classes. Let the university president “bravely” stand in solidarity with the understandably offended students. Let the perpetrators be condemned and ostracized. These actions too are protected by the first amendment. But do not censor or prosecute protected obnoxious speech. All who care about civil liberties, regardless of race, should now join with the racist students in opposing their criminal prosecution and demanding that the Connecticut statute be struck down as unconstitutional.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the president of the university should lead the campaign against criminalizing speech that ridicules. Now that would take courage in our age of political correctness and at a time when the hard left is demanding “free speech for me but not for thee.” But this is not an age in which courage is widely practiced, especially on university campuses, and most especially by administrators.

    So, do not count on others to defend the First Amendment rights of troublemakers who express racial ridicule or condemnation. The defense must come from grass roots civil libertarians who understand the need to protect speech we hate even more that speech we love. Where is Voltaire — to whom the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is often attributed — when we most need him?


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 18:20

  • Hong Kong Protestors Firebomb Xinhua News Agency Office
    Hong Kong Protestors Firebomb Xinhua News Agency Office

    Hong Kong protestors on Saturday firebombed the Hong Kong office of the Chinese state-run news agency Xinhua, ramping up nearly a half a year of violent protests across the city that triggered a technical recession last week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Video of protestors vandalizing the Xinhua News Agency Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau office in Hong Kong, surfaced onto Twitter around 12:30 pm est Saturday. The footage shows demonstrators smashing windows and firebombing the reception area of the building. 

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

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

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

    A Xinhua spokesperson on Saturday evening strongly condemned the savage behaviors of protestors setting fire to its Asia-Pacific office. 

    “We resolutely support the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and police in stopping violence and chaos in accordance with the law. We also believe that this illegal act will be condemned by all sectors of Hong Kong society,” the spokesperson said.

    Xinhua is a Chinese state-run news agency that echoes the talking points of the Communist Party of China.

    Protesters in recent weeks have specifically targeted Chinese businesses that have strong connections with Beijing as anger continues to erupt over what protestors say China is trying to take their freedoms away. 

    Thousands of protestors shut down streets around the Causeway Bay shopping district on Saturday, throwing rocks and chanting pro-democracy slogans at police.

    Police responded by firing teargas canisters and water cannons to break up several rallies. Protestors also tossed petrol bombs. 

    Beijing has been unwilling to use the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces to intervene in the protests, but if more Chinese businesses are firebombed, then it’s likely PLA forces could lock down the city in the near term. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 18:00

  • Deepfakes Paranoia Considered Pointless
    Deepfakes Paranoia Considered Pointless

    Authored by Byrne Hobart via Medium.com,

    Deepfakes paranoia is the dumbest worry in the world…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The concern is that AI has gotten so good that we’ll be able to create videos of important people saying all sorts of nutty things, which will lead to a total breakdown in our ability to trust important institutions.

    The problem here is that world leaders already say incredibly nutty things. Making a fake video of Donald Trump saying something outrageous is superfluous, like photoshopping a picture of Jeff Bezos so he’s holding a twenty dollar bill.

    The other problem is that the media suffer from an intellectual autoimmune disorder, and relentlessly hype up minor misstatements into full-blown hysteria. If you’re at all partisan, you can think of examples of The Other Guys doing this. Every educated person knows that “cling to guns and religion” was a sympathetic remark from a churchgoer, except of course for the educated people who know that Mitt Romney’s “47%” line was a rhetorical flourish about people who pay no Federal income taxes.

    The point is not to take sides; anyone who wants to win 270 or more electoral votes is going to say some dumb things, simply because low-information voters are the easiest to persuade and the easiest to lie to. If your options are either a) to patiently explain how your technocratic policy ideas artfully thread the needle between disparate goals for a variety of constituencies, or b) to rant about how the other party hates your country, your family, and your wallet, option B wins every time.

    Seizing the Memes of Production

    Internet discourse has gone through discrete ages. As Slate Star Codex recently noted, there was a time when debates about atheism were the single most important topic on any message board, and threatened to swallow all other forms of discourse. Before that, though, the Default Debate that ate everything else was on the ethics of music piracy. (You know it was a long time ago because nobody had enough bandwidth to download entire videos.)

    This topic was huge, sprawling, and it came up all the time. One of the common rhetorical flourishes was to bite the bullet: a popular PSA compared downloading pirated content to stealing a car, and pirates would note that, if “stealing” meant costlessly duplicating a car, they absolutely would. The crux of the issue was this: is stealing about depriving the owner of their property, or depriving the seller of their power?

    Eventually, we more or less resolved the piracy debate through a simple expedient: Spotify — with the help of a Napster cofounder — built a UI that was, finally, easier than piracy. As it turned out, the problem music pirates were solving was not that it music was too expensive, it was that the purchase experience was awful.

    Today, the deepfakes debate is remarkably similar. The issue is not so much that anyone can make a deceptive video; it’s that the media are losing their monopoly on deceptive editing. It used to be that if you wanted a video of a politician saying something boneheaded, you had to painstakingly assemble hours of video, then maliciously stitch together whatever narrative they need. Getting internet access at a young age is a good way to develop immunity; ideally you’d think of any non-live interview as being part of the same genre as this video.

    There’s a continuum between totally misleading edits and mere soundbites that sound less damning in full context. But there’s relentless pressure towards dishonest news: a neutral media source is less exciting than a partisan one, and any political news story in the US will tend to have two contradictory partisan narratives and one neutral one that makes both sides look bad. If you’re a news producer and you go with the neutral version, you’ll sound biased to anyone who heard either party’s talking points beforehand, so neutrality is, paradoxically, the most adversarial position to take.

    It might seem like distorting the contents of a speech is dishonest, but to anyone sufficiently partisan, it’s not: what sounds to one observer like an out-of-context quote will sound to someone else like a revealing Freudian slip. And, of course, very few people have the interest or attention span to delve into the details.

    You can view this as a crisis, or you can view it as a description of how the system works. I choose the latter: the media represent a de facto electoral college. You choose who to listen to, and they’ll give you a worldview in which voting a certain way makes all the sense in the world. In that model, deepfakes represent a constitutional crisis without the constitution: we had a setup where a small number of people could manufacture pleasant lies, but now everyone has access to an informational ghost gun printer. Scary, sure, but mostly to the people who were safely in charge in the old status quo.

    The Truth Matters, But Not To Voters

    In a recent profile of Amy Klobuchar, The Economist says “She can see Iowa from her front porch in Minneapolis, she says in Sigourney, a flyspeck of coffee and antique shops amid vast acres of corn country. She can see Canada from it, too, she adds, in a quick pop at Sarah Palin…” This is, of course, a reference to Palin’s infamous claim that one of her foreign policy credentials was that she could see Russia from her house. But… that was Tina Fey.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Two people famous for playing politicians on TV

    Does it really matter if, uncharitably, journalists can’t tell the difference between C-SPAN and SNL, or, charitably, if they think their readers can’t? Not especially. An elected official is a consumer packaged good, not a person; they’re devised by marketing teams and sold through complex omnichannel campaigns, which have more to do with mood affiliation than policy. A slight shift in the relative importance of formal PR and guerilla marketing doesn’t make a huge difference in the ultimate outcome, it just affects whether or not mainstream journalists can hold on to their prestige.

    One early narrative about the Internet was that it meant anyone, anywhere, could be their own New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Now, journalists are in a tizzy because the Internet means anyone can be their own Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Reifenstahl. As it turns out, these are the same thing.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 17:30

  • Greta Thunberg Begs For Help After Traveling Halfway Around The World 'The Wrong Way'
    Greta Thunberg Begs For Help After Traveling Halfway Around The World 'The Wrong Way'

    Autistic environmentalist Greta Thunberg has appealed for help after traveling halfway around the world “the wrong way” because the United Nations moved its global climate meeting from Chile to Spain.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “As #COP25 has officially been moved from Santiago to Madrid I’ll need some help,” tweeted Thunberg, “Now I need to find a way to cross the Atlantic in November… If anyone could help me find transport I would be so grateful.”

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

    Thunberg, who rejected a $51,000 Nordic Council environmental award last week because “The climate movement does not need any more awards,” might hit up her parents – an opera singer and an actor, for travel funds.

    Or, perhaps she can ask her new friend Leonardo DiCaprio for a ride on one of the private jets he uses to fly around the world to climate events?

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    There are few times in human history where voices are amplified at such pivotal moments and in such transformational ways – but @GretaThunberg has become a leader of our time. History will judge us for what we do today to help guarantee that future generations can enjoy the same livable planet that we have so clearly taken for granted. I hope that Greta’s message is a wake-up call to world leaders everywhere that the time for inaction is over. It is because of Greta, and young activists everywhere that I am optimistic about what the future holds. It was an honor to spend time with Greta. She and I have made a commitment to support one another, in hopes of securing a brighter future for our planet. #FridaysforFuture #ClimateStrike @fridaysforfuture

    A post shared by Leonardo DiCaprio (@leonardodicaprio) on

    //www.instagram.com/embed.js

    Thunberg then appeared to acknowledge her truly first world problem, tweeting “This of course no problem. People are suffering all around the world, and I’m fine whatever I do and wherever I am.

    We’re sure Greta will find her way to Madrid over the next four weeks, where she can guilt the UN into action with more stories of her ruined childhood

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


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 17:00

  • Does Daylight-Savings Time Make Any Sense?
    Does Daylight-Savings Time Make Any Sense?

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    On Sunday, November 3, those on Daylight Savings Time need to adjust their clocks. Does this make any sense?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hell to Pay

    It’s nice when you gain an hour of sleep. But it seems like hell when you lose one.

    Only a Joke

    Many don’t know this but Benjamin Franklin proposed Daylight Savings Time as a Joke.

    In case every news anchor on your television screen telling you to “spring forward” hasn’t been enough of a reminder, Sunday marks the start of Daylight Saving Time, a bizarre routine in which most Americans’ iPhones automatically steal an hour of sleep from them.

    The act of moving the clock an hour forward in an effort to save time in the sun during the warmer months is almost always credited to Philadelphia’s most famous son, Benjamin Franklin.

    Here’s the thing: when Franklin wrote to Paris about “diminishing the cost of light,” he wasn’t being serious. He was making a joke.

    The letter Franklin wrote anonymously to Parisians about making better use of daylight was satirical. Per The History Channel:

    By the time he was a 78-year-old American envoy in Paris in 1784, the man who espoused the virtues of “early to bed and early to rise” was not practicing what he preached. After being unpleasantly stirred from sleep at 6 a.m. by the summer sun, the founding father penned a satirical essay in which he calculated that Parisians, simply by waking up at dawn, could save the modern-day equivalent of $200 million through “the economy of using sunshine instead of candles.”

    Oh, and the best part? As History notes, Franklin wasn’t even suggesting the idea of Daylight Saving Time. All he was doing was making fun of the French and suggesting they get out of bed earlier.

    Joke or Not

    Joke or not we are still stuck with the ritual.

    And twice every year a debate takes place.

    Pros and Cons Take 1

    Please consider Top 3 Pros and Cons of Daylight Saving Time

    Top 3 Pros

    1. Daylight Saving Time’s (DST) Longer Daylight Hours Promote Safety.

    2. DST Is Good for the Economy.

    3. DST Promotes Active Lifestyles.

    Top 3 Cons

    1. Daylight Saving Time (DST) Is Bad for Your Health.

    2. DST Drops Productivity.

    3. DST Is Expensive.

    Never Ending Debate

    People in favor of keeping Daylight Saving Time say it allows drivers to commute more safely in daylight, promotes outdoor activities, and stimulates the economy. Those who oppose Daylight Saving Time say that the change is a harmful disruption to health and work productivity, and is expensive. While the time change was initially implemented to save energy, studies are mixed and have found our current use of air conditioning and heating may negate the energy saved by not having to use electric lights and may actually increase electricity usage.

    What Really Happened?

    1. Benjamin Franklin is often credited with the idea of DST because, in a satirical letter to the authors of The Journal of Paris, he suggested the French wake earlier to take advantage of “using sunshine instead of candles.”

    2. DST as we know it was proposed by a New Zealand entomologist, George Vernon Hudson, who wanted longer hours for insect study.

    3. The first locality to enact DST was Port Arthur (now Thunder Bay, Ontario), Canada, in 1908. The first country to enact DST was Germany on Apr. 30, 1916, although the Germans dropped the time change at war’s end.

    4. American farmers were opposed to DST because, regardless of what the clock said, their cows weren’t ready to be milked until later in the day during DST.

    5. A resort in Madagascar created its own DST, which runs an hour ahead of the rest of the country, so the lemurs would “naturally join us in the Oasis garden… for the ‘5 O’clock tea.'”

    6. Some ancient civilizations are known to have used practices similar to DST. Roman water clocks, for example, used different scales for different times of the year.

    Hero or Goat?

    Benjamin Franklin was joking, but the unsung hero (or goat) was New Zealand entomologist, George Vernon Hudson, who wanted longer hours for insect study.

    Who is Affected?

    Approximately 1.5 billion people in 70 countries observe DST worldwide. In the United States, 48 states participate in Daylight Saving Time. Arizona, Hawaii, some Amish communities, and the American territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not observe DST. As of Mar. 4, 2019, at least 44 bills to change daylight saving were being actively considered in 24 states. 55% of Americans said they are not disrupted by the time change, 28% report a minor disruption, and 13% said the change is a major disruption.

    World Divided Over Time

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Curse Against Humanity

    Business Insider comments Daylight-Saving Time is a Curse Against Humanity.

    ​More than 152,560 people have petitioned Congress to end daylight-saving time. Some of the comments on the petition are practical appeals.

    ​Get Rid of DST?

    I am all in favor. Are you?

    But how?

    ​Standardtime.com has a peculiar suggestion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Imagine you are right on the border of that line. Crossing the line would change the time by two hours.

    That will never fly.

    Change Which Way?

    Assume a more practical “no change”. But which way?

    1. ​Perpetual DST

    2. Perpetual Regular Time

    3. Double DST

    Less than half are happy with the damn clock-change ritual, but there is no consensus how to fix it.

    Some want two time zones. Some want double DST (perpetual DST but a two hour shift), and some simply want to kill the whole damn thing.

    My preference in order

    1. Perpetual Regular Time

    2. Perpetual DST

    3. DST

    Double DST and standard time are simply too bizarre to rank.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 16:30

  • First Images Of US Troops Occupying Syria's Oil Fields Stir Outrage
    First Images Of US Troops Occupying Syria's Oil Fields Stir Outrage

    The reality of American foreign policy all in one stunning image: regional Iraqi Kurdistan24 television has broadcast the first footage of the United States Army seizing and ‘protecting’ a Syrian oil field in the country’s northeast

    Specifically the images are of a US armed convoy at Rumelan oil field, and are the first to show Trump’s ordered “secure the oil” policy in action. A Salon op-ed aptly quips in reaction: It’s about the oil, stupid: Trump wants to end the forever wars, except the one about oil and money.”

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

    Middle East war correspondent Jenan Moussa, who has covered the Iraq war and other US occupations in the region, voiced the growing outrage over the US resource theft underway in Syria:

    Since discovery of oil in the MidEast, many in the region said: the U.S. is only here to steal our oil. U.S. denied it, and claimed it’s about democracy, human rights, women etc.

    Not sure if Americans realize but these pictures of U.S. troops in northeast Syria are HUGELY damaging to U.S. image.

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

    One Syrian commentator said sarcastically on social media: 

    The Few. The Proud. The Marines. stealing Syria’s oil.

    And further pointed out that, “Trump just showed you the naked truth about US foreign policy in the Middle East.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A US coalition statement earlier this week confirmed American forces are being “repositioned” in Syria’s oil rich region just east of the Euphrates to “protect critical infrastructure”.

    Mechanized units have been observed going into the area, however, no tanks have as yet been seen. 

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

    The coalition statement said that “mechanized forces” providing “infantry, maneuverability, and firepower” are further en route to bolster forces currently redeploying in the region, and in support of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 16:11

    Tags

  • Goldman: Most Investors Are Focusing On Elizabeth Warren's Rising Election Prospects
    Goldman: Most Investors Are Focusing On Elizabeth Warren's Rising Election Prospects

    When it comes to the main Democratic contender for the 2020 presidential election, now that we have learned that Joe Biden’s campaign is going through a very difficult time, opinions about Elizabeth Warren and her impact on the market range from one extreme to the other. On the one hand we have:

    On the other, we recently noted that “An Elizabeth Warren Presidency May Not Be Catastrophic For The Market” while the most famous behind the scenes democratic operative, George Soros, recently effectively endorsed Warren:

    And then there’s this, which makes a mockery of anyone predicting the fate of capital markets based on who is president:

    With that in mind, and considering that the 2020 election is now just 366 days away, Goldman’s chief equity strategist David Kostin writes that portfolio managers are intently focused on the investment implications of potential outcomes of the 2020 US elections, and specifically on Elizabeth Warren’s rising prospects in both the prediction markets and polls.

    What is odd is that while Senator Warren is the clear favorite in prediction markets…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … polls still show Joe Biden as the leader, even if Warren is fast approaching (although in the aftermath of the absolute disaster for pollsters that was the 2016 presidential election, we are shocked anyone still pays attention to what polls – which have now been outed as a political ploy meant to suppress voting intentions – represent).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The good news is that confusion will rapidly drop after Super Tuesday when the field of candidates for the Democratic nomination will narrow significantly. The first nomination contest, the Iowa caucus, takes place on February 3rd, roughly 100 days from now. Voters in 18 states will have cast their ballots by March 3rd. Approximately 34% of total delegates are slated to be pledged on March 3rd alone (“Super Tuesday”), when 14 states will hold primaries.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet election uncertainty is expected to remain high even after the Democratic nominee is officially determined at the July 13-16th party convention (plus there is always the Hillary Clinton wildcard): as Goldman notes, “the US is politically divided and the general election for the Presidency and many Congressional races are extremely competitive. Prediction markets assign a 74% probability that Democrats maintain control of the House of Representatives and a 54% likelihood the party captures the Presidency.

    And while occupancy of the White House is important, investors also need to focus attention on which party controls the Senate. Here, prediction markets assign just a 35% likelihood that the Democrats will gain control of the Senate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Kostin, “taken together, prediction markets currently suggest a roughly 70% likelihood that the 2020 election results in a divided government. Prediction markets assign a 20% probability of a Democratic sweep and a 10% probability of a Republican sweep.” As a result, “a divided Congress would likely constrain the prospect of sweeping legislation or reforms, which require passage from both chambers of Congress.

    So what do these odds imply for markets? To answer this question, Goldman looks at two key aspects of markets: earnings and valuations.

    From an earnings perspective, it is well-known that several presidential candidates have proposed rolling back the 2017 corporate tax cut. Democratic presidential candidates including  Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, Mayor Buttigieg, and former Vice President Biden have called for higher corporate tax rates. Here, the rule of thumb is that every 1% increase in effective tax rate translates into a roughly 1% decrease in S&P 500 EPS.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Increasing the effective tax rate by 8% from 18% back to 26% would reduce Goldman’s 2021 S&P 500 EPS estimate by $21 (11%) to $164, assuming the legislation applies retroactively to the start of 2021. $18 of the reduction comes directly from a higher tax rate and $3 comes from a reversal of the estimated impact of corporate tax reform on US GDP growth in 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From a valuation perspective, Goldman cautions that changes in policy uncertainty and consumer confidence will impact valuations ahead of the 2020 election. Uncertainty is already elevated; indeed, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index is near record highs and the US index averaged 105 this year (vs. the long-term average of 97). Goldman uses its macro model of the yield gap between the S&P 500 earnings yield and 10-year US Treasury yield to estimate the impact of uncertainty and confidence on equity valuations, and observes that if policy uncertainty rises by 50 points, the yield gap would increase and lead to a P/E compression of 1-2 multiple points from the current level of 18x; if consumer confidence falls by 10 points (from 96 to 85), S&P 500 P/E would decline by roughly 2 multiple points, all else equal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That said, the best course of action may be to do nothing. After all, prediction markets imply just a 20% probability of Democratic sweep and a 10% likelihood of a Republican sweep. As such, Kostin suggests that “investors should discount the likelihood that policies can actually be adopted” and adds that “based on our earnings and valuation sensitivities, the current state of the race implies a probability-weighted year-end 2020 S&P 500 level of roughly 3200. In addition, recent history has shown that US equities react more to policy implementation than election outcomes.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet even if Goldman believes complacency may be the best alternative, and the S&P500 which just hit a new all time high of 3,063 agrees, the Goldman strategist does point out that investors have started to use options to protect positions broadly from election uncertainty even as volatility typically rises sharply just one month prior to the Election Day. Of note, the term structure of implied volatility vol curve shows elevated levels around November 2020, reflecting uncertainty around the election outcome.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here Kostin also notes that the bank’s previous research shows that equity index implied volatility tends to rise most immediately ahead of political events. For example, implied volatility rose sharply ahead of the Brexit referendum in 2016, the US election in 2016, and the French election in 2017, but only within the two to three weeks ahead of those events. In other words, the market will most likely freak out just days before a potential Warren presidency is actually in the cards.

    There is more.

    While Goldman cautions that both health care and bank stocks will likely be dramatically affected by a Warren presidency, it is the “Big Tech” sector – who stocks have broadly underperformed since July – that is most at risk, due to a confluence of risk factors.

    Consider that both Democrats and Republicans have called for regulatory and antitrust scrutiny of “Big Tech” companies.  The rhetoric has been centered primarily on FB, AMZN, and GOOGL, and this summer the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and many state attorneys-general have launched investigations into the companies. These stocks have lagged in aggregate during the past three months, but it may not all be attributable to policy overhang; August brought a sharp rotation out of growth stocks and into value stocks as trade news improved and recession fears eased.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indeed, while Goldman remains “Overweight” the Information Technology sector (22% of the S&P 500), it is downgrading the Communication Services to Neutral from Overweight on the basis of rising regulatory risk. The bank cites its previous research which showed that antitrust lawsuits typically take years to resolve but ultimately result in lower valuation between lawsuit filing and resolution and slower sales growth following resolution. And although Goldman sees the growth prospects of many Communication Services companies as still attractive, the valuation overhang from regulatory uncertainty will likely continue to grow and weigh on the sector’s performance. The sector represents 10% of the S&P 500 with FB (17%) and GOOGL (29%) the dominant constituents accounting for 46% of the sector’s market cap.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What does history show

    While it is the case that US market performance has usually been positive during the 12 months before an election (see chart below), returns have been driven by earnings rather than valuation. In fact, valuations typically moved sideways during the lead-up to presidential elections before moving higher following Election Day, as the overhang from uncertainty faded. Despite flat valuations, positive earnings growth typically powered positive equity returns. Since 1936, the S&P 500 annual return during a presidential election year equaled 10%. It is worth noting that with the S&P now set for its third consecutive quarter of declining earnings, it is not clear just what catalyst will serve as the inflection point to push corporate profitability higher, which would suggest that 2020 may be an outlier to this general trend.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Kostin writes separately, history suggests that US equities actually react more to policy implementation than election outcomes. When considering the earnings and valuation scenarios discussed above, investors must also account for the fact that several conditions must be met for these policies to impact equity prices: (1) a particular candidate must win the presidency, (2) the candidate’s party must control the House and the Senate, (3) the candidate must choose to pursue certain policies, and (4) the legislation must pass through Congress. These scenarios must therefore be discounted by the probability that these conditions are all met.

    The 2016 example demonstrates the importance of policy implementation. In the month following the 2016 election, many “Trump Trades” – such as cyclicals, small-caps, and infrastructure beneficiaries – sharply outperformed. However, these trades reversed their gains during the subsequent year as investors reduced expectations of immediate policy implementation. The performance of Goldman’s sector-neutral high tax rate basket (ticker: GSTHHTAX) around tax reform provides a clear example. Following the initial rally and unwind in early 2017, investors adopted a “show-me” attitude towards tax reform given congressional hurdles. Constituents of GSTHHTAX, which stood to gain the most from lower corporate tax rates, traded sideways up until passage of the legislation became clear.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What about after the election

    The last chart below provides 6-month returns for the S&P 500 following past elections, stratified by outcome. Since 1932, the median S&P 500 return for an all-Democratic sweep equals +1%, compared with +4% for an all-Republican sweep and +3% for a divided government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 11/02/2019 – 15:54

Digest powered by RSS Digest